{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53884/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53884","id":"gutenberg_53884","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53884","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Dictionaries","Category: Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/Reference","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Theology -- Dictionaries"],"text":"------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_.\n\nThe original text was printed in two columns, which cannot be replicated\nhere.\n\nAs is common in dictionaries, each column is headed with a three-letter\nindication of the first and last articles on that page. This feature is\nnot feasible here.\n\nMinor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please\nsee the transcriber\u2019s note at the end of this text for details regarding\nthe handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.\n\nThere are several unusual Greek characters employed in this text:\n\n        \u0223    ligature of \u2018\u03bf\u03c5\u2019\n\n        \u03db    stigma, a ligature of \u2018\u03c3\u03c4\u2019\n\n        \u03d6    a cursive variant of \u2018\u03c0\u2019, almost always used as\n             the first character of a word.\n\n        \u03d0    a cursive variant of \u2018\u03b2\u2019, used in any position\n             _other_ than the first character, which appears as\n             \u2018\u03b2\u2019.\n\n\n\n\n                       A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL\n                              DICTIONARY:\n\n                             --------------\n\n                           EXPLANATORY OF THE\n\n               HISTORY, MANNERS, AND CUSTOMS OF THE JEWS,\n\n                       AND NEIGHBOURING NATIONS.\n\n       WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOST REMARKABLE PLACES AND PERSONS\n                     MENTIONED IN SACRED SCRIPTURE;\n\n\n                         =An Exposition=\n\n                                 OF THE\n\n                  PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY;\n\n        AND NOTICES OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SECTS AND HERESIES.\n\n                          =BY RICHARD WATSON.=\n\n                   [REVISED BY THE AMERICAN EDITORS.]\n\n   \u039b\u0399\u039c\u2019\u0397\u039d \u1f10\u03db\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1f72\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03d6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u1f74\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03d6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd \u1f14\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u0223\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.--CHRYSOSTOM.\n\n   [An intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures is a secure haven,\n      and an impregnable bulwark, and an immovable tower, and\n      imperishable glory, and impenetrable armour, and unfading joy, and\n      perpetual delight, and whatever other excellence can be uttered.]\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               NEW-YORK,\n\n                  PUBLISHED BY B. WAUGH AND T. MASON,\n         FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE\n                       OFFICE, 14 CROSBY-STREET.\n\n                                -------\n\n                          J. Collord, Printer.\n                                 1832.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u201cEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by B. WAUGH and\nT. MASON, in the Clerk\u2019s Office of the District Court of the Southern\nDistrict of New-York.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                         PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR.\n\n                                -------\n\n\nIn the following Dictionary, compiled from the best sources ancient and\nmodern, with the addition of many original articles, the selections have\nbeen made with reference to what was thought most useful; and thus many\nthings of minor importance, usually found in similar works, have been\nexcluded. Every article too, taken from preceding Dictionaries, has been\ncarefully weighed, and in a great number of instances modified,\ncorrected, or enlarged; and numerous other writings variously\nillustrative of the Holy Scriptures have been made to contribute a\nportion of their information under different heads. This general\nacknowledgment renders a particular reference to the works made use of\nunnecessary. The fact is, that many of the most valuable of them are\ncompilations from preceding compilations, and so have no title to be\nreferred to as original authorities; while in other instances the\narticles in this Dictionary have been collected from several sources,\nand so altered, or combined with original corrections or enlargements,\nthat it would be difficult to assign each portion to its proper\noriginal. Where, however, any particulars of fact or history required\nconfirmation, the authority has been given.\n\nIt will be observed that all the places and persons mentioned in the\nBible have not been noticed, for this would only have made the same\nunprofitable display of proper names which is seen in several other\nDictionaries; but those have been selected on which any thing important\nfor the right understanding of the Scriptures seemed, more or less, to\ndepend. The same rule has been observed as to the natural history of the\nBible, on which department great light has been thrown by Dr. Harris,\nwhose learned work has been rather freely used. The leading sects and\nheresies, ancient and modern, have also been introduced; but with no\ndesign to embody a complete account of religious opinions: those only,\ntherefore, have been inserted with which it is most necessary that the\ntheological student should have a general acquaintance.\n\nAll that is important in those useful modern works which have been\npublished upon the manners and customs of the east will be found\nembodied under different heads so far as it tends to elucidate the\nsacred volume; and many interesting extracts are given from the most\nintelligent of our modern travellers in Palestine, and neighbouring\ncountries, pointing out the present condition of places celebrated in\nsacred geography, and especially when the account illustrates and\nrenders remarkable the fulfilment of prophecy.\n\nAt the close of the whole, a complete alphabetical list of proper names\noccurring in the Bible, with their significations and right\npronunciation, is appended.\n\nLONDON, _August 20, 1831_.\n\n\n\n\n                 ADVERTISEMENT TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.\n\n\nNo other improvements have been attempted in this edition of Mr.\nWatson\u2019s Biblical and Theological Dictionary, than adding a few notes in\nrelation to some matters existing in this country, which had escaped the\nattention of the author, and rendering those passages and phrases into\nEnglish which had been left untranslated. Such translations are included\nin brackets. It may be proper to remark, that only that part of the work\nfrom the eight hundred and forty second page has been printed under the\nsuperintendence of the present editor; the former part having passed\nthrough the press previous to the last general conference.\n\nIt is not necessary to say any thing in commendation of this work.\nWhatever merit, however, may be attached to others of a similar\ncharacter which have preceded it, we think it will be conceded by all,\nthat Mr. Watson, by furnishing this Dictionary, has supplied a\ndesideratum, in the department of Biblical and Theological literature,\nwhich had long been felt, and for doing which the religious community\nwill not be backward in acknowledging its obligations.\n\n                                                           N. BANGS.\n\nNEW-YORK, _Sept. 25, 1832_.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  The\n  =WORLD=,\n  _as Peopled by_\n  THE =DESCENDANTS= OF\n  =NOAH=\n  _Shewing the Countries possessed by_\n  =SHEM, HAM & JAPHET=\n  and their posterity\n]\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n\n                  BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY.\n\n\n\n\nAARON, the son of Amram and Jochebed, of the tribe of Levi. Aaron was\nthree years older than his brother Moses; and when God appeared in the\nburning bush, Moses having excused himself from the undertaking\ncommitted to him, by urging that he was slow of speech, Aaron, who was\nan eloquent man, was made his interpreter and spokesman; and in\neffecting the deliverance of the Hebrews we therefore find them\nconstantly associated. During the march of the children of Israel\nthrough the wilderness, Aaron and his sons were appointed by God to\nexercise for ever the office of priests in the tabernacle.\n\nMoses having ascended the mountain to receive the law from God, Aaron,\nhis sons, and seventy elders, followed him, Exod. xxiv, 1, 2, 9\u201311; not\nindeed to the summit, but \u201cafar off,\u201d \u201cand they saw the God of Israel,\u201d\nthat is, the glory in which he appeared, \u201cas it were the paved work of a\nsapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven for clearness;\u201d--a\nclear and dazzling azure, a pure, unmingled splendour like that of the\nheavens. \u201cAnd upon the nobles of Israel,\u201d Aaron, his sons, and the\nseventy elders, \u201che laid not his hand,\u201d--they were not destroyed by a\nsight which must have overwhelmed the weakness of mortal men had they\nnot been strengthened to bear it; \u201cand they did eat and drink,\u201d--they\njoyfully and devoutly feasted before the Lord, as a religious act, upon\nthe sacrifices they offered. After this they departed, and Moses\nremained with God on the very summit of the mount forty days.\n\nDuring this period, the people, grown impatient at the long absence of\nMoses, addressed themselves to Aaron in a tumultuous manner, saying,\n\u201cMake us gods which shall go before us: for, as for this Moses, the man\nthat brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become\nof him.\u201d Aaron sinfully yielded to the importunities of the people; and\nhaving ordered them to bring the pendants and the ear-rings of their\nwives and children, he melted them down, and then made a golden calf,\nprobably in imitation of the Egyptian Apis, an ox or calf dedicated to\nOsiris. In this instance the image was dedicated to Jehovah the true\nGod; but the guilt consisted in an attempt to establish image worship,\nwhich, when even ultimately referring to God, he has forbidden. Neither\nare images to be worshipped, nor the true God by images;--this is the\nstanding unrepealed law of Heaven. The calf was called a golden calf, as\nbeing highly ornamented with gold. Having finished the idol, the people\nplaced it on a pedestal, and danced around it, saying, \u201cThese be thy\ngods, O Israel;\u201d or, as it is expressed in Nehemiah, \u201cThis is thy God,\u201d\nthe image or symbol of thy God, \u201cwhich brought thee up out of the land\nof Egypt.\u201d Moses, having hastened from the mount by the command of God,\ntestified to the people, by breaking the tables of the law in their\npresence, that the covenant between God and them was now rendered of\nnone effect through their offence. He also indignantly reproved Aaron,\nwhose sin indeed had kindled against him the anger of the Lord, so that\nhe would \u201chave destroyed him but that Moses prayed for him.\u201d\n\nAfter the tabernacle was built, Moses consecrated Aaron to the high\npriesthood with the holy oil, and invested him with his priestly\nrobes,--his garments \u201cof glory and beauty;\u201d but Aaron\u2019s weakness was\nagain manifested in concurring with Miriam, his sister, to censure and\noppose Moses, through envy. Aaron, as being the elder brother, could not\nperhaps brook his superiority. What the motive of Miriam might be does\nnot appear; but she being struck with leprosy, this punishment, as being\nimmediately from God, opened Aaron\u2019s eyes; he acknowledged his fault,\nand asked forgiveness of Moses both for himself and his sister.\n\nAaron himself became also the object of jealousy; but two miraculous\ninterpositions confirmed him in his office of high priest, as of Divine\nappointment. The first was the destruction of Korah, who sought that\noffice for himself, and of the two hundred and fifty Levites who\nsupported his pretensions, Num. xvi. The second was the blossoming of\nAaron\u2019s rod, which was designed \u201cto cause the murmurings of the\nIsraelites against him to cease,\u201d by showing that he was chosen of God.\nMoses having, at the command of God, taken twelve rods of an almond tree\nfrom the princes of the twelve tribes, and Aaron\u2019s separately, he placed\nthem in the tabernacle before the sanctuary, after having written upon\neach the name of the tribe which it represented, and upon the rod of\nAaron the name of Aaron. The day following, when the rods were taken\nout, that of Aaron \u201cwas budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed\nblossoms, and yielded almonds.\u201d This rod therefore was laid up by the\nark, to perpetuate the remembrance of the miracle, and to be a token of\nAaron\u2019s right to his office.\n\nAaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, of the tribe of\nJudah, by whom he had four sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar,\nExodus vi, 23. The two first were killed by fire from heaven, as a\npunishment for presuming to offer incense with strange fire in their\ncensers, Lev. x, 1, 2. From the two others the succession of high\npriests was continued in Israel.\n\nThe account of the death of Aaron is peculiarly solemn and affecting. As\nhe and Moses, in striking the rock at Meribah, Num. xvi, had not\nhonoured God by a perfect obedience and faith, he in his wrath declared\nunto them that they should not enter into the promised land. Soon after,\nthe Lord commanded Moses, \u201cTake Aaron, and Eleazar his son, and bring\nthem up to mount Hor; and strip Aaron of his garments,\u201d--his splendid\npontifical vestments,--\u201cand put them upon Eleazar, his son; and Aaron\nshall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.\u201d This command\nwas carried into effect in the presence of all Israel, who were encamped\nat the foot of the mountain; and his son being invested with the\nfather\u2019s priestly dress, Aaron died, and all the people mourned for him\nthirty days. His sepulchre was left unmarked and unknown, perhaps to\nprevent the superstitious reverence of future ages. In Deuteronomy it is\nsaid that Aaron died at Mosera; because that was the name of the\ndistrict in which mount Hor was situated.\n\n2. The PRIESTHOOD being established in Aaron and his family, the nature\nof this office among the Israelites, and the distinction between the\nhigh priest and the other priests, require here to be pointed out.\n\nBefore the promulgation of the law by Moses, the fathers of every\nfamily, and the princes of every tribe, were priests. This was the case\nboth before and after the flood; for Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job,\nAbimelech, Laban, Isaac, and Jacob, themselves offered their own\nsacrifices. But after the Lord had chosen the family of Aaron, and\nannexed the priesthood to that line, then the right of sacrificing to\nGod was reserved to that family only. The high priesthood was confined\nto the first-born in succession; and the rest of his posterity were\npriests simply so called, or priests of the second order. Both in the\nhigh priest and the second or inferior priests, two things deserve\nnotice,--their consecration and their office. In some things they\ndiffered, and in others agreed. In their _consecration_ they differed\nthus: the high priest had the chrism, or sacred ointment, poured upon\nhis head, so as to run down to his beard, and the skirts of his garment,\nExod. xxx, 23; Lev. viii, 12; Psa. cxxxiii, 2. But the second priests\nwere only sprinkled with this oil, mixed with the blood of the\nsacrifice, Lev. viii, 30. They differed also in their _robes_, which\nwere a necessary adjunct to consecration. The high priest wore at the\nordinary times of his ministration in the temple, eight garments;--linen\ndrawers--a coat of fine linen close to his skin--an embroidered girdle\nof fine linen, blue and scarlet, to surround the coat--a robe all of\nblue with seventy-two bells, and as many embroidered pomegranates upon\nthe skirts of it; this was put over the coat and girdle--an ephod of\ngold, and of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, curiously wrought,\non the shoulders of which were two stones engraved with the names of the\ntwelve tribes; this was put over the robe, and girt with a curious\ngirdle of the same--a breastplate, about a span square, wrought with\ngold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, and fastened upon the ephod\nby golden chains and rings; in this breastplate were placed the urim and\nthummim, also twelve several stones, containing the names of the twelve\ntribes--a mitre of fine linen, sixteen cubits long, to wrap round his\nhead--and lastly, a plate of gold, or holy crown, two fingers broad,\nwhereon was engraved, \u201cHoliness to the Lord;\u201d this was tied with blue\nlace upon the front of the mitre. Beside these garments, which he wore\nin his ordinary ministration, there were four others, which he wore only\nupon extraordinary occasions, viz. on the day of expiation, when he went\ninto the holy of holies, which was once a year. These were: linen\ndrawers--a linen coat--a linen girdle--a linen mitre, all white, Exod.\nxxviii; Lev. xvi, 4. But the inferior priests had only four garments:\nlinen drawers--a linen coat--a linen girdle--a linen bonnet. The priest\nand high priest differed also in their _marriage restrictions_; for the\nhigh priest might not marry a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor a harlot,\nbut a virgin only; whereas the other priests might lawfully marry a\nwidow, Lev. xxi, 7.\n\nIn the following particulars the high priest and inferior priests agreed\nin their consecration: both were to be void of bodily blemish--both were\nto be presented to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle--both were to\nbe washed with water--both were to be consecrated by offering up certain\nsacrifices--both were to have the blood of a ram put upon the tip of the\nright ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right\nfoot, Exod. xxix, 20. In the time of consecration, certain pieces of the\nsacrifice were put into the priest\u2019s hand, which was called \u201cfilling his\nhand;\u201d hence the Hebrew phrase, \u201cto fill the hand,\u201d signifies\nconsecration.\n\nIn the discharge of their offices, the high priest differed from the\nother priests in these particulars: the high priest only, and that but\nonce a year, might enter into the holy of holies--the high priest might\nnot mourn for his nearest relations by uncovering his head, or tearing\nany part of his garments, except the skirt; whereas the priest was\nallowed to mourn for these six,--father, mother, son, daughter, brother,\nand sister if she had no husband, Lev. xxi, 2, 10, 11; but they agreed\nin these respects: they both burnt incense and offered sacrifices--they\nboth sounded the trumpet, either as an alarm in war, or to assemble the\npeople and their rulers--they both slew the sacrifices--both instructed\nthe people--and both judged of leprosy.\n\nFor the more orderly performance of these offices, the high priest had\nhis sagan, who, in case of the high priest\u2019s pollution, performed his\nduty. The high priest and his sagan resembled our bishop and his\nsuffragan.\n\n3. Aaron was a TYPE of Christ, not personally, but as the high priest of\nthe Jewish church. All the priests, as offering gifts and sacrifices,\nwere in their office types of Christ; but Aaron especially, 1. As the\nhigh priest. 2. In entering into the holy place on the great day of\natonement, and reconciling the people to God; in making intercession for\nthem, and pronouncing upon them the blessing of Jehovah, at the\ntermination of solemn services. 3. In being anointed with the holy oil\nby _effusion_, which was prefigurative of the Holy Spirit with which our\nLord was endowed. 4. In bearing the names of all the tribes of Israel\nupon his breast and upon his shoulders, thus presenting them always\nbefore God, and representing them to him. 5. In being the medium of\ntheir inquiring of God by urim and thummim; and of the communication of\nhis will to them. But though the offices of Aaron were typical, the\npriesthood of Christ is of a different and higher ORDER than his,\nnamely, that of MELCHIZEDECK. See CALF, PRIEST, TYPE, EPHOD,\nBREASTPLATE, URIM.\n\nAB, in the Hebrew chronology, the eleventh month of the civil year, and\nthe fifth of the ecclesiastical year, which began with Nisan. This month\nanswered to the moon of July, comprehending part of July and of August,\nand contained thirty days.\n\nThe first day of this month is observed as a fast by the Jews, in memory\nof Aaron\u2019s death; and the ninth, in commemoration of the destruction of\nthe temple by Nebuchadnezzar, in the year before Christ 587. Josephus\nobserves, that the burning of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar happened on\nthe same day of the year on which it was afterward burned by Titus. The\nsame day was remarkable for Adrian\u2019s edict, which prohibited the Jews to\ncontinue in Judea, or to look toward Jerusalem and lament its\ndesolation. The eighteenth day is also kept as a fast, because the\nsacred lamp was extinguished on that night, in the reign of Ahaz. On the\ntwenty-first, or, according to Scaliger, the twenty-second day, was a\nfeast called Xylophoria, from their laying up the necessary wood in the\ntemple: and on the twenty-fourth, a feast in commemoration of the\nabolishing of a law by the Asmoneans, or Maccabees, which had been\nintroduced by the Sadducees, and which enacted, that both sons and\ndaughters should alike inherit the estate of their parents.\n\nABADDON, Heb. corresponding to _Apollyon_, Gr. that is, _Destroyer_, is\nrepresented, Rev. ix, 11, as king of the locusts, and the angel of the\nbottomless pit. Le Clerc and Dr. Hammond understand by the locusts in\nthis passage, the zealots and robbers who infested and desolated Judea\nbefore Jerusalem was taken by the Romans; and by Abaddon, John of\nGischala, who having treacherously left that town before it was\nsurrendered to Titus, came to Jerusalem and headed those of the zealots\nwho acknowledged him as their king, and involved the Jews in many\ngrievous calamities. The learned Grotius concurs in opinion, that the\nlocusts are designed to represent the sect of the zealots, who appeared\namong the Jews during the siege, and at the time of the destruction of\nJerusalem. But Mr. Mede remarks, that the title Abaddon alludes to\nObodas, the common name of the ancient monarchs of that part of Arabia\nfrom which Mohammed came; and considers the passage as descriptive of\nthe inundation of the Saracens. Mr. Lowman adopts and confirms this\ninterpretation. He shows that the rise and progress of the Mohammedan\nreligion and empire exhibit a signal accomplishment of this prophecy.\nAll the circumstances here recited correspond to the character of the\nArabians, and the history of the period that extended from A. D. 568 to\nA. D. 675. In conformity to this opinion, Abaddon may be understood to\ndenote either Mohammed, who issued from the abyss, or the cave of Hera,\nto propagate his pretended revelations, or, more generally, the Saracen\npower. Mr. Bryant supposes Abaddon to have been the name of the Ophite\ndeity, the worship of whom prevailed very anciently and very generally.\n\nABANA. Naaman, the leper, on being directed to wash in the river Jordan,\nsays, 2 Kings v, 12, \u201cAre not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus,\nbetter than all the waters of Israel?\u201d Probably the Abana is a branch of\nthe Barrady, or Chrysorrhoas, which derives its source from the foot of\nmount Libanus, eastward; runs round and through Damascus, and continues\nits course till lost in the wilderness, four or five leagues south of\nthe city. Benjamin of Tudela will have that part of Barrady which runs\nthrough Damascus to be the Abana, and the streams which water the\ngardens without the city, to be Pharpar; but perhaps the Pharpar is the\nsame with Orontes, the most noted river of Syria, which, taking its rise\na little to the north or north-east of Damascus, glides through a\ndelightful plain, till, after passing Antioch, and running about two\nhundred miles to the north-west, it loses itself in the Mediterranean\nsea, 2 Kings v, 12.\n\nABBA, a Syriac word, which signifies _father_. The learned Mr. Selden,\nfrom the Babylonian Gemara, has proved that slaves were not allowed to\nuse the title abba in addressing the master of the family to which they\nbelonged. This may serve to illustrate Rom. viii, 15, and Gal. iv, 6, as\nit shows that through faith in Christ all true Christians pass into the\nrelation of sons; are permitted to address God with filial confidence in\nprayer; and to regard themselves as heirs of the heavenly inheritance.\nThis adoption into the family of God, inseparably follows our\njustification; and the power to call God our Father, in this special and\nappropriative sense, results from the inward testimony given to our\nforgiveness by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul and St. Mark use the Syriac\nword _abba_, a term which was understood in the synagogues and primitive\nassemblies of Christians; but added to it when writing to foreigners the\nexplanation, _father_. Figuratively, abba means also a superior, in\nrespect of age, dignity, or affection. It is more particularly used in\nthe Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic churches as a title given to their\nbishops. The bishops themselves bestow the title abba more eminently\nupon the bishop of Alexandria, which occasioned the people to give him\nthe title of baba, or papa, that is, grandfather; a title which he bore\nbefore the bishop of Rome.\n\nABEDNEGO, the Chaldee name given by the king of Babylon\u2019s officer to\nAzariah, one of Daniel\u2019s companions, Dan. i, 7. This name imports the\nservant of Nago, or Nego, which is supposed to signify the sun, or\nmorning star, so called from its brightness. Abednego was thrown into a\nfiery furnace, at Babylon, with his two companions Shadrach and Meshach,\nfor refusing to adore the statue erected by the command of\nNebuchadnezzar. God suffered them not to be injured by the flames; but\nmade the whole to redound to his own glory, and the shame of the idols\nof Babylon. One like unto the Son of God, or a Divine person, probably\nthe Angel of the Divine presence himself, appeared in the midst of them;\nand they came out of the furnace, which had been heated seven times\nhotter than usual, so completely preserved from the power of the flames,\nthat not even \u201cthe smell of fire had passed upon them.\u201d This was an\nillustrious instance of the courageous and hallowed spirit of martyrdom;\nand the interposition was no doubt designed to encourage the Jews while\nin captivity, living among idolaters, to hold fast their religion. It is\nan instance also of those gracious visitations to the old Heathen world,\nby which it was loudly called from its idolatries, and aroused to the\nacknowledgment of the true and only Jehovah, who, in various ways, \u201cleft\nnot himself without witness\u201d among them. A great temporary effect was\nproduced by this and other miracles related in the book of Daniel; but\nthe people relapsed again into idolatry, and justly brought upon\nthemselves all those wasting judgments which in succession swept over\nthe mightiest and most ancient states.\n\nABEL. He was the second son of Adam and Eve, and born probably in the\nsecond or third year of the world; though some will have it that he and\nCain were twins. His name signifies _vapour_, _vanity_, and might be\ngiven either because our first parents now began so to feel the\nemptiness and vanity of all earthly things, that the birth of another\nson reminded them painfully of it, although in itself a matter of joy;\nor it was imposed under prophetic impulse, and obscurely referred to his\npremature death. His employment was that of a shepherd; Cain followed\nthe occupation of his father, and was a tiller of the ground. Whether\nthey remained in their father\u2019s family at the time when they brought\ntheir offerings to the Lord, or had establishments separate from that of\nAdam, does not clearly appear. Abel was probably unmarried, or had no\nchildren; but Cain\u2019s wife is mentioned. \u201cAt the end of the days,\u201d--which\nis a more literal rendering than \u201cin process of time,\u201d as in our\ntranslation, that is, on the Sabbath,--both brothers brought an offering\nto the Lord. Cain \u201cbrought of the fruit of the ground;\u201d Abel \u201cthe\nfirstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof.\u201d \u201cAnd the Lord had\nrespect to Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering he\nhad not respect.\u201d As Cain afterward complains that \u201che should be hid\nfrom the _face_ or _presence_ of the Lord,\u201d it is probable that the\nworship of the first family was performed before some visible\nmanifestation of the glory of God, which thus consecrated a particular\nplace for their services. Some have thought that this was at the east\ngate of Eden, where \u201cCherubim and a flaming sword were placed;\u201d but this\nwas a vengeful manifestation, and could only have inspired a dread of\nGod inconsistent with the confidence and hope with which men through the\npromise of redemption were now encouraged to draw nigh to him. The\nrespect which God was pleased to show to Abel\u2019s offering, appears from\nthe account to have been sensibly declared; for Cain must have known by\nsome token that the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, the absence of which\nsign, as to his own offering, showed that it was rejected. Whether this\nwas by fire going forth from \u201cthe presence of the Lord,\u201d to consume the\nsacrifice, as in later instances recorded in the Old Testament, or in\nsome other way, it is in vain to inquire;--that the token of acceptance\nwas a sensible one is however an almost certain inference. The effect of\nthis upon Cain was not to humble him before God, but to excite anger\nagainst his brother; and, being in the field with him, or, as the old\nversions have it, having said to him, \u201cLet us go out into the field,\u201d\n\u201che rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him;\u201d and for that crime,\nby which the first blood of man was shed by man upon the earth,--a\nmurder aggravated by the relationship and the \u201crighteous\u201d character of\nthe sufferer, and having in it also the nature of religious\npersecution,--he was pronounced by the Lord \u201ccursed from the earth.\u201d\n\n2. As the sacrifice of Abel is the first on record, and has given rise\nto some controversy, it demands particular attention. It was offered,\nsays St. Paul, \u201cin faith,\u201d and it was \u201ca more excellent sacrifice\u201d than\nthat of Cain. Both these expressions intimate that it was EXPIATORY and\nPREFIGURATIVE.\n\nAs to the matter of the sacrifice, it was an _animal_ offering. \u201cCain\nbrought of the fruit of the ground; and Abel also brought of the\nfirstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof;\u201d or, more literally,\n\u201cthe fat of them,\u201d that is, according to the Hebrew idiom, the fattest\nor best of his flock; and in this circumstance consisted its specific\ncharacter as an act of _faith_. This is supported by the import of the\nphrase, \u03d6\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, used by the Apostle in the Epistle to the\nHebrews, when speaking of the sacrifice of Abel. Our translators have\nrendered it, \u201ca more excellent sacrifice.\u201d Wickliffe translates it, as\nArchbishop Magee observes, uncouthly, but in the full sense of the\noriginal, \u201ca much more sacrifice;\u201d and the controversy which has arisen\non this point is, whether this epithet of \u201cmuch more,\u201d or \u201cfuller,\u201d\nrefers to quantity or quality; whether it is to be understood in the\nsense of a _more abundant_, or of a _better_, a _more excellent_\nsacrifice. Dr. Kennicott takes it in the sense of measure and quantity,\nas well as quality; and supposes that Abel brought a double offering of\nthe firstlings of his flock, and of the fruit of the ground _also_. His\ncriticism has been very satisfactorily refuted by Archbishop Magee. The\nsacrifice of Abel was that of animal victims, and it was indicative not\nof gratitude but of \u201cfaith:\u201d a quality not to be made manifest by the\n_quantity_ of an offering, for the one has no relation to the other.\n\n3. This will more fully appear if we consider the import of the words of\nthe Apostle,--\u201cBy FAITH Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice\nthan Cain, by which he obtained WITNESS that he was RIGHTEOUS, God\ntestifying of his gifts; and by it, he, being dead, yet speaketh.\u201d Now\nwhat is the meaning of the Apostle, when he says that it was witnessed\nor testified to Abel that he was _righteous_? His doctrine is, that men\nare sinners; that all, consequently, need pardon; and _to be declared_,\n_witnessed_, and _accounted righteous_, are, according to his style of\nwriting, the same as \u201cto be justified, pardoned, and dealt with as\nrighteous.\u201d Thus he argues that Abraham believed God, \u201cand it was\naccounted to him for righteousness,\u201d--\u201cthat faith was reckoned to\nAbraham for righteousness,\u201d--\u201cthat he received the sign of circumcision,\na _seal_,\u201d a visible confirmatory, declaratory, and witnessing mark \u201cof\nthe righteousness which he had by faith.\u201d In these cases we have a\nsimilarity so striking, that they can scarcely fail to explain each\nother. In both, sinful men are placed in the condition of _righteous_\nmen; the instrument, in both cases, is _faith_; and the transaction is,\nin both cases also, publicly and sensibly _witnessed_,--as to Abraham,\nby the sign of circumcision; as to Abel, by a visible acceptance of his\nsacrifice, and the rejection of that of Cain.\n\nAbel had faith, and he expressed that faith by the kind of sacrifice he\noffered. It was in this way that his faith \u201cpleased God;\u201d it pleased him\nas a principle, and by the act to which it led, which act was the\noffering of a sacrifice to God different from that of Cain. Cain had not\nthis faith, whatever might be its object; and Cain, accordingly, did not\nbring an offering to which God had \u201crespect.\u201d That which vitiated the\noffering of Cain was the want of this faith; for his offering was not\nsignificant of faith: that which \u201cpleased God,\u201d in the case of Abel, was\nhis faith; and he had \u201crespect\u201d to his offering, because it was the\nexpression of that faith; and upon his faith so expressing itself, God\nwitnessed to him \u201cthat he was righteous.\u201d So forcibly do the words of\nSt. Paul, when commenting upon this transaction, show, that Abel\u2019s\nsacrifice was accepted, because of its immediate connection with his\n_faith_, for by faith he is said to have offered it; and whatever it\nmight be, which made Abel\u2019s offering differ from that of Cain, whether\n_abundance_, or _kind_, or both, this was the result of his faith. So\nevident also is it from the Apostle, that Abel was witnessed to be\n\u201crighteous,\u201d not with reference to any previous \u201chabit of a religious\nlife,\u201d as some say, but with reference to his _faith_; and to this faith\nas expressing itself by his offering \u201ca more excellent sacrifice.\u201d\n\n4. If, then, the faith of Abel had an immediate connection with his\nsacrifice, and both with his being accepted as \u201crighteous,\u201d--that is,\n_justified_, in St. Paul\u2019s use of the term,--to what had his faith\nrespect? The particular object of the faith of the elders, celebrated in\nHebrews xi, is to be deduced from the circumstances mentioned as\nillustrative of the existence and operation of this great principle, and\nby which it manifested itself in them. Let us explain this, and then\nascertain the object of Abel\u2019s faith also from the manner of its\nmanifestation,--from the acts in which it embodied and rendered itself\nconspicuous.\n\nFaith, in this chapter, is taken in the sense of _affiance_ in God, and,\nas such, it can only be exercised toward God, as to all its particular\nacts, in those respects in which we have some warrant to confide in him.\nThis supposes revelation, and, in particular, promises or declarations\non his part, as the ground of every act of affiance. When, therefore, it\nis said that \u201cby faith Enoch was translated that he should not see\ndeath,\u201d it must be supposed that he had some promise or intimation to\nthis effect, on which, improbable as the event was, he nobly relied; and\nin the result God honoured his faith in the sight of all men. The faith\nof Noah had immediate respect to the threatened flood, and to the\npromise of God to preserve him in the ark which he was commanded to\nprepare. The chapter is filled with other instances, expressed or\nimplied; and from the whole, as well as from the nature of things, it\nwill appear, that, when the Apostle speaks of the faith of the elders in\nits particular acts, he represents it as having respect to some promise,\ndeclaration, or revelation of God.\n\nThis revelation was necessarily antecedent to the faith; but it is also\nto be observed, that the acts by which the faith was represented,\nwhenever it was represented by particular acts, and when the case\nadmitted it, had a natural and striking conformity and correspondence to\nthe previous revelation. So Noah built the ark, which indicated that he\nhad heard the threat of the world\u2019s destruction by water, and had\nreceived the promise of his own preservation, and that of his family, as\nwell as that of a part of the beasts of the earth. When Abraham went\ninto Canaan at the command of God, and upon the promise that that\ncountry should become the inheritance of his decendants, he showed his\nfaith by taking possession of it for them in anticipation, and his\nresidence there indicated the kind of promise which he had received.\nThus these instances show, that when the faith which the Apostle\ncommends exhibited itself in some particular act, that act had a\ncorrespondency to the previous promise or revelation which was the\nground of faith. We must therefore interpret the acts of Abel\u2019s faith so\nas to make them also correspond with an antecedent revelation. His faith\nhad respect to some previous revelation, and the nature of the\nrevelation is to be collected from the significant manner in which he\ndeclared his faith in it.\n\nNow that which Abel did \u201cby faith,\u201d was, _generally_, to perform an act\nof solemn worship, in the confidence that it would be acceptable to God.\nThis supposes a revelation, immediate or by tradition, that such acts of\nworship were acceptable to God, or his faith could have had no warrant,\nand would not have been faith, but fancy. But the case must be\nconsidered more particularly. His faith led him to offer \u201ca more\nexcellent sacrifice\u201d than that of Cain; but this as necessarily implies,\nthat there was some antecedent revelation to which his faith, as thus\nexpressed, had respect, and on which that peculiarity of his offering,\nwhich distinguished it from the offering of Cain, was founded; a\nrevelation which indicated that the way in which God would be approached\nacceptably, in solemn worship, was by animal sacrifices. Without this,\nthe faith to which his offering, which was an offering of the firstlings\nof his flock, had a special fitness and adaptation, could have had no\nwarrant in Divine authority. But this revelation must have included, in\norder to its being the ground of faith, as \u201cthe substance of things\nhoped for,\u201d a promise of a benefit to be conferred, in which promise\nAbel might _confide_. But if so, then this promise must have been\nconnected, not with the worship of God in general, or performed in any\nway whatever indifferently, but with his worship by animal oblations;\nfor it was in this way that the faith of Abel specially and\ndistinctively indicated itself. The antecedent revelation was,\ntherefore, a promise of a benefit to be conferred, by means of animal\nsacrifice; and we are taught what this benefit was, by that which was\nactually received by the offerer,--\u201cHe obtained witness that he was\n_righteous_;\u201d which must be interpreted in the sense of a declaration of\nhis personal justification, and acceptance as righteous, by the\nforgiveness of his sins. The reason of Abel\u2019s acceptance and of Cain\u2019s\nrejection is hereby made manifest; the one, in seeking the Divine\nfavour, conformed to his established and appointed method of being\napproached by guilty men, and the other not only neglected this, but\nprofanely and presumptuously substituted his own inventions.\n\n5. It is impossible, then, to allow the sacrifice of Abel, in this\ninstance, to have been an act of FAITH, without supposing that it had\nrespect to a previous revelation, which agreed with all the parts of\nthat sacrificial action by which he expressed his faith in it. Had\nAbel\u2019s sacrifice been eucharistic merely, it would have expressed\ngratitude, but not faith; or if faith in the general sense of confidence\nin God that he would receive an act of grateful worship, and reward the\nworshippers, it did not more express faith than the offering of Cain,\nwho surely believed these two points, or he would not have brought an\noffering of any kind. The offering of Abel expressed a faith which Cain\nhad not; and the doctrinal principles which Abel\u2019s faith respected were\nsuch as his sacrifice visibly embodied. If it was not an eucharistic\nsacrifice, it was an expiatory one; and, in fact, it is only in a\nsacrifice of this kind, that it is possible to see that faith exhibited\nwhich Abel had, and Cain had not. If then we refer to the subsequent\nsacrifices of expiation appointed by Divine authority, and their\nexplanation in the New Testament, it will be obvious to what doctrines\nand principles of an antecedent revelation the faith of Abel had\nrespect, and which his sacrifice, the exhibition of his faith,\nproclaimed: confession of the fact of being a sinner,--acknowledgment\nthat the demerit and penalty of sin is death,--submission to an\nappointed mode of expiation,--animal sacrifice offered _vicariously_,\nbut in itself a mere type of a better sacrifice, \u201cthe Seed of the\nwoman,\u201d appointed to be offered at some future period,--and the efficacy\nof this appointed method of expiation to obtain forgiveness, and to\nadmit the guilty into the Divine favour.\n\n\u201cAbel,\u201d Dr. Magee justly says, \u201cin firm reliance on the promise of God,\nand in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice which had been\nenjoined as the religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain,\ndisregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at\nleast disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief,\npossibly as not appearing to _his reason_ to possess any efficacy or\nnatural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his\nduty in acknowledging the general superintendence of God, and expressing\nhis gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those\ngood things which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his\nbounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first\nfruits of his parents\u2019 disobedience, in the arrogance and\nself-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of revelation, because\nthey fell not within its apprehension of right. He takes the first place\nin the annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of the\nordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit which, in later days, has\nactuated his _enlightened_ followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of\nChrist.\u201d\n\nAbel was killed about the year of the world, 130.\n\nABEL-MISRAIM, the floor of Atad, beyond the river Jordan, where Joseph,\nhis brethren, and the Egyptians mourned for the death of Jacob, Gen. l,\n11. On this occasion the funeral procession was, at the command of\nJoseph, attended by \u201call the elders of Egypt, and all the servants of\nPharaoh, and all his house, and the house of his brethren, chariots and\nhorsemen, a very great company;\u201d an affecting proof, as it has been\nremarked, of Joseph\u2019s simplicity and singleness of heart, which allowed\nhim to give to the great men of Egypt, over whom he bore absolute rule,\nan opportunity of observing his own comparatively humble origin, by\nleading them in attendance upon his father\u2019s corpse to the valleys of\nCanaan, the modest cradle of his race, and to their simple burial\nplaces.\n\nABEL-SHITTIM, a city situate in the plains of Moab, beyond Jordan,\nopposite to Jericho, Num. xxv, 1, &c; xxiii, 49; Joshua xi, 1. Eusebius\nsays it stood in the neighbourhood of mount Peor. Moses encamped at\nAbel-Shittim some time before the Hebrew army passed the Jordan. Here\nthe Israelites fell into idolatry, and worshipped Baal-peor, for which\nGod punished them by the destruction of twenty-four thousand persons in\none day.\n\nABIAH, the second son of the prophet Samuel, and brother of Joel. Samuel\nhaving entrusted to his sons the administration of public justice, and\nadmitted them to a share in the government, they behaved so ill, that\nthe people demanded a king, 1 Sam. viii, 2. A. M. 2909.\n\nABIATHAR, the son of Ahimelech, and the tenth high priest among the\nJews, and fourth in descent from Eli, 2 Sam. viii, 17; 1 Chron. xviii,\n16. When Saul sent to Nob to murder all the priests, Abiathar escaped\nthe massacre, and fled to David in the wilderness. There he continued in\nthe quality of high priest; but Saul, out of aversion to Ahimelech, whom\nhe imagined to have betrayed his interests, transferred the dignity of\nthe high priesthood from Ithamar\u2019s family into that of Eleazar, by\nconferring this office upon Zadok. Thus there were, at the same time,\ntwo high priests in Israel, Abiathar with David, and Zadok with Saul. In\nthis state things continued, until the reign of Solomon, when Abiathar,\nbeing attached to the party of Adonijah, was, by Solomon, divested of\nhis priesthood, A. M. 2989; and the race of Zadok alone performed the\nfunctions of that office during the reign of Solomon, to the exclusion\nof the family of Ithamar, according to the word of the Lord to Eli, 1\nSam. ii, 30, &c.\n\nABIB, the name of the first Hebrew sacred month, Exod. xiii, 4. This\nmonth was afterward called Nisan; it contained thirty days, and answered\nto part of our March and April. Abib signifies green ears of corn, or\nfresh fruits, according to Jerom\u2019s translation, Exod. xiii, 4, and to\nthe LXX. It was so named because corn, particularly barley, was in ear\nat that time. It was an early custom to give names to months, from the\nappearances of nature; and the custom is still in force among many\nnations. The year among the Jews commenced in September, and\nconsequently their jubilees and other civil matters were regulated in\nthis way, Lev. xxv, 8\u201310; but their sacred year began in Abib. This\nchange took place at the redemption of Israel from Egypt, Exod. xii, 2,\n\u201cThis shall be to you the beginning of months.\u201d Ravanelli observes, that\nas this deliverance from Egypt was a figure of the redemption of the\nchurch of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again in this month, it was\nmade the \u201cbeginning of months,\u201d to lead the church to expect the\nacceptable year of the Lord. On the tenth day of this month the paschal\nlamb was taken; and on the fourteenth they ate the passover. On the\nseven succeeding days they celebrated the feast of unleavened bread, on\nthe last of which days they held a solemn convocation, Exod. xii, xiii.\nOn the fifteenth they gathered the sheaf of the barley first fruits, and\non the following day presented an offering of it to the Lord, which\nhaving done they might begin their harvest, Lev. xxiii.\n\nABIHU, the son of Aaron, the high priest, was consumed, together with\nhis brother Nadab, by fire sent from God, because he had offered incense\nwith strange fire, instead of taking it from the altar, Lev. x, 1, 2.\nThis calamity happened A. M. 2514; within eight days after the\nconsecration of Aaron and his sons. Some commentators believe that this\nfire proceeded from the altar of burnt offerings; others, that it came\nfrom the altar of incense. Several interpreters, as the Rabbins, Lyra,\nCajetan, and others, are of opinion, that Nadab and Abihu were overtaken\nwith wine, and so forgot to take the sacred fire in their censers. This\nconjecture is founded on the command of God delivered immediately\nafterward to the priests, forbidding them the use of wine during the\ntime they should be employed in the service of the temple. Another class\nallege, that there was nothing so heinous in their transgression, but it\nwas awfully punished, to teach ministers fidelity and exactness in\ndischarging their office. It had a vastly more important meaning,--this\ninstance of vengeance is a standing example of that divine wrath which\nshall consume all who pretend to serve God, except with incense kindled\nfrom the one altar and offering by which he for ever perfects them that\nare sanctified.\n\nABIJAH, the son of Jeroboam, the first king of the ten tribes, who died\nvery young, 1 Kings xiv, 1, &c, A. M. 3046.--2. The son of Rehoboam,\nking of Judah, and of Maachah, the daughter of Uriel, who succeeded his\nfather, A. M. 3046, 2 Chron. xi, 20; xiii, 2, &c. The Rabbins reproach\nthis monarch with neglecting to destroy the profane altar which Jeroboam\nhad erected at Bethel; and with not suppressing the worship of the\ngolden calves there after his victory over that prince.\n\nABILENE, a small province in C\u0153lo Syria, between Lebanon and\nAntilibanus. Of this place Lysanias was governor in the fifteenth year\nof Tiberius, Luke iii, 1. Abela, or Abila, the capital, was north of\nDamascus, and south of Heliopolis.\n\nABIMELECH. This seems to have been the title of the kings of Philistia,\nas C\u00e6sar was of the Roman emperors, and Pharaoh of the sovereigns of\nEgypt. It was the name also of one of the sons of Gideon, who became a\njudge of Israel, Judges ix; and of the Jewish high priest, who gave\nGoliath\u2019s sword, which had been deposited in the tabernacle, and part of\nthe shew bread, to David, at the time this prince was flying from Saul,\n1 Sam. xxi, 1.\n\nABIRAM, the eldest son of Hiel, the Bethelite. Joshua having destroyed\nthe city of Jericho, pronounced this curse: \u201cCursed be the man, before\nthe Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city, Jericho: he shall lay\nthe foundation thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest son shall\nhe set up the gates of it,\u201d Joshua vi, 26. Hiel of Bethel, about five\nhundred and thirty-seven years after this imprecation, having undertaken\nto rebuild Jericho, whilst he was laying the foundation of it, lost his\neldest son, Abiram, 1 Kings xvi, 34; and Segub, the youngest, when they\nset up the gates of it: a remarkable instance of a prophetic\ndenunciation fulfilled, perhaps on a person who would not credit the\ntradition, or the truth of the prediction. So true is the word of the\nLord; so minutely are the most distant contingencies foreseen by him;\nand so exact is the accomplishment of Divine prophecy!\n\n2. ABIRAM, the son of Eliab, of the tribe of Reuben, was one of those\nwho conspired with Korah and Dathan against Moses in the wilderness, and\nwas swallowed up alive, with his companions, by the earth, which opened\nto receive them, Num. xvi.\n\nABISHAG, a young woman, a native of Shunam, in the tribe of Issachar.\nDavid, at the age of seventy, finding no warmth in his bed, was advised\nby his physicians to procure some young person, who might communicate\nthe heat required. To this end Abishag was presented to him, who was one\nof the most beautiful women in Israel, 1 Kings i, 3; and the king made\nher his wife. After his death, Adonijah requested her in marriage, for\nwhich he lost his life; Solomon perceiving in this a design upon the\ncrown also. Adonijah was his elder brother, an intriguing man, and had\naspired to be king before the death of David, and had had his life\nspared only upon the condition of his peaceable conduct. By this request\nhe convinced Solomon, that he was still actuated by political views, and\nthis brought upon him the punishment of treason.\n\nABISHAI, the son of Zeruiah, David\u2019s sister, who was one of the most\nvaliant men of his time, and one of the principal generals in David\u2019s\narmies.\n\nABLUTION, purification by washing the body, either in whole or part.\nAblutions appear to be almost as ancient as external worship itself.\nMoses enjoined them; the Heathens adopted them; and Mohammed and his\nfollowers have continued them: thus they have been introduced among most\nnations, and make a considerable part of all superstitious religions.\nThe Egyptian priests had their diurnal and nocturnal ablutions; the\nGrecians, their sprinklings; the Romans, their lustrations and\nlavations; the Jews, their washings of hands and feet, beside their\nbaptisms; the ancient Christians used ablution before communion, which\nthe Romish church still retains before the mass, sometimes after; the\nSyrians, Copts, &c, have their solemn washings on Good Friday; the Turks\ntheir greater and less ablutions, &c.\n\nLustration, among the Romans, was a solemn ceremony by which they\npurified their cities, fields, armies, or people, after any crime or\nimpurity. Lustrations might be performed by fire, by sulphur, by water,\nand by air; the last was applied by ventilation, or fanning the thing to\nbe purified. All sorts of people, slaves excepted, might perform some\nkind of lustration. When a person died the house was to be swept in a\nparticular manner; new married persons were sprinkled by the priest with\nwater. People sometimes, by way of purification, ran several times naked\nthrough the streets. There was scarcely any action performed, at the\nbeginning and end of which some ceremony was not required to purify\nthemselves and appease the gods.\n\nABNER was the uncle of king Saul, and the general of his army. After\nSaul\u2019s death, he made Ishbosheth king; and for seven years supported the\nfamily of Saul, in opposition to David; but in most of his skirmishes\ncame off with loss. While Ishbosheth\u2019s and David\u2019s troops lay near each\nother, hard by Gibeon, Abner challenged Joab to select twelve of David\u2019s\nwarriors to fight with an equal number of his. Joab consented: the\ntwenty-four engaged; and fell together on the spot. A fierce battle\nensued, in which Abner and his troops were routed. Abner himself was\nhotly pursued by Asahel, whom he killed by a back stroke of his spear.\nStill he was followed by Joab and Abishai, till he, who in the morning\nsported with murder, was obliged at even to entreat that Joab would stay\nhis troops from the effusion of blood, 2 Sam. ii.\n\nNot long after, Abner, taking it highly amiss for Ishbosheth to charge\nhim with lewd behaviour toward Rizpah, Saul\u2019s concubine, vowed that he\nwould quickly transfer the whole kingdom into the hands of David. He\ntherefore commenced a correspondence with David, and had an interview\nwith him at Hebron. Abner had just left the feast at which David had\nentertained him, when Joab, informed of the matter, warmly remonstrated,\nasserting, that Abner had come as a spy. On his own authority he sent a\nmessenger to invite him back, to have some farther communication with\nthe king; and when Abner was come into Joab\u2019s presence, the latter,\npartly from jealousy lest Abner might become his superior, and partly to\nrevenge his brother Asahel\u2019s death, mortally stabbed him in the act of\nsalutation. David, to show how heartily he detested the act, honoured\nAbner with a splendid funeral, and composed an elegy on his death, 2\nSam. iii.\n\nABOMINATION. This term was used with regard to the Hebrews, who, being\nshepherds, are said to have been an abomination to the Egyptians;\nbecause they sacrificed the animals held sacred by that people, as oxen,\ngoats, sheep, &c, which the Egyptians esteemed unlawful. This word is\nalso applied in the sacred writings to idolatry and idols, not only\nbecause the worship of idols is in itself an abominable thing, but\nlikewise because the ceremonies of idolaters were almost always of an\ninfamous and licentious nature. For this reason, Chrysostom affirms,\nthat every idol, and every image of a man, was called an abomination\namong the Jews. The \u201cabomination of desolation\u201d foretold by the Prophet\nDaniel, x, 27, xi, 31, is supposed by some interpreters to denote the\nstatue of Jupiter Olympius, which Antiochus Epiphanes caused to be\nerected in the temple of Jerusalem. The second of the passages above\ncited may probably refer to this circumstance, as the statue of Jupiter\ndid, in fact, \u201cmake desolate,\u201d by banishing the true worship of God, and\nthose who performed it, from the temple. But the former passage,\nconsidered in its whole connection, bears more immediate reference to\nthat which the evangelists have denominated the \u201cabomination of\ndesolation,\u201d Matt. xxiv, 15, 16; Mark xiii, 14. This, without doubt,\nsignifies the ensigns of the Roman armies under the command of Titus,\nduring the last siege of Jerusalem. The images of their gods and\nemperors were delineated on these ensigns; and the ensigns themselves,\nespecially the eagles, which were carried at the heads of the legions,\nwere objects of worship; and, according to the usual style of Scripture,\nthey were therefore an abomination. Those ensigns were placed upon the\nruins of the temple after it was taken and demolished; and, as Josephus\ninforms us, the Romans sacrificed to them there. The horror with which\nthe Jews regarded them, sufficiently appears from the account which\nJosephus gives of Pilate\u2019s introducing them into the city, when he sent\nhis army from C\u00e6sarea into winter quarters at Jerusalem, and of\nVitellius\u2019s proposing to march through Judea, after he had received\norders from Tiberius to attack Aretas, king of Petra. The people\nsupplicated and remonstrated, and induced Pilate to remove the army, and\nVitellius to march his troops another way. The Jews applied the above\npassage of Daniel to the Romans, as we are informed by Jerome. The\nlearned Mr. Mede concurs in the same opinion. Sir Isaac Newton, _Obs. on\nDaniel_ ix, xii, observes, that in the sixteenth year of the emperor\nAdrian, B. C. 132, the Romans accomplished the prediction of Daniel by\nbuilding a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, where the temple of God in\nJerusalem had stood. Upon this occasion the Jews, under the conduct of\nBarchochab, rose up in arms against the Romans, and in the war had fifty\ncities demolished, nine hundred and eighty-five of their best towns\ndestroyed, and five hundred and eighty thousand men slain by the sword;\nand in the end of the war, B. C. 136, they were banished from Judea upon\npain of death; and thenceforth the land remained desolate of its old\ninhabitants. Others again have applied the prediction of Daniel to the\ninvasion and desolation of Christendom by the Mohammedans, and to their\nconversion of the churches into mosques. From this interpretation they\ninfer, that the religion of Mohammed will prevail in the east one\nthousand two hundred and sixty years, and be succeeded by the\nrestoration of the Jews, the destruction of antichrist, the full\nconversion of the Gentiles to the church of Christ, and the commencement\nof the millennium.\n\nIn general, whatever is morally or ceremonially impure, or leads to sin,\nis designated an _abomination_ to God. Thus lying lips are said to be an\n_abomination_ to the Lord. Every thing in doctrine or practice which\ntended to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel is also in Scripture\ncalled abominable; hence Babylon is represented, Rev. xvii, 4, as\nholding in her hand a cup \u201cfull of abominations.\u201d In this view, to \u201cwork\nabomination,\u201d is to introduce idolatry, or any other great corruption,\ninto the church and worship of God, 1 Kings xi, 7.\n\nABRAM, \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05dd, _a high father_; and ABRAHAM, \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05e8\u05dd, _father of a great\nmultitude_, the son of Terah, born at Ur, a city of Chaldea, A. M. 2008.\nThe account of this eminent patriarch occupies so large a part of the\nbook of Genesis, and stands so intimately connected with both the Jewish\nand Christian dispensations,--with the one by a political and religious,\nand with the other by a mystical, relation,--that his history demands\nparticular notice. Our account may be divided into his _personal\nhistory_, and his _typical, and mystic character_.\n\nI. Abraham\u2019s PERSONAL history.\n\n1. Chaldea, the native country of Abraham, was inhabited by a pastoral\npeople, who were almost irresistibly invited to the study of the motions\nof the heavenly bodies, by the peculiar serenity of the heavens in that\nclimate, and their habit of spending their nights in the open air in\ntending their flocks. The first rudiments of astronomy, as a science, is\ntraced to this region; and here, too, one of the earliest forms of\nidolatry, the worship of the host of heaven, usually called Tsabaism,\nfirst began to prevail. During the three hundred and fifty years which\nelapsed between the deluge and the birth of Abraham, this and other\nidolatrous superstitions had greatly corrupted the human race, perverted\nthe simple forms of the patriarchal religion, and beclouded the import\nof its typical rites. The family of Abraham was idolatrous, for his\n\u201cfathers served other gods beyond the flood,\u201d that is, the great river\nEuphrates; but whether he himself was in the early period of his life an\nidolater, we are not informed by Moses. The Arabian and Jewish legends\nspeak of his early idolatry, his conversion from it, and of his zeal in\nbreaking the images in his father\u2019s house; but these are little to be\ndepended upon. Before his call he was certainly a worshipper of the true\nGod; and that not in form only, but \u201cin spirit and in truth.\u201d Whilst\nAbraham was still sojourning in Ur, \u201cthe God of glory\u201d appeared to him,\nand said unto him, \u201cGet thee out of thy country and from thy kindred,\nand go into the land which I shall show thee;\u201d and so firm was his faith\nin the providence and care of God, that although the place of his future\nabode was not indicated, nor any information given of the nature of the\ncountry, or the character of its inhabitants, he nevertheless promptly\nobeyed, and \u201cwent out, not knowing whither he went.\u201d Terah his father,\nNahor his brother, and Lot his nephew, the son of Haran his deceased\nbrother, accompanied him; a circumstance which indicates that if the\nfamily had formerly been idolatrous it had now received the faith of\nAbraham. They first migrated to Haran, or Charran, in Mesopotamia, a\nflat, barren region westward of Ur; and after a residence there of a few\nyears, during which Terah had died, Abraham left Haran to go into\nPalestine, taking with him Sarah his wife, who had no child, and Lot,\nwith his paternal property. Nahor appears to have been left in Haran. To\nthis second migration he was incited also by a Divine command,\naccompanied by the promises of a numerous issue, that his seed should\nbecome a great nation, and, above all, that \u201cin him all the families of\nthe earth should be blessed;\u201d in other words, that the Messiah, known\namong the patriarchs as the promised \u201cseed of the woman,\u201d should be born\nin his line. Palestine was then inhabited by the Canaanites, from whom\nit was called Canaan. Abraham, leading his tribe, first settled at\nSechem, a valley between the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, where God\nappeared to him and promised to give him the land of Canaan, and where,\nas in other places in which he remained any time, he built an altar to\nthe Lord. He then removed to a hilly region on the north of Jericho; and\nas the pastures were exhausted, migrated southward, till a famine drove\nhim into Egypt, probably the earliest, certainly the most productive,\ncorn country of the ancient world.\n\n2. Here it may be observed, that the migrations of Abraham and his sons\nshow the manner in which the earth was gradually covered with people. In\nthose ages some cities had been built, and the country to some extent\nabout them cultivated; but wide spaces of unoccupied land lay between\nthem. A part of society following therefore the pastoral life, led forth\ntheir flocks, and, in large family tribes, of which the parent was the\nhead, uniting both the sovereign power and the priesthood in himself,\nand with a train of servants attached to the tribe by hereditary ties,\npitched their camps wherever a fertile and unappropriated district\noffered them pasture. A few of these nomadic tribes appear to have made\nthe circuit of the same region, seldom going far from their native\nseats; which would probably have been the case with Abraham, had he not\nreceived the call of God to depart to a distant country. Others, more\nbold, followed the track of rivers, and the sweep of fertile valleys,\nand at length some built cities and formed settlements in those distant\nregions; whilst others, either from attachment to their former mode of\nlife, or from necessity, continued in their pastoral occupations, and\nfollowed the supplies afforded for their flocks by the still expanding\nregions of the fertile earth. Wars and violences, droughts, famines, and\nthe constant increase of population, continued to impel these\ninnumerable, but at first, small streams of men into parts still more\nremote. Those who settled on the sea coast began to use that element,\nboth for supplying themselves with a new species of food, and as a\nmedium of communication by vessels with other countries for the\ninterchange of such commodities as their own lands afforded with those\noffered by maritime states, more or less distant. Thus were laid the\nfoundations of commerce, and thus the maritime cities were gradually\nrendered opulent and powerful. Colonies were in time transported from\nthem by means of their ships, and settled on the coasts of still more\ndistant and fertile countries. Thus the migrations of the three\nprimitive families proceeded from the central regions of Armenia,\nMesopotamia, and Assyria; and in succession they established numerous\ncommunities,--the Phenicians, Arabians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and\nLybians southward;--the Persians, Indians, and Chinese eastward;--the\nScythians, Celts, and Tartars northward;--and the Goths, Greeks, and\nLatins westward, even as far as the Peruvians and Mexicans of South\nAmerica, and the Indians of North America.\n\n3. Abraham, knowing the dissolute character of the Egyptians, directed\nSarah to call herself his sister, which she was, although by another\nmother; fearing that if they knew her to be his wife, they would not\nonly seize her, but kill him. This circumstance indicates the vicious\nstate of morals and government in Egypt at this early period. In this\naffair Abraham has been blamed for want of faith in God; but it was\nperhaps no more than an act of common prudence, as the seraglio of the\nEgyptian monarch was supplied by any means, however violent and lawless.\nSarah, upon the report of her beauty, was seized and taken into his\nharem; and God sent great plagues upon his house, which, from their\nextraordinary character, he concluded to be divine judgments. This led\nto inquiry, and on discovering that he was detaining another man\u2019s wife\nby violence, he sent her back, and dismissed Abraham laden with\npresents.\n\n4. After the famine Abraham returned to Canaan, and pitched his tents\nbetween Bethel and Hai, where he had previously raised an altar. Here,\nas his flocks and herds, and those of Lot, had greatly increased, and\nstrifes had arisen between their herdsmen as to pasturage and water,\nthey peaceably separated. Lot returning to the plain of the Jordan,\nwhich before the destruction of Sodom was as \u201cthe garden of God,\u201d and\nAbraham to Mamre, near Hebron, after receiving a renewal of the promise,\nthat God would give him the whole land for a possession. The separation\nof Abraham and Lot still farther secured the unmingled descent of the\nAbrahamitic family. The territories of the kings of the cities of the\nplain were a few years afterward invaded by a confederacy of the petty\nkings of the Euphrates and the neighbouring countries, and Lot and his\nfamily were taken prisoners. This intelligence being brought to Abraham,\nhe collected the men of his tribe, three hundred and eighteen, and\nfalling upon the kings by night, near the fountains of Jericho, he\ndefeated them, retook the spoil, and recovered Lot. On his return,\npassing near Salem, supposed to be the city afterward called Jerusalem,\nhe was blessed by its king Melchizedec, who was priest of the most high\nGod; so that the knowledge and worship of Jehovah had not quite departed\nat that time from the Canaanitish nations. To him Abraham gave a tithe\nof the spoil. The rest he generously restored to the king of Sodom,\nrefusing, in a noble spirit of independence, to retain so much as a\n\u201cshoe lachet,\u201d except the portion which, by usage of war, fell to the\nyoung native sheiks, Aner, Eschal, and Mamre, who had joined him in the\nexpedition.\n\n5. After this he had another encouraging vision of God, Gen. xv, 1; and\nto his complaint that he was still childless, and that his name and\nproperty would descend to the stranger Eliezer, who held the next rank\nin his tribe, the promise was given, that he himself should have a son,\nand that his seed should be countless as the stars of heaven. And it is\nemphatically added, \u201cHe believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him\nfor righteousness.\u201d He was then fully assured, that he stood before God,\na pardoned and accepted man, \u201cwhose iniquities were forgiven,\u201d and to\nwhom \u201cthe Lord did not impute sin.\u201d Still the fulfilment of the promise\nof a son was delayed; and Sarah, perhaps despairing that it would be\naccomplished in her person, and the revelation which had been made\nmerely stating that this son should be the fruit of Abraham\u2019s body,\nwithout any reference to her, she gave to him, according to the custom\nof those times, one of her handmaids, an Egyptian, to be his secondary\nwife, who brought forth Ishmael. Children born in this manner had the\nprivileges of legitimacy; but fourteen years afterward, when Abraham was\na hundred years old, and Sarah ninety, the Lord appeared to him again,\nestablished his covenant with him and with his seed, changed his name to\nAbraham, \u201cthe father of many nations,\u201d promised that Sarah herself\nshould bring forth the son to whom the preceding promises had referred;\ninstituted circumcision as the sign of the covenant; and changed the\nname of his wife from Sarai, _my princess_, to Sarah, _the princess_,\nthat is, of many people to descend from her.\n\n6. At this time Abraham occupied his former encampment near Hebron.\nHere, as he sat in the door of his tent, three mysterious strangers\nappeared. Abraham, with true Arabian hospitality, received and\nentertained them. The chief of the three renewed the promise of a son to\nbe born from Sarah, a promise which she received with a laugh of\nincredulity, for which she was mildly reproved. As Abraham accompanied\nthem toward the valley of the Jordan, the same divine person, for so he\nmanifestly appears, announced the dreadful ruin impending over the\nlicentious cities among which Lot had taken up his abode. No passage,\neven in the sacred writings, exhibits a more exalted view of the divine\ncondescension than that in which Abraham is seen expostulating on the\napparent injustice of involving the innocent in the ruin of the guilty:\n\u201cShall the city perish, if fifty, if forty-five, if forty, if thirty, if\ntwenty, if ten righteous men be found within its walls?\u201d \u201cTen righteous\nmen shall avert its doom.\u201d Such was the promise of the celestial\nvisitant; but the guilt was universal, the ruin inevitable; and the\nviolation of the sacred laws of hospitality and nature, which Lot in his\nhorror attempted to avert by the most revolting expedient, confirmed the\njustice of the divine sentence.\n\n7. Sarah having conceived, according to the divine promise, Abraham left\nthe plain of Mamre, and went south to Gerar, where Abimelech reigned;\nand again fearing lest Sarah should be forced from him, and himself be\nput to death, her beauty having been, it would appear, preternaturally\ncontinued, notwithstanding her age, he here called her, as he had done\nin Egypt, his sister. Abimelech took her to his house, designing to\nmarry her; but God having, in a dream, informed him that she was\nAbraham\u2019s wife, he returned her to him with great presents. This year\nSarah was delivered of Isaac; and Abraham circumcised him, according to\nthe covenant stipulation; and when he was weaned, made a great\nentertainment. Sarah, having observed Ishmael, son of Hagar, mocking her\nson Isaac, said to Abraham, \u201cCast out this bondwoman and her son, for\nIshmael shall not be heir with Isaac.\u201d After great reluctance, Abraham\ncomplied; God having informed him that this was according to the\nappointments of his providence, with respect to future ages. About the\nsame time, Abimelech came with Phicol, his general, to conclude an\nalliance with Abraham, who made that prince a present of seven ewe lambs\nout of his flock, in confirmation that a well he had opened should be\nhis own property; and they called the place Beer-sheba, or \u201cthe well of\nswearing,\u201d because of the covenant there ratified with oaths. Here\nAbraham planted a grove, built an altar, and for some time resided, Gen.\nxx, xxi.\n\n8. More than twenty years after this, (A. M. 2133,) God, for the final\ntrial and illustration of Abraham\u2019s faith, directed him to offer up his\nson Isaac. Abraham took his son, and two servants, and went toward mount\nMoriah. When within sight of the mountain, Abraham left his servants,\nand ascended it with his son only; and there having bound him, he\nprepared for the affecting sacrifice; but when he was about to give the\nblow, an angel from heaven cried out to him, \u201cLay not thine hand upon\nthe lad, neither do thou any thing to him. Now I know that thou fearest\nGod, since thou hast not withheld thine only son from me.\u201d Abraham,\nturning, saw a ram entangled in the bush by his horns; and he offered\nthis animal as a burnt offering, instead of his son Isaac. This\nmemorable place he called by the prophetic name, _Jehovah-jireh_, or\n_the Lord will see_--or _provide_, Gen. xxii, 1\u201314, having respect, no\ndoubt, to the true sacrifice which, in the fulness of time, was to be\noffered for the whole world upon the same mountain.\n\n9. Twelve years afterward, Sarah, wife of Abraham, died in Hebron.\nAbraham came to mourn and to perform the funeral offices for her. He\naddressed the people at the city gate, entreating them to allow him to\nbury his wife among them; for, being a stranger, and having no land of\nhis own, he could claim no right of interment in any sepulchre of that\ncountry. He, therefore, bought of Ephron, one of the inhabitants, the\nfield of Machpelah, with the cave and sepulchre in it, at the price of\nfour hundred shekels of silver, about forty-five pounds sterling. And\nhere Abraham buried Sarah, with due solemnities, according to the custom\nof the country, Gen. xxiii. This whole transaction impressively\nillustrates the dignity, courtesy, and honour of these ancient chiefs;\nand wholly disproves the notion that theirs was a rude and unpolished\nage.\n\n10. Abraham, having grown old, sent Eliezer, his steward, into\nMesopotamia, with directions to obtain a young woman of his own family,\nas a wife for his son Isaac. Eliezer executed his commission with\nfidelity, and brought back Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel, grand-daughter\nof Nahor, and, consequently, Abraham\u2019s niece, whom Isaac married.\nAbraham afterward married Keturah; by whom he had six sons, Zimran,\nJokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah; who became heads of different\npeople, which dwelt in Arabia, and around it. He died, aged a hundred\nand seventy-five years, and was buried, with Sarah his wife, in the cave\nof Machpelah, which he had purchased of Ephron, Gen. xxiv, xxv, A. M.\n2183, before Christ 1821.\n\nII. From the personal history of Abraham we may now proceed to the\nconsideration of the TYPICAL circumstances which were connected with it.\n\n1. Abraham himself with his family may be regarded as a type of the\nchurch of God in future ages. They indeed constituted God\u2019s ancient\nchurch. Not that many scattered patriarchal and family churches did not\nremain: such was that of Melchizedec; and such probably was that of\nNahor, whom Abraham left behind in Mesopotamia. But a visible church\nrelation was established between Abraham\u2019s family and the Most High,\nsignified by the visible and distinguishing sacrament of circumcision,\nand followed by new and enlarged revelations of truth. Two purposes were\nto be answered by this,--_the preservation of the true doctrine of\nsalvation in the world_, which is the great and solemn duty of every\nbranch of the church of God,--and _the manifestation of that truth to\nothers_. Both were done by Abraham. Wherever he sojourned he built his\naltars to the true God, and publicly celebrated his worship; and, as we\nlearn from St. Paul, he lived in tents in preference to settling in the\nland of Canaan, though it had been given to him for a possession, in\norder that he might thus proclaim his faith in the eternal inheritance\nof which Canaan was a type; and in bearing this testimony, his example\nwas followed by Isaac and Jacob, the \u201cheirs with him of the same\npromise,\u201d who also thus \u201cconfessed that they were strangers and\npilgrims,\u201d and that \u201cthey looked\u201d for a continuing and eternal city in\nheaven. So also now is the same doctrine of immortality committed to the\nchurch of Christ; and by deadness to the world ought its members to\ndeclare the reality of their own faith in it.\n\n2. The numerous natural posterity promised to Abraham was also a type of\nthe spiritual seed, the true members of the church of Christ, springing\nfrom the Messiah, of whom Isaac was the symbol. Thus St. Paul expressly\ndistinguishes between the fleshly and the spiritual seed of Abraham; to\nthe latter of which, in their ultimate and highest sense, the promises\nof increase as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the sea shore, are\nto be referred, as also the promise of the heavenly Canaan.\n\n3. The intentional offering up Isaac, with its result, was probably that\ntransaction in which Abraham, more clearly than in any other, \u201csaw the\nday of Christ, and was glad.\u201d He received Isaac from the dead, says St.\nPaul, \u201cin a figure.\u201d This could be a figure of nothing but the\nresurrection of our Lord; and, if so, Isaac\u2019s being laid upon the altar\nwas a figure of his sacrificial death, scenically and most impressively\nrepresented to Abraham. The _place_, the same ridge of hills on which\nour Lord was crucified; the _person_, an only son, to die for no offence\nof his own; the _sacrificer_, a father; the _receiving back_, as it\nwere, from death to life; the _name_ impressed upon the place,\nimporting, \u201c_the Lord will provide_,\u201d in allusion to Abraham\u2019s own words\nto Isaac, \u201cthe Lord will provide a lamb for a burnt offering;\u201d all\nindicate a mystery which lay deep beneath this transaction, and which\nAbraham, as the reward of his obedience, was permitted to behold. \u201cThe\nday\u201d of Christ\u2019s humiliation and exaltation was thus opened to him; and\nserved to keep the great truth in mind, that the true burnt offering and\nsacrifice for sin was to be something higher than the immolation of\nlambs and bulls and goats,--nay, something more than what was _merely_\nhuman.\n\n4. The transaction of the expulsion of Hagar was also a type. It was an\nallegory in action, by which St. Paul teaches us to understand that the\nson of the bondwoman represented those who are under the law; and the\nchild of the freewoman those who by faith in Christ are supernaturally\nbegotten into the family of God. The bondwoman and her son being cast\nout, represented also the expulsion of the unbelieving Jews from the\nchurch of God, which was to be composed of true believers of all\nnations, all of whom, whether Jews or Gentiles, were to become \u201cfellow\nheirs.\u201d\n\nIII. But Abraham appears before us invested with a MYSTIC character,\nwhich it is of great importance rightly to understand.\n\n1. He is to be regarded as standing in a _federal_ or _covenant_\nrelation, not only to his natural seed, but specially and eminently to\nall believers. \u201cThe Gospel,\u201d we are told by St. Paul, \u201cwas preached to\nAbraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.\u201d \u201cAbraham\nbelieved in God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;\u201d in\nother words, he was justified. A covenant of gratuitous justification\nthrough faith was made with him and his believing descendants; and the\nrite of circumcision, which was not confined to his posterity by Sarah,\nbut appointed in every branch of his family, was the sign or sacrament\nof this covenant of grace, and so remained till it was displaced by the\nsacraments appointed by Christ. Wherever that sign was it declared the\ndoctrine, and offered the grace, of this covenant--free justification by\nfaith, and its glorious results--to all the tribes that proceeded from\nAbraham. This same grace is offered to us by the Gospel, who become\n\u201cAbraham\u2019s _seed_,\u201d his spiritual children with whom the covenant is\nestablished, through the same faith, and are thus made \u201cthe heirs with\nhim of the same promise.\u201d\n\n2. Abraham is also exhibited to us as the _representative_ of true\nbelievers; and in this especially, that the true nature of faith was\nexhibited in him. This great principle was marked in Abraham with the\nfollowing characters:--An entire unhesitating belief in the word of\nGod;--an unfaltering trust in all his promises;--a steady regard to his\nalmighty power, leading him to overlook all apparent difficulties and\nimpossibilities in every case where God had explicitly promised;--and\nhabitual and cheerful and entire obedience. The Apostle has described\nfaith in Heb. xi, 1; and that faith is seen living and acting in all its\nenergy in Abraham.\n\nA few miscellaneous remarks are suggested by some of the circumstances\nof Abraham\u2019s history:--\n\n1. The ancient method of ratifying a covenant by sacrifice is\nillustrated in the account given in Gen. xv, 9, 10. The beasts were\nslain and _divided_ in the midst, and the persons covenanting passed\nbetween the parts. Hence, after Abraham had performed this part of the\nceremony, the symbol of the Almighty\u2019s presence, \u201ca smoking furnace, and\na burning lamp, passed between the pieces,\u201d verse 18, and so both\nparties ratified the covenant.\n\n2. As the beauty of Sarah, which she retained so long as quite to\nconceal her real age from observers, attracted so much notice as to lead\nto her forcible seizure, once by Pharaoh in Egypt, and again by\nAbimelech in Palestine, it may appear strange, that, as in the east\nwomen are generally kept in seclusion, and seldom appear without veils,\nshe exposed herself to observation. But to this day the Arab women do\nnot wear veils at home in their tents; and Sarah\u2019s countenance might\nhave been seen in the tent by some of the officers of Pharaoh and\nAbimelech, who reported her beauty to their masters.\n\n3. The intentional offering up of Isaac is not to be supposed as viewed\nby Abraham as an act sanctioned by the Pagan practice of human\nsacrifice. The immolation of human victims, particularly of that which\nwas most precious, the favourite, the first-born child, appears to have\nbeen a common usage among many early nations, more especially the tribes\nby which Abraham was surrounded. It was the distinguishing rite among\nthe worshippers of Moloch; at a later period of the Jewish history, it\nwas practised by a king of Moab; and it was undoubtedly derived by the\nCarthaginians from their Phenecian ancestors on the shores of Syria.\nWhere it was an ordinary usage, as in the worship of Moloch, it was in\nunison with the character of the religion, and of its deity. It was the\nlast act of a dark and sanguinary superstition, which rose by regular\ngradation to this complete triumph over human nature. The god, who was\npropitiated by these offerings, had been satiated with more cheap and\nvulgar victims; he had been glutted to the full with human suffering and\nwith human blood. In general it was the final mark of the subjugation of\nthe national mind to an inhuman and domineering priesthood. But the\nMosaic religion held human sacrifices in abhorrence; and the God of the\nAbrahamitic family, uniformly beneficent, had imposed no duties which\nentailed human suffering, had demanded no offerings which were repugnant\nto the better feelings of our nature. The command to offer Isaac as \u201ca\nburnt offering,\u201d was for these reasons a trial the more severe to\nAbraham\u2019s faith. He must therefore have been fully assured of the divine\ncommand; and he left the mystery to be explained by God himself. His was\na simple act of unhesitating obedience to the command of God; the last\nproof of perfect reliance on the certain accomplishment of the divine\npromises. Isaac, so miraculously bestowed, could be as miraculously\nrestored; Abraham, such is the comment of the Christian Apostle,\n\u201cbelieved that God could even raise him up from the dead.\u201d\n\n4. The wide and deep impression made by the character of Abraham upon\nthe ancient world is proved by the reverence which people of almost all\nnations and countries have paid to him, and the manner in which the\nevents of his life have been interwoven in their mythology, and their\nreligious traditions. Jews, Magians, Sabians, Indians, and Mohammedans\nhave claimed him as the great patriarch and founder of their several\nsects; and his history has been embellished with a variety of fictions.\nOne of the most pleasing of these is the following, but it proceeds upon\nthe supposition that he was educated in idolatry: \u201cAs Abraham was\nwalking by night from the grotto where he was born, to the city of\nBabylon, he gazed on the stars of heaven, and among them on the\nbeautiful planet Venus. \u2018Behold,\u2019 said he within himself, \u2018the God and\nLord of the universe!\u2019 but the star set and disappeared, and Abraham\nfelt that the Lord of the universe could not thus be liable to change.\nShortly after, he beheld the moon at the full: \u2018Lo,\u2019 he cried, \u2018the\nDivine Creator, the manifest Deity!\u2019 but the moon sank below the\nhorizon, and Abraham made the same reflection as at the setting of the\nevening star. All the rest of the night he passed in profound\nrumination; at sunrise he stood before the gates of Babylon, and saw the\nwhole people prostrate in adoration. \u2018Wondrous orb,\u2018 he exclaimed, \u2018thou\nsurely art the Creator and Ruler of all nature! but thou, too, hastest\nlike the rest to thy setting!--neither then art thou my Creator, my\nLord, or my God!\u2019\u201d\n\nABRAHAMITES, reported heretical sects of the eighth and ninth centuries,\ncharged with the Paulician errors, and some of them with idolatry. For\nthese charges we have, however, only the word of their persecutors. Also\nthe name of a sect in Bohemia, as late as 1782, who professed the\nreligion of Abraham before his circumcision, and admitted no scriptures\nbut the decalogue and the Lord\u2019s prayer. As these were persecuted, they\ntoo were probably misrepresented, and especially as their conduct is\nallowed to have been good, even by their enemies.\n\nABSALOM, the son of David by Maachah, daughter of the king of Geshur;\ndistinguished for his fine person, his vices, and his unnatural\nrebellion. Of his open revolt, his conduct in Jerusalem, his pursuit of\nthe king his father, his defeat and death, see 2 Sam. xvi-xviii, at\nlarge.\n\nABSOLUTION, in the church of Rome, is a sacrament, in which the priests\nassume the power of forgiving sins. The rite of absolution in the church\nof England is acknowledged to be declarative only--\u201cAlmighty God hath\ngiven power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to\nhis people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins:\nHe pardoneth,\u201d &c. In this view it is innocent; and although any private\nChristian has a right to declare and pronounce the same doctrine to his\nneighbour, the _official_ publication of the grace of the Gospel is the\npublic duty of its ministers in the congregation, since they are\nChrist\u2019s \u201cambassadors.\u201d\n\nABSTINENCE, forbearance of any thing It is generally used with reference\nto forbearance from food under a religious motive. The Jewish law\nordained that the priests should abstain from the use of wine during the\nwhole time of their being employed in the service of the temple, Lev. x,\n9. The same abstinence was enjoined upon the Nazarites, during the time\nof their Nazariteship, or separation, Num. vi, 3. The Jews were\ncommanded to abstain from several sorts of animals. See ANIMAL.\n\nThe fat of all sorts of animals that were sacrificed was forbidden to be\neaten, Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23; and the blood of every animal, in general,\nwas prohibited under pain of death. Indeed blood was forbidden by the\nCreator, from the time of the grant of the flesh of beasts to man for\nfood; this prohibition was continued under the Jewish economy, and\ntransmitted to the Christian church by Apostolic authority, Acts xv, 28,\n29. (See _Blood_.) The Jews also abstained from the sinew which is upon\nthe hollow of the thigh, Gen. xxxii, 25; because of the shrinking of the\nsinew of Jacob\u2019s thigh when touched by the angel, as though by that the\npart had been made sacred.\n\nAmong the primitive Christians, some denied themselves the use of such\nmeats as were prohibited by the law; others treated this abstinence with\ncontempt. St. Paul has given his decision on these questions in his\nepistles, 1 Cor. viii, 7\u201310; Rom. xiv, 1\u20133. The council of Jerusalem,\nwhich was held by the Apostles, enjoined the Christian converts to\nabstain from meats strangled, from blood, from fornication, and from\nidolatry, Acts xv, 20.\n\nThe spiritual monarchy of the western world introduced another sort of\nabstinence which may be termed _ritual_, and which consists in\nabstaining from particular meats at certain times and seasons, the rules\nof which are called rogations. The ancient Lent was observed only a few\ndays before Easter. In the course of the third century, it extended at\nRome to three weeks; and before the middle of the succeeding age, it was\nprolonged to six weeks, and began to be called quadragesima, or the\nforty days\u2019 fast.\n\nABYSS, or DEEP, \u1f04\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, _without bottom_. The chaos; the deepest parts\nof the sea; and, in the New Testament, the place of the dead, Rom. x, 7;\na deep place of punishment. The devils besought Jesus that he would not\nsend them into the abyss, a place they evidently dreaded, Luke viii, 31;\nwhere it seems to mean that part of Hades in which wicked spirits are in\ntorment. See HELL.\n\nIn the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, and of the generality of eastern\npeople at this day, the abyss, the sea, or waters, encompassed the whole\nearth. This was supposed to float upon the abyss, of which it covered a\nsmall part. According to the same notion, the earth was founded on the\nwaters, or at least its foundations were on the abyss beneath, Psalm\nxxiv, 2; cxxxvi, 6. Under these waters, and at the bottom of this abyss,\nthey represented the wicked as groaning, and suffering the punishment of\ntheir sin. The Rephaim were confined there, those old giants, who,\nwhilst living, caused surrounding nations to tremble, Prov. ix, 18; xxi,\n16, &c. Lastly, in these dark dungeons the kings of Tyre, Babylon, and\nEgypt are described by the Prophets as suffering the punishment of their\npride and cruelty, Isaiah xxvi, 14; Ezek. xxviii, 10, &c.\n\nThese depths are figuratively represented as the abodes of evil spirits,\nand powers opposed to God: \u201cI saw,\u201d says St. John, \u201ca star fall from\nheaven unto the earth, and to him was given the key of the bottomless\npit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of\nit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were\ndarkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the\nsmoke locusts upon the earth. And they had a king over them, which is\nthe angel of the bottomless pit,\u201d Rev. ix, 1, 2, 11. In another place,\nthe beast is represented as ascending out of the bottomless pit, and\nwaging war against the two witnesses of God, Rev. xi, 7. Lastly, St.\nJohn says, \u201cI saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the\nbottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the\ndragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a\nthousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up,\nand set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till\nthe thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed\na little season,\u201d Rev. xx, 1\u20133.\n\nABYSSINIAN CHURCH, a branch of the Coptic church, in Upper Ethiopia. The\nAbyssinians, by the most authentic accounts, were converted to the\nChristian faith about the year 330; when Frumentius, being\nprovidentially raised to a high office, under the patronage of the queen\nof Ethiopia, and ordained bishop of that country by Athanasius,\npatriarch of Alexandria, established Christianity, built churches, and\nordained a regular clergy to officiate in them. The Abyssinian\nChristians themselves, indeed, claim a much higher antiquity, having a\ntradition, that the doctrine of Christ was first introduced among them\nby Queen Candace, Acts viii, 27; or even preached there by the Apostles\nMatthew and Bartholomew; but the former is supported by no collateral\nevidence, and the latter is in opposition to high authority. Some of\nthem claim relation to the Israelites, through the queen of Sheba, so\nfar back as the reign of Solomon.\n\nThe Abyssinian Christians have always received their abuna, or\npatriarch, from Alexandria, whence they sprang, and consequently their\ncreed is Monophysite, or Eutychian; maintaining one nature only in the\nperson of Christ, namely, the divine, in which they considered all the\nproperties of the humanity to be absorbed; in opposition to the\nNestorians.\n\nOn the power of the Saracens prevailing in the east, all communication\nbeing nearly cut off between the eastern and western churches, the\nAbyssinian church remained unknown in Europe till nearly the close of\nthe fifteenth century, when John II, of Portugal, accidentally hearing\nof the existence of such a church, sent to make inquiry. This led to a\ncorrespondence between the Abyssinians and the church of Rome; and\nBermudes, a Portuguese, was consecrated by the pope patriarch of\nEthiopia, and the Abyssinians were required to receive the Roman\nCatholic faith, in return for some military assistance afforded to the\nemperor. Instead of this, however, the emperor sent for a new patriarch\nfrom Alexandria, imprisoned Bermudes, and declared the pope a heretic.\n\nAbout the middle of the sixteenth century, the Jesuits attempted a\nmission to Abyssinia, in the hope of reducing it to the pope\u2019s\nauthority; but without success. In 1588 a second mission was attempted,\nand so far succeeded as to introduce a system of persecution, which cost\nmany lives, and caused many troubles to the empire. In the following\ncentury, however, the Jesuits were all expelled, Abyssinia returned to\nits ancient faith, and nothing more was heard of the church of\nAbyssinia, till the latter part of the last century.\n\nAfter the expulsion of the Jesuits, all Europeans were interdicted; nor\ndoes it appear that any one dared to attempt an entrance until the\ncelebrated Mr. Bruce, by the report of his medical skill, contrived to\nintroduce himself to the court, where he even obtained military\npromotion; and was in such repute, that it was with great difficulty he\nobtained leave to return to England.\n\nEncouraged, perhaps, by this circumstance, the Moravian brethren\nattempted a mission to this country, but in vain. They were compelled to\nretreat to Grand Cairo, from whence, by leave of the patriarch, they\nvisited the Copts at Behrusser, and formed a small society; but in 1783,\nthey were driven thence, and compelled to return to Europe. More\nrecently, however, the late king of Abyssinia (Itsa Takley Gorges)\naddressed a letter to Mr. Salt, the British consul in Egypt, and\nrequested copies of some parts of both the Old and New Testaments.\nCopies of the Psalms, in Ethiopic, as printed by the British and Foreign\nBible Society, were also sent to him.\n\nACADEMICS, a name given to such philosophers as adopted the doctrines of\nPlato. They were so called from the _Academia_, a grove near Athens,\nwhere they frequently indulged their contemplations. Academia is said to\nderive its name from one Academus, a god or hero so called. Thus\nHorace,--\n\n          _Atque inter sylvas Academi qu\u00e6rere verum._\n          [And in the groves of Academus to search for truth.]\n\nThe academics are divided into those of the first academy, who taught\nthe doctrines of Plato in their original purity; those of the second or\nmiddle academy, who differed materially from the first, and inclined to\nskepticism; and those of the new academy. The middle school laid it down\nas a principle, that neither our senses, nor our reason, are to be\ntrusted; but that in common affairs we are to conform to received\nopinions. The new academy maintained that we have no means of\ndistinguishing truth, and that the most evident appearances may lead us\ninto error; they granted the wise man opinion, but denied him certainty.\nThey held, however, that it was best to follow the greatest probability,\nwhich was sufficient for all the useful purposes of life, and laid down\nrules for the attainment of felicity. The difference betwixt the middle\nacademy and the new seems to have been this, that though they agreed in\nthe imbecility of human nature, yet the first denied that probabilities\nwere of any use in the pursuit of happiness; and the latter held them to\nbe of service in such a design: the former recommended a conformity with\nreceived opinions, and the latter allowed men an opinion of their own.\nIn the first academy, Speusippus filled the chair; in the second,\nArcesilaus; and in the new or third academy, Carneades.\n\nACCAD, one of the four cities built by Nimrod, the founder of the\nAssyrian empire. (See _Nimrod_.) \u201cAnd the beginning of his kingdom was\nBabel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,\u201d Gen. x,\n10. Thus it appears that Accad was contemporary with Babylon, and was\none of the first four great cities of the world.\n\nIt would scarcely be expected that any thing should now remain to guide\nus in our search for this ancient city, seeing that Babylon itself, with\nwhich it was coeval, is reduced to heaps; and that it is not mentioned\nunder its ancient name by any profane author. But the discoveries of\nmodern travellers may be brought to aid us in our inquiry. At the\ndistance of about six miles from the modern town of Bagdad, is found a\nmound, surmounted by a tower-shaped ruin, called by the Arabs Tell\nNimrood, and by the Turks Nemrood Tepasse; both terms implying the Hill\nof Nimrod. This gigantic mass rises in an irregularly pyramidal or\nturreted shape, according to the view in which it is taken, one hundred\nand twenty-five or one hundred and thirty feet above the gently inclined\nelevation on which it stands. Its circumference, at the bottom, is three\nhundred feet. The mound which constitutes its foundation is composed of\na collection of rubbish, formed from the decay of the superstructure;\nand consists of sandy earth, fragments of burnt brick, pottery, and hard\nclay, partially vitrified. In the remains of the tower, the different\nlayers of sun-dried brick, of which it is composed, may be traced with\ngreat precision. These bricks, cemented together by slime, and divided\ninto courses varying from twelve to twenty feet in height, are separated\nfrom one another by a stratum of reeds, similar to those now growing in\nthe marshy parts of the plain, and in a wonderful state of preservation.\nThe resemblance of this mode of building to that in some of the\nstructures at Babylon, cannot escape observation; and we may reasonably\nconclude it to be the workmanship of the same architects. The solidity\nand the loftiness of this pile, unfashioned to any other purpose,\nbespeak it to be one of those enormous pyramidal towers which were\nconsecrated to the Sabian worship; which, as essential to their\nreligious rites, were probably erected in all the early cities of the\nCuthites; and, like their prototype at Babylon, answered the double\npurpose of altars and observatories. Here then was the site of one of\nthese early cities. It was not Babylon; it was not Erech; it was not\nCalneh. It might be too much to say that _therefore_ it must be Accad;\nbut the inference is at least warrantable; which is farther strengthened\nby the name of the place, Akarkouff; which bears a greater affinity to\nthat of Accad than many others which are forced into the support of\ngeographical speculations, especially when it is recollected that the\nSyrian name of the city was Achar.\n\nACCESS, free admission, open entrance. Our access to God is by Jesus\nChrist, the way, the truth, and the life, Rom. v, 2; Eph. ii, 18. Under\nthe law, the high priest alone had access into the holiest of all; but\nwhen the veil of the temple was rent in twain, at the death of Christ,\nit was declared that a new and living way of access was laid open\nthrough the veil, that is to say, his flesh. By his death, also, the\nmiddle wall of partition was broken down, and Jew and Gentile had both\nfree access to God; whereas, before, the Gentiles had no nearer access\nin the temple worship than to the gate of the court of Israel. Thus the\nsaving grace and lofty privileges of the Gospel are equally bestowed\nupon true believers of all nations.\n\nACCHO, afterward called Ptolemais, and now Akka by the Arabs, and Acre\nby the Turks. It was given to the tribe of Asher, Judges i, 31.\nChristianity was planted here at an early period, and here St. Paul\nvisited the saints in his way to Jerusalem, Acts xxi, 7. It is a seaport\nof Palestine, thirty miles south of Tyre, and, in the first partition of\nthe holy land, belonged to the tribe of Asher; but this was one of the\nplaces out of which the Israelites could not drive the primitive\ninhabitants. In succeeding times it was enlarged by the first Ptolemy,\nto whose lot it fell, and who named it after himself, Ptolemais.\n\nThis city, now called Acre, which, from the convenience of its port, is\none of the most considerable on the Syrian coast, was, during almost two\ncenturies, the principal theatre of the holy wars, and the frequent\nscene of the perfidies and treacheries of the crusaders.\n\nAmong its antiquities, Dr. E. D. Clarke describes the remains of a very\nconsiderable edifice, exhibiting a conspicuous appearance among the\nbuildings on the north side of the city. \u201cIn this structure the style of\nthe architecture is of the kind we call Gothic. Perhaps it has on that\naccount borne among our countrymen the appellation of \u2018King Richard\u2019s\nPalace,\u2019 although, in the period to which the tradition refers, the\nEnglish were hardly capable of erecting palaces, or any other buildings\nof equal magnificence. Two lofty arches, and part of the cornice, are\nall that now remain to attest the former greatness of the\nsuperstructure. The cornice, ornamented with enormous stone busts,\nexhibiting a series of hideous distorted countenances, whose features\nare in no instances alike, may either have served as allusions to the\ndecapitation of St. John, or were intended for a representation of the\nheads of Saracens suspended as trophies upon the walls.\u201d Maundrell and\nPococke consider this building to have been the church of St. Andrew;\nbut Dr. E. D. Clarke thinks it was that of St. John, erected by the\nKnights of Jerusalem, whence the city changed its name of Ptolemais for\nthat of St. John d\u2019Acre. He also considers the style of architecture to\nbe in some degree the original of our ornamented Gothic, before its\ntranslation from the holy land to Italy, France, and England.\n\nMr. Buckingham, who visited Acre in 1816, says, \u201cOf the Canaanitish\nAccho it would be thought idle perhaps to seek for remains; yet some\npresented themselves to my observation so peculiar in form and\nmaterials, and of such high antiquity, as to leave no doubt in my own\nmind of their being the fragments of buildings constructed in the\nearliest ages.\n\n\u201cOf the splendour of Ptolemais, no perfect monument remains; but\nthroughout the town are seen shafts of red and grey granite, and marble\npillars. The Saracenic remains are only to be partially traced in the\ninner walls of the town; which have themselves been so broken down and\nrepaired, as to leave little visible of the original work; and all the\nmosques, fountains, bazaars, and other public buildings, are in a style\nrather Turkish than Arabic, excepting only an old, but regular and\nwell-built khan or caravanserai, which might perhaps be attributed to\nthe Saracen age. The Christian ruins are altogether gone, scarcely\nleaving a trace of the spot on which they stood.\u201d\n\nAcre has been rendered famous in our own times by the successful\nresistance made by our countryman Sir Sydney Smith, aided by the\ncelebrated Djezzar Pasha, to the progress of the French under\nBuonaparte. Since this period, the fortifications have been considerably\nincreased; and although to the eye of an engineer they may still be very\ndefective, Acre may be considered as the strongest place in Palestine.\n\nMr. Conner says, on the authority of the English consul, that there are\nabout ten thousand inhabitants in Acre, of whom three thousand are\nTurks, and the remainder Christians, chiefly Catholics.\n\nACCUBATION, the posture used at table by the ancients. The old Romans\nsat at meat as we do, till the Grecian luxury and softness had corrupted\nthem. The same custom, of lying upon couches at their entertainments,\nprevailed among the Jews also in our Saviour\u2019s time; for having been\nlately conquered by Pompey, they conformed in this, and in many other\nrespects, to the example of their masters. The manner of lying at meat\namong the Romans, Greeks, and more modern Jews, was the same in all\nrespects. The table was placed in the middle of the room, around which\nstood three couches covered with cloth or tapestry, according to the\nquality of the master of the house; upon these they lay, inclining the\nsuperior part of their bodies upon their left arms, the lower part being\nstretched out at full length, or a little bent. Their heads were\nsupported and raised with pillows. The first man lay at the head of the\ncouch; the next man lay with his head toward the feet of the other, from\nwhich he was defended by the bolster that supported his own back,\ncommonly reaching over to the middle of the first man; and the rest\nafter the same manner. The most honourable place was the _middle_\ncouch--and the _middle_ of _that_. Favourites commonly lay in the bosom\nof their friends; that is, they were placed next below them: see John\nxiii, 23, where St. John is said to have lain in our Saviour\u2019s bosom.\nThe ancient Greeks sat at the table; for Homer observes that when\nUlysses arrived at the palace of Alcinous, the king dispatched his son\nLaodamas to seat Ulysses in a magnificent chair. The Egyptians sat at\ntable anciently, as well as the Romans, till toward the end of the Punic\nwar, when they began to recline at table.\n\nACCURSED, in the Scriptures, signifies that which is separated or\ndevoted. With regard to persons, it denotes the cutting off or\nseparating any one from the communion of the church, the number of the\nliving, or the privileges of society; and also the devoting an animal,\ncity, or other thing to destruction. _Anathema_ was a species of\n_excommunication_ among the Jews, and was often practised after they had\nlost the power of life and death, against those persons who, according\nto the Mosaic law, ought to have been executed. A criminal, after the\nsentence of excommunication was pronounced, became _anathema_: and they\nhad a full persuasion that the sentence would not be in vain; but that\nGod would interfere to punish the offender in a manner similar to the\npenalty of the law of Moses: a man, for instance, whom the law condemned\nto be stoned, would, they believed, be killed by the falling of a stone\nupon him; a man to be hanged, would be choked; and one whom the law\nsentenced to the flames, would be burnt in his house, &c. _Maranatha_, a\nSyriac word, signifying _the Lord cometh_, was added to the sentence, to\nexpress their persuasion that the Lord God would come to take vengeance\nupon that guilt which they, circumstanced as they were, had not the\npower to punish, 1 Cor. xvi, 22.\n\nAccording to the idiom of the Hebrew language, _accursed_ and\n_crucified_ were synonymous terms. By the Jews every one who died upon a\ntree was reckoned _accursed_, Deut. xxi, 23.\n\nExcommunication is a kind of anathema also among some Christians; and by\nit the offender is deprived, not only of communicating in prayers and\nother holy offices, but of admittance to the church, and of conversation\nwith the faithful. The spirit of Judaism, rather than that of the\nGospel, has in this been imitated; for among the Hebrews, they who were\nexcommunicated could not perform any public duty of their employments;\ncould be neither judges nor witnesses; neither be present at funerals,\nnor circumcise their own sons, nor sit down in the company of other men,\nnearer than within the distance of four cubits. If they died under\nexcommunication, they were denied the rites of burial; and a large stone\nwas left on their graves, or a heap of stones was thrown over them, as\nover Achan, Joshua vii, 26. The Apostolical excommunication was simply\nto deny to the offender, after admonition, the right of partaking of the\nLord\u2019s Supper, which was excision from the church of Christ.\n\nACELDAMA, a piece of ground without the south wall of Jerusalem, on the\nother side of the brook Siloam. It was called the Potter\u2019s Field,\nbecause an earth or clay was dug in it, of which pottery was made. It\nwas likewise called the Fuller\u2019s Field, because cloth was dried in it.\nBut it having been afterward bought with the money by which the high\npriest and rulers of the Jews purchased the blood of Jesus, it was\ncalled Aceldama, or the Field of Blood.\n\nACHAIA. This name is used to denote the whole of Greece, as it existed\nas a Roman province; or Achaia Proper, a district in the northern part\nof the Peloponnesus, on the bay of Corinth, and in which the city of\nthat name stood. It appears to have been used in the former sense in 2\nCor. xi, 10; and in the latter, in Acts xix, 21.\n\nACHAN, the son of Carmi, of the tribe of Judah, who having taken a part\nof the spoils of Jericho, against the injunction of God, who had\n_accursed_ or devoted the whole city, was, upon being taken by lot,\ndoomed to be stoned to death. The whole history is recorded, Joshua vii.\nIt would appear that Achan\u2019s family were also stoned; for they were led\nout with him, and all his property, \u201cAnd all Israel stoned him with\nstones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with\nstones.\u201d Some of the critics have made efforts to confine the stoning to\nAchan, and the burning to his goods; but not without violence to the\ntext. It is probable, therefore, that his family were privy to the\ntheft, seeing he hid the accursed things which he had stolen in the\nearth, in his tent. By concealment they therefore became partakers of\nhis crime, and so the sentence was justified.\n\nACHMETHA. See ECBATANA.\n\nACHOR, Valley of, between Jericho and Ai. So called from the trouble\nbrought upon the Israelites by the sin of Achan; Achor in the Hebrew\ndenoting trouble.\n\nACHZIB, a city on the coast of the Mediterranean, in the tribe of Asher,\nand one of the cities out of which that tribe did not expel the\ninhabitants, Judges i, 31. It was called Ecdippa by the Greeks, and is\nat present termed Zib. It is situated about ten miles north of Accho, or\nPtolemais. Mr. Buckingham, who passed by this place, says that it is\nsmall, and situated on a hill near the sea; having a few palm trees\nrearing themselves above its dwellings.\n\nACRA, \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1. This Greek word signifies, in general, _a citadel_. The\nSyrians and Chaldeans use \u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0, in the same sense. King Antiochus gave\norders for building a citadel at Jerusalem, north of the temple, on an\neminence, which commanded the holy place; and for that reason was called\nAcra. Josephus says, that this eminence was semicircular, and that Simon\nMaccab\u00e6us, having expelled the Syrians, who had seized Acra, demolished\nit, and spent three years in levelling the mountain on which it stood;\nthat no situation in future should command the temple. On mount Acra\nwere afterward built, the palace of Helena; Agrippa\u2019s palace, the place\nwhere the public records were lodged; and that where the magistrates of\nJerusalem assembled.\n\nACRABATENE, a district of Jud\u00e6a, extending between Shechem (now\nNapolose) and Jericho, inclining east. It was about twelve miles in\nlength. The Acrabatene had its name from a place called Akrabbim, about\nnine miles from Shechem, eastward. This was also the name of another\ndistrict of Judea on the frontier of Idumea, toward the northern\nextremity of the Dead Sea.\n\nACTS OF THE APOSTLES. This book, in the very beginning, professes itself\nto be a continuation of the Gospel of St. Luke; and its style bespeaks\nit to be written by the same person. The external evidence is also very\nsatisfactory; for besides allusions in earlier authors, and particularly\nin Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, the Acts of the\nApostles are not only quoted by Iren\u00e6us, as written by Luke the\nevangelist, but there are few things recorded in this book which are not\nmentioned by that ancient father. This strong testimony in favour of the\ngenuineness of the Acts of the Apostles is supported by Clement of\nAlexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, Eusebius, Theodoret, and most of the\nlater fathers. It may be added, that the name of St. Luke is prefixed to\nthis book in several ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and\nalso in the old Syriac version.\n\n2. This is the only inspired work which gives us any historical account\nof the progress of Christianity after our Saviour\u2019s ascension. It\ncomprehends a period of about thirty years, but it by no means contains\na general history of the church during that time. The principal facts\nrecorded in it are, the choice of Matthias to be an Apostle in the room\nof the traitor Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of\npentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the Apostles at\nJerusalem; the death of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution and\ndispersion of the Christians; the preaching of the Gospel in different\nparts of Palestine, especially in Samaria; the conversion of St. Paul;\nthe call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the\nChristians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the\nGentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at\nJerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish\nrites and ceremonies, were not necessary in Gentile converts; and the\nlatter part of the book is confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom\nSt. Luke was the constant companion for several years.\n\n3. As this account of St. Paul is not continued beyond his two years\u2019\nimprisonment at Rome, it is probable that this book was written soon\nafter his release, which happened in the year 63; we may therefore\nconsider the Acts of the Apostles as written about the year 64.\n\n4. The place of its publication is more doubtful. The probability\nappears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria in\nEgypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of\nsome Greek manuscripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; but the\nbest critics think, that these subscriptions, which are also affixed to\nother books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight; and in this\ncase they are not supported by any ancient authority.\n\n5. It must have been of the utmost importance in the early times of the\nGospel, and certainly not of less importance to every subsequent age, to\nhave an authentic account of the promised descent of the Holy Ghost, and\nof the success which attended the first preachers of the Gospel both\namong the Jews and Gentiles. These great events completed the evidence\nof the divine mission of Christ, established the truth of the religion\nwhich he taught, and pointed out in the clearest manner the\ncomprehensive nature of the redemption which he purchased by his death.\n\n\u0152cumenius calls the Acts, the \u201cGospel of the Holy Ghost;\u201d and St.\nChrysostom, the \u201cGospel of our Saviour\u2019s resurrection,\u201d or the Gospel of\nJesus Christ risen from the dead. Here, in the lives and preaching of\nthe Apostles, we have the most miraculous instances of the power of the\nHoly Ghost; and in the account of those who were the first believers, we\nhave received the most excellent pattern of the true Christian life.\n\nADAM, the name given to man in general, both male and female in the\nHebrew Scriptures, Gen. i, 26, 27; v, 1, 2; xi, 5; Josh. xiv, 15; 2 Sam.\nvii, 19; Eccl. iii, 21; Jer. xxxii, 20; Hosea vi, 7; Zech. xiii, 7: in\nall which places mankind is understood; but particularly it is the name\nof the first man and father of the human race, created by God himself\nout of the dust of the earth. Josephus thinks that he was called Adam by\nreason of the reddish colour of the earth out of which he was formed,\nfor Adam in Hebrew signifies red. God having made man out of the dust of\nthe earth, breathed into him the breath of life, and gave him dominion\nover all the creatures of this world, Gen. i, 26, 27; ii, 7. He created\nhim after his own image and resemblance; and having blessed him, he\nplaced him in a delicious garden, in Eden, that he might cultivate it,\nand feed upon its fruits, Gen. ii, 8; but under the following\ninjunction: \u201cOf every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of\nthe tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it;\nfor in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.\u201d The first\nthing that Adam did after his introduction into paradise, was to give\nnames to all the beasts and birds which presented themselves before him,\nGen. ii, 19, 20.\n\nBut man was without a fellow creature of his own species; wherefore God\nsaid, \u201cIt is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a help meet\nfor him.\u201d And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while\nhe slept, he took one of his ribs, \u201cand closed up the flesh instead\nthereof;\u201d and of that substance which he took from man made he a woman,\nwhom he presented to him. Then said Adam, \u201cThis is now bone of my bone,\nand flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken\nout of man,\u201d Gen. ii, 21, &c.\n\nThe woman was seduced by the tempter; and she seduced her husband to eat\nof the forbidden fruit. When called to judgment for this transgression\nbefore God, Adam attempted to cast the blame upon his wife, and the\nwoman upon the serpent tempter. But God declared them all guilty, and\npunished the serpent by degradation; the woman by painful childbearing\nand subjection; and the man by agricultural labour and toil; of which\npunishments every day witnesses the fulfilment. As their natural\npassions now became irregular, and their exposure to accidents was\ngreat, God made a covering of skins for Adam and for his wife; and\nexpelled them from the garden, to the country without; placing at the\neast of the garden cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every\nway, to keep the way of the tree of life. It is not known how long Adam\nand his wife continued in paradise: some say, many years; others, not\nmany days; others, not many hours. Adam called his wife\u2019s name _Eve_,\nwhich signifies \u201cthe mother of all living.\u201d Shortly after, Eve brought\nforth Cain, Gen. iv, 1, 2. It is believed that she had a girl at the\ntime, and that, generally, she had twins. The Scriptures notice only\nthree sons of Adam: Cain, Abel, and Seth; and omits daughters; except\nthat Moses tells us, \u201cAdam begat sons and daughters;\u201d no doubt many. He\ndied, aged nine hundred and thirty, B. C. 3074.\n\nUpon this history, so interesting to all Adam\u2019s descendants, some\nremarks may be offered.\n\n1. It is disputed whether the name _Adam_ is derived from _red earth_.\nSir W. Jones thinks it may be from _Adim_, which in Sanscrit signifies,\n_the first_. The Persians, however, denominate him Adamah, which\nsignifies, according to Sale, _red earth_. The term for woman is\n_Aisha_, the feminine of _Aish_, man, and signifies, therefore, maness\nor female man.\n\n2. The manner in which the creation of Adam is narrated indicates\nsomething peculiar and eminent in the being to be formed. Among the\nheavenly bodies the earth, and above all the various productions of its\nsurface, vegetable and animal, however perfect in their kinds, and\nbeautiful and excellent in their respective natures, not one being was\nfound to whom the rest could minister instruction; inspire with moral\ndelight; or lead up to the Creator himself. There was, properly\nspeaking, no intellectual being; none to whom the whole frame and\nfurniture of material nature could minister knowledge; no one who could\nemploy upon them the generalizing faculty, and make them the basis of\ninductive knowledge. If, then, it was not wholly for himself that the\nworld was created by God; and if angels were not so immediately\nconnected with this system, as to lead us to suppose that it was made\nfor them; a rational inhabitant was obviously still wanting to complete\nthe work, and to constitute a perfect whole. The formation of such a\nbeing was marked, therefore, by a manner of proceeding which serves to\nimpress us with a sense of the greatness of the work. Not that it could\nbe a matter of more difficulty to Omnipotence to create man than any\nthing beside; but principally, it is probable, because he was to be the\nlord of the whole and therefore himself accountable to the original\nproprietor; and was to be the subject of another species of government,\na moral administration; and to be constituted an image of the\nintellectual and moral perfections, and of the immortality, of the\ncommon Maker. Every thing therefore, as to man\u2019s creation, is given in a\nsolemn and deliberative form, and contains also an intimation of a\nTrinity of Persons in the Godhead, all equally possessed of _creative_\npower, and therefore _Divine_, to each of whom man was to stand in\nrelations the most sacred and intimate:--\u201cAnd God said, Let US make man\nin our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion,\u201d &c.\n\n3. It may be next inquired in what that image of God in which man was\nmade consists.\n\nIt is manifest from the history of Moses, that human nature has two\nessential constituent parts, the BODY formed out of pre\u00ebxisting matter,\nthe earth; and a LIVING SOUL, breathed into the body by an _inspiration_\nfrom God. \u201cAnd the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground,\nand breathed into his nostrils (or _face_) the breath of life,\n(_lives_,) and man became a living soul.\u201d Whatever was thus imparted to\nthe body of man, already \u201c_formed_,\u201d and perfectly finished in all its\nparts, was the only cause of life; and the whole tenor of Scripture\nshows that this was the rational spirit itself, which, by a law of its\nCreator, was incapable of death, even after the body had fallen under\nthat penalty.\n\nThe \u201cimage\u201d or likeness of God in which man was made has, by some, been\nassigned to the body; by others, to the soul. It has, also, been placed\nin the circumstance of his having \u201c_dominion_\u201d over the other creatures.\nAs to the body, it is not necessary to prove that in no sense can it\nbear the image of God; that is, be \u201c_like_\u201d God. An upright form has no\nmore likeness to God than a prone or reptile one; God is incorporeal,\nand cannot be the antitype of any thing material.\n\nEqually unfounded is the notion that the image of God in man consisted\nin the \u201cdominion\u201d which was granted to him over this lower world.\nLimited dominion may, it is true, be an image of large and absolute\ndominion; but man is not said to have been made in the image of God\u2019s\ndominion, which is an accident merely, for, before creatures existed,\nGod himself could have no dominion:--he was made in the image and\nlikeness of God himself. Still farther, it is evident that man,\naccording to the history, was made in the image of God _in order_ to his\nhaving dominion, as the Hebrew particle imports; and, therefore, his\ndominion was consequent upon his formation in the \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d\nof God, and could not be that image itself.\n\nThe notion that the original resemblance of man to God must be placed in\nsome one essential quality, is not consistent with holy writ, from which\nalone we can derive our information on this subject. We shall, it is\ntrue, find that the Bible partly places it in what is essential to human\nnature; but that it should comprehend nothing else, or consist in one\nquality only, has no proof or reason; and we are, in fact, taught that\nit comprises also what is so far from being essential that it may be\nboth lost and regained. When God is called \u201cthe Father of spirits,\u201d a\nlikeness is suggested between man and God in the _spirituality_ of their\nnature. This is also implied in the striking argument of St. Paul with\nthe Athenians: \u201cForasmuch, then, as we are the OFFSPRING of God, we\nought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or\nstone, graven by art and man\u2019s device;\u201d--plainly referring to the\nidolatrous statues by which God was represented among Heathens. If\nlikeness to God in man consisted in bodily shape, this would not have\nbeen an argument against human representations of the Deity; but it\nimports, as Howe well expresses it, that \u201cwe are to understand that our\nresemblance to him, as we are his offspring, lies in some higher, more\nnoble, and more excellent thing, of which there can be no figure; as who\ncan tell how to give the figure or image of a thought, or of the mind or\nthinking power?\u201d In _spirituality_, and, consequently, immateriality,\nthis image of God in man, then, in the first instance, consists. Nor is\nit any valid objection to say, that \u201cimmateriality is not peculiar to\nthe soul of man; for we have reason to believe that the inferior animals\nare actuated by an immaterial principle.\u201d This is as certain as analogy\ncan make it: but though we allow a spiritual principle to animals, its\n_kind_ is obviously inferior; for that spirit which is incapable of\ninduction and moral knowledge, must be of an inferior order to the\nspirit which possesses these capabilities; and this is the kind of\nspirit which is peculiar to man.\n\nThe sentiment expressed in Wisdom ii, 23, is an evidence that, in the\nopinion of the ancient Jews, the image of God in man comprised\n_immortality_ also. \u201cFor God created man to be immortal, and made him to\nbe an image of his own eternity:\u201d and though other creatures were made\ncapable of immortality, and at least the material human frame, whatever\nwe may think of the case of animals, would have escaped death, had not\nsin entered the world; yet, without admitting the absurdity of the\n\u201cnatural immortality\u201d of the human soul, that essence must have been\nconstituted immortal in a high and peculiar sense which has ever\nretained its prerogative of continued duration amidst the universal\ndeath not only of animals, but of the bodies of all human beings. There\nappears also a manifest allusion to man\u2019s immortality, as being included\nin _the image of God_, in the reason which is given in Genesis for the\nlaw which inflicts death on murderers: \u201cWhoso sheddeth man\u2019s blood, by\nman shall his blood be shed: for in _the image of God_ made he man.\u201d The\nessence of the crime of homicide is not confined here to the putting to\ndeath the mere animal part of man; and it must, therefore, lie in the\npeculiar value of life to an immortal being, accountable in another\nstate for the actions done in this, and whose life ought to be specially\nguarded for this very reason, that death introduces him into changeless\nand eternal relations, which were not to be left to the mercy of human\npassions.\n\nTo these we are to add the _intellectual powers_, and we have what\ndivines, in perfect accordance with the Scriptures, have called, \u201cthe\nNATURAL image of God in his creatures,\u201d which is essential and\nineffaceable. Man was made capable of _knowledge_, and he was endowed\nwith liberty of _will_.\n\nThis natural image of God was the foundation of that MORAL image by\nwhich also man was distinguished. Unless he had been a spiritual,\nknowing, and willing being, he would have been wholly incapable of\n_moral_ qualities. That he had such qualities eminently, and that in\nthem consisted the image of God, as well as in the natural attributes\njust stated, we have also the express testimony of Scripture: \u201cLo this\nonly have I found, that God made man UPRIGHT; but they have sought out\nmany inventions.\u201d There is also an express allusion to the moral image\nof God, in which man was at first created, in Colossians iii, 10: \u201cAnd\nhave put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image\nof Him that created him;\u201d and in Ephesians iv, 24: \u201cPut on the new man,\nwhich after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.\u201d In these\npassages the Apostle represents the change produced in true Christians\nby the Gospel, as a \u201crenewal of the image of God in man; as a new or\nsecond creation in that image;\u201d and he explicitly declares, that that\nimage consists in \u201cknowledge,\u201d in \u201crighteousness,\u201d and in \u201ctrue\nholiness.\u201d\n\nThis also may be finally argued from the satisfaction with which the\nhistorian of the creation represents the Creator as viewing the works of\nhis hands as \u201c_very good_,\u201d which was pronounced with reference to each\nof them individually, as well as to the whole: \u201cAnd God saw _every\nthing_ that he had made, and behold it was very good.\u201d But, as to man,\nthis goodness must necessarily imply moral as well as physical\nqualities. Without them he would have been imperfect as _man_; and had\nthey, in their first exercises, been perverted and sinful, he must have\nbeen an exception, and could not have been pronounced \u201cvery good.\u201d The\ngoodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in devotedness and\nconsecration to God; consequently, man was at first holy. A rational\ncreature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, and living in\ncommunion with the Most Holy One. Adam, at first, did or did not exert\nthis capacity; if he did not, he was not _very good_,--not good at all.\n\n4. On the intellectual and moral endowments of the progenitor of the\nhuman race, erring views appear to have been taken on both sides.\n\nIn knowledge, some have thought him little inferior to the angels;\nothers, as furnished with but the simple elements of science and of\nlanguage. The truth seems to be that, as to _capacity_, his intellect\nmust have been vigorous beyond that of any of his fallen descendants;\nwhich itself gives us very high views of the strength of his\nunderstanding, although we should allow him to have been created \u201clower\nthan the angels.\u201d As to his _actual knowledge_, that would depend upon\nthe time and opportunity he had for observing the nature and laws of the\nobjects around him; and the degree in which he was favoured with\nrevelations from God on moral and religious subjects.\n\nOn the degree of moral excellence also in the first man, much license\nhas been given to a warm imagination, and to rhetorical embellishment;\nand Adam\u2019s perfection has sometimes been fixed at an elevation which\nrenders it exceedingly difficult to conceive how he could fall into sin\nat all. On the other hand, those who either deny or hold very slightly\nthe doctrine of our hereditary depravity, delight to represent Adam as\nlittle superior in moral perfection and capability to his descendants.\nBut, if we attend to the passages of holy writ above quoted, we shall be\nable, on this subject, to ascertain, if not the exact degree of his\nmoral endowments, yet that there is a certain standard below which they\ncannot be placed.--Generally, he was made in the _image_ of God, which,\nwe have already proved, is to be understood _morally_ as well as\n_naturally_. Now, however the image of any thing may be limited in\nextent, it must still be an accurate representation as far as it goes.\nEvery thing good in the creation must always be a miniature\nrepresentation of the excellence of the Creator; but, in this case, the\n\u201cgoodness,\u201d that is, the perfection, of every creature, according to the\npart it was designed to act in the general assemblage of beings\ncollected into our system, wholly forbids us to suppose that the image\nof God\u2019s moral perfections in man was a blurred and dim representation.\nTo whatever _extent_ it went, it necessarily excluded all that from man\nwhich did not resemble God; it was a likeness to God in \u201crighteousness\nand true holiness,\u201d whatever the degree of each might be, and excluded\nall admixture of unrighteousness and unholiness. Man, therefore, in his\noriginal state, was _sinless_, both in act and in principle. Hence it is\nsaid that \u201cGod made man UPRIGHT.\u201d That this signifies moral rectitude\ncannot be doubted; but the import of the word is very extensive. It\nexpresses, by an easy figure, the _exactness_ of truth, justice, and\nobedience; and it comprehends the state and habit both of the heart and\nthe life. Such, then, was the condition of primitive man; there was no\nobliquity in his moral principles, his mind, or affections; none in his\nconduct. He was perfectly sincere and exactly just, rendering from the\nheart all that was due to God and to the creature. Tried by the exactest\n_plummet_, he was _upright_; by the most perfect rule, he was\n_straight_.\n\nThe \u201c_knowledge_\u201d in which the Apostle Paul, in the passage quoted above\nfrom Colossians iii, 10, places \u201cthe image of God\u201d after which man was\ncreated, does not merely imply the faculty of understanding, which is a\npart of the _natural_ image of God; but that which might be lost,\nbecause it is that in which we may be \u201c_renewed_.\u201d It is, therefore, to\nbe understood of the faculty of knowledge in right exercise; and of that\nwilling reception, and firm retaining, and hearty approval, of religious\ntruth, in which knowledge, when spoken of morally, is always understood\nin the Scriptures. We may not be disposed to allow, with some, that Adam\nunderstood the deep philosophy of nature, and could comprehend and\nexplain the sublime mysteries of religion. The circumstance of his\ngiving names to the animals, is certainly no sufficient proof of his\nhaving attained to a philosophical acquaintance with their qualities and\ndistinguishing habits, although we should allow their names to be still\nretained in the Hebrew, and to be as expressive of their peculiarities\nas some expositors have stated. Sufficient time appears not to have been\nafforded him for the study of the properties of animals, as this event\ntook place previous to the formation of Eve; and as for the notion of\nhis acquiring knowledge by intuition, this is contradicted by the\n_revealed_ fact, that angels themselves acquire their knowledge by\nobservation and study, though no doubt, with great rapidity and\ncertainty. The whole of this transaction was supernatural; the beasts\nwere \u201cbrought\u201d to Adam, and it is probable that he named them under a\nDivine suggestion. He has been also supposed to be the inventor of\nlanguage, but his history shows that he was never without speech. From\nthe first he was able to converse with God; and we may, therefore, infer\nthat language was in him a supernatural and miraculous endowment. That\nhis understanding was, as to its capacity, deep and large beyond any of\nhis posterity, must follow from the perfection in which he was created;\nand his acquisitions of knowledge would, therefore, be rapid and easy.\nIt was, however, in moral and religious truth, as being of the first\nconcern to him, that we are to suppose the excellency of his knowledge\nto have consisted. \u201cHis reason would be clear, his judgment uncorrupted,\nand his conscience upright and sensible.\u201d The best knowledge would, in\nhim, be placed first, and that of every other kind be made subservient\nto it, according to its relation to that. The Apostle adds to knowledge,\n\u201crighteousness and true holiness;\u201d terms which express, not merely\nfreedom from sin, but positive and active virtue.\n\nSober as these views of man\u2019s primitive state are, it is not, perhaps,\npossible for us fully to conceive of so exalted a condition as even\nthis. Below this standard it could not fall; and that it implied a\nglory, and dignity, and moral greatness of a very exalted kind, is made\nsufficiently apparent from the degree of guilt charged upon Adam when he\nfell: for the aggravating circumstances of his offence may well be\ndeduced from the tremendous consequences which followed.\n\n5. The salvation of Adam has been disputed; for what reason does not\nappear, except that the silence of Scripture, as to his after life, has\ngiven bold men occasion to obtrude their speculations upon a subject\nwhich called for no such expression of opinion. As nothing to the\ncontrary appears, the charitable inference is, that as he was the first\nto receive the promise of redemption, so he was the first to prove its\nvirtue. It is another presumption, that as Adam and Eve were clothed\nwith skins of beasts, which could not have been slain for food, these\nwere the skins of their sacrifices; and as the offering of animal\nsacrifice was an expression of faith in the appointed propitiation, to\nthat refuge we may conclude they resorted, and through its merits were\naccepted.\n\n6. The Rabbinical and Mohammedan traditions and fables respecting the\nfirst man are as absurd as they are numerous. Some of them indeed are\nmonstrous, unless we suppose them to be allegories in the exaggerated\nstyle of the orientals. Some say that he was nine hundred cubits high;\nwhilst others, not satisfied with this, affirm that his head touched the\nheavens. The Jews think that he wrote the ninety-first Psalm, invented\nthe Hebrew letters, and composed several treatises; the Arabians, that\nhe preserved twenty books which fell from heaven; and the Musselmen,\nthat he himself wrote ten volumes.\n\n7. That Adam was a type of Christ, is plainly affirmed by St. Paul, who\ncalls him \u201cthe figure of him who was to come.\u201d Hence our Lord is\nsometimes called, not inaptly, the Second Adam. This typical relation\nstands sometimes in SIMILITUDE, sometimes in CONTRAST. Adam was formed\nimmediately by God, as was the humanity of Christ. In each the nature\nwas spotless, and richly endowed with knowledge and true holiness. Both\nare seen invested with dominion over the earth and all its creatures;\nand this may explain the eighth Psalm, where David seems to make the\nsovereignty of the first man over the whole earth in its pristine glory,\nthe prophetic symbol of the dominion of Christ over the world restored.\nBeyond these particulars fancy must not carry us; and the typical\nCONTRAST must also be limited to that which is stated in Scripture, or\nsupported by its allusions. Adam and Christ were each a public person, a\n_federal head_ to the whole race of mankind; but the one was the\nfountain of sin and death, the other of righteousness and life. By\nAdam\u2019s transgression \u201cmany were made sinners,\u201d Rom. v, 14\u201319. Through\nhim, \u201cdeath passed upon all men, because all have sinned\u201d in him. But he\nthus prefigured that one man, by whose righteousness the \u201cfree gift\ncomes upon all men to justification of life.\u201d The first man communicated\na living soul to all his posterity; the other is a quickening Spirit, to\nrestore them to newness of life now, and to raise them up at the last\nday. By the imputation of the first Adam\u2019s sin, and the communication of\nhis fallen, depraved nature, death reigned over those who had not sinned\nafter the similitude of Adam\u2019s transgression; and through the\nrighteousness of the Second Adam, and the communication of a divine\nnature by the Holy Spirit, favour and grace shall much more abound in\nChrist\u2019s true followers unto eternal life. See REDEMPTION.\n\nADAMA, one of the five cities which were destroyed by fire from heaven,\nand buried under the waters of the Dead Sea, Gen. xiv, 2; Deut. xxix,\n23. It was the most easterly of all those which were swallowed up; and\nthere is some probability that it was not entirely sunk under the\nwaters; or that the inhabitants of the country built a new city of the\nsame name upon the eastern shore of the Dead Sea: for Isaiah, according\nto the Septuagint, says, \u201cGod will destroy the Moabites, the city of Ar,\nand the remnant of Adama.\u201d\n\nADAMANT, \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e8, \u1f08\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, Ecclus. xvi, 16. A stone of impenetrable\nhardness. Sometimes this name is given to the diamond; and so it is\nrendered, Jer. xvii, 1. But the Hebrew word rather means a very hard\nkind of stone, probably the _smiris_, which was also used for cutting,\nengraving, and polishing other hard stones and crystals. The word occurs\nalso in Ezek. iii, 9, and Zech. vii, 12. In the former place the Lord\nsays to the Prophet, \u201cI have made thy forehead as an adamant, firmer\nthan a rock;\u201d that is, endued thee with undaunted courage. In the\nlatter, the hearts of wicked men are declared to be as adamant; neither\nbroken by the threatenings and judgments of God, nor penetrated by his\npromises, invitations, and mercies. See DIAMOND.\n\nADAMITES, sects reputed to have professed the attainment of a perfect\ninnocence, so that they wore no clothes in their assemblies. But Lardner\ndoubts their existence in ancient, and Beausobre in modern, times.\n\nADAR, the twelfth month of the ecclesiastical, and the sixth of the\ncivil, year among the Hebrews. It contains but twenty-nine days, and\nanswers to our February, and sometimes enters into March, according to\nthe course of the moon, by which they regulated their seasons.\n\nADARCONIM, \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, a sort of money, mentioned 1 Chron. xxix, 7, and\nEzra viii, 27. The Vulgate translates it, _golden pence_, the LXX,\n_pieces of gold_. They were darics, a gold coin, which some value at\ntwenty drachms of silver.\n\nADER. Jerom observes, that the place where the angels declared the birth\nof Jesus Christ to the shepherds, was called by this name, Luke ii, 8,\n9. The empress Helena built a church on this spot, the remains of which\nare still visible.\n\nADDER, a venomous serpent, more usually called the viper. In our\ntranslation of the Bible we find the word adder five times; but without\nsufficient authority from the original.\n\n\u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e4\u05d5\u05df, in Gen. xlix, 17, is probably the cerastes; a serpent of the\nviper kind, of a light brown colour, which lurks in the sand and the\ntracks of wheels in the road, and unexpectedly bites not only the unwary\ntraveller, but the legs of horses and other beasts. By comparing the\nDanites to this artful reptile, the patriarch intimated that by\nstratagem, more than by open bravery, they should avenge themselves of\ntheir enemies and extend their conquests.--\u05e4\u05ea\u05df, in Psalm lviii, 4; xci,\n13, signifies an asp. We may perhaps trace to this the Python of the\nGreeks, and its derivatives. (See _Asp_.)--\u05e2\u05db\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1, \u05e2\u05db\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 found only in\nPsalm cxl, 3, is derived from a verb which signifies _to bend back on\nitself_. The Chaldee Paraphrasts render it \u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9, which we translate\nelsewhere, _spider_: they may therefore have understood it to have been\nthe tarantula. It is rendered _asp_ by the Septuagint and Vulgate, and\nis so taken, Rom. iii, 13. The name is from the Arabic _achasa_. But\nthere are several serpents which coil themselves previously to darting\non their enemy; if this be a character of the asp, it is not peculiar to\nthat reptile.--\u05e6\u05e4\u05e2, or \u05e6\u05e4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9, Prov. xxiii, 32; Isaiah xi, 8; xiv, 29;\nlix, 5; and Jer. viii, 17, is that deadly serpent called the basilisk,\nsaid to kill with its very breath. See COCKATRICE.\n\nIn Psalm lviii, 5, reference is made to the effect of musical sounds\nupon serpents. That they might be rendered tame and harmless by certain\ncharms, or soft and sweet sounds, and trained to delight in music, was\nan opinion which prevailed very early and universally.\n\nMany ancient authors mention this effect; Virgil speaks of it\nparticularly, _\u00c6n._ vii, v, 750.\n\n            _Quin et Marrubia venit de gente sacerdos,\n            Fronde super galeam et felici comptus oliva,\n            Archippi regis missu fortissimus Umbro;\n            Vipereo generi, et graviter spirantibus hydris\n            Spargere qui somnos cantuque manuque solebat,\n            Mulcebatque iras, et morsus arte levabat._\n\n             \u201cUmbro, the brave Marrubian priest, was there,\n              Sent by the Marsian monarch to the war.\n             The smiling olive with her verdant boughs\n             Shades his bright helmet and adorns his brows;\n             His charms in peace the furious serpent keep;\n             And lull the envenom\u2019d viper\u2019s race to sleep:\n             His healing hand allay\u2019d the raging pain,\n             And at his touch the poisons fled again.\u201d\n                                                  _Pitt._\n\nMr. Boyle quotes the following passage from Sir H. Blunt\u2019s Voyage into\nthe Levant:--\n\n\u201cMany rarities of living creatures I saw in Grand Cairo; but the most\ningenious was a nest of serpents, of two feet long, black and ugly, kept\nby a Frenchman, who, when he came to handle them, would not endure him,\nbut ran and hid in their hole. Then he would take his cittern and play\nupon it. They, hearing his music, came all crawling to his feet, and\nbegan to climb up him, till he gave over playing, then away they ran.\u201d\n\nThe wonderful effect which music produces on the serpent tribes, is\nconfirmed by the testimony of several respectable moderns. Adders swell\nat the sound of a flute, raising themselves up on the one half of their\nbody, turning themselves round, beating proper time, and following the\ninstrument. Their head, naturally round and long like an eel, becomes\nbroad and flat like a fan. The tame serpents, many of which the\norientals keep in their houses, are known to leave their holes in hot\nweather, at the sound of a musical instrument, and run upon the\nperformer. Dr. Shaw had an opportunity of seeing a number of serpents\nkeep exact time with the Dervishes in their circulatory dances, running\nover their heads and arms, turning when they turned, and stopping when\nthey stopped. The rattlesnake acknowledges the power of music as much as\nany of his family; of which the following instance is a decisive proof:\nWhen Chateaubriand was in Canada, a snake of that species entered their\nencampment; a young Canadian, one of the party, who could play on the\nflute, to divert his associates, advanced against the serpent with his\nnew species of weapon: on the approach of his enemy, the haughty reptile\ncurled himself into a spiral line, flattened his head, inflated his\ncheeks, contracted his lips, displayed his envenomed fangs, and his\nbloody throat, his double tongue glowed like two flames of fire; his\neyes were burning coals; his body, swollen with rage, rose and fell like\nthe bellows of a forge; his dilated skin assumed a dull and scaly\nappearance; and his tail, which sounded the denunciation of death,\nvibrated with so great rapidity as to resemble a light vapour. The\nCanadian now began to play upon his flute, the serpent started with\nsurprise, and drew back his head. In proportion as he was struck with\nthe magic effect, his eyes lost their fierceness, the oscillations of\nhis tail became slower, and the sound which it emitted became weaker,\nand gradually died away. Less perpendicular upon their spiral line, the\nrings of the fascinated serpent were by degrees expanded, and sunk one\nafter another upon the ground, in concentric circles. The shades of\nazure, green, white, and gold, recovered their brilliancy on his\nquivering skin, and slightly turning his head, he remained motionless,\nin the attitude of attention and pleasure. At this moment, the Canadian\nadvanced a few steps, producing with his flute sweet and simple notes.\nThe reptile, inclining his variegated neck, opened a passage with his\nhead through the high grass, and began to creep after the musician,\nstopping when he stopped, and beginning to follow him again, as soon as\nhe moved forward. In this manner he was led out of their camp, attended\nby a great number of spectators, both savages and Europeans, who could\nscarcely believe their eyes, when they beheld this wonderful effect of\nharmony. The assembly unanimously decreed, that the serpent which had so\nhighly entertained them, should be permitted to escape. Many of them are\ncarried in baskets through Hindostan, and procure a maintenance for a\nset of people who play a few simple notes on the flute, with which the\nsnakes seem much delighted, and keep time by a graceful motion of the\nhead, erecting about half their length from the ground, and following\nthe music with gentle curves, like the undulating lines of a swan\u2019s\nneck.\n\nBut on some serpents, these charms seem to have no power; and it appears\nfrom Scripture, that the adder sometimes takes precautions to prevent\nthe fascination which he sees preparing for him: \u201cfor the deaf adder\nshutteth her ear, and will not hear the voice of the most skilful\ncharmer.\u201d The threatening of the Prophet Jeremiah proceeds upon the same\nfact: \u201cI will send serpents\u201d (cockatrices) \u201camong you, which will not be\ncharmed, and they shall bite you.\u201d In all these quotations, the sacred\nwriters, while they take it for granted that many serpents are disarmed\nby charming, plainly admit that the powers of the charmer are in vain\nexerted upon others.\n\nIt is the opinion of some interpreters, that the word \u05e9\u05d7\u05dc, which in some\nparts of Scripture denotes a lion, in others means an adder, or some\nother kind of serpent. Thus, in the ninety-first Psalm, they render it\nthe basilisk: \u201cThou shalt tread upon the adder and the basilisk, the\nyoung lion and the dragon thou shalt trample under foot.\u201d Indeed, all\nthe ancient expositors agree, that some species of serpent is meant,\nalthough they cannot determine what particular serpent the sacred writer\nhad in view. The learned Bochart thinks it extremely probable that the\nholy Psalmist in this verse treats of serpents only; and, by\nconsequence, that both the terms \u05e9\u05d7\u05dc and \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8 mean some kind of snakes,\nas well as \u05e4\u05ea\u05df and \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df; because the coherence of the verse is by this\nview better preserved, than by mingling lions and serpents together, as\nour translators and other interpreters have commonly done; nor is it\neasy to imagine what can be meant by treading upon the lion, and\ntrampling the young lion under foot; for it is not possible in walking\nto tread upon the lion, as upon the adder, the basilisk, and other\nserpents.\n\nTo ADJURE, to bind by oath, as under the penalty of a fearful curse,\nJoshua vi, 26; Mark v, 7. 2. To charge solemnly, as by the authority,\nand under pain, of the displeasure of God, Matt. xxvi, 63; Acts xix, 13.\n\nADONAI, one of the names of God. This word in the plural number\nsignifies _my Lords_. The Jews, who either out of respect or\nsuperstition, do not pronounce the name of Jehovah, read Adonai in the\nroom of it, as often as they meet with Jehovah in the Hebrew text. But\nthe ancient Jews were not so scrupulous. Neither is there any law which\nforbids them to pronounce any name of God.\n\nADONIS. The text of the Vulgate in Ezek. viii, 14, says, that the\nProphet saw women sitting in the temple, and weeping for Adonis; but\naccording to the reading of the Hebrew text, they are said to weep for\nThamuz, or Tammuz, the _hidden one_. Among the Egyptians Adonis was\nadored under the name of Osiris, the husband of Isis. But he was\nsometimes called by the name of Ammuz, or Tammuz, _the concealed_,\nprobably to denote his death or burial. The Hebrews, in derision,\nsometimes call him the _dead_, Psalm cvi, 28; Lev. xix, 28; because they\nwept for him, and represented him as dead in his coffin; and at other\ntimes they denominate him the image of jealousy, Ezek. viii, 3, 5,\nbecause he was the object of the jealousy of Mars. The Syrians,\nPh\u0153nicians, and Cyprians, called him Adonis; and Calmet is of opinion\nthat the Ammonites and Moabites designated him by the name of Baal-peor.\n\nThe manner in which they celebrated the festival of this false deity was\nas follows: They represented him as lying dead in his coffin, wept for\nhim, bemoaned themselves, and sought for him with great eagerness and\ninquietude. After this, they pretended that they had found him again,\nand that he was still living. At this good news they exhibited marks of\nthe most extravagant joy, and were guilty of a thousand lewd practices,\nto convince Venus how much they congratulated her on the return and\nrevival of her favourite, as they had before condoled with her on his\ndeath. The Hebrew women, of whom the Prophet Ezekiel speaks, celebrated\nthe feasts of Tammuz, or Adonis, in Jerusalem; and God showed the\nProphet these women weeping for this infamous god, even in his temple.\n\nFabulous history gives the following account of Adonis: He was a\nbeautiful young shepherd, the son of Cyniras, king of Cyprus, by his own\ndaughter Myrrha. The goddess Venus fell in love with this youth, and\nfrequently met him on mount Libanus. Mars, who envied this rival,\ntransformed himself into a wild boar, and, as Adonis was hunting, struck\nhim in the groin and killed him. Venus lamented the death of Adonis in\nan inconsolable manner. The eastern people, in imitation of her\nmourning, generally established some solemn days for the bewailing of\nAdonis. After his death, Venus went to the shades, and obtained from\nProserpine, that Adonis might be with her six months in the year, and\ncontinue the other six in the infernal regions. Upon this were founded\nthose public rejoicings, which succeeded the lamentations of his death.\nSome say that Adonis was a native of Syria; some, of Cyprus; and others,\nof Egypt.\n\nADOPTION. An act by which one takes another into his family, owns him\nfor his son, and appoints him his heir. The Greeks and Romans had many\nregulations concerning adoption. It does not appear that adoption,\nproperly so called, was formerly in use among the Jews. Moses makes no\nmention of it in his laws; and the case of Jacob\u2019s two grandsons, Gen.\nxlviii, 14, seems rather a substitution.\n\n2. Adoption in a theological sense is that act of God\u2019s free grace by\nwhich, upon our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received into\nthe family of God, and entitled to the inheritance of heaven. This\nappears not so much a distinct act of God, as involved in, and\nnecessarily flowing from, our justification; so that, at least the one\nalways implies the other. Nor is there any good ground to suppose that\nin the New Testament the term adoption is used with any reference to the\ncivil practice of adoption by the Greeks, Romans, or other Heathens, and\ntherefore it is not judicious to illustrate the texts in which the word\noccurs by their formalities. The Apostles in using the term appear to\nhave had before them the simple view, that our sins had deprived us of\nour sonship, the favour of God, and the right to the inheritance of\neternal life; but that, upon our return to God, and reconciliation with\nhim, our forfeited privileges were not only restored, but greatly\nheightened through the paternal kindness of God. They could scarcely be\nforgetful of the affecting parable of the prodigal son; and it is under\nthe same view that St. Paul quotes from the Old Testament, \u201cWherefore\ncome out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch\nnot the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father\nunto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord\nAlmighty.\u201d\n\nAdoption, then, is that act by which we who were alienated, and enemies,\nand disinherited, are made the sons of God, and heirs of his eternal\nglory. \u201cIf children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with\nChrist;\u201d where it is to be remarked, that it is not in our own right,\nnor in the right of any work done in us, or which we ourselves do,\nthough it should be an evangelical work, that we become heirs; but\njointly with Christ, and in his right.\n\n3. To this state belong, freedom from a servile spirit, for we are not\nservants but sons; the special love and care of God our heavenly Father;\na filial confidence in him; free access to him at all times and in all\ncircumstances; a title to the heavenly inheritance; and the Spirit of\nadoption, or the witness of the Holy Spirit to our adoption, which is\nthe foundation of all the comfort we can derive from those privileges,\nas it is the only means by which we can know that they are ours.\n\n4. The last mentioned great privilege of adoption merits special\nattention. It consists in the inward witness or testimony of the Holy\nSpirit to the sonship of believers, from which flows a comfortable\npersuasion or conviction of our present acceptance with God, and the\nhope of our future and eternal glory. This is taught in several passages\nof Scripture:--\n\nRom. viii, 15, 16, \u201cFor ye have not received the spirit of bondage again\nto fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The\nSpirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children\nof God.\u201d In this passage it is to be remarked, 1. That the Holy Spirit\ntakes away \u201cfear,\u201d a servile dread of God as offended. 2. That the\n\u201cSpirit of God\u201d here mentioned, is not the personified spirit or genius\nof the Gospel, as some would have it, but \u201cthe Spirit itself,\u201d or\nhimself, and hence he is called in the Galatians, \u201cthe Spirit of his\nSon,\u201d which cannot mean the genius of the Gospel. 3. That he inspires a\nfilial confidence in God, as our Father, which is opposed to \u201cthe fear\u201d\nproduced by the \u201cspirit of bondage.\u201d 4. That he excites this filial\nconfidence, and enables us to call God our Father, by witnessing,\nbearing testimony with our spirit, \u201cthat we are the children of God.\u201d\n\nGal. iv, 4\u20136, \u201cBut when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth\nhis Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were\nunder the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons; and because\nye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,\ncrying, Abba, Father.\u201d Here also are to be noted, 1. The means of our\nredemption from under (the curse of) the law,--the incarnation and\nsufferings of Christ. 2. That the adoption of sons follows upon our\nactual redemption from that curse, or, in other words, upon our pardon.\n3. That upon our being pardoned, the \u201cSpirit of the Son\u201d is \u201csent forth\ninto our hearts,\u201d producing the same effect as that mentioned in the\nEpistle to the Romans, viz. filial confidence in God,--\u201ccrying, Abba,\nFather.\u201d To these texts are to be added all those passages, so numerous\nin the New Testament, which express the confidence and the joy of\nChristians; their friendship with God; their confident access to him as\ntheir God; their entire union and delightful intercourse with him in\nspirit.\n\nThis has been generally termed the doctrine of assurance, and, perhaps,\nthe expressions of St. Paul, \u201cthe full assurance of faith,\u201d and \u201cthe\nfull assurance of hope,\u201d may warrant the use of the word. But as there\nis a current and generally understood sense of this term, implying that\nthe assurance of our present acceptance and sonship implies an assurance\nof our final perseverance, and of an indefeasible title to heaven; the\nphrase, a comfortable persuasion, or conviction of our justification and\nadoption, arising out of the Spirit\u2019s inward and direct testimony, is to\nbe preferred.\n\nThere is, also, another reason for the sparing and cautious use of the\nterm assurance, which is, that it seems to imply, though not\nnecessarily, the absence of all doubt, and shuts out all those lower\ndegrees of persuasion which may exist in the experience of Christians.\nFor, our faith may not at first, or at all times, be equally strong, and\nthe testimony of the Spirit may have its degrees of clearness.\nNevertheless, the fulness of this attainment is to be pressed upon every\none: \u201cLet us draw near,\u201d says St. Paul to all Christians, \u201cwith full\nassurance of faith.\u201d\n\nIt may serve, also, to remove an objection sometimes made to the\ndoctrine, and to correct an error which sometimes pervades the statement\nof it, to observe that this assurance, persuasion, or conviction,\nwhichever term be adopted, is not of the essence of justifying faith;\nthat is, justifying faith does not consist in the assurance that I am\nnow forgiven, through Christ. This would be obviously contradictory. For\nwe must believe before we can be justified; much more before we can be\nassured, in any degree, that we are justified:--this persuasion,\ntherefore, follows justification, and is one of its results. But though\nwe must not only distinguish, but separate, this persuasion of our\nacceptance from the faith which justifies, we must not separate it, but\nonly distinguish it, from justification itself. With that come in as\nconcomitants, adoption, the \u201cSpirit of adoption,\u201d and regeneration.\n\nADORATION, the act of rendering divine honours; or of addressing God or\nany other being as supposing it to be God. (See _Worship_.) The word is\ncompounded of _ad_, \u201cto,\u201d and _os_, \u201cmouth;\u201d and literally signifies to\napply the hand to the mouth; _manum ad os admovere_, \u201cto kiss the hand;\u201d\nthis being in eastern countries one of the great marks of respect and\nsubmission. To this mode of idolatrous worship Job refers, xxxi, 26, 27.\nSee also 1 Kings xix, 18.\n\nThe Jewish manner of adoration was by prostration, bowing, and kneeling.\nThe Christians adopted the Grecian, rather than the Roman, method, and\nalways adored uncovered. The ordinary posture of the ancient Christians\nwas kneeling; but on Sundays, standing.\n\nADORATION is also used for certain extraordinary acts of civil honour,\nwhich resemble those paid to the Deity, yet are given to men.\n\nWe read of adorations paid to kings, princes, emperors, popes, bishops,\nabbots, &c, by kneeling, falling prostrate, kissing the feet, hands,\ngarments, &c.\n\nThe Persian manner of adoration, introduced by Cyrus, was by bending the\nknee, and falling on the face at the prince\u2019s feet, striking the earth\nwith the forehead, and kissing the ground. This was an indispensable\ncondition on the part of foreign ministers and ambassadors, as well as\nthe king\u2019s own vassals, of being admitted to audience, and of obtaining\nany favour. This token of reverence was ordered to be paid to their\nfavourites as well as to themselves, as we learn from the history of\nHaman and Mordecai, in the book of Esther; and even to their statues and\nimages; for Philostratus informs us that, in the time of Apollonius, a\ngolden statue of the king was exposed to all who entered Babylon, and\nnone but those who adored it were admitted within the gates. The\nceremony, which the Greeks called \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, Conon refused to perform\nto Artaxerxes, and Callisthenes to Alexander the Great, as reputing it\nimpious and unlawful.\n\nThe adoration performed to the Roman and Grecian emperors consisted in\nbowing or kneeling at the prince\u2019s feet, laying hold of his purple robe,\nand then bringing the hand to the lips. Some attribute the origin of\nthis practice to Constantius. They were only persons of rank or dignity\nthat were entitled to the honour. Bare kneeling before the emperor to\ndeliver a petition, was also called adoration.\n\nIt is particularly said of Dioclesian, that he had gems fastened to his\nshoes, that divine honours might be more willingly paid him, by kissing\nhis feet. And this mode of adoration was continued till the last age of\nthe Greek monarchy. When any one pays his respects to the king of Achen\nin Sumatra, he first takes off his shoes and stockings, and leaves them\nat the door.\n\nThe practice of adoration may be said to be still subsisting in England,\nin the custom of kissing the king\u2019s or queen\u2019s hand.\n\nAdoration is also used in the court of Rome, in the ceremony of kissing\nthe pope\u2019s feet. It is not certain at what period this practice was\nintroduced into the church: but it was probably borrowed from the\nByzantine court, and accompanied the temporal power. Dr. Maclaine, in\nthe chronological table which he has subjoined to his translation of\nMosheim\u2019s _Ecclesiastical History_, places its introduction in the\neighth century, immediately after the grant of Pepin and Charlemagne.\nBaronius traces it to a much higher antiquity, and pretends that\nexamples of this homage to the vicars of Christ occur so early as the\nyear 204. These prelates finding a vehement disposition in the people to\nfall down before them, and kiss their feet, procured crucifixes to be\nfastened on their slippers; by which stratagem, the adoration intended\nfor the pope\u2019s person is supposed to be transferred to Christ. Divers\nacts of this adoration we find offered even by princes to the pope; and\nGregory XIII, claims this act of homage as a duty.\n\nAdoration properly is paid only to the pope when placed on the altar, in\nwhich posture the cardinals, conclavists, alone are admitted to kiss his\nfeet. The people are afterward admitted to do the like at St. Peter\u2019s\nchurch; the ceremony is described at large by Guicciardin.\n\nAdoration is more particularly used for kissing one\u2019s hand in presence\nof another as a token of reverence. The Jews adored by kissing their\nhands, and bowing down their heads; whence in their language kissing is\nproperly used for adoration. This illustrates a passage in Psalm ii,\n\u201cKiss the Son lest he be angry;\u201d--that is, pay him _homage_ and\n_worship_.\n\nIt was the practice among the Greek Christians to worship with the head\nuncovered, 1 Cor. xi; but in the east the ancient custom of worshipping\nwith the head covered was retained.\n\nADRAMMELECH, the son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. The king returning\nto Nineveh, after his unhappy expedition made into Judea against king\nHezekiah, was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, whilst\nat his devotions in the temple of his god Nisroch, Isaiah xxxvii, 38; 2\nKings xix. It is not known what prompted these two princes to commit\nthis parricide; but after they had committed the murder, they fled for\nsafety to the mountains of Armenia, and their brother, Esarhaddon,\nsucceeded to the crown.\n\nADRAMMELECH was also one of the gods adored by the inhabitants of\nSepharvaim, who were settled in the country of Samaria, in the room of\nthe Israelites, who were carried beyond the Euphrates. The Sepharvaites\nmade their children pass through the fire in honour of this idol, and\nanother, called _Anammelech_, 2 Kings xvii, 31. The Rabbins say, that\nAdrammelech was represented under the form of a mule; but there is much\nmore reason to believe that Adrammelech meant the sun, and Anammelech\nthe moon; the first signifying _the magnificent king_, the second _the\ngentle king_,--many eastern nations adoring the moon as a _god_, not as\na _goddess_.\n\nADRAMYTTIUM, a city on the west coast of Mysia, in Lesser Asia, over\nagainst the isle of Lesbos. It was in a ship belonging to this place,\nthat St. Paul sailed from Cesarea to proceed to Rome as a prisoner, Acts\nxxvii, 2. It is now called _Edremit_.\n\nADRIA. This name, which occurs in Acts xxvii, 27, is now confined to the\ngulf lying between Italy on the one side, and the coasts of Dalmatia and\nAlbania on the other. But in St. Paul\u2019s time it was extended to all that\nportion of the Mediterranean between Crete and Sicily. Thus Ptolemy says\nthat Sicily was bounded on the east by the Adriatic, and Crete in a\nsimilar manner on the west; and Strabo says that the Ionian Gulf was a\npart of what, in his time, was called the Adriatic Sea.\n\nADULLAM, a city in the tribe of Judah, to the west of Hebron, whose king\nwas slain by Joshua, Josh. xii, 15. It is frequently mentioned in the\nhistory of Saul and David; and is chiefly memorable from the cave in its\nneighbourhood, where David retired from Achish, king of Gath, when he\nwas joined by the distressed and discontented, to the number of four\nhundred, over whom he became captain, 1 Sam. xxii, 1. Judas Maccabeus\nencamped in the plain of Adullam, where he passed the Sabbath day, 2\nMac. xii, 38. Eusebius says that, in his time, Adullam was a very great\ntown, ten miles to the east of Eleutheropolis.\n\nADULTERY, the violation of the marriage bed. The law of Moses punished\nwith death both the man and the woman who were guilty of this crime,\nLev. xx, 10. If a woman was betrothed to a man, and was guilty of this\ninfamous crime before the marriage was completed, she was, in this case,\nalong with her paramour, to be stoned, Deut. xxii, 22\u201324.\n\nWhen any man among the Jews, prompted by jealousy, suspected his wife of\nthe crime of adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and\ninformed them that, in consequence of his suspicions, he had privately\nadmonished her, but that she was regardless of his admonitions. If\nbefore the judges she asserted her innocency, he required that she\nshould drink the _waters of jealousy_, that God might by these means\ndiscover what she attempted to conceal, Num. v, 12, &c. The man then\nproduced his witnesses, and they were heard. After this, both the man\nand the woman were conveyed to Jerusalem, and placed before the\nsanhedrim; the judges of which, by threats and other means, endeavoured\nto confound the woman, and make her confess. If she persisted in denying\nthe fact, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel,\nstripped of her own clothes, and dressed in black, before great numbers\nof her own sex. The priest then told her, that if she was really\ninnocent, she had nothing to fear; but if guilty, she might expect to\nsuffer all that the law had denounced against her, to which she\nanswered, \u201cAmen, amen.\u201d The priest then wrote the terms of the law in\nthis form:--\u201cIf a strange man hath not come near you, and you are not\npolluted by forsaking the bed of your husband, these bitter waters,\nwhich I have cursed, will not hurt you: but if you have polluted\nyourself by coming near to another man, and gone astray from your\nhusband,--may you be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all\nhis people; may your thigh rot, and your belly swell till it burst; may\nthese cursed waters enter into your belly, and being swelled therewith,\nmay your thighs putrefy.\u201c\n\nAfter this, the priest filled a pitcher out of the brazen vessel, near\nthe altar of burnt offerings, cast some dust of the pavement into it,\nmingled something with it as bitter as wormwood, and then read the\ncurses, and received her answer of Amen. Another priest, in the\nmeantime, tore off her clothes as low as her bosom--made her head\nbare--untied the tresses of her hair--fastened her clothes, which were\nthus torn, with a girdle under her breasts, and then presented her with\nthe tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints, of barley meal. The\nother priest then gave her the _waters of jealousy_, or bitterness, to\ndrink; and as soon as the woman had swallowed them, he gave her the meal\nin a vessel like a frying-pan into her hand. This was stirred before the\nLord, and part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the wife was\ninnocent, she returned with her husband, and the waters, so far from\ninjuring her, increased her health, and made her more fruitful; but if\nshe was guilty, she grew pale immediately, her eyes swelled; and, lest\nshe should pollute the temple, she was instantly carried out, with these\nsymptoms upon her, and died instantly, with all the ignominious\ncircumstances related in the curses.\n\nOn this law of Moses, Micha\u00eblis has the following remarks:--\n\n\u201cThis oath was, perhaps, a relic of some more severe and barbarous\nconsuetudinary laws, whose rigours Moses mitigated; as he did in many\nother cases, where an established usage could not be conveniently\nabolished altogether. Among ourselves, in barbarous times, the _ordeal_,\nor trial by fire, was, notwithstanding the parity of our married people,\nin common use; and this, in point of equity, was much the same in\neffect, as if the husband had had the right to insist on his wife\nsubmitting to the hazardous trial of her purity, by drinking a poisoned\npotion; which, according to an ancient superstition, could never hurt\nher if she was innocent. And, in fact, such a right is not altogether\nunexampled; for, according to Oldendorp\u2019s _History of the Mission of the\nEvangelical Brethren, in the Caribbee Islands_, it is actually in use\namong some of the savage nations in the interior parts of Western\nAfrica.\n\n\u201cNow, when in place of a poisoned potion like this, which very few\nhusbands can be very willing to have administered to their wives, we\nsee, as among the Hebrews, an imprecation-drink, whose avenger God\nhimself promises to become, we cannot but be struck with the contrast of\nwisdom and clemency which such a contrivance manifests. In the one case,\n(and herein consists their great distinction,) innocence can only be\npreserved by a miracle; while, on the other, guilt only is revealed and\npunished by the hand of God himself.\n\n\u201cBy one of the clauses of the oath of purgation, (and had not the\nlegislator been perfectly assured of his divine mission, the insertion\nof any such clause would have been a very bold step indeed,) a visible\nand corporeal punishment was specified, which the person swearing\nimprecated on herself, and which God himself was understood as engaging\nto execute. To have given so accurate a definition of the punishment\nthat God meant to inflict, and still more one that consisted of such a\nrare disease, would have been a step of incomprehensible boldness in a\nlegislator who pretended to have a divine mission, if he was not, with\nthe most assured conviction, conscious of its reality.\n\n\u201cSeldom, however, very seldom, was it likely that Providence would have\nan opportunity of inflicting the punishment in question. For the oath\nwas so regulated, that a woman of the utmost effrontery could scarcely\nhave taken it without changing colour to such a degree as to betray\nherself.\n\n\u201cIn the _first_ place, it was not administered to the woman in her own\nhouse, but she was under the necessity of going to that place of the\nland where God in a special manner had his abode, and took it there.\nNow, the solemnity of the place, unfamiliarized to her by daily business\nor resort, would have a great effect upon her mind. In the _next_ place,\nthere was offered unto God what was termed an _execration offering_, not\nin order to propitiate his mercy, but to invoke his vengeance on the\nguilty. Here the process was extremely slow, which gave her more time\nfor reflection than to a guilty person could be acceptable, and that,\ntoo, amidst a multitude of unusual ceremonies. For the priest conducted\nher to the front of the sanctuary, and took holy water, that is, water\nout of the priests\u2019 laver, which stood before it, together with some\nearth off its floor, which was likewise deemed holy; and having put the\nearth in the water, he then proceeded to uncover the woman\u2019s head, that\nher face might be seen, and every change on her countenance during the\nadministration of the oath accurately observed: and this was a\ncircumstance which, in the east, where the women are always veiled, must\nhave had a great effect; because a woman, accustomed to wear a veil,\ncould, on so extraordinary an occasion, have had far less command of her\neyes and her countenance than a European adulteress, who is generally a\nperfect mistress in all the arts of dissimulation, would display. To\nrender the scene still more awful, the tresses of her hair were\nloosened, and then the execration offering was put into _her_ hand,\nwhile the priest held in _his_ the imprecation water. This is commonly\ntermed the _bitter water_; but we must not understand this as if the\nwater had really been bitter; for how could it have been so? The earth\nof the floor of the tabernacle could not make it bitter. Among the\nHebrews, and other oriental nations, the word _bitter_ was rather used\nfor _curse_: and, strictly speaking, the phrase does not mean _bitter\nwater_, but the _water of bitternesses_, that is, of curses. The priest\nnow pronounced the oath, which was in all points so framed that it could\nexcite no terrors in the breast of an innocent woman; for it expressly\nconsisted in this, that the imprecation water should not harm her if she\nwas innocent. It would seem as if the priest here made a stop, and again\nleft the woman some time to consider whether she would proceed with the\noath. This I infer from the circumstance of his speech not being\ndirectly continued in verse 21st, which is rather the _apodosis_ of what\ngoes before; and from the detail proceeding anew in the words of the\nhistorian, _Then shall the priest pronounce the rest of the oath and the\ncurses to the woman; and proceed thus_.--After this stop he pronounced\nthe curses, and the woman was obliged to declare her acquiescence in\nthem by a repeated _Amen_. Nor was the solemn scene yet altogether at an\nend; but rather, as it were commenced anew. For the priest had yet to\nwrite the curses in a book, which I suppose he did at great\ndeliberation; having done so, he washed them out again in the very\nimprecation water, which the woman had now to drink; and this water\nbeing now presented to her, she was obliged to drink it, with this\nwarning and assurance, in the name of God, that if she was guilty, it\nwould prove within her an absolute curse. Now, what must have been her\nfeelings, while drinking, if not conscious of purity? In my opinion she\nmust have conceived that she already felt an alteration in the state of\nher body, and the germ, as it were, of the disease springing within her.\nConscience and imagination would conspire together, and render it almost\nimpossible for her to drink it out. Finally, the execration offering was\ntaken out of her hand, and burnt upon the altar. I cannot but think\nthat, under the sanction of such a _purgatorium_, perjury must have been\na very rare occurrence indeed. If it happened but once in an age, God\nhad bound himself to punish it; and if this took place but once, (if but\none woman who had taken the oath was attacked with that rare disease\nwhich it threatened,) it was quite enough to serve as a determent to all\nothers for at least one generation.\u201d\n\nThis procedure had also the effect of keeping in mind, among the Jews,\nGod\u2019s high displeasure against this violation of his law; and though\nsome lax moralists have been found, in modern times, to palliate it, yet\nthe Christian will always remember the solemn denunciations of the New\nTestament against a crime so aggravated, whether considered in its\neffects upon the domestic relations, upon the moral character of the\nguilty parties, or upon society at large,--\u201cWhoremongers and adulterers\nGod will judge.\u201d\n\nADULTERY, in the prophetic scriptures, is often metaphorically taken,\nand signifies idolatry, and apostasy from God, by which men basely\ndefile themselves, and wickedly violate their ecclesiastical and\ncovenant relation to God, Hos. ii, 2; Ezek. xvi.\n\nADVOCATE, \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _a patron_, one who pleads the cause of any one\nbefore another. In this sense the term is applied to Christ our\nintercessor, 1 John ii, 1. It signifies also a _comforter_, and _an\ninstructer_; and is used of the Holy Spirit, John xiv, 16, and xv, 26.\n\nADYTUM is a Greek word, signifying _inaccessible_, by which is\nunderstood the most retired and secret place of the Heathen temples,\ninto which none but the priests were allowed to enter. The _adytum_ of\nthe Greeks and Romans answered to the _sanctum sanctorum_ of the Jews,\nand was the place from whence oracles were delivered.\n\n\u00c6RA, a series of years, commencing from a certain point of time called\nan _epocha_: thus we say, the Christian \u00e6ra; that is, the number of\nyears elapsed since the birth of Christ. The generality of authors use\nthe terms \u00e6ra and epocha in a synonymous sense; that is, for the point\nof time from which any computation begins.\n\nThe ancient Jews made use of several \u00e6ras in their computation;\nsometimes they reckoned from the deluge, sometimes from the division of\ntongues; sometimes from their departure out of Egypt; and at other times\nfrom the building of the temple; and sometimes from the restoration\nafter the Babylonish captivity: but their vulgar \u00e6ra was from the\ncreation of the world, which falls in with the year of the Julian period\n953; and consequently they supposed the world created 294 years sooner\nthan according to our computation. But when the Jews became subject to\nthe Syro-Macedonian kings, they were obliged to make use of the \u00e6ra of\nthe Seleucid\u00e6 in all their contracts, which from thence was called the\n\u00e6ra of contracts. This \u00e6ra begins with the year of the world 3692, of\nthe Julian period 4402, and before Christ 312. The \u00e6ra in general use\namong the Christians is that from the birth of Jesus Christ, concerning\nthe true time of which chronologers differ; some place it two years,\nothers four, and again others five, before the vulgar \u00e6ra, which is\nfixed for the year of the world 4004: but Archbishop Usher, and after\nhim the generality of modern chronologers, place it in the year of the\nworld 4000.\n\nThe ancient Heathens used several \u00e6ras:\n\n1. The \u00e6ra of the first olympiad is placed in the year of the world\n3228, and before the vulgar \u00e6ra of Jesus Christ 776. 2. The taking of\nTroy by the Greeks, in the year of the world 2820, and before Jesus\nChrist 1884. 3. The voyage undertaken for the purpose of bringing away\nthe golden fleece, in the year of the world 2760. 4. The foundation of\nRome, in 2856. 5. The \u00e6ra of Nabonassar, in 3257. 6. The \u00e6ra of\nAlexander the Great, or his last victory over Darius, in 3674, and\nbefore Jesus Christ 330.\n\nAERIANS, a sect which arose about the middle of the fourth century,\nbeing the followers of A\u00ebrius, (who must be distinguished from Arius and\nA\u00ebtius,) a monk and a presbyter of Sebastia, in Pontus. He is charged\nwith being an Arian, or Semi-Arian; but the heaviest accusation against\nhim is an attempt to reform the church; and, by rejecting prayers for\nthe dead, with certain fasts and festivals then superstitiously\nobserved, to reduce Christianity as nearly as possible \u201cto its primitive\nsimplicity; a purpose, indeed, laudable and noble,\u201d says Dr. Mosheim,\n\u201cwhen considered in itself: though the principles from _whence_ it\nsprings, and the means _by_ which it is executed, are sometimes, in many\nrespects, worthy of censure, and _may_ have been so in the case of this\nreformer.\u201d This gentle rebuke probably refers to a report that the zeal\nof A\u00ebrius originated in his being disappointed of the bishopric of\nSebastia, (conferred on Eustathius,) which led him to affirm that the\nScriptures make no distinction between a presbyter and a bishop, which\nhe founded chiefly on 1 Tim. iv, 14. Hence he is considered by many, as\nthe father of the modern Presbyterians.--\u201cFor this opinion, _chiefly_,\u201d\nsays Dr. Turner, \u201che is ranked among the heretics, by Epiphanius, his\ncontemporary, who calls it a notion _full of folly and madness_. His\nfollowers were driven from the churches, and out of all the towns and\nvillages, and were obliged to assemble in the woods, caverns, and open\ndefiles.\u201d\n\nAETIANS, another branch (as it is said) of Arians, so called from\nA\u00ebtius, bishop of Antioch, who is also charged with maintaining \u201cfaith\nwithout works,\u201d as \u201csufficient to salvation,\u201d or rather justification;\nand with maintaining \u201cthat sin is not imputed to believers.\u201d It is\nadded, that he taught God had revealed to him things which he had\n\u201cconcealed from the Apostles;\u201d which, perhaps, is only a\nmisrepresentation of what he taught on the doctrine of divine\ninfluences.\n\nAFFINITY. There are several degrees of affinity, wherein marriage was\nprohibited by the law of Moses: thus the son could not marry his mother,\nnor his father\u2019s wife, Lev. xviii, 7, &c. The brother could not marry\nhis sister, whether she were so by the father only, or only by the\nmother, and much less if she were his sister both by the same father and\nmother. The grandfather could not marry his granddaughter, either by his\nson or daughter. No one could marry the daughter of his father\u2019s wife;\nnor the sister of his father or mother; nor the uncle, his niece; nor\nthe aunt, her nephew; nor the nephew, the wife of his uncle by the\nfather\u2019s side. The father-in-law could not marry his daughter-in-law;\nnor the brother the wife of his brother, while living; nor even after\nthe death of his brother, if he left children. If he left no children,\nthe surviving brother was to raise up children to his deceased brother\nby marrying his widow. It was forbidden to marry the mother and the\ndaughter at one time, or the daughter of the mother\u2019s son, or the\ndaughter of her daughter, or two sisters, together.\n\nIt is true the patriarchs, before the law, married their sisters, as\nAbraham married Sarah, who was his father\u2019s daughter by another mother;\nand two sisters together, as Jacob married Rachel and Leah; and their\nown sisters, both by father and mother, as Seth and Cain. But these\ncases are not to be proposed as examples; because in some they were\nauthorized by necessity; in others, by custom; and the law as yet was\nnot in being. If some other examples may be found, either before or\nsince the law, the Scripture expressly disapproves of them; as Reuben\u2019s\nincest with Balah, his father\u2019s concubine; and the action of Amnon with\nhis sister Tamar; and that of Herod Antipas, who married Herodias, his\nsister-in-law, his brother Philip\u2019s wife, while her husband was yet\nliving; and that which St. Paul reproves and punishes among the\nCorinthians, 1 Cor. v, 1.\n\nAGABUS, a prophet, and as the Greeks say, one of the seventy disciples\nof our Saviour. He foretold that there would be a great famine over all\nthe earth; which came to pass accordingly, under the emperor Claudius,\nin the fourth year of his reign, A. D. 44, Acts xi, 28.\n\nTen years after this, as St. Paul was going to Jerusalem, and had\nalready landed at C\u00e6sarea, in Palestine, the same prophet, Agabus,\narrived there, and coming to visit St. Paul and his company, he took\nthis Apostle\u2019s girdle, and binding himself hand and feet, he said, \u201cThus\nsaith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that\nowneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the\nGentiles,\u201d Acts xxi, 10. We know no other particulars of the life of\nAgabus. The Greeks say that he suffered martyrdom at Antioch.\n\nAGAG. This seems to have been a common name of the princes of Amalek,\none of whom was very powerful as early as the time of Moses, Num. xxiv,\n7. On account of the cruelties exercised by this king and his army\nagainst the Israelites, as they returned from Egypt, a bloody and long\ncontested battle took place between Joshua and the Amalekites, in which\nthe former was victorious, Exod. xvii, 8\u201313. At the same time, God\nprotested with an oath to destroy Amalek, verses 14\u201316; Deut. xxv,\n17\u201319, A. M. 2513. About four hundred years after this, the Lord\nremembered the cruel treatment of his people, and his own oath; and he\ncommanded Saul, by the mouth of Samuel, to destroy the Amalekites. Saul\nmustered his army, and found it two hundred thousand strong, 1 Sam. xv,\n1, &c. Having entered into their country, he cut in pieces all he could\nmeet with from Havilah to Shur. Agag their king, and the best of their\ncattle, were however spared, an act of disobedience on the part of Saul,\nprobably dictated by covetousness. But Agag did not long enjoy this\nreprieve; for Samuel no sooner heard that he was alive, than he sent for\nhim; and notwithstanding his insinuating address, and the vain hopes\nwith which he flattered himself that the bitterness of death was past,\nhe caused him to be hewed to pieces in Gilgal before the Lord, saying,\n\u201cAs, \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8, _in the same identical mode as_, thy sword hath made women\nchildless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.\u201d This savage\nchieftain had hewed many prisoners to death; and, therefore, by command\nof the Judge of the whole earth, he was visited with the same punishment\nwhich he had inflicted upon others.\n\nAGAP\u00c6. See LOVE FEAST.\n\nAGAR, mount Sinai, so called, Gal. iv, 24, 25. But this reading is\ndoubtful, many MSS. having the verse, \u201cfor this Sinai is a mountain of\nArabia.\u201d Some critics however contend for the reading of the received\ntext, and urge that _Agar_, which signifies \u201ca rocky mountain,\u201d is the\nArabic name for _Sinai_.\n\nAGATE, \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5, Exod. xxviii, 19; xxxix, 12. In the Septuagint \u1f00\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, and\nVulgate, _achates_. A precious stone, semi-pellucid. Its variegations\nare sometimes most beautifully disposed, representing plants, trees,\nrivers, clouds, &c. Its Hebrew name is, perhaps, derived from the\ncountry whence the Jews imported it; for the merchants of Sheba brought\nto the market of Tyre all kinds of precious stones, Ezek. xxvii, 22. The\nagate was the second stone in the third row of the pectoral of the high\npriest, Exod. xxviii, 19, and xxxix, 12.\n\nAGE, in the most general sense of the term, denotes the duration of any\nsubstance, animate or inanimate; and is applied either to the whole\nperiod of its existence, or to that portion of it which precedes the\ntime to which the description of it refers. In this sense it is used to\nsignify either the whole natural duration of the LIFE of man, or any\ninterval of it that has elapsed before the period of which we speak.\nWhen age is understood of a certain portion of the life of man, its\nwhole duration is divided into four different ages, viz. infancy, youth,\nmanhood, and old age: the first extending to the fourteenth year; the\nsecond, denominated youth, adolescence, or the age of puberty,\ncommencing at fourteen, and terminating at about twenty-five; manhood,\nor the virile age, concluding at fifty; and the last ending at the close\nof life. Some divide the first period into infancy and childhood; and\nthe last likewise into two stages, calling that which succeeds the age\nof seventy-five, decrepit old age. Age is applicable to the duration of\nthings inanimate or factitious; and in this use of the term we speak of\nthe age of a house, of a country, of a state or kingdom, &c.\n\nAGE, in _chronology_, is used for a century, or a period of one hundred\nyears: in which sense it is the same with _seculum_, and differs from\n_generation_. It is also used in speaking of the times past since the\ncreation of the world. The several ages of the world may be reduced to\nthree grand epochas, viz. the age of the law of nature, called by the\nJews the void age, from Adam to Moses. The age of the Jewish law, from\nMoses to Christ, called by the Jews the present age. And the age of\ngrace, from Christ to the present year. The Jews call the third age, the\nage to come, or the future age; denoting by it the time from the advent\nof the Messiah to the end of the world. The Romans distinguished the\ntime that preceded them into three ages: the obscure or uncertain age,\nwhich reached down as low as Ogyges king of Attica, in whose reign the\ndeluge happened in Greece; the fabulous or heroic age, which ended at\nthe first olympiad; and the historical age, which commenced at the\nbuilding of Rome. Among the poets, the four ages of the world are, the\ngolden, the silver, the brazen, and the iron age.\n\nAge is sometimes used among the ancient poets in the same sense as\n_generation_, or a period of thirty years. Thus Nestor is said to have\nlived three ages, when he was ninety years old.\n\nThe period preceding the birth of Jesus Christ has been generally\ndivided into six ages. The first extends from the creation to the\ndeluge, and comprehends 1656 years. The second age, from the deluge to\nAbraham\u2019s entering the land of promise, A. M. 2082, comprehends 426\nyears. The third age from Abraham\u2019s entrance into the promised land to\nthe Exodus, A. M. 2512, includes 430 years. The fourth age, from the\nExodus to the building of the temple by Solomon, A. M. 2992, contains\n480 years. The fifth age from the foundation of Solomon\u2019s temple to the\nBabylonish captivity, A. M. 3416, comprehends 424 years. The sixth age,\nfrom the Babylonish captivity to the birth of Jesus Christ, A. M. 4000,\nthe fourth year before the vulgar \u00e6ra, includes 584 years. Those who\nfollow the Septuagint, or Greek version, divide this period into seven\nages, viz. 1. From the creation to the deluge, 2262 years. 2. From the\ndeluge to the confusion of tongues, 738 years. 3. From this confusion to\nthe calling of Abraham, 460 years. 4. From this period to Jacob\u2019s\ndescent into Egypt, 215 years; and from this event to the Exodus, 430\nyears, making the whole 645 years. 5. From the Exodus to Saul, 774\nyears. 6. From Saul to Cyrus, 583 years. 7. From Cyrus to the vulgar \u00e6ra\nof Christians, 538 years; the whole period from the creation to this\nperiod containing 6000 years.\n\nAGRIPPA, surnamed Herod, the son of Aristobulus and Mariamne, and\ngrandson of Herod the Great, was born A. M. 3997, three years before the\nbirth of our Saviour, and seven years before the vulgar \u00e6ra. After the\ndeath of his father Aristobulus, Josephus informs us that Herod, his\ngrandfather, took care of his education, and sent him to Rome to make\nhis court to Tiberius. Agrippa, having a great inclination for Caius,\nthe son of Germanicus, and grandson of Antonia, chose to attach himself\nto this prince, as if he had some prophetic views of the future\nelevation of Caius, who at that time was beloved by all the world. The\ngreat assiduity and agreeable behaviour of Agrippa so far won upon this\nprince, that he was unable to live without him. Agrippa, being one day\nin conversation with Caius, was overheard by one Eutychus, a slave whom\nAgrippa had emancipated, to say that he should be glad to see the old\nemperor take his departure for the other world and leave Caius master of\nthis, without meeting with any obstacle from the emperor\u2019s grandson,\nTiberius Nero. Eutychus, some time after this, thinking he had reason to\nbe dissatisfied with Agrippa, communicated the conversation to the\nemperor; whereupon Agrippa was loaded with fetters, and committed to the\ncustody of an officer. Soon after this, Tiberius dying, and Caius\nCaligula succeeding him, the new emperor heaped many favours and much\nwealth upon Agrippa, changed his iron fetters into a chain of gold, set\na royal diadem on his head, and gave him the tetrarchy which Philip, the\nson of Herod the Great, had been possessed of, that is, Batan\u00e6a and\nTrachonitis. To this he added that of Lysanias; and Agrippa returned\nvery soon into Judea, to take possession of his new kingdom. The emperor\nCaius, desiring to be adored as a god, commanded to have his statue set\nup in the temple of Jerusalem. But the Jews opposed this design with so\nmuch resolution, that Petronius was forced to suspend his proceedings in\nthis affair, and to represent, in a letter to the emperor, the\nresistance he met with from the Jews. Agrippa, who was then at Rome,\ncoming to the emperor at the very time he was reading the letter, Caius\ntold him that the Jews were the only people of all mankind who refused\nto own him for a deity; and that they had taken arms to oppose his\nresolution. At these words Agrippa fainted away, and, being carried home\nto his house, continued in that state for a long time. As soon as he was\nsomewhat recovered, he wrote a long letter to Caius, wherein he\nendeavoured to soften him; and his arguments made such an impression\nupon the emperor\u2019s mind, that he desisted, in appearance, from the\ndesign which he had formed of setting up his statue in the temple. Caius\nbeing killed in the beginning of the following year, A. D. 41, Agrippa,\nwho was then at Rome, contributed much by his advice to maintain\nClaudius in possession of the imperial dignity, to which he had been\nadvanced by the army. The emperor, as an acknowledgment for his kind\noffices, gave him all Judea, and the kingdom of Chalcis, which had been\npossessed by Herod his brother. Thus Agrippa became of a sudden one of\nthe greatest princes of the east, and was possessed of as much, if not\nmore territory, than had been held by Herod the Great, his grandfather.\nHe returned to Judea, and governed it to the great satisfaction of the\nJews. But the desire of pleasing them, and a mistaken zeal for their\nreligion, induced him to put to death the Apostle James, and to cast\nPeter into prison with the same design; and, but for a miraculous\ninterposition, which, however, produced no effect upon the mind of the\ntyrant, his hands would have been imbrued in the blood of two Apostles,\nthe memory whereof is preserved in Scripture. At C\u00e6sarea, he had games\nperformed in honour of Claudius. Here the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon\nwaited on him to sue for peace. Agrippa being come early in the morning\ninto the theatre, with a design to give them audience, seated himself on\nhis throne, dressed in a robe of silver tissue, worked in the most\nadmirable manner. The rising sun darted his golden beams thereon, and\ngave it such a lustre as dazzled the eyes of the spectators; and when\nthe king began his speech to the Tyrians and Sidonians, the parasites\naround him began to say, it was \u201cthe voice of a god and not of man.\u201d\nInstead of rejecting these impious flatteries, Agrippa received them\nwith an air of complacency; and the angel of the Lord smote him because\nhe did not give God the glory. Being therefore carried home to his\npalace, he died, at the end of five days, racked with tormenting pains\nin his bowels, and devoured with worms. Such was the death of Herod\nAgrippa, A. D. 44, after a reign of seven years. He left a son of the\nsame name, and three daughters--Bernice, who was married to her uncle\nHerod, her father\u2019s brother; Mariamne, betrothed to Julius Archelaus;\nand Drusilla, promised to Epiphanius, the son of Archelaus, the son of\nComagena.\n\nAGRIPPA, son of the former Agrippa, was at Rome with the emperor\nClaudius when his father died. The emperor, we are told by Josephus, was\ninclined to give him all the dominions that had been possessed by his\nfather, but was dissuaded from it, Agrippa being only seventeen years of\nage; and he kept him therefore at his court four years.\n\nThree years after this, Herod, king of Chalcis, and uncle to young\nAgrippa, dying, the emperor gave his dominions to this prince, who,\nnotwithstanding, did not go into Judea till four years after, A. D. 53;\nwhen, Claudius taking from him the kingdom of Chalcis, gave him the\nprovinces of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batan\u00e6a, Paneas, and Abylene,\nwhich formerly had been in the possession of Lysanias. After the death\nof Claudius, his successor, Nero, who had a great affection for Agrippa,\nto his other dominions added Julias in Per\u00e6a, and that part of Galilee\nto which Tarich\u00e6a and Tiberias belonged. Festus governor of Judea,\ncoming to his government, A. D. 60, king Agrippa and Bernice, his\nsister, went as far as C\u00e6sarea to salute him; and as they continued\nthere for some time, Festus talked with the king concerning the affair\nof St. Paul, who had been seized in the temple about two years before,\nand within a few days previous to his visit had appealed to the emperor.\nAgrippa wishing to hear Paul, that Apostle delivered that noble address\nin his presence which is recorded, Acts xxvi.\n\nAGUR. The thirtieth chapter of Proverbs begins with this title: \u201cThe\nwords of Agur, the son of Jakeh;\u201d and the thirty-first, with \u201cthe words\nof king Lemuel;\u201d with respect to which some conjecture that Solomon\ndescribes himself under these appellations; others, that these chapters\nare the productions of persons whose real names are prefixed. Scripture\nhistory, indeed, affords us no information respecting their situation\nand character; but there must have been sufficient reason for regarding\ntheir works in the light of inspired productions, or they would not have\nbeen admitted into the sacred canon.\n\nThey are called _Massa_, a term frequently applied to the undoubted\nproductions of the prophetic Spirit; and it is not improbable that the\nauthors meant, by the adoption of this term, to lay claim to the\ncharacter of inspiration. A succession of virtuous and eminent men,\nfavoured with divine illuminations, flourished in Judea till the final\ncompletion of the sacred code; and, most likely, many more than those\nwhose writings have been preserved. Agur may then have been one of those\nprophets whom Divine providence raised up to comfort or admonish his\nchosen people; and Lemuel may have been some neighbouring prince, the\nson of a Jewish woman, by whom he was taught the Massa contained in the\nthirty-first chapter. These, of course, can only be considered as mere\nconjectures; for, in the absence of historic evidence, who can venture\nto pronounce with certainty? The opinion, however, that Agur and Lemuel\nare appellations of Solomon, is sanctioned by so many and such\nrespectable writers, that it demands a more particular examination.\n\nThe knowledge of names was anciently regarded as a matter of the highest\nimportance, in order to understand the nature of the persons or things\nwhich they designate; and, in the opinion of the rabbins, was preferable\neven to the study of the written law. The Heathens paid considerable\nattention to it, as appears from the Cratylus of Plato; and some of the\nChristian fathers entertained very favourable notions of such knowledge.\nThe Jewish doctors, it is true, refined upon the subject with an amazing\ndegree of subtilty, grounding upon it many ridiculous ideas and absurd\nfancies; yet it is unquestionable that many of the proper names in\nScripture are significant and characteristic. Thus the names Eve, Cain,\nSeth, Noah, Abraham, Israel, &c, were imposed by reason of their being\nexpressive of the several characters of the persons whom they represent.\nReasoning from analogy, we may infer that all the proper names in the\nOld Testament, at their original imposition, were intended to denote\nsome quality or circumstance in the person or thing to which they\nbelong; and though many, from transference, have ceased to be personally\ncharacteristic, yet are they all significative.\n\nAs the custom of imposing descriptive names prevailed in the primitive\nages, it is not impossible that Agur and Lemuel may be appropriated to\nSolomon, and Jakeh to David as mystic appellations significative of\ntheir respective characters. It is even some confirmation of this\nopinion, that Solomon is denominated Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord) by\nthe Prophet Nathan; and that in the book of Ecclesiastes, he styles\nhimself Koheleth, or the Preacher. Nevertheless, this hypothesis does\nnot appear to rest upon a firm foundation. It is foreign to the\nsimplicity of the sacred penmen, and contrary to their custom in similar\ncases, to adopt a mystic name, without either explaining it, or alleging\nthe reasons for its adoption. In the names Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, &c,\nbefore alluded to; in the appellation Nabal; in the enigmatical names in\nthe first chapter of Hosea; in the descriptive names given to places, as\nBeersheba, Jehovah-jireh, Peniel, Bethel, Gilgal; and in many other\ninstances, the meaning of the terms is either explained, or the\ncircumstances are mentioned which led to their selection. When Solomon\nis called Jedidiah, it is added that it was \u201cbecause of the Lord;\u201d and\nwhen he styles himself Koheleth, an explanatory clause is annexed,\ndescribing himself \u201cthe son of David, the king of Jerusalem.\u201d But if\nSolomon be meant by the titles Agur and Lemuel, he is so called without\nany statement of the reasons for their application, and without any\nexplanation of their import; a circumstance unusual with the sacred\nwriters, and the reverse to what is practised in the book of Proverbs,\nwhere his proper name, Solomon, is attributed to him in three different\nplaces. Nor is anything characteristic of the Jewish monarchs\ndiscoverable in the terms themselves. Jakeh, which denotes _obedient_,\nis no more applicable to David than to Nathan, or any other personage of\neminent worth and piety among the Israelites. The name of Agur is not of\neasy explanation; some giving it the sense of _recollectus_, that is,\nrecovered from his errors, and become penitent; an explanation more\napplicable to David than to Solomon. Simon, in his lexicon, says it may\nperhaps denote \u201chim who applies to the study of wisdom;\u201d an\ninterpretation very suitable to the royal philosopher, but not supported\nby adequate authority; and in his Onomasticon he explains it in a\ndifferent manner. Others suppose that it means _collector_; though it\nhas been argued, that, as it has a passive form, it cannot have an\nactive sense. But this is not a valid objection, as several examples may\nbe produced from the Bible of a similar form with an active\nsignification. If such be its meaning, it is suitable to Solomon, who\nwas not the collector or compiler, but the author, of the Proverbs. With\nrespect to the name Lemuel, it signifies one that is for God, or devoted\nto God; and is not, therefore, peculiarly descriptive of Solomon. It\nappears, then, that nothing can be inferred from the signification of\nthe names Agur and Lemuel in support of the conjecture, that they are\nappellations of Solomon. The contents, likewise, of the two chapters in\nquestion strongly militate against this hypothesis.\n\nWhen all these circumstances are taken into consideration, together with\nthe extreme improbability that Solomon should be denominated three times\nby his proper name, and afterward, in the same work, by two different\nenigmatical names, we are fully warranted in rejecting the notion, that\nthe wise monarch is designed by the appellations Agur and Lemuel. And it\nseems most reasonable to consider them as denoting real persons.\n\nAHAB, the son and successor of Omri. He began his reign over Israel, A.\nM. 3086, and reigned 22 years. In impiety he far exceeded all the kings\nof Israel. He married Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Zidon,\nwho introduced the whole abominations and idols of her country, Baal and\nAshtaroth.\n\n2. AHAB the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, were two\nfalse prophets, who, about A. M. 3406, seduced the Jewish captives at\nBabylon with hopes of a speedy deliverance, and stirred them up against\nJeremiah. The Lord threatened them with a public and ignominious death,\nbefore such as they had deceived; and that their names should become a\ncurse; men wishing that their foes might be made like Ahab and Zedekiah,\nwhom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon roasted in the fire, Jer. xxix, 21,\n22.\n\nAHASUERUS was the king of Persia, who advanced Esther to be queen, and\nat her request delivered the Jews from the destruction plotted for them\nby Haman. Archbishop Usher is of opinion that this Ahasuerus was Darius\nHystaspes; and that Atossa was the Vashti, and Artystona the Esther, of\nthe Scriptures. But, according to Herodotus, the latter was the daughter\nof Cyrus, and therefore could not be Esther; and the former had four\nsons by Darius, besides daughters, born to him after he was king; and\ntherefore she could not be the queen Vashti, divorced from her husband\nin the third year of his reign, nor he the Ahasuerus who divorced her.\nBesides, Atossa retained her influence over Darius to his death, and\nobtained the succession of the crown for his son, Xerxes; whereas Vashti\nwas removed from the presence of Ahasuerus by an irrevocable decree,\nEsther i, 19. Joseph Scaliger maintains that Xerxes was the Ahasuerus,\nand Hamestris his queen, the Esther, of Scripture. The opinion is\nfounded on the similitude of names, but contradicted by the\ndissimilitude of the characters of Hamestris and Esther. Besides,\nHerodotus says that Xerxes had a son by Hamestris that was marriageable\nin the seventh year of his reign; and therefore she could not be Esther.\nThe Ahasuerus of Scripture, according to Dr. Prideaux, was Artaxerxes\nLongimanus. Josephus positively says that this was the person. The\nSeptuagint, through the whole book of Esther, uses Artaxerxes for the\nHebrew Ahasuerus wherever the appellation occurs; and the apocryphal\nadditions to that book every where call the husband of Esther\nArtaxerxes; and he could be no other than Artaxerxes Longimanus. The\nextraordinary favour shown to the Jews by this king, first in sending\nEzra, and afterward Nehemiah, to relieve this people, and restore them\nto their ancient prosperity, affords strong presumptive evidence that\nthey had near his person and high in his regard such an advocate as\nEsther. Ahasuerus is also a name given in Scripture, Ezra iv, 6, to\nCambyses, the son of Cyrus; and to Astyages, king of the Medes, Dan. ix,\n1.\n\nAHAVA. The name of a river of Babylonia, or rather of Assyria, where\nEzra assembled those captives whom he afterward brought into Judea, Ezra\nviii, 15. The river Ahava is thought to be that which ran along the\nAdabene, where a river Diava, or Adiava, is mentioned, and on which\nPtolemy places the city Abane or Aavane. This is probably the country\ncalled Ava, whence the kings of Assyria translated the people called\nAvites into Palestine, and where they settled some of the captive\nIsraelites, 2 Kings xvii, 24; xviii, 34; xix, 13; xvii, 31. Ezra,\nintending to collect as many Israelites as he could, who might return to\nJudea, halted in the country of Ava, or Aahava, whence he sent agents\ninto the Caspian mountains, to invite such Jews as were willing to join\nhim, Ezra viii, 16. The history of Izates, king of the Adiabenians, and\nof his mother Helena, who became converts to Judaism some years after\nthe death of Jesus Christ, sufficiently proves that there were many Jews\nstill settled in that country.\n\nAHAZ succeeded his father Jotham, as king of Israel, at the age of\ntwenty years, reigned till the year before Christ, 726, and addicted\nhimself to the practice of idolatry. After the customs of the Heathen,\nhe made his children to pass through fire; he shut up the temple, and\ndestroyed its vessels. He became tributary to Tiglath-pileser, whose\nassistance he supplicated against the kings of Syria and Israel. Such\nwas his impiety, that he was not allowed burial in the sepulchres of the\nkings of Israel, 2 Kings xvi; 2 Chron. xxviii.\n\nAHAZIAH, the son of Ahab, king of Israel. Ahaziah reigned two years,\npartly alone, and partly with his father Ahab, who appointed him his\nassociate in the kingdom a year before his death. Ahaziah imitated his\nfather\u2019s impieties, 1 Kings xxii, 52, &c, and paid his adorations to\nBaal and Ashtaroth, the worship of whom had been introduced into Israel\nby Jezebel his mother. The Moabites, who had been always obedient to the\nkings of the ten tribes, ever since their separation from the kingdom of\nJudah, revolted after the death of Ahab, and refused to pay the ordinary\ntribute. Ahaziah had not leisure or power to reduce them, 2 Kings i, 1,\n2, &c, for, about the same time, having fallen through a lattice from\nthe top of his house, he was considerably injured, and sent messengers\nto Ekron to consult Baalzebub, the god of that place, whether he should\nrecover, 2 Kings i, 1\u201317. Elijah met the messengers, and informed them\nhe should certainly die; and he died accordingly.\n\n2. AHAZIAH, king of Judah, the son of Jehoram and Athaliah. He succeeded\nhis father in the kingdom of Judah, A. M. 3119; being in the\ntwenty-second year of his age, 2 Kings viii, 26, &c; and he reigned one\nyear only in Jerusalem. He walked in the ways of Ahab\u2019s house, to which\nhe was related, his mother being of that family. Joram, king of Israel,\n2 Kings viii, going to attack Ramoth Gilead, which the kings of Syria\nhad taken from his predecessors, was there dangerously wounded, and\ncarried by his own appointment to Jezreel, for the purpose of surgical\nassistance. Ahaziah, Joram\u2019s friend and relation, accompanied him in\nthis war, and came afterward to visit him at Jezreel. In the meantime,\nJehu, the son of Nimshi, whom Joram had left besieging the fortress of\nRamoth, rebelled against his master, and set out with a design of\nextirpating the house of Ahab, according to the commandment of the Lord,\n2 Kings ix. Joram and Ahaziah, who knew nothing of his intentions, went\nto meet him. Jehu killed Joram dead upon the spot: Ahaziah fled, but\nJehu\u2019s people overtook him at the going up of Gur, and mortally wounded\nhim; notwithstanding which, he had strength enough to reach Megiddo,\nwhere he died. His servants, having laid him in his chariot, carried him\nto Jerusalem, where he was buried with his fathers, in the city of\nDavid.\n\nAHIJAH, the prophet of the Lord, who dwelt in Shiloh. He is thought to\nbe the person who spoke twice to Solomon from God, once while he was\nbuilding the temple, 1 Kings vi, 11, at which time he promised him the\ndivine protection; and again, 1 Kings xi, 11, after his falling into his\nirregularities, with great threatenings and reproaches. Ahijah was one\nof those who wrote the history or annals of this prince, 2 Chron. ix,\n29. The same prophet declared to Jeroboam, that he would usurp the\nkingdom, 1 Kings xi, 29, &c; and, about the end of Jeroboam\u2019s reign, he\nalso predicted the death of Abijah, the only pious son of that prince,\nas is recorded 1 Kings xiv, 2, &c. Ahijah, in all probability, did not\nlong survive the delivery of this last prophecy; but we are not informed\nof the time and manner of his death.\n\nAHIKAM, the son of Shaphan, and father of Gedaliah. He was sent by\nJosiah, king of Judah, to Huldah the prophetess, 2 Kings xxii, 12, to\nconsult her concerning the book of the law, which had been found in the\ntemple.\n\nAHIMAAZ, the son of Zadok, the high priest. Ahimaaz succeeded his father\nunder the reign of Solomon. He performed a very important piece of\nservice for David during the war with Absalom. While his father Zadok\nwas in Jerusalem, 2 Sam. xv, 29, Ahimaaz and Jonathan continued without\nthe city, xvii, 17, near En-Rogel, or the fountain of Rogel; thither a\nmaid servant came to tell them the resolution which had been taken in\nAbsalom\u2019s council: whereupon they immediately departed to give the king\nintelligence. But being discovered by a young lad who gave information\nconcerning them to Absalom, that prince sent orders to pursue them:\nAhimaaz and Jonathan, fearing to be taken, retired to a man\u2019s house at\nBaharim, in whose court-yard there was a well, wherein they concealed\nthemselves. After the battle, in which Absalom was overcome and slain,\nxviii, Ahimaaz desired leave of Joab to carry the news thereof to David.\nBut instead of him Joab sent Cushi to carry the news, and told Ahimaaz\nthat he would send him to the king upon some other occasion; but soon\nafter Cushi was departed, Ahimaaz applied again to Joab, praying to be\npermitted to run after Cushi; and, having obtained leave, he ran by the\nway of the plain, and outran Cushi. He was succeeded in the priesthood\nby his son Azariah.\n\nAHIMELECH. He was the son of Ahitub, and brother of Ahia, whom he\nsucceeded in the high priesthood. He is called Abiathar, Mark ii, 26.\nDuring his priesthood the tabernacle was at Nob, where Ahimelech, with\nother priests, had their habitation. David, being informed by his friend\nJonathan that Saul was determined to destroy him, thought it prudent to\nretire. He therefore went to Nob, to the high priest Ahimelech, who gave\nhim the shew bread, and the sword of Goliath. One day, when Saul was\ncomplaining of his officers, that no one was affected with his\nmisfortunes, or gave him any intelligence of what was carrying on\nagainst him, 1 Sam. xxii, 9, &c, Doeg related to him what had occurred\nwhen David came to Ahimelech the high priest. On this information, Saul\nconvened the priests, and having charged them with the crime of treason,\nordered his guards to slay them, which they refusing to do, Doeg, who\nhad been their accuser, at the king\u2019s command became their executioner,\nand with his sacrilegious hand massacred no less than eighty-five of\nthem; the Septuagint and Syriac versions make the number of priests\nslain by Doeg three hundred and five. Nor did Saul stop here; but,\nsending a party to Nob, he commanded them to slay men, women, and\nchildren, and even cattle, with the edge of the sword. Only one son of\nAhimelech, named Abiathar, escaped the carnage and fled to David.\n\nAHITHOPHEL, a native of Giloh, who, after having been David\u2019s\ncounsellor, joined in the rebellion of Absalom, and assisted him with\nhis advice. Hushai, the friend of David, was employed to counteract the\ncounsels of Ahithophel, and to deprive Absalom, under a pretence of\nserving him, of the advantage that was likely to result from the\nmeasures which he proposed. One of these measures was calculated to\nrender David irreconcilable, and was immediately adopted; and the other\nto secure, or to slay him. Before the last counsel was followed,\nHushai\u2019s advice was desired; and he recommended their assembling\ntogether the whole force of Israel, putting Absalom at their head, and\noverwhelming David by their number. The treacherous counsel of Hushai\nwas preferred to that of Ahithophel; with which the latter being\ndisgusted he hastened to his house at Giloh, where he put an end to his\nlife. He probably foresaw Absalom\u2019s defeat, and dreaded the punishment\nwhich would be inflicted on himself as a traitor, when David was\nresettled on the throne. A. M. 2981. B. C. 1023. 2 Sam. xv, xvii.\n\nAHOLIBAH. This and Aholah are two feigned names made use of by Ezekiel,\nxxiii, 4, to denote the two kingdoms of Judah and Samaria. Aholah and\nAholibah are represented as two sisters of Egyptian extraction. Aholah\nstands for Samaria, and Aholibah for Jerusalem. The first signifies a\n_tent_, and the second, _my tent is in her_. They both prostituted\nthemselves to the Egyptians and Assyrians, in imitating their\nabominations and idolatries; for which reason the Lord abandoned them to\nthose very people for whose evil practices they had shown so passionate\nan affection. They were carried into captivity, and reduced to the\nseverest servitude.\n\nAI, called by the LXX, Gai, by Josephus Aina, and by others Ajah, a town\nof Palestine, situate west of Bethel, and at a small distance north-west\nof Jericho. The three thousand men, first sent by Joshua to reduce this\ncity, were repulsed, on account of the sin of Achan, who had violated\nthe anathema pronounced against Jericho, by appropriating a part of the\nspoil. After the expiation of this offence, the whole army of Israel\nmarched against Ai, with orders to treat that city as Jericho had been\ntreated, with this difference, that the plunder was to be given to the\narmy. Joshua, having appointed an ambush of thirty thousand men, marched\nagainst the city, and by a feigned retreat, drew out the king of Ai with\nhis troops; and upon a signal given by elevating his shield on the top\nof a pike, the men in ambush entered the city and set fire to it. Thus\nthe soldiers of Ai, placed between two divisions of Joshua\u2019s army, were\nall destroyed; the king alone being preserved for a more ignominious\ndeath on a gibbet, where he hung till sunset. The spoil of the place was\nafterward divided among the Israelites. The men appointed for ambush\nare, in one place, said to be thirty thousand, and in another five\nthousand. For reconciling this apparent contradiction, most commentators\nhave generally supposed, that there were two bodies placed in ambuscade\nbetween Bethel and Ai, one of twenty-five thousand and the other of five\nthousand men; the latter being probably a detachment from the thirty\nthousand first sent, and ordered to lie as near to the city as possible.\nMasius allows only five thousand men for the ambuscade, and twenty-five\nthousand for the attack.\n\nAICHMALOTARCH, \u1f08\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 signifies _the prince of the captivity_, or\n_chief of the captives_. The Jews pretend that this was the title of him\nwho had the government of their people during the captivity of Babylon;\nand they believe these princes or governors to have been constantly of\nthe tribe of Judah, and family of David. But they give no satisfactory\nproof of the real existence of these Aichmalotarchs. There was no prince\nof the captivity before the end of the second century, from which period\nthe office continued till the eleventh century. The princes of the\ncaptivity resided at Babylon, where they were installed with great\nceremony, held courts of justice, &c, and were set over the eastern\nJews, or those settled in Babylon, Chald\u00e6a, Assyria, and Persia. Thus\nthey affected to restore the splendour of their ancient monarchy, and in\nthis view the following account may be amusing. The ceremonial of the\ninstallation is thus described: The spiritual heads of the people, the\nmasters of the learned schools, the elders, and the people, assembled in\ngreat multitudes within a stately chamber, adorned with rich curtains,\nin Babylon, where, during his days of splendour, the Resch-Glutha fixed\nhis residence. The prince was seated on a lofty throne. The heads of the\nschools of Sura and Pumbeditha on his right hand and left. These chiefs\nof the learned men then delivered an address, exhorting the new monarch\nnot to abuse his power; and reminded him that he was called to slavery\nrather than to sovereignty, for he was prince of a captive people. On\nthe next Thursday he was inaugurated by the laying on of hands, and the\nsound of trumpets, and acclamations. He was escorted to his palace with\ngreat pomp, and received magnificent presents from all his subjects. On\nthe Sabbath all the principal people being assembled before his house,\nhe placed himself at their head, and, with his face covered with a\nsilken veil, proceeded to the synagogue. Benedictions and hymns of\nthanksgiving announced his entrance. They then brought him the book of\nthe law, out of which he read the first line, afterward he addressed the\nassembly, with his eyes closed out of respect. He exhorted them to\ncharity, and set the example by offering liberal alms to the poor. The\nceremony closed with new acclamations, and prayers to God that, under\nthe new prince, he would be pleased to put an end to their calamities.\nThe prince gave his blessing to the people, and prayed for each\nprovince, that it might be preserved from war and famine. He concluded\nhis orisons in a low voice, lest his prayer should be repeated to the\njealous ears of the native monarchs, for he prayed for the restoration\nof the kingdom of Israel, which could not rise but on the ruins of their\nempire. The prince returned to his palace, where he gave a splendid\nbanquet to the chief persons of the community. After that day he lived\nin a sort of stately oriental seclusion, never quitting his palace,\nexcept to go to the schools of the learned, where, as he entered, the\nwhole assembly rose and continued standing, till he took his seat. He\nsometimes paid a visit to the native sovereign in Babylon (Bagdad.) This\nprobably refers to a somewhat later period. On these great occasions his\nimperial host sent his own chariot for his guest; but the prince of the\ncaptivity dared not accept the invidious distinction, he walked in\nhumble and submissive modesty behind the chariot. Yet his own state was\nby no means wanting in splendour: he was arrayed in cloth of gold; fifty\nguards marched before him; all the Jews who met him on the way paid\ntheir homage, and fell behind into his train. He was received by the\neunuchs, who conducted him to the throne, while one of his officers, as\nhe marched slowly along, distributed gold and silver on all sides. As\nthe prince approached the imperial throne, he prostrated himself on the\nground, in token of vassalage. The eunuchs raised him and placed him on\nthe left hand of the sovereign. After the first salutation, the prince\nrepresented the grievances, or discussed the affairs, of his people.\n\nThe court of the Resch-Glutha is described as splendid. In imitation of\nhis Persian master, he had his officers, counsellors, and cup-bearers;\nand rabbins were appointed as satraps over the different communities.\nThis state, it is probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the\nbody of the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times was\npaid for the temple in Jerusalem. His subjects in Babylonia were many of\nthem wealthy.\n\nAIJALON, a city of the Canaanites; the valley adjoining to which is\nmemorable in sacred history from the miracle of Joshua, in arresting the\ncourse of the sun and moon, that the Israelites might have sufficient\nlight to pursue their enemies, Joshua x, 12, 13. Aijalon was afterward a\nLevitical city, and belonged to the tribe of Dan; who did not, however,\ndrive out the Amorite inhabitants, Judges i, 35.\n\nAIR, that thin, fluid, elastic, transparent, ponderous, compressible\nbody which surrounds the terraqueous globe to a considerable height. In\nScripture it is sometimes used for _heaven_; as, \u201cthe birds of the air;\u201d\n\u201cthe birds of heaven.\u201d To \u201cbeat the air,\u201d and \u201cto speak to the air,\u201d 1\nCor. ix, 26, signify to fatigue ourselves in vain, and to speak to no\npurpose. \u201cThe prince of the power of the air\u201d is the head and chief of\nthe evil spirits, with which both Jews and Heathens thought the air was\nfilled.\n\nALABASTER, \u1f08\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03db\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, the name of a genus of fossils nearly allied to\nmarble. It is a bright elegant stone, sometimes of a snowy whiteness. It\nmay be cut freely, and is capable of a fine polish; and, being of a soft\nnature, it is wrought into any form or figure with ease. Vases or\ncruises were anciently made of it, wherein to preserve odoriferous\nliquors and ointments. Pliny and others represent it as peculiarly\nproper for this purpose; and the druggists in Egypt have, at this day,\nvessels made of it, in which they keep their medicines and perfumes.\n\nIn Matt. xxvi, 6, 7, we read that Jesus being at table in Bethany, in\nthe house of Simon the leper, a woman came thither and poured an\nalabaster box of ointment on his head. St. Mark adds, \u201cShe brake the\nbox,\u201d which merely refers to the seal upon the vase which closed it, and\nkept the perfume from evaporating. This had never been removed, but was\non this occasion broken, that is, first opened.\n\nALBIGENSES. See WALDENSES.\n\nALEPH, \u05d0, the name of the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, from\nwhich the alpha of the Syrians and Greeks was formed. This word\nsignifies, _prince_, _chief_, or _thousand_, expressing, as it were, a\nleading number.\n\nALEXANDER, commonly called the Great, son and successor of Philip, king\nof Macedon, is denoted in the prophecies of Daniel by a leopard with\nfour wings, signifying his great strength, and the unusual rapidity of\nhis conquests, Dan. vii, 6; and by a one-horned he-goat running over the\nearth so swiftly as not to touch it, attacking a ram with two horns,\noverthrowing him, and trampling him under foot, without any being able\nto rescue him, Dan. viii, 4\u20137. The he-goat prefigured Alexander; the\nram, Darius Codomannus, the last of the Persian kings. In the statue\nbeheld by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, Dan. ii, 39, the belly of brass\nwas the emblem of Alexander. He was appointed by God to destroy the\nPersian empire, and to substitute in its room the Grecian monarchy.\n\nAlexander succeeded his father Philip, A. M. 3668, and B. C. 336. He was\nchosen, by the Greeks, general of their troops against the Persians, and\nentered Asia at the head of thirty-four thousand men, A. M. 3670. In one\ncampaign, he subdued almost all Asia Minor; and afterward defeated, in\nthe narrow passes which led from Syria to Cilicia, the army of Darius,\nwhich consisted of four hundred thousand foot, and one hundred thousand\nhorse. Darius fled, and left in the hands of the conqueror, his camp,\nbaggage, children, wife, and mother.\n\nAfter subduing Syria, Alexander came to Tyre; and the Tyrians refusing\nhim entrance into their city, he besieged it. At the same time he wrote\nto Jaddus, high priest of the Jews, that he expected to be acknowledged\nby him, and to receive from him the same submission which had hitherto\nbeen paid to the king of Persia. Jaddus refusing to comply under the\nplea of having sworn fidelity to Darius, Alexander resolved to march\nagainst Jerusalem, when he had reduced Tyre. After a long siege, this\ncity was taken and sacked; and Alexander entered Palestine, A. M. 3672,\nand subjected it to his obedience. As he was marching against Jerusalem,\nthe Jews became greatly alarmed, and had recourse to prayers and\nsacrifices. The Lord, in a dream, commanded Jaddus to open the gates to\nthe conqueror, and, at the head of his people, dressed in his pontifical\nornaments, and attended by the priests in their robes, to advance and\nmeet the Macedonian king. Jaddus obeyed; and Alexander perceiving this\ncompany approaching, hastened toward the high priest, whom he saluted.\nHe then adored God, whose name was engraven on a thin plate of gold,\nworn by the high priest upon his forehead. The kings of Syria who\naccompanied him, and the great officers about Alexander, could not\ncomprehend the meaning of his conduct. Parmenio alone ventured to ask\nhim why he adored the Jewish high priest; Alexander replied, that he\npaid this respect to God, and not to the high priest. \u201cFor,\u201d added he,\n\u201cwhilst I was yet in Macedonia, I saw the God of the Jews, who appeared\nto me in the same form and dress as the high priest at present, and who\nencouraged me and commanded me to march boldly into Asia, promising that\nhe would be my guide, and give me the empire of the Persians. As soon,\ntherefore, as I perceived this habit, I recollected the vision, and\nunderstood that my undertaking was favoured by God, and that under his\nprotection I might expect prosperity.\u201d\n\nHaving said this, Alexander accompanied Jaddus to Jerusalem, where he\noffered sacrifices in the temple according to the directions of the high\npriest. Jaddus is said to have showed him the prophecies of Daniel, in\nwhich the destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander is declared.\nThe king was therefore confirmed in his opinion, that God had chosen him\nto execute this great work. At his departure, Alexander bade the Jews\nask of him what they would. The high priest desired only the liberty of\nliving under his government according to their own laws, and an\nexemption from tribute every seventh year, because in that year the Jews\nneither tilled their grounds, nor reaped their fruits. With this request\nAlexander readily complied.\n\nHaving left Jerusalem, Alexander visited other cities of Palestine, and\nwas every where received with great testimonies of friendship and\nsubmission. The Samaritans who dwelt at Sichem, and were apostates from\nthe Jewish religion, observing how kindly Alexander had treated the\nJews, resolved to say that they also were by religion Jews. For it was\ntheir practice, when they saw the affairs of the Jews in a prosperous\nstate, to boast that they were descended from Manasseh and Ephraim; but\nwhen they thought it their interest to say the contrary, they failed not\nto affirm, and even to swear, that they were not related to the Jews.\nThey came, therefore, with many demonstrations of joy, to meet\nAlexander, as far almost as the territories of Jerusalem. Alexander\ncommended their zeal; and the Sichemites entreated him to visit their\ntemple and city. Alexander promised this at his return; but as they\npetitioned him for the same privileges as the Jews, he asked them if\nthey were Jews. They replied, they were Hebrews, and were called by the\nPh\u0153nicians, Sichemites. Alexander said that he had granted this\nexemption only to the Jews, but that at his return he would inquire into\nthe affair, and do them justice.\n\nThis prince having conquered Egypt, and regulated it, gave orders for\nthe building of the city of Alexandria, and departed thence, about\nspring, in pursuit of Darius. Passing through Palestine, he was informed\nthat the Samaritans, in a general insurrection, had killed Andromachus,\ngovernor of Syria and Palestine, who had come to Samaria to regulate\nsome affairs. This action greatly incensed Alexander, who loved\nAndromachus. He therefore commanded all those who were concerned in his\nmurder to be put to death, and the rest to be banished from Samaria; and\nsettled a colony of Macedonians in their room. What remained of their\nlands he gave to the Jews, and exempted them from the payment of\ntribute. The Samaritans who escaped this calamity, retired to Sichem, at\nthe foot of mount Gerizim, which afterward became their capital. Lest\nthe eight thousand men of this nation, who were in the service of\nAlexander, and had accompanied him since the siege of Tyre, if permitted\nto return to their own country, should renew the spirit of rebellion, he\nsent them into Thebais, the most remote southern province of Egypt,\nwhere he assigned them lands.\n\nAlexander, after defeating Darius in a pitched battle, and subduing all\nAsia and the Indies with incredible rapidity, gave himself up to\nintemperance. Having drunk to excess, he fell sick and died, after he\nhad obliged \u201call the world to be quiet before him,\u201d 1 Macc. i, 3. Being\nsensible that his end was near, he sent for the grandees of his court,\nand declared that \u201che gave the empire to the most deserving.\u201d Some\naffirm that he regulated the succession by a will. The author of the\nfirst book of Maccabees says, that he divided his kingdom among his\ngenerals while he was living, 1 Macc. i, 7. This he might do; or he\nmight express his foresight of what actually took place after his death.\nIt is certain, that a partition was made of Alexander\u2019s dominions among\nthe four principal officers of his army, and that the empire which he\nfounded in Asia subsisted for many ages. Alexander died, A. M. 3684, and\nB. C. 323, in the thirty-third year of his age, and the twelfth of his\nreign. The above particulars of Alexander are here introduced because,\nfrom his invasion of Palestine, the intercourse of the Jews with the\nGreeks became intimate, and influenced many events of their subsequent\nhistory.\n\nOn the account above given of the interview between Alexander and the\nJewish high priest, by Josephus, many doubts have been cast by critics.\nBut the sudden change of his feelings toward them, and the favour with\nwhich the nation was treated by him, render the story not improbable.\n\nALEXANDRIA, a famous city of Egypt, and, during the reign of the\nPtolemies, the regal capital of that kingdom. It was founded by\nAlexander the Great: who being struck with the advantageous situation of\nthe spot where the city afterward stood, ordered its immediate erection;\ndrew the plan of the city himself, and peopled it with colonies of\nGreeks and Jews: to which latter people, in particular, he gave great\nencouragement. They were, in fact, made free citizens, and had all the\nprivileges of Macedonians granted to them; which liberal policy\ncontributed much to the rise and prosperity of the new city; for this\nenterprising and commercial people knew much better than either the\nGreeks or the Egyptians how to turn the happy situation of Alexandria to\nthe best account. The fall of Tyre happening about the same time, the\ntrade of that city was soon drawn to Alexandria, which became the centre\nof commercial intercourse between the east and the west; and in process\nof time grew to such an extent, in magnitude and wealth, as to be second\nin point of population and magnificence to none but Rome itself.\n\nAlexandria owed much of its celebrity as well as its population to the\nPtolemies. Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander\u2019s captains, who, after the\ndeath of this monarch, was first governor of Egypt, and afterward\nassumed the title of king, made this city the place of his residence,\nabout B. C. 304. This prince founded an academy, called the Museum, in\nwhich a society of learned men devoted themselves to philosophical\nstudies, and the improvement of all the other sciences; and he also gave\nthem a library, which was prodigiously increased by his successors. He\nlikewise induced the merchants of Syria and Greece to reside in this\ncity, and to make it a principal mart of their commerce. His son and\nsuccessor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, pursued the designs of his father.\n\nIn the hands of the Romans, the successors of the Macedonians in the\ngovernment of Egypt, the trade of Alexandria continued to flourish,\nuntil luxury and licentiousness paved the way, as in every similar\ninstance, for its overthrow.\n\nAlexandria, together with the rest of Egypt, passed from the dominion of\nthe Romans to that of the Saracens. With this event, the sun of\nAlexandria may be said to have set: the blighting hand of Islamism was\nlaid on it; and although the genius and the resources of such a city\ncould not be immediately destroyed, it continued to languish until the\npassage by the Cape of Good Hope, in the fifteenth century, gave a new\nchannel to the trade which for so many centuries had been its support;\nand at this day, Alexandria, like most eastern cities, presents a mixed\nspectacle of ruins and wretchedness,--of fallen greatness and enslaved\nhuman beings.\n\nSome idea may be formed of the extent and grandeur of Alexandria, by the\nboast made by Amrou: \u201cI have taken,\u201d said he, \u201cthe great city of the\nwest. It is impossible for me to enumerate the variety of its riches and\nbeauty. I shall content myself with observing, that it contains four\nthousand palaces, four thousand baths, four hundred theatres or places\nof amusement, twelve thousand shops for the sale of vegetable foods, and\nforty thousand tributary Jews.\u201d\n\nIt was in Alexandria chiefly that the Grecian philosophy was engrafted\nupon the stock of ancient oriental wisdom. The Egyptian method of\nteaching by allegory was peculiarly favourable to such a union: and we\nmay well suppose that when Alexander, in order to preserve by the arts\nof peace that extensive empire which he had obtained by the force of\narms, endeavoured to incorporate the customs of the Greeks with those of\nthe Persian, Indian, and other eastern nations, the opinions as well as\nthe manners of this feeble and obsequious race would, in a great\nmeasure, be accommodated to those of their conquerors. This influence of\nthe Grecian upon the oriental philosophy continued long after the time\nof Alexander, and was one principal occasion of the confusion of\nopinions which occurs in the history of the Alexandrian and Christian\nschools. Alexander, when he built the city of Alexandria, with a\ndetermination to make it the seat of his empire, and peopled it with\nemigrants from various countries, opened a new mart of philosophy, which\nemulated the fame of Athens itself. A general indulgence was granted to\nthe promiscuous crowd assembled in this rising city, whether Egyptians,\nGrecians, Jews, or others, to profess their respective systems of\nphilosophy without molestation. The consequence was, that Egypt was soon\nfilled with religious and philosophical sectaries of every kind; and\nparticularly, that almost every Grecian sect found an advocate and\nprofessor in Alexandria. The family of the Ptolemies, as we have seen,\nwho after Alexander obtained the government of Egypt, from motives of\npolicy encouraged this new establishment. Ptolemy Lagus, who had\nobtained the crown of Egypt by usurpation, was particularly careful to\nsecure the interest of the Greeks in his favour, and with this view\ninvited people from every part of Greece to settle in Egypt, and removed\nthe schools of Athens to Alexandria. This enlightened prince spared no\npains to raise the literary, as well as the civil, military, and\ncommercial credit of his country. Under the patronage first of the\nEgyptian princes, and afterward of the Roman emperors, Alexandria long\ncontinued to enjoy great celebrity as the seat of learning, and to send\nforth eminent philosophers of every sect to distant countries. It\nremained a school of learning, as well as a commercial emporium, till it\nwas taken, and plundered of its literary treasures by the Saracens.\nPhilosophy, during this period, suffered a grievous corruption from the\nattempt which was made by philosophers of different sects and countries,\nGrecian, Egyptian, and oriental, who were assembled in Alexandria, to\nframe, from their different tenets, one general system of opinions. The\nrespect which had long been universally paid to the schools of Greece,\nand the honours with which they were now adorned by the Egyptian\nprinces, induced other wise men, and even the Egyptian priests and\nphilosophers themselves, to submit to this innovation. Hence arose a\nheterogeneous mass of opinions, under the name of the _Eclectic\nphilosophy_, and which was the foundation of endless confusion, error,\nand absurdity, not only in the Alexandrian school, but among Jews and\nChristians; producing among the former that specious kind of philosophy,\nwhich they called their _Cabala_, and among the latter innumerable\ncorruptions of the Christian faith.\n\nAt Alexandria there was, in a very early period of the Christian \u00e6ra, a\nChristian school of considerable eminence. St. Jerome says, the school\nat Alexandria had been in being from the time of St. Mark. Pant\u00e6nus,\nplaced by Lardner at the year 192, presided in it. St. Clement of\nAlexandria succeeded Pant\u00e6nus in this school about the year 190; and he\nwas succeeded by Origen. The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its\nproximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion, and\nwhen Adrian visited Egypt, he found a church composed of Jews and\nGreeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive\nprince. The theological system of Plato was introduced into both the\nphilosophical and Christian schools of Alexandria; and of course many of\nhis sentiments and expressions were blended with the opinions and\nlanguage of the professors and teachers of Christianity.\n\nAlexandria was the source, and for some time the principal stronghold,\nof Arianism; which had its name from its founder, Arius, a presbyter of\nthe church of this city, about the year 315. His doctrines were\ncondemned by a council held here in the year 320; and afterward by a\ngeneral council of three hundred and eighty fathers, held at Nice, by\norder of Constantine, in 325. These doctrines, however, which suited the\nreigning taste for disputative theology, and the pride and\nself-sufficiency of nominal Christians, better than the unsophisticated\nsimplicity of the Gospel, spread widely and rapidly notwithstanding.\nArius was steadfastly opposed by the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of\nAlexandria, the intrepid champion of the catholic faith, who was raised\nto the archiepiscopal throne of Alexandria in 326.\n\nThis city was, in 415, distinguished by a fierce persecution of the Jews\nby the patriarch Cyril. They who had enjoyed the rights of citizens, and\nthe freedom of religious worship, for seven hundred years, ever since\nthe foundation of the city, incurred the hatred of this ecclesiastic;\nwho, in his zeal for the extermination of heretics of every kind, pulled\ndown their synagogues, plundered their property, and expelled them, to\nthe number of forty thousand, from the city.\n\nIt was in a ship belonging to the port of Alexandria, that St. Paul\nsailed from Myra, a city of Lycia, on his way to Rome, Acts xxvii, 5, 6.\nAlexandria was also the native place of Apollos.\n\nALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. This celebrated collection of books was first\nfounded by Ptolemy Soter, for the use of the academy, or society of\nlearned men, which he had founded at Alexandria. Beside the books which\nhe procured, his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, added many more, and left in\nthis library at his death a hundred thousand volumes; and the succeeding\nprinces of this race enlarged it still more, till at length the books\nlodged in it amounted to the number of seven hundred thousand volumes.\nThe method by which they are said to have collected these books was\nthis: they seized all the books that were brought by the Greeks or other\nforeigners into Egypt, and sent them to the academy, or museum, where\nthey were transcribed by persons employed for that purpose. The\ntranscripts were then delivered to the proprietors, and the originals\nlaid up in the library. Ptolemy Euergetes, for instance, borrowed of the\nAthenians the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and \u00c6schylus, and only\nreturned them the copies, which he caused to be transcribed in as\nbeautiful a manner as possible; the originals he retained for his own\nlibrary, presenting the Athenians with fifteen talents for the exchange,\nthat is, with three thousand pounds sterling and upwards. As the museum\nwas at first in the quarter of the city called Bruchion, the library was\nplaced there; but when the number of books amounted to four hundred\nthousand volumes, another library, within the Serapeum, was erected by\nway of supplement to it, and, on that account, called the daughter of\nthe former. The books lodged in this increased to the number of three\nhundred thousand volumes; and these two made up the number of seven\nhundred thousand volumes, of which the royal libraries of the Ptolemies\nwere said to consist. In the war which Julius C\u00e6sar waged with the\ninhabitants of Alexandria, the library of Bruchion was accidentally, but\nunfortunately, burnt. But the library in Serapeum still remained, and\nthere Cleopatra deposited the two hundred thousand volumes of the\nPergamean library with which she was presented by Marc Antony. These,\nand others added to them from time to time, rendered the new library\nmore numerous and considerable than the former; and though it was\nplundered more than once during the revolutions which happened in the\nRoman empire, yet it was as frequently supplied with the same number of\nbooks, and continued, for many ages, to be of great fame and use, till\nit was burnt by the Saracens, A. D. 642. Abulpharagius, in his history\nof the tenth dynasty, gives the following account of this catastrophe:\nJohn Philoponus, surnamed the Grammarian, a famous Peripatetic\nphilosopher, being at Alexandria when the city was taken by the\nSaracens, was admitted to familiar intercourse with Amrou, the Arabian\ngeneral, and presumed to solicit a gift, inestimable in his opinion, but\ncontemptible in that of the barbarians; and this was the royal library.\nAmrou was inclined to gratify his wish, but his rigid integrity scrupled\nto alienate the least object without the consent of the caliph. He\naccordingly wrote to Omar, whose well known answer was dictated by the\nignorance of a fanatic: \u201cIf these writings of the Greeks agree with the\nKoran, or book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if\nthey disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.\u201d The\nsentence of destruction was executed with blind obedience: the volumes\nof paper or parchment were distributed to the four thousand baths of the\ncity; and such was their number, that six months were barely sufficient\nfor the consumption of this precious fuel.\n\nALGUM, \u05d0\u05dc\u05d2\u05dd or \u05d0\u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, 1 Kings x, 11, 12. This is the name of a kind of\nwood, or tree, large quantities of which were brought by the fleet of\nSolomon from Ophir, of which he made pillars for the house of the Lord,\nand for his own palace; also musical instruments. See ALMUG.\n\nALLEGORY, a figure in rhetoric, whereby we make use of terms which, in\ntheir proper signification, mean something else than what they are\nbrought to denote; or it is a figure whereby we say one thing, expecting\nit shall be understood of another, to which it alludes; or which, under\nthe literal sense of the words, conceals a foreign or distant meaning.\nAn allegory is, properly, a continued metaphor, or a series of several\nmetaphors in one or more sentences. Such is that beautiful allegory in\nHorace, lib. i, Od. 14.\n\n                  \u201c_O navis, referent in mare te novi\n                  Fluctus_,\u201d _&c._\n\n[O ship, shall new billows drive thee again to sea, &c.]\n\nWhere the ship is usually held to stand for the republic; waves, for\ncivil war; port, for peace and concord; oars, for soldiers; and mariners\nfor magistrates. Thus, also, in Prior\u2019s Henry and Emma, Emma describes\nher constancy to Henry in the following allegorical manner:--\n\n            \u201cDid I but purpose to embark with thee\n            On the smooth surface of a summer\u2019s sea,\n            While gentle zephyrs play with prosperous gales,\n            And fortune\u2019s favour fills the swelling sails;\n            But would forsake the ship, and make the shore,\n            When the winds whistle, and the tempests roar?\u201d\n\nCicero, likewise, speaking of himself, in Pison. c. 9, tom. vi, p. 187,\nuses this allegorical language: \u201cNor was I so timorous, that, after I\nhad steered the ship of the state through the greatest storms and waves,\nand brought her safe into port, I should fear the cloud of your\nforehead, or your colleague\u2019s pestilential breath. I saw other winds, I\nperceived other storms, I did not withdraw from other impending\ntempests; but I exposed myself singly to them for the common safety.\u201d\nHere the state is compared to a ship, and all the things said of it\nunder that image, are expressed in metaphors made use of to denote the\ndangers with which it had been threatened. We have also a very fine\nexample of an allegory in Psalm lxxx; in which the people of Israel are\nrepresented under the image of a vine, and the figure is supported\nthroughout with great correctness and beauty. Whereas, if, instead of\ndescribing the vine as wasted by the boar from the wood, and devoured by\nthe wild beasts of the field, the Psalmist had said, it was afflicted by\nHeathens, or overcome by enemies, which is the real meaning, the\nfigurative and the literal meaning would have been blended, and the\nallegory ruined. The learned Bishop Lowth, _De Sacr\u00e2 Poesi Hebr\u00e6orum,\nPr\u00e6l._ 10, 11, has specified three forms of allegory that occur in\nsacred poetry. The first is that which rhetoricians call a continued\nmetaphor. When several metaphors succeed each other, they alter the form\nof the composition; and this succession has very properly, in reference\nto the etymology of the word, been denominated by the Greeks \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1,\nan allegory; although Aristotle, instead of considering it as a new\nspecies of figure, has referred it to the class of metaphors. The\nprinciple of allegory in this sense of the term, and of the simple\nmetaphor, is the same; nor is it an easy matter to restrict each to its\nproper limit, and to mark the precise termination of the one, and the\ncommencement of the other. This eminently judicious critic observes,\nthat when the Hebrew poets use the congenial figures of metaphor,\nallegory, and comparison, particularly in the prophetic poetry, they\nadopt a peculiar mode of doing it, and seldom regulate the imagery which\nthey introduce by any fixed principle or standard. Not satisfied with a\nsimple metaphor, they often run it into an allegory, or blend with it a\ndirect comparison. The allegory sometimes follows, and sometimes\nprecedes the simile: to this is added a frequent change of imagery, as\nwell as of persons and tenses; and thus are displayed an energy and\nboldness, both of expression and meaning, which are unconfined by any\nstated rules, and which mark the discriminating genius of the Hebrew\npoetry. Thus, in Gen. xlix, 9, \u201cJudah is a lion\u2019s whelp;\u201d this metaphor\nis immediately drawn out into an allegory, with a change of person:\n\u201cFrom the prey, my son, thou art gone up,\u201d that is, to the mountains,\nwhich is understood; and in the succeeding sentences the person is again\nchanged, the image is gradually advanced, and the metaphor is joined\nwith a comparison that is repeated.\n\n               \u201cHe stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion;\n               And as a lioness; who shall rouse him?\u201d\n\nA similar instance occurs in the prophecy, recorded in Psalm cx, 3,\nwhich explicitly foretels the abundant increase of the Gospel on its\nfirst promulgation. This kind of allegory, however, sometimes assumes a\nmore regular and perfect form, and then occupies the whole subject and\ncompass of the discourse. An example of this kind occurs in Solomon\u2019s\nwell known allegory, Eccles. xii, 2\u20136, in which old age is so admirably\ndepicted. There is also, in Isaiah xxviii, 24\u201329, an allegory, which,\nwith no less elegance of imagery, is more simple and regular, as well as\nmore just and complete, both in the form and the method of treating it.\nAnother kind of allegory is that which, in the proper and more\nrestricted sense, may be called a parable; and consists of a continued\nnarration of some fictitious event, accommodated, by way of similitude,\nto the illustration of some important truth. The Greeks call these\nallegories \u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 or apologues, and the Latins _fabul\u00e6_, or fables. (See\n_Parable_.) The third species of allegory, which often occurs in the\nprophetic poetry, is that in which a double meaning is couched under the\nsame words, or when the same discourse, differently interpreted,\ndesignates different events, dissimilar in their nature, and remote as\nto time. These different relations are denominated the literal and\nmystical senses. This kind of allegory, which the learned prelate calls\nmystical, seems to derive its origin from the principles of the Jewish\nreligion; and it differs from the two former species in a variety of\nrespects. In these allegories the writer may adopt any imagery that is\nmost suitable to his fancy or inclination; but the only proper materials\nfor this allegory must be supplied from the sacred rites of the Hebrews\nthemselves; and it can only be introduced in relation to such things as\nare immediately connected with the Jewish religion, or their immediate\nopposites. The former kinds partake of the common privileges of poetry;\nbut the mystical allegory has its foundation in the nature of the Jewish\neconomy, and is adapted solely to the poetry of the Hebrews. Besides, in\nthe other forms of allegory, the exterior or ostensible imagery is mere\nfiction, and the truth lies altogether in the interior or remote sense;\nbut in this allegory each idea is equally agreeable to truth. The\nexterior or ostensible image is itself a reality; and although it\nsustains another character, it does not wholly lay aside its own. There\nis also a great variety in the use and conduct of the mystical allegory;\nin the modes in which the corresponding images are arranged, and in\nwhich they are obscured or eclipsed by one another. Sometimes the\nobvious or literal sense is so prominent and conspicuous, both in the\nwords and sentiments, that the remote or figurative sense is scarcely\npermitted to glimmer through it. On the other hand, the figurative sense\nis more frequently found to beam forth with so much perspicuity and\nlustre, that the literal sense is quite cast into the shade, or becomes\nindiscernible. Sometimes the principal or figurative idea is exhibited\nto the attentive eye with a constant and equal light; and sometimes it\nunexpectedly glares upon us, and breaks forth with sudden and\nastonishing coruscations, like a flash of lightning bursting from the\nclouds. But the mode or form of this figure which possesses the chief\nbeauty and elegance, is, when the two images, equally conspicuous, run,\nas it were, parallel throughout the whole poem, mutually illustrating\nand correspondent to each other. The learned author has illustrated\nthese observations by instances selected from Psalms ii, and lxxii. He\nadds, that the mystical allegory is, on account of the obscurity\nresulting from the nature of the figure, and the style of the\ncomposition, so agreeable to the nature of the prophecy, that it is the\nform which it generally, and indeed lawfully, assumes, as best adapted\nto the prediction of future events. It describes events in a manner\nexactly conformable to the intention of prophecy; that is, in a dark,\ndisguised, and intricate manner, sketching out, in a general way, their\nform and outline; and seldom descending to a minuteness of description\nand exactness of detail.\n\nALLELUIA, or HALLELU-JAH, \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05be\u05d9\u05d4, _praise the Lord_; or, _praise to the\nLord_: compounded of \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5, _praise ye_, and \u05d9\u05d4, _the Lord_. This word\noccurs at the beginning, or at the end, of many Psalms. Alleluia was\nsung on solemn days of rejoicing: \u201cAnd all her streets shall sing\nAlleluia,\u201d says Tobit, speaking of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, Tob.\nxiii, 18. St. John, in the Revelation, xix, 1, 3, 4, 6, says, \u201cI heard a\ngreat voice of much people in heaven, who cried, Alleluia; and the four\nliving creatures fell down, and worshipped God, saying, Alleluia.\u201d This\nexpression of joy and praise was transferred from the synagogue to the\nchurch. At the funeral of Fabiola, \u201cseveral psalms were sung with loud\nalleluias,\u201d says Jerom, in _Epitaphio Paul\u00e6_, \u201cThe monks of Palestine\nwere awaked at their midnight watchings, with the singing of alleluias.\u201d\nIt is still occasionally used in devotional psalmody.\n\nALMAH, \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, a Hebrew word signifying properly _a virgin_, a young woman\nunacquainted with man. In this sense it occurs in the famous passage of\nIsaiah, vii, 14: \u201cBehold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.\u201d The\nHebrew has no term that more properly signifies a virgin than _almah_.\nSt. Jerom, in his commentary on this passage, observes, that the Prophet\ndeclined using the word _bethaul_ which signifies any young woman, or\nyoung person, but employed the term _almah_, which denotes a virgin\nnever seen by man. This is the import of the word _almah_, which is\nderived from a root which signifies _to conceal_. It is very well known,\nthat young women in the east do not appear in public, but are shut up in\ntheir houses, and their mothers\u2019 apartments, like nuns. The Chaldee\nparaphrast and the Septuagint translate _almah_ \u201ca virgin;\u201d and Akiba,\nthe famous rabbin, who was a great enemy to Christ and Christians, and\nlived in the second century, understands it in the same manner. The\nApostles and Evangelists, and the Jews of our Saviour\u2019s time, explained\nit in the same sense, and expected a Messiah born of a virgin.\n\nThe Jews, that they may obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof\nof the truth of the Christian religion, pretend that the Hebrew word\nsignifies a young woman, and not a virgin. But this corrupt translation\nis easily confuted. 1. Because this word constantly denotes a virgin in\nall other passages of Scripture in which it is used. 2. From the intent\nof the passage, which was to confirm their faith by a strange and\nwonderful sign. It surely could be no wonder, that a young woman should\nconceive a child; but it was a very extraordinary circumstance that a\nvirgin should conceive and bear a son.\n\nALMIGHTY, an attribute of the Deity, Gen. xvii, 1. The Hebrew name, \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9,\n_Shaddai_, signifies also _all-sufficient_, or _all-bountiful_. See Gen.\nxxviii, 3; xxxv, 11; xliii, 14; xlix, 25. Of the omnipotence of God, we\nhave a most ample revelation in the Scriptures, expressed in the most\nsublime language. From the annunciation by Moses of a divine existence\nwho was \u201cin the beginning,\u201d before all things, the very first step is to\nthe display of his almighty power in the creation out of nothing, and\nthe immediate arrangement in order and perfection, of the \u201c_heaven and\nthe earth_;\u201d by which is meant, not this globe only with its atmosphere,\nor even with its own celestial system, but the universe itself; for \u201c_he\nmade the stars also_.\u201d We are thus at once placed in the presence of an\nagent of unbounded power; for we must all feel that a being which could\ncreate such a world as this, must, beyond all comparison, possess a\npower greater than any which we experience in ourselves, than any which\nwe observe in other visible agents, and to which we are not authorized\nby our observation or knowledge to assign any limits of space or\nduration.\n\n2. That the sacred writers should so frequently dwell upon the\nomnipotence of God, has important reasons which arise out of the very\ndesign of the revelation which they were the means of communicating to\nmankind. Men were to be reminded of their obligations to obedience; and\nGod is therefore constantly exhibited as the Creator, the Preserver, and\nLord of all things. His solemn worship and fear were to be enjoined upon\nthem; and, by the manifestation of his works, the veil was withdrawn\nfrom his glory and majesty. Idolatry was to be checked and reproved, and\nthe true God was therefore placed in contrast with the limited and\npowerless gods of the Heathen: \u201cAmong the gods of the nations, is there\nno god like unto thee; neither are there any works like thy works.\u201d\nFinally, he is exhibited as the object of _trust_ to creatures\nconstantly reminded by experience of their own infirmity and dependence;\nand to them it is essential to know, that his power is absolute,\nunlimited, and irresistible, and that, in a word, he is \u201cmighty to\nsave.\u201d\n\n3. In a revelation which was thus designed to awe and control the\nwicked, and to afford strength of mind and consolation to good men under\nall circumstances, the omnipotence of God is therefore placed in a great\nvariety of impressive views, and connected with the most striking\nillustrations.\n\nIt is declared by the fact of _creation_, the creation of beings out of\n_nothing_; which itself, though it had been confined to a single object,\nhowever minute, exceeds finite comprehension, and overwhelms the\nfaculties. This with God required no effort: \u201cHe spake and it was done,\nhe commanded and it stood fast.\u201d The _vastness_ and _variety_ of his\nworks enlarge the conception: \u201cThe heavens declare the glory of God, and\nthe firmament showeth his handy work.\u201d \u201cHe spreadeth out the heavens,\nand treadeth upon the waves of the sea; he maketh Arcturus, Orion, and\nPleiades, and the chambers of the south; he doeth great things, past\nfinding out, yea, and wonders without number. He stretcheth out the\nnorth over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He\nbindeth up the waters in the thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent\nunder them; he hath compassed the waters with bounds until the day and\nnight come to an end.\u201d The _ease_ with which he sustains, orders, and\ncontrols the most powerful and unruly of the elements, arrays his\nomnipotence with an aspect of ineffable dignity and majesty: \u201cBy him all\nthings consist.\u201d \u201cHe brake up for the sea a decreed place, and set bars\nand doors, and said, Hitherto shalt thou come and no farther, and here\nshall thy proud waves be stayed.\u201d \u201cHe looketh to the end of the earth,\nand seeth under the whole heaven, to make the weight for the winds, to\nweigh the waters by measure, to make a decree for the rain, and a way\nfor the lightning of the thunder.\u201d \u201cWho hath measured the waters in the\nhollow of his hand, meted out heaven with a span, comprehended the dust\nof the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the\nhills in a balance.\u201d The descriptions of the divine power are often\n_terrible_: \u201cThe pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his\nreproof; he divideth the sea by his power.\u201d \u201cHe removeth the mountains,\nand they know it not; he overturneth them in his anger; he shaketh the\nearth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; he commandeth\nthe sun and it riseth not, and sealeth up the stars.\u201d The same absolute\nsubjection of creatures to his dominion is seen among the intelligent\ninhabitants of the material universe; and angels, mortals the most\nexalted, and evil spirits, are swayed with as much ease as the most\npassive elements: \u201cHe maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a\nflame of fire.\u201d They veil their faces before his throne, and acknowledge\nthemselves his servants: \u201cIt is he that sitteth upon the circle of the\nearth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers,\u201d \u201cas the dust of\nthe balance, less than nothing and vanity.\u201d \u201cHe bringeth princes to\nnothing.\u201d \u201cHe setteth up one and putteth down another;\u201d \u201cfor the kingdom\nis the Lord\u2019s, and he is governor among the nations.\u201d \u201cThe angels that\nsinned he cast down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness,\nto be reserved unto judgment.\u201d The closing scenes of this world complete\nthese transcendent conceptions of the majesty and power of God. The dead\nof all ages rise from their graves at his _voice_: and the sea gives up\nthe dead which are in it. Before his _face_ heaven and earth fly away;\nthe stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven are shaken. The\ndead, small and great, stand before God, and are divided as a shepherd\ndivideth the sheep from the goats. The wicked go away into everlasting\npunishment, but the righteous into life eternal.\n\n4. Of these amazing views of the omnipotence of God, spread almost\nthrough every page of the Scriptures, the power lies in their _truth_.\nThey are not eastern exaggerations, mistaken for sublimity. Every thing\nin nature answers to them, and renews from age to age the energy of the\nimpression which they cannot but make on the reflecting mind. The order\nof the astral revolutions indicates the constant presence of an\ninvisible but incomprehensible power. The seas hurl the weight of their\nbillows upon the rising shores, but every where find a \u201c_bound_ fixed by\na perpetual decree.\u201d The tides reach their height; if they flowed on for\na few hours, the earth would change places with the bed of the sea; but,\nunder an invisible control, they become refluent. The expression, \u201cHe\ntoucheth the mountains and they smoke,\u201d is not mere imagery:--every\nvolcano is a testimony of its truth; and earthquakes proclaim, that,\nbefore him, \u201cthe pillars of the world tremble.\u201d Men collected into\narmies, or populous nations, give us vast ideas of human power; but let\nan army be placed amidst the sand storms and burning winds of the\ndesert, as, in the east; or, before \u201c_his frost_,\u201d as in our own day in\nRussia, where one of the mightiest armaments was seen retreating before,\nor perishing under, an unexpected visitation of snow and storm; or let\nthe utterly helpless state of a populous country which has been visited\nby famine, or by a resistless pestilential disease, be reflected upon;\nand we feel that it is scarcely a figure of speech to say, that \u201call\nnations before him are _less than nothing_ and _vanity_.\u201d\n\n5. Nor, in reviewing this doctrine of Scripture, ought the great\npractical uses made of the omnipotence of God, by the sacred writers, to\nbe overlooked. By them nothing is said for the mere display of\nknowledge, as in Heathen writers; and we have no speculations without a\nsubservient _moral_. To excite and keep alive in man the fear and\nworship of God, and to bring him to a felicitous confidence in that\nalmighty power which pervades and controls all things, are the noble\nends of those ample displays of the omnipotence of God, which roll\nthrough the sacred volume with a sublimity that inspiration only could\nsupply. \u201cDeclare his glory among the Heathen, his marvellous works among\nall nations; for great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised.--Glory\nand honour are in his presence, and strength and gladness in his\nplace.--Give unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the\nLord glory and strength; give unto the Lord the glory due unto his\nname.--The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?--The\nLord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? If God be\nfor us, who _then_ can be against us? Our help standeth in the name of\nthe Lord, who made heaven and earth.--What time I am afraid, I will\ntrust in thee.\u201d--Thus, as one observes, \u201cour natural fears, of which we\nmust have many, remit us to God, and remind us, since we know what God\nis, to lay hold on his almighty power.\u201d\n\n6. Ample, however, as are these views of the power of God, the subject\nis not exhausted. As, when the Scriptures speak of the eternity of God,\nthey declare it so as to give us a mere glimpse of that fearful\npeculiarity of the divine nature, that God is the fountain of being to\nhimself, and that he is eternal, because he is the \u201cI AM;\u201d so we are\ntaught not to measure God\u2019s omnipotence by the actual displays of it\nwhich we see around us. These are the _manifestations_ of the fact, but\nnot the _measure_ of the attribute; and should we resort to the\ndiscoveries of modern philosophy, which, by the help of instruments, has\nso greatly enlarged the known boundaries of the visible universe, and\nadd to the stars which are visible to the naked eye, those new\nexhibitions of the divine power in the nebulous appearances of the\nheavens which are resolvable into myriads of distinct celestial\nluminaries, whose immense distances commingle their light before it\nreaches our eyes; we thus almost infinitely expand the circle of created\nexistence, and enter upon a formerly unknown and overwhelming range of\ndivine operation. But still we are only reminded, that his power is\ntruly _almighty_ and _measureless_--\u201cLo, all these are parts of his\nways; but how little a portion is known of him, and the thunder of his\npower who can understand?\u201d It is a mighty conception that we form of a\npower from which all other power is derived, and to which it is\nsubordinate; which nothing can oppose; which can beat down and\nannihilate all other power whatever; which operates in the most perfect\nmanner, at once, in an instant, with the utmost ease; but the Scriptures\nlead us to the contemplation of greater and even unfathomable depths.\nThe omnipotence of God is inconceivable and boundless. It arises from\nthe infinite perfection of God, that his power can never be actually\nexhausted; and, in every imaginable instant in eternity, that\ninexhaustible power of God can, if it please him, be adding either more\ncreatures to those in existence, or greater perfection to them; since\n\u201cit belongs to self-existent being, to be always full and communicative,\nand, to the communicated contingent being, to be ever empty and\ncraving.\u201d\n\n7. One limitation of the divine power it is true we can conceive, but it\ndetracts nothing from its perfection. Where things in themselves imply a\ncontradiction, as that a body may be extended and not extended, in a\ncertain place and not in it, at the same time; such things cannot be\ndone by God, because contradictions are impossible in their own nature.\nNor is it any derogation from the divine power to say, they cannot be\ndone; for as the object of the understanding, of the eye, and the ear,\nis that which is intelligible, visible, and audible; so the object of\npower must be that which is possible; and as it is no prejudice to the\nmost perfect understanding, or sight, or hearing, that it does not\nunderstand what is not intelligible, or see what is not visible, or hear\nwhat is not audible; so neither is it any diminution to the most perfect\npower, that it does not do what is not possible. In like manner, God\ncannot do any thing that is repugnant to his other perfections: he\ncannot lie, nor deceive, nor deny himself; for this would be injurious\nto his truth. He cannot love sin, nor punish innocence; for this would\ndestroy his holiness and goodness: and therefore to ascribe a power to\nhim that is inconsistent with the rectitude of his nature, is not to\nmagnify but debase him; for all unrighteousness is weakness, a defection\nfrom right reason, a deviation from the perfect rule of action, and\narises from a want of goodness and power. In a word, since all the\nattributes of God are essentially the same, a power in him which tends\nto destroy any other attribute of the divine nature, must be a power\ndestructive of itself. Well, therefore, may we conclude him absolutely\nomnipotent, who, by being able to effect all things consistent with his\nperfections, showeth infinite ability, and, by not being able to do any\nthing repugnant to the same perfections, demonstrates himself subject to\nno infirmity.\n\n8. Nothing certainly in the finest writings of antiquity, were all their\nbest thoughts collected as to the majesty and power of God, can bear any\ncomparison with the views thus presented to us by divine revelation.\nWere we to forget, for a moment, what is the fact, that their noblest\nnotions stand connected with fancies and vain speculations which deprive\nthem of their force, still their thoughts never rise so high; the\ncurrent is broken, the round of lofty conception is not completed, and,\nunconnected as their views of divine power were with the eternal destiny\nof man, and the very reason of creation, we never hear in them, as in\nthe Scriptures, \u201cthe THUNDER of his power.\u201d\n\nALMOND TREE, \u05dc\u05d5\u05d6. Arabic, _lauz_. Translated _hazel_, Gen. xxx, 37; \u05e9\u05e7\u05d3,\nrendered _almond_, Gen. xliii, 11; Exod. xxv, 33, 34; xxxvii, 19, 20;\nNum. xvii, 8; Eccles. xii, 5; and Jer. i, 11. The first name may be that\nof the _tree_; the other, that of the _fruit_, or _nut_.\n\nA tree resembling the peach tree in its leaves and blossoms, but the\nfruit is longer and more compressed, the outer green coat is thinner and\ndrier when ripe, and the shell of the stone is not so rugged. This\nstone, or nut, contains a kernel, which is the only esculent part. The\nwhole arrives at maturity in September, when the outer tough cover\nsplits open and discharges the nut. From the circumstance of its\nblossoming the earliest of any of the trees, beginning as soon as the\nrigour of winter is past, and before it is in leaf, it has its Hebrew\nname _shakad_, which comes from a verb signifying _to make haste_, _to\nbe in a hurry_, or _to awake early_. To the forwardness of the almond\ntree there seems to be a reference in Jeremiah: \u201cThe word of the Lord\ncame unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod\nof an almond tree. Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for\nI will hasten my word to perform it;\u201d or rather, \u201cI am hastening, or\nwatching over my word to fulfil it,\u201d Jer. i, 11, 12. In this manner it\nis rendered by the Seventy; and by the Vulgate, _Vigilabo ego super\nverbum meum_. [I will watch over my word.] This is the first vision with\nwhich the Prophet was honoured; and his attention is roused by a very\nsignificant emblem of that severe correction with which the Most High\nwas hastening to visit his people for their iniquity; and from the\nspecies of tree to which the rod belonged, he is warned of its near\napproach. The idea which the appearance of the almond rod suggested to\nhis mind, is confirmed by the exposition of God himself: \u201cI am watching\nover, or on account of, my word to fulfil it;\u201d and this double mode of\ninstruction, first by emblem, and then by exposition, was certainly\nintended to make a deeper impression on the mind both of Jeremiah and of\nthe people to whom he was sent.\n\nIt is probable that the rods which the princes of Israel bore, were\nscions of the almond tree, at once the ensign of their office, and the\nemblem of their vigilance. Such, we know from the testimony of\nScripture, was the rod of Aaron; which renders it exceedingly probable,\nthat the rods of the other chiefs were from the same tree.\n\nThe hoary head is beautifully compared by Solomon to the almond tree,\ncovered in the earliest days of spring with its snow white flowers,\nbefore a single leaf has budded: \u201cThe almond tree shall flourish, and\nthe grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail,\u201d Eccl. xii, 5.\nMan has existed in this world but a few days, when old age begins to\nappear, sheds its snows upon his head, prematurely nips his hopes,\ndarkens his earthly prospects, and hurries him into the grave.\n\nALMUG TREE, a certain kind of wood, mentioned 1 Kings, x, 11; 2 Chron.\nii, 8; ix, 10, 11. Jerom and the Vulgate render it, _ligna thyina_, and\nthe Septuagint \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1 \u03d6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70, _wrought wood_. Several critics understand\nit to mean _gummy wood_; but a wood abounding in resin must be very\nunfit for the uses to which this is said to be applied. Celsus queries\nif it be not the sandal; but Michaelis thinks the particular species of\nwood to be wholly unknown to us. Dr. Shaw supposes that the almug tree\nwas the cypress; and he observes that the wood of this tree is still\nused in Italy and other places for violins, harpsichords, and other\nstringed instruments.\n\nALOE, \u05e2\u05dc\u05e8, a plant with broad leaves, nearly two inches thick, prickly\nand serrated. It grows about two feet high. A very bitter gum is\nextracted from it, used for medicinal purposes, and anciently for\nembalming dead bodies. Nicodemus is said, John xix, 39, to have brought\none hundred pounds\u2019 weight of myrrh and aloes to embalm the body of\nJesus. The quantity has been exclaimed against by certain Jews, as being\nenough for fifty bodies. But instead of \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd it might originally have\nbeen written \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _ten_ pounds\u2019 weight. However, at the funeral of\nHerod there were five hundred \u1f00\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _spice bearers_; and at\nthat of R. Gamaliel, eighty pounds of opobalsamum were used.\n\nThe wood which God showed Moses, that with it he might sweeten the\nwaters of Marah, is called _alvah_, Exod. xv, 25. The word has some\nrelation to aloe; and some interpreters are of opinion that Moses used a\nbitter sort of wood, that so the power of God might be the more\nremarkable. Mr. Bruce mentions a town, or large village, by the name of\nElvah. It is thickly planted with trees; is the _oasis parva_ of the\nancients; and the last inhabited place to the west that is under the\njurisdiction of Egypt. He also observes that the Arabs call a shrub or\ntree, not unlike our hawthorn, either in wood or flower, by the name of\nelvah. \u201cIt was this,\u201d say they, \u201cwith which Moses sweetened the waters\nof Marah; and with this, too, did Kalib Ibn el Walid sweeten those of\nElvah, once bitter, and give the place the name of this circumstance.\u201d\nIt may be that God directed Moses to the very wood proper for the\npurpose. M. Neibuhr, when in these parts, inquired after wood capable of\nthis effect, but could gain no information of any such. It will not,\nhowever, from hence follow that Moses really used a bitter wood; but, as\nProvidence usually works by the proper and fit means to accomplish its\nends, it seems likely that the wood he made use of was, in some degree\nat least, corrective of that quality which abounded in the water, and so\nrendered it potable. This seems to have been the opinion of the author\nof Ecclesiasticus, xxxviii, 5. That other water, also, requires some\ncorrection, and that such a correction is applied to it, appears from\nthe custom in Egypt in respect to that of the Nile, which, though\nsomewhat muddy, is rendered pure and salutary by being put into jars,\nthe inside of which is rubbed with a paste made of bitter almonds. The\nfirst discoverers of the Floridas are said to have corrected the\nstagnant and fetid water they found there, by infusing in it branches of\nsassafras; and it is understood that the first inducement of the Chinese\nto the general use of tea, was to correct the water of their ponds and\nrivers.\n\nThe LIGN-ALOE, or agallochum, Num. xxiv, 6; Psalm xlv, 9; and Cantic.\niv, 14. \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05ea, masculine, \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc, whose plural is \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, is a small tree\nabout eight or ten feet high. That the flower of this plant yielded a\nfragrance, is assured to us in the following extract from Swinburne\u2019s\nTravels, letter xii: \u201cThis morning, like many of the foregoing ones, was\ndelicious. The sun rose gloriously out of the sea, and all the air\naround was perfumed with the effluvia of the aloe, as its rays sucked up\nthe dew from the leaves.\u201d This extremely bitter plant contains under the\nbark three sorts of wood. The first is black, solid, and weighty; the\nsecond is of a tawny colour, of a light spongy texture, very porous, and\nfilled with a resin extremely fragrant and agreeable; the third kind of\nwood, which is the heart, has a strong aromatic odour, and is esteemed\nin the east more precious than gold itself. It is used for perfuming\nhabits and apartments, and is administered as a cordial in fainting and\nepileptic fits. These pieces, called calunbac, are carefully preserved\nin pewter boxes, to prevent their drying. When they are used they are\nground upon a marble with such liquids as are best suited to the purpose\nfor which they are intended. This wood, mentioned Cantic. iv, 14, in\nconjunction with several other odoriferous plants there referred to, was\nin high esteem among the Hebrews for its exquisite exhalations.\n\n            The scented aloe, and each shrub that showers\n            Gum from its veins, and odours from its flowers.\n\nThus the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 15: \u201cI gave a sweet smell\nlike the cinnamon and aspalathus. I yielded a pleasant odour like the\nbest myrrh; like galbanum and onyx, and fragrant storax, and like the\nfume of frankincense in the tabernacle.\u201d It may not be amiss to observe\nthat the Persian translator renders _ahalim_, sandal wood; and the same\nwas the opinion of a certain Jew in Arabia who was consulted by Neibuhr.\n\nALPHA, the first letter of the Greek alphabet; Omega being the last\nletter. Hence Alpha and Omega is a title which Christ appropriates to\nhimself, Rev. i, 8; xxi, 6; xxii, 13; as signifying the beginning and\nthe end, the first and the last, and thus properly denoting his\nperfection and eternity.\n\nALPHEUS, father of James the less, Matt. x, 3; Luke vi, 15. Alpheus was\nthe husband of Mary, believed to have been sister to the mother of\nChrist; for which reason, James is called the Lord\u2019s brother; but the\nterm brother is too general in its application to fix their relation,\nthough the fact is probable. Many are of opinion that Cleopas, mentioned\nLuke xxiv, 18, is the same as Alpheus; Alpheus being his Greek name, and\nCleopas his Hebrew, or Syriac name, according to the custom of this\nprovince, (or of the time,) where men often had two names; by one of\nwhich they were known to their friends and countrymen, by the other to\nthe Romans or strangers.\n\n2. ALPHEUS, father of Levi, or Matthew, whom Jesus took to be an Apostle\nand Evangelist, Mark ii, 14.\n\nALTAR. Sacrifices are nearly as ancient as worship, and altars are of\nalmost equal antiquity. Scripture speaks of altars, erected by the\npatriarchs, without describing their form, or the materials of which\nthey were composed. The altar which Jacob set up at Bethel, was the\nstone which had served him for a pillow; Gideon sacrificed on the rock\nbefore his house. The first altars which God commanded Moses to raise,\nwere of earth or rough stones; and it was declared that if iron were\nused in constructing them they would become impure, Exod. xx, 24, 25.\nThe altar which Moses enjoined Joshua to build on Mount Ebal, was to be\nof unpolished stones, Deut. xxvii, 5; Josh. viii, 31; and it is very\nprobable that such were those built by Samuel, Saul, and David. The\naltar which Solomon erected in the temple was of brass, but filled, it\nis believed, with rough stones, 2 Chron. iv, 1\u20133. It was twenty cubits\nlong, twenty wide, and ten high. That built at Jerusalem, by Zerubbabel,\nafter the return from Babylon, was of rough stones; as was that of\nMaccabees. Josephus says that the altar which in his time was in the\ntemple was of rough stones, fifteen cubits high, forty long, and forty\nwide.\n\nAmong the Romans altars were of two kinds, the higher and the lower; the\nhigher were intended for the celestial gods, and were called _altaria_,\nfrom _altus_; the lower were for the terrestrial and infernal gods, and\nwere called _ar\u00e6_. Those dedicated to the heavenly gods were raised a\ngreat height above the surface of the earth; those of the terrestrial\ngods were almost even with the surface; and those for the infernal\ndeities were only holes dug in the ground called _scrobiculi_.\n\nBefore temples were in use the altars were placed in the groves,\nhighways, or on tops of mountains, inscribed with the names, ensigns, or\ncharacters of the respective gods to whom they belonged. The great\ntemples at Rome generally contained three altars; the first in the\nsanctuary, at the foot of the statue, for incense and libations; the\nsecond before the gate of the temple, for the sacrifices of victims; and\nthe third was a portable one for the offerings and sacred vestments or\nvessels to lie upon. The ancients used to swear upon the altars upon\nsolemn occasions, such as confirming alliances, treaties of peace, &c.\nThey were also places of refuge, and served as an asylum and sanctuary\nto all who fled to them, whatever their crimes were.\n\nThe principal altars among the Jews were those of incense, of\nburnt-offering, and the altar or table for the shew bread. The altar of\nincense was a small table of shittim wood covered with plates of gold.\nIt was a cubit long, a cubit broad, and two cubits high. At the four\ncorners were four horns. The priest, whose turn it was to officiate,\nburnt incense on this altar, at the time of the morning sacrifice\nbetween the sprinkling of the blood and the laying of the pieces of the\nvictim on the altar of burnt-offering. He did the same also in the\nevening, between the laying of the pieces on the altar and the\ndrink-offering. At the same time the people prayed in silence, and their\nprayers were offered up by the priests. The altar of burnt-offering was\nof shittim wood also, and carried upon the shoulders of the priests, by\nstaves of the same wood overlaid with brass. In Moses\u2019s days it was five\ncubits square, and three high: but it was greatly enlarged in the days\nof Solomon, being twenty cubits square, and ten in height. It was\ncovered with brass, and had a horn at each corner to which the sacrifice\nwas tied. This altar was placed in the open air, that the smoke might\nnot sully the inside of the tabernacle or temple. On this altar the holy\nfire was renewed from time to time, and kept constantly burning. Hereon,\nlikewise, the sacrifices of lambs and bullocks were burnt, especially a\nlamb every morning at the third hour, or nine of the clock, and a lamb\nevery afternoon at three, Exod. xx, 24, 25; xxvii, 1, 2, 4; xxxviii, 1.\nThe altar of burnt-offering had the privilege of being a sanctuary or\nplace of refuge. The wilful murderer, indeed, sought protection there in\nvain; for by the express command of God he might be dragged to justice,\neven from the altar. The altar or table of shew bread was of shittim\nwood also, covered with plates of gold, and had a border round it\nadorned with sculpture. It was two cubits long, one wide, and one and a\nhalf in height. This table stood in the _sanctum sanctorum_, [holy of\nholies,] and upon it were placed the loaves of shew bread. After the\nreturn of the Jews from their captivity, and the building of the second\ntemple, the form and size of the altars were somewhat changed.\n\nSacrifices according to the laws of Moses, could not be offered except\nby the priests; and at any other place than on the altar of the\ntabernacle or the temple. Furthermore, they were not to be offered to\nidols, nor with any superstitious rites. See Lev. xvii, 1\u20137; Deut. xii,\n15, 16. Without these precautionary measures, the true religion would\nhardly have been secure. If a different arrangement had been adopted, if\nthe priests had been scattered about to various altars, without being\nsubjected to the salutary restraint which would result from a mutual\nobservation of each other, they would no doubt some of them have\nwillingly consented to the worship of idols; and others, in their\nseparate situation, would not have been in a condition to resist the\nwishes of the multitude, had those wishes been wrong. The necessity of\nsacrificing at one altar, (that of the tabernacle or temple,) is\nfrequently and emphatically insisted on, Deut. xii, 13, 14; and all\nother altars are disapproved, Lev. xxvi, 30, compare Joshua xxii, 9\u201334.\nNotwithstanding this, it appears that, subsequently to the time of\nMoses, especially in the days of the kings, altars were multiplied; but\nthey fell under suspicions, although some of them were perhaps sacred to\nthe worship of the true God. It is, nevertheless, true, that prophets,\nwhose characters were above all suspicion, sacrificed, in some\ninstances, in other places than the one designated by the laws, 1 Sam.\nxiii, 3\u201314; xvi, 1\u20135; 1 Kings xviii, 21\u201340.\n\nAMALEKITES, a people whose country adjoined the southern border of the\nland of Canaan, in the north-western part of Arabia Petr\u00e6a. They are\ngenerally supposed to have been the descendants of Amalek, the son of\nEliphaz, and grandson of Esau. But Moses speaks of the Amalekites long\nbefore this Amalek was born; namely in the days of Abraham, when\nChedorlaomer, king of Elam, devastated their country, Gen. xiv, 7; from\nwhich it may be inferred that there was some other and more ancient\nAmalek, from whom this people sprang. The Arabians have a tradition that\nthis Amalek was a son of Ham; and when we consider that so early as the\nmarch from Egypt the Amalekites were a people powerful enough to attack\nthe Israelites, it is far more probable that they should derive their\nancestry from Ham, than from the then recent stock of the grandson of\nEsau. It may also be said, that the character and fate of this people\nwere more consonant with the dealings of Providence toward the families\nof the former. This more early origin of the Amalekites will likewise\nexplain why Balaam called them the \u201cfirst of the nations.\u201d\n\nThey are supposed by some to have been a party or tribe of the shepherds\nwho invaded Egypt, and kept it in subjection for two hundred years. This\nwill agree with the Arabian tradition as to their descent. It also\nagrees with their pastoral and martial habits, as well as with their\ngeographical position; which was perhaps made choice of on their\nretiring from Egypt, adjoining that of their countrymen the Philistines,\nwhose history is very similar. It also furnishes a motive for their\nhostility to the Jews, and their treacherous attempt to destroy them in\nthe desert. The ground of this hostility has been very generally\nsupposed to have been founded in the remembrance of Jacob\u2019s depriving\ntheir progenitor of his birthright. But we do not find that the\nEdomites, who had this ground for a hatred to the Jews, made any attempt\nto molest them, nor that Moses ever reproaches the Amalekites for\nattacking the Israelites as their brethren; nor do we ever find in\nScripture that the Amalekites joined with the Edomites, but always with\nthe Canaanites and the Philistines. These considerations would be\nsufficient, had we no other reasons for believing them not to be of the\nstock of Esau. They may, however, be deduced from a higher origin; and\nviewing them as Cuthite shepherds and warriors, we have an adequate\nexplanation both of their imperious and warlike character, and of the\nmotive of their hostility to the Jews in particular. If expelled with\nthe rest of their race from Egypt, they could not but recollect the\nfatal overthrow at the Red Sea; and if not participators in that\ncatastrophe, still, as members of the same family, they must bear this\nevent in remembrance with bitter feelings of revenge. But an additional\nmotive is not wanting for this hostility, especially for its first act.\nThe Amalekites probably knew that the Israelites were advancing to take\npossession of the land of Canaan, and resolved to frustrate the purposes\nof God in this respect. Hence they did not wait for their near approach\nto that country, but came down from their settlements, on its southern\nborders, to attack them unawares at Rephidim. Be this as it may, the\nAmalekites came on the Israelites, when encamped at that place, little\nexpecting such an assault. Moses commanded Joshua, with a chosen band,\nto attack the Amalekites; while he, with Aaron and Hur, went up the\nmountain Horeb. During the engagement, Moses held up his hands to\nheaven; and so long as they were maintained in this attitude, the\nIsraelites prevailed, but when through weariness they fell, the\nAmalekites prevailed. Aaron and Hur, seeing this, held up his hands till\nthe latter were entirely defeated with great slaughter, Exod. xvii.\n\nThe Amalekites were indeed the earliest and the most bitter enemies the\nJews had to encounter. They attacked them in the desert; and sought\nevery opportunity afterward of molesting them. Under the judges, the\nAmalekites, in conjunction with the Midianites, invaded the land of\nIsrael; when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi, vii. But God, for\ntheir first act of treachery, had declared that he would \u201cutterly put\nout the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;\u201d a denunciation which\nwas not long after accomplished. Saul destroyed their entire army, with\nthe exception of Agag their king; for sparing whom, and permitting the\nIsraelites to take the spoil of their foes, he incurred the displeasure\nof the Lord, who took the sceptre from him. Agag was immediately\nafterward hewn in pieces by Samuel, 1 Sam. xv. It is remarkable, that\nmost authors make Saul\u2019s pursuit of the Amalekites to commence from the\nlower Euphrates, instead of from the southern border of the land of\nCanaan. (See _Havilah_.) David a few years after, defeated another of\ntheir armies; of whom only four hundred men escaped on camels, 1 Sam.\nxxx; after which event, the Amalekites appear to have been obliterated\nas a nation.\n\nAMASA, the son of Ithra and Abigail, David\u2019s sister, whom Absalom, when\nhe rebelled against his father, appointed general of his army, 2 Sam.\nxvii, 25. Amasa having thus received the command of Absalom\u2019s troops,\nengaged his cousin Joab, general of David\u2019s army, and was worsted. But,\nafter the defeat of Absalom\u2019s party, David, being angry at Joab for\nkilling Absalom, pardoned Amasa, and gave him the command of his own\narmy. Upon the revolt of Sheba, the son of Bichri, David gave orders to\nAmasa to assemble all Judah and march against Sheba. Amasa not being\nable to form his army in the time prescribed, David directed Abishai to\npursue Sheba with the guards. Joab, with his people, accompanied him;\nand these troops were scarcely got as far as the great stone in Gibeon,\nbefore Amasa came and joined them with his forces. Then said Joab to\nAmasa, \u201cArt thou in health, my brother?\u201d and took him by the beard with\nhis right hand to kiss him; and treacherously smote him under the fifth\nrib, so that he expired.\n\nAMAZIAH, one of the kings of Judah, 2 Chron. xxiv, 27, son of Joash,\nsucceeded his father A. M. 3165, B. C. 839. He was twenty-five years of\nage when he began to reign, and reigned twenty-nine years at Jerusalem.\n\u201cHe did good in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.\u201d\nWhen settled in his kingdom, he put to death the murderers of his\nfather, but avoided a barbarous practice then too common, to destroy\nalso their children; in which he had respect to the precept, \u201cThe\nfathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the\nchildren be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to\ndeath for his own sin,\u201d Deut. xxiv, 16; 2 Chron. xxv, 1\u20133.\n\nIn the muster which Amaziah made of his people, he found three hundred\nthousand men able to bear arms. He hired, besides, one hundred thousand\nmen of Israel; for which he paid the king of Israel a hundred talents,\nabout thirty-four thousand pounds English. His design was to employ\nthese troops against Edom, which had revolted from Judah, in the reign\nof Joram, about fifty-four years before, 2 Kings, viii, 20. But a\nprophet of the Lord came to him, and said, \u201cO king, let not the army of\nIsrael go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel.\u201d Amaziah,\nhereupon, sent back those troops; and they returning, strongly irritated\nagainst Amaziah, dispersed themselves over the cities of Judah, from\nBethoron to Samaria, killed three thousand men, and carried off a great\nbooty, to make themselves amends for the loss of the plunder of Edom.\nAmaziah, with his own forces gave battle to the Edomites in the Valley\nof Salt, and defeated them; but having thus punished Edom, and taken\ntheir idols, he adored them as his own deities. This provoked the Lord,\nwho permitted Amaziah to be so blinded as to believe himself invincible.\nHe therefore sent to defy the king of Israel, saying, \u201cCome, let us look\none another in the face.\u201d The motive of this challenge was probably to\noblige Joash, king of Israel, to repair the ravages which his troops had\ncommitted on their return homewards. Joash answered him by the fable of\nthe cedar of Lebanon, and the thistle trodden down by a beast, 2 Kings\nxiv, 8, 9. But Amaziah, deaf to these reasonings, advanced to\nBethshemesh, and was defeated and taken prisoner there, by Joash, who\ncarried him to Jerusalem. Joash ordered the demolition of four hundred\ncubits of the city wall, carried to Samaria all the gold and silver, the\nrich vessels of the house of God, the treasuries of the royal palace,\nand the sons of those among his own people who had been hostages there.\nAmaziah reigned after this, fifteen or sixteen years at Jerusalem, but\nreturned not to the Lord. He endeavoured to escape from a conspiracy to\nLachish; but was assassinated. He was buried with his ancestors in the\ncity of David, and Uzziah, or Azariah, his son, about sixteen years of\nage, succeeded him.\n\nAMBASSADOR, a messenger sent by a sovereign, to transact affairs of\ngreat moment. Ministers of the Gospel are called ambassadors, because,\nin the name of Jesus Christ the King of kings, they declare his will to\nmen, and propose the terms of their reconciliation to God, 2 Cor. v, 20;\nEph. vi, 20. Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, the servants of king Hezekiah,\nwere called \u201cambassadors of peace.\u201d In their master\u2019s name they\nearnestly solicited a peace from the Assyrian monarch, but were made \u201cto\nweep bitterly\u201d with the disappointment and refusal, Isaiah xxxiii, 7.\n\nAMBER, \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05dc, Ezek. i, 4, 27; viii, 2. The amber is a hard inflammable\nbitumen. When rubbed it is highly endowed with that remarkable property\ncalled electricity, a word which the moderns have formed from its Greek\nname \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. But the ancients had also a mixed metal of fine copper\nand silver, resembling the amber in colour, and called by the same name.\nFrom the version of Ezekiel i, 4, by the LXX, \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u0223 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03d6\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u201cAnd in the midst of it as the\nappearance of electrum in the midst of the fire,\u201d it appears that those\ntranslators by \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, could not mean amber, which grows dim as soon\nas it feels the fire, and quickly dissolves into a resinous or pitchy\nsubstance; but the mixed metal above mentioned, which is much celebrated\nby the ancients for its beautiful lustre, and which, when exposed to the\nfire like other metals, grows more bright and shining. St. Jerom,\nTheodoret, St. Gregory and Origen think, that, in the above cited\npassages from Ezekiel, a precious and highly polished metal is meant.\n\nAMEN. \u05d0\u05de\u05df, in Hebrew, signifies _true_, _faithful_, _certain_. It is\nused likewise in affirmation; and was often thus employed by our\nSaviour: \u201cAmen, amen,\u201d that is, \u201cVerily, verily.\u201d It is also understood\nas expressing a wish, \u201cAmen! so be it!\u201d or an affirmation, \u201cAmen, yes, I\nbelieve it:\u201d Num. v, 22. She shall answer, \u201cAmen! Amen!\u201d Deut. xxvii,\n15, 16, 17, &c. \u201cAll the people shall answer, Amen! Amen!\u201d 1 Cor. xiv,\n16. \u201cHow shall he who occupieth the place of the unlearned, say, Amen!\nat thy giving of thanks? seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest.\u201d\n\u201cThe promises of God are Amen in Christ;\u201d that is, certain, confirmed,\ngranted, 2 Cor. i, 20. The Hebrews end the five books of Psalms,\naccording to their distribution of them, with \u201cAmen, amen;\u201d which the\nSeptuagint translate, \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, and the Latins, _Fiat, fiat_.\nThe Gospels, &c, are ended with AMEN. The Greek, Latin, and other\nchurches, preserve this word in their prayers, as well as alleluia and\nhosanna. At the conclusion of the public prayers, the people anciently\nanswered with a loud voice, \u201cAmen!\u201d and Jerom says, that, at Rome, when\nthe people answered, \u201cAmen!\u201d the sound was like a clap of thunder, _in\nsimilitudinem c\u0153lestis tonitrui Amen reboat_. [Amen rings again like\na peal of thunder.] The Jews assert that the gates of heaven are opened\nto him who answers, \u201cAmen!\u201d with all his might.\n\nThe Jewish doctors give three rules for pronouncing the word: 1. That it\nbe not pronounced too hastily and rapidly, but with a grave and distinct\nvoice. 2. That it be not louder than the tone of him that blesses. 3.\nThat it be expressed in faith, with a certain persuasion that God would\nbless them, and hear their prayers.\n\nAMEN is a title of our Lord, \u201cThe Amen, the true and faithful witness,\u201d\nRev. i, 14.\n\nAMETHYST. \u05d0\u05d7\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, Exod. xxviii, 19; and xxix, 12; and once in the New\nTestament, Rev. XXI, 20, \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03c5\u03db\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nA transparent gem, of a colour which seems composed of a strong blue and\ndeep red; and, according as either prevails, affords different tinges of\npurple, sometimes approaching to violet, and sometimes even fading to a\nrose colour. The stone called amethyst by the ancients was evidently the\nsame with that now generally known by this name; which is far from being\nthe case with regard to some other gems. The oriental is the hardest,\nscarcest, and most valuable. It was the ninth stone in the pectoral of\nthe high priest, and is mentioned as the twelfth in the foundations of\nthe New Jerusalem.\n\nAMMINADAB, or ABINADAB, a Levite, and an inhabitant of Kirjath-jearim,\nwith whom the ark was deposited after it was brought back from the land\nof the Philistines, 1 Sam. vii. This Amminadab dwelt in Gibeath, that is\nto say, in the highest part of the city of Kirjath-jearim.\n\n2. The chariots of Amminadab are mentioned, Canticles vi, 12, as being\nextremely light. He is thought to have been some celebrated charioteer,\nwhose horses were singularly swift.\n\nAMMON, or HAMMON, or JUPITER-AMMON, an epithet given to Jupiter in\nLybia, where was a celebrated temple of that deity under the\ndenomination of Jupiter Ammon, which was visited by Alexander the Great.\n\nThe word _Amoun_, which imports \u201cshining,\u201d according to Jablonski,\ndenoted the effects produced by the sun on attaining the equator, such\nas the increase of the days; a more splendid light; and, above all, the\nfortunate presage of the inundation of the Nile, and its consequent\nabundance.\n\nAmmon is by others derived from Ham, the son of Noah, who first peopled\nEgypt and Lybia, after the flood; and, when idolatry began to gain\nground soon after this period, became the chief deity of those two\ncountries, in which his descendants continued. A temple, it is said, was\nbuilt to his honour, in the midst of the sandy deserts of Lybia, upon a\nspot of good ground, about two leagues broad, which formed a kind of\nisland or oasis in a sea of sand. He was esteemed the Zeus of Greece,\nand the Jupiter of Latium, as well as the Ammon of the Egyptians. In\nprocess of time, these two names were joined; and he was called Jupiter\nAmmon. For this reason the city of Ammon, No-ammon, or the city of Ham,\nwas called by the Greeks Diospolis, or the city of Jupiter. Plutarch\nsays, that of all the Egyptian deities which seemed to have any\ncorrespondence with the Zeus of Greece, Amon or Ammon was the most\npeculiar and appropriate. From Egypt his name and worship were brought\ninto Greece; as indeed were almost all the names of all the deities that\nwere there worshipped. Jupiter Ammon, or the Egyptian Jupiter, was\nusually represented under the figure of a ram; though in some medals he\nappears of a human shape, having only two ram\u2019s horns growing out\nbeneath his ears. The Egyptians, says Proclus, in the Tim\u00e6us of Plato,\nhad a singular veneration for the ram, because the image of Ammon bore\nits head, and because this first sign of the zodiac was the presage of\nthe fruits of the earth. Eusebius adds, that this symbol marked the\nconjunction of the sun and moon in the sign of the ram.\n\n2. AMMON, or BEN-AMMI, the son of Lot, by his youngest daughter, Gen.\nxix, 38. He was the father of the Ammonites, and dwelt on the east side\nof the Dead Sea, in the mountains of Gilead.\n\nAMMONIANS, the disciples of Ammonius Saccas, of the Alexandrian school.\nHis character was so equivocal, that it is disputed whether he was a\nHeathen or a Christian. Mr. Milner calls him \u201ca Pagan Christian,\u201d who\nimagined \u201cthat all religions, vulgar and philosophical, Grecian and\nbarbarous, Jewish and Gentile, meant the same thing in substance. He\nundertook, by allegorizing and subtilizing various fables and systems,\nto make up a coalition of all sects and religions; and from his labours,\ncontinued by his disciples,--some of whose works still remain,--his\nfollowers were taught to look on Jew, philosopher, vulgar, Pagan, and\nChristian, as all of the same creed,\u201d and worshippers of the same God,\nwhether denominated \u201cJehovah, Jove, or Lord.\u201d\n\nAMMONITES, the descendants of Ammon, the son of Lot. They took\npossession of the country called by their name, after having driven out\nthe Zamzummims, who were its ancient inhabitants. The precise period at\nwhich this expulsion took place is not ascertained. The Ammonites had\nkings, and were uncircumcised, Jer. ix, 25, 26, and seem to have been\nprincipally addicted to husbandry. They, as well as the Moabites, were\namong the nations whose peace or prosperity the Israelites were\nforbidden to disturb, Deut. ii, 19, &c. However, neither the one nor the\nother were to be admitted into the congregation to the tenth generation,\nbecause they did not come out to relieve them in the wilderness, and\nwere implicated in hiring Balaam to curse them. Their chief and peculiar\ndeity is, in Scripture, called Moloch. Chemosh was also a god of the\nAmmonites. Before the Israelites entered Canaan, the Amorites conquered\na great part of the country belonging to the Ammonites and Moabites; but\nit was retaken by Moses, and divided between the tribes of Gad and\nReuben. Previous to the time of Jephthah, B. C. 1188, the Ammonites\nengaged as principals in a war, under a king whose name is not given,\nagainst the Israelites. This prince, determining to recover the ancient\ncountry of the Ammonites, made a sudden irruption into it, reduced the\nland, and kept the inhabitants in subjection for eighteen years. He\nafterward crossed Jordan with a design of falling upon the tribes of\nJudah, Benjamin, and Ephraim. The Israelites resisted the invader; and,\nassembling at Mizpeh, chose Jephthah for their general, and sent an\nexpostulatory message to the king of the Ammonites, Judges x, xi. The\nking replied, that those lands belonged to the Ammonites, who had been\nunjustly dispossessed of them by the Israelites, when they came out of\nEgypt, and exhorted Jephthah to restore them peaceably to the lawful\nowners. Jephthah remonstrated on the injustice of his claim; but finding\na war inevitable, he fell upon the Ammonites near Aroer, and defeated\nthem with great slaughter. On this occasion the Ammonites lost twenty\ncities; and thus an end was put, after eighteen years\u2019 bondage, to the\ntyranny of Ammon over the Israelites beyond Jordan. In the days of Saul,\n1 Sam. xi, B. C. 1095, the old claim of the Ammonites was revived by\nNahash their king, and they laid siege to the city of Jabesh. The\ninhabitants were inclined to acknowledge Nahash as their sovereign; but\nhe would accept their submission only on condition that every one of\nthem should consent to lose his right eye, and that thus he might fix a\nlasting reproach upon Israel: but from this humiliating and severe\nrequisition they were delivered by Saul, who vanquished and dispersed\nthe army of Nahash. Upon the death of Nahash, David sent ambassadors to\nhis son and successor Hanun, to congratulate him on his accession; but\nthese ambassadors were treated as spies, and dismissed in a very\nreproachful manner, 2 Sam. x. This indignity was punished by David with\nrigour. Rabbah, the capital of Hanun, and the other cities of Ammon,\nwhich resisted the progress of the conqueror, were destroyed and razed\nto the ground; and the inhabitants were put to death or reduced to\nservitude. In the reign of Jehoshaphat the Ammonites united with their\nbrethren, the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Mount Seir, against the\nking of Judah; but they were completely routed. They were afterward\noverthrown by Uzziah, king of Judah, and made tributary, 2 Chron. xxvi,\n8; and rebelling in the reign of his son Jotham, they were reduced to\nthe necessity of purchasing peace at a very dear rate. After the tribes\nof Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, were carried into\ncaptivity by Tiglath Pileser, B. C. 740, the Ammonites and Moabites took\npossession of the cities belonging to these tribes, and were reproached\nfor it by Jeremiah, xlix, 1. Their ambassadors were exhorted to submit\nto Nebuchadnezzar, and threatened, on their refusal, with captivity and\nslavery, Jer. xxvii, 2, 3, 4. The Prophet Ezekiel, xxv, 4\u201310, denounces\ntheir entire destruction, and informs them, that God would deliver them\nup to the people of the east; and that the Ammonites should no more be\nmentioned among the nations: and this punishment they were to suffer for\ninsulting the Israelites on account of their calamities, and the\ndestruction of their temple by the Chaldeans. This malediction began to\nbe inflicted upon them in the fifth year after the taking of Jerusalem,\nwhen Nebuchadnezzar made war against all the people around Judea, A. M.\n3420 or 3421, B. C. 583. It is probable that Cyrus granted to the\nAmmonites and Moabites liberty to return into their own country, whence\nthey had been removed by Nebuchadnezzar; for they were exposed to the\nrevolutions that were common to the people of Syria and Palestine, and\nwere subject sometimes to the kings of Egypt, and sometimes to the kings\nof Syria. Polybius informs us, that Antiochus the Great took Rabboth, or\nPhiladelphia, the capital of the Ammonites, demolished the walls, and\nput a garrison into it, A. M. 3806, B. C. 198. During the persecutions\nof Antiochus Epiphanes, the Ammonites manifested their hatred to the\nJews, and exercised great cruelties against such of them as lived in\ntheir parts. At length their city Jaser, and the neighbouring town, fell\na prey to the Jews, who smote the men, carried their wives and children\ninto captivity, and plundered and burned the city. Thus ended their last\nconflict with the descendants of Israel. Ammon was, however, a highly\nproductive and populous country when the Romans became masters of all\nthe provinces of Syria; and several of the ten allied cities, which gave\nname to the celebrated Decapolis, were included within its boundaries.\nEven when first invaded by the Saracens, this country, including Moab,\nwas enriched by the various benefits of trade, covered with a line of\nforts, and possessed some strong and populous cities. Volney bears\nwitness, \u201cthat in the immense plains of the Hauran, ruins are\ncontinually to be met with, and that what is said of its actual\nfertility perfectly corresponds with the idea given of it in the Hebrew\nwritings.\u201d The fact of its natural fertility is corroborated by every\ntraveller who has visited it. And \u201cit is evident,\u201d says Burckhardt,\n\u201cthat the whole country must have been extremely well cultivated in\norder to have afforded subsistence to the inhabitants of so many towns,\u201d\nas are now visible only in their ruins. While the fruitfulness of the\nland of Ammon, and the high degree of prosperity and power in which it\nsubsisted long prior and long subsequent to the date of the predictions,\nare thus indisputably established by historical evidence and by existing\nproofs, the researches of recent travellers (who were actuated by the\nmere desire of exploring these regions and obtaining geographical\ninformation) have made known its present aspect; and testimony the most\nclear, unexceptionable, and conclusive, has been borne to the state of\ndire desolation to which it is and has long been reduced.\n\nIt was prophesied concerning Ammon, \u201cSon of man, set thy face against\nthe Ammonites, and prophesy against them. I will make Rabbah of the\nAmmonites a stable for camels and a couching place for flocks. Behold, I\nwill stretch out my hand upon thee, and deliver thee for a spoil to the\nHeathen; I will cut thee off from the people, and cause thee to perish\nout of the countries; I will destroy thee. The Ammonites shall not be\nremembered among the nations. Rabbah\u201d (the chief city) \u201cof the Ammonites\nshall be a desolate heap. Ammon shall be a perpetual desolation,\u201d Ezek.\nxxv, 2, 5, 7, 10; xxi, 32; Jer. xlix, 2; Zeph. ii, 9.\n\nAmmon was to be delivered to be a spoil to the Heathen--to be destroyed,\nand to be a perpetual desolation. \u201cAll this country, formerly so\npopulous and flourishing, is now changed into a vast desert.\u201d\n(_Seetzen\u2019s Travels._) Ruins are seen in every direction. The country is\ndivided between the Turks and the Arabs, but chiefly possessed by the\nlatter. The extortions of the one, and the depredations of the other,\nkeep it in \u201cperpetual desolation,\u201d and make it \u201ca spoil to the Heathen.\u201d\n\u201cThe far greater part of the country is uninhabited, being abandoned to\nthe wandering Arabs, and the towns and villages are in a state of total\nruin.\u201d (_Ibid._) \u201cAt every step are to be found the vestiges of ancient\ncities, the remains of many temples, public edifices, and Greek\nchurches.\u201d (_Burckhardt\u2019s Travels._) The cities are left desolate. \u201cMany\nof the ruins present no objects of any interest. They consist of a few\nwalls of dwelling houses, heaps of stones, the foundations of some\npublic edifices, and a few cisterns filled up; there is nothing entire,\nthough it appears that the mode of building was very solid, all the\nremains being formed of large stones. In the vicinity of Ammon there is\na fertile plain interspersed with low hills, which for the greater part\nare covered with ruins.\u201d (_Burckhardt\u2019s Travels in Syria._) While the\ncountry is thus despoiled and desolate, there are valleys and tracts\nthroughout it which \u201care covered with a fine coat of verdant pasture,\nand are places of resort to the Bedouins, where they pasture their\ncamels and their sheep.\u201d (_Buckingham\u2019s Travels in Palestine._) \u201cThe\nwhole way we traversed,\u201d says Seetzen, \u201cwe saw villages in ruins, and\nmet numbers of Arabs with their camels,\u201d &c. Mr. Buckingham describes a\nbuilding among the ruins of Ammon, \u201cthe masonry of which was evidently\nconstructed of materials gathered from the ruins of other and older\nbuildings on the spot. On entering it at the south end,\u201d he adds, \u201cwe\ncame to an open square court, with arched recesses on each side, the\nsides nearly facing the cardinal points. The recesses in the northern\nand southern wall were originally open passages, and had arched door\nways facing each other; but the first of these was found wholly closed\nup, and the last was partially filled up, leaving only a narrow passage,\njust sufficient for the entrance of one man and of the goats, which the\nArab keepers drive in here occasionally for shelter during the night.\u201d\nHe relates that he lay down among \u201cflocks of sheep and goats,\u201d close\nbeside the ruins of Ammon; and particularly remarks that, during the\nnight, he \u201cwas almost entirely prevented from sleeping by the bleating\nof flocks.\u201d So literally true is it, although Seetzen, and Burckhardt,\nand Buckingham, who relate the facts, make no reference or allusion\nwhatever to any of the prophecies, and travelled for a different object\nthan the elucidation of the Scriptures,--that \u201cthe chief city of the\nAmmonites is a stable for camels, and a couching place for flocks.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Ammonites shall not be remembered among the nations.\u201d While the\nJews, who were long their hereditary enemies, continue as distinct a\npeople as ever, though dispersed among all nations, no trace of the\nAmmonites remains; none are now designated by their name, nor do any\nclaim descent from them. They did exist, however, long after the time\nwhen the eventual annihilation of their race was foretold; for they\nretained their name, and continued a great multitude until the second\ncentury of the Christian \u00e6ra. (_Justin Martyr._) \u201cYet they are cut off\nfrom the people. Ammon has perished out of the countries; it is\ndestroyed.\u201d No people is attached to its soil; none regard it as their\ncountry and adopt its name: \u201cAnd the Ammonites are not remembered among\nthe nations.\u201d\n\n\u201cRabbah\u201d (Rabbah Ammon, the chief city of Ammon) \u201cshall be a desolate\nheap.\u201d Situated, as it was, on each side of the borders of a plentiful\nstream, encircled by a fruitful region, strong by nature and fortified\nby art, nothing could have justified the suspicion, or warranted the\nconjecture in the mind of an uninspired mortal, that the royal city of\nAmmon, whatever disasters might possibly befal it in the fate of war or\nchange of masters, would ever undergo so total a transmutation as to\nbecome a desolate heap. But although, in addition to such tokens of its\ncontinuance as a city, more than a thousand years had given\nuninterrupted experience of its stability, ere the prophets of Israel\ndenounced its fate; yet a period of equal length has now marked it out,\nas it exists to this day, a desolate heap, a perpetual or permanent\ndesolation. Its ancient name is still preserved by the Arabs, and its\nsite is now \u201ccovered with the ruins of private buildings--nothing of\nthem remaining except the foundations and some of the door posts. The\nbuildings, exposed to the atmosphere, are all in decay,\u201d (_Burckhardt\u2019s\nTravels in Syria_,) so that they may be said literally to form a\ndesolate heap. The public edifices, which once strengthened or adorned\nthe city, after a long resistance to decay, are now also desolate; and\nthe remains of the most entire among them, subjected as they are to the\nabuse and spoliation of the wild Arabs, can be adapted to no better\nobject than \u201ca stable for camels.\u201d Yet these broken walls and ruined\npalaces, says Mr. Keith, which attest the ancient splendour of Ammon,\ncan now be made subservient, by means of a single act of reflection, to\na far nobler purpose than the most magnificent edifices on earth can be,\nwhen they are contemplated as monuments on which the historic and\nprophetic truth of Scripture is blended in one bright inscription.\n\nAMORITES, the descendants of Amori, or H\u00e6morri, or Amorrh\u00e6us, Gen. x,\n16, the fourth son of Canaan, whose first possessions were in the\nmountains of Judea, among the other families of Canaan: but, growing\nstrong above their fellows, and impatient of confinement within the\nnarrow boundaries of their native district, they passed the Jordan, and\nextended their conquests over the finest provinces of Moab and Ammon;\nseizing and maintaining possession of that extensive and almost\ninsulated portion of country included between the rivers Jordan, Jabbok,\nand Arnon. This was the kingdom, and Heshbon the capital, of the\nAmorites, under Sihon their king, when the Israelites, in their way from\nEgypt, requested a passage through their country. This request, however,\nSihon refused; and came out against them with all his force, when he was\nslain, his people extirpated, and his kingdom taken possession of by the\nIsraelites. It was subsequently divided between the tribes of Reuben and\nGad, Num. xiii, 29; xxi, 13, 25; Joshua v, 1; xi, 3; Judges xi, 19, 22.\n\nAMOS, the fourth of the minor prophets, who in his youth had been a\nherdsman in Tekoa, a small town about four leagues southward of\nJerusalem. He was sent to the people of Samaria, to bring them back to\nGod by repentance, and reformation of manners. Hence it is natural to\nsuppose that he must have been born within the territories of Israel,\nand that he only retired to Tekoa, on being expelled from Bethel by\nAmaziah, the priest of the calves at Bethel. He frequently complains of\nthe violence offered him by those who endeavoured to impose silence on\nhim. He boldly inveighs against the crying sins of the Israelites, such\nas idolatry, oppression, wantonness, and obstinacy. Nor does he spare\nthe sins of Judah, such as their carnal security, sensuality, and\ninjustice. He utters frequent threatenings against them both, and\npredicts their ruin. It is observable in this prophecy, that, as it\nbegins with denunciations of judgment and destruction against the\nSyrians, Philistines, Tyrians, and other enemies of the Jews, so it\nconcludes with comfortable promises of the restoration of the tabernacle\nof David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Amos was\ncalled to the prophetic office in the time of Uzziah, king of Judah, and\nJeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.\n\nSome writers, in adverting to the condition of Amos, have, with a minute\naffectation of criticism, pretended to discover a certain rudeness and\nvulgarity in his style; and even Jerom is of opinion that he is\ndeficient in magnificence and sublimity. He applies to him the words\nwhich St. Paul speaks of himself, that he was rude in speech, though not\nin knowledge; and his authority, says Bishop Lowth, \u201chas influenced many\ncommentators to represent him as entirely rude, and void of elegance;\nwhereas it requires but little attention to be convinced that he is not\na whit behind the very chiefest of the prophets;\u201d equal to the greatest\nin loftiness of sentiment, and scarcely inferior to any in the splendour\nof his diction, and in the elegance of his composition. Mr. Locke has\nobserved, that his comparisons are chiefly drawn from lions, and other\nanimals, because he lived among, and was conversant with, such objects.\nBut, indeed, the finest images and allusions, which adorn the poetical\nparts of Scripture, in general are drawn from scenes of nature, and from\nthe grand objects that range in her walks; and true genius ever delights\nin considering these as the real sources of beauty and magnificence. The\nwhole book of Amos is animated with a fine and masculine eloquence.\n\nAMULET, a charm or supposed preservative against diseases, witchcraft,\nor any other mischief. They were very frequent among the Jews, the\nGreeks, and the Romans, and were made of stone, metal, animal\nsubstances, or, in short, any thing which a weak imagination suggested.\nThe Jews were very superstitious in the use of amulets, but the Mishna\nforbids them, unless received from some person of whose cures, at least,\nthree instances could be produced. The phylacteries worn by the\nPharisees and others of the Jewish nation were a sort of amulets.\n\nAmulets among the Greeks were called, \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b2\u03c1\u03ae\u03b2\u03b9\u03b1, and \u03b5\u03be\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1. The Latins called them\n_amuleta, appensa, pentacula, &c._ Remains of this superstition continue\namong ignorant people even in this country, which ought to be strongly\ndiscountenanced as weak or wicked. The word amulet is probably derived\nfrom _amula_, a small vessel with lustral water in it, anciently carried\nin the pocket for the sake of purification and expiation.\n\nAMYRALDISM, a name given by some writers to the doctrine of universal\ngrace, as explained and asserted by Amyraldus, or Moses Amyraut, and his\nfollowers, among the reformed in France, toward the middle of the\nseventeenth century. This doctrine principally consisted of the\nfollowing particulars, viz. that God desires the happiness of all men,\nfrom which none are excluded by a divine decree; that none can obtain\nsalvation without faith in Christ; that God refuses to none the power of\nbelieving, though he does not grant to all his assistance, that they may\nimprove this power to saving purposes; and that many perish through\ntheir own fault. Those who embraced this doctrine were called\nUniversalists, although, it is evident that they rendered grace\nuniversal in words, but partial in reality, and are chargeable with\ngreater inconsistencies than the Supralapsarians. Amyraldus is said to\nhave formed his system with a view of producing a reconciliation between\nthe Lutherans and Calvinists. This theory was supported in England by\nBaxter. See BAXTERIANISM.\n\nANABAPTISTS, a name given to those Christians who maintain that baptism\nought always to be performed by immersion; that it ought not to be\nadministered to children before the age of discretion; and that at this\nage it ought to be readministered to those who have been baptized in\ntheir infancy. They affirm that the administration of this sacrament is\nneither valid nor useful, if it be done by sprinkling only, and not by\nimmersion; or if the persons who receive it be not in a condition to\ngive the reasons of their belief. The Anabaptists of Germany brought the\nname into great odium by their turbulent conduct; but by the people of\nthis persuasion generally, the conduct of these fanatics was at all\ntimes condemned. In England they form a most respectable, though not a\nvery numerous body.\n\nThe word Anabaptist is compounded of \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70, new, and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03db\u1f74\u03c2, a baptist;\nand has been indiscriminately applied to people of very different\nprinciples. Many of them object to the name, because the baptism of\ninfants by sprinkling is, in their opinion, no baptism; and others hold\nnothing in common excepting some one or other of the above mentioned\nopinions concerning baptism. See BAPTISM.\n\nANAGOGICAL. This is one of the four senses in which Scripture may be\ninterpreted, viz. the literal, allegorical, anagogical, and\ntropological. The anagogical sense is given when the text is explained\nwith regard to the end which Christians should have in view, that is,\neternal life: for example, the rest of the Sabbath, in the anagogical\nsense, corresponds to the repose of everlasting blessedness.\n\nANAK, ANAKIM, famous giants in Palestine. Anak, father of the Anakim,\nwas son of Arba, who gave his name to Kirjath-Arba, or Hebron. Anak had\nthree sons, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, whose descendants were terrible\nfor their fierceness and stature. The Hebrew spies reported that in\ncomparison of those monstrous men, they themselves were but\ngrasshoppers. Some have thought that the name _Ph\u0153nician_, given to\nthe Canaanites, and particularly to the Sidonians, was originally from\n_Bene-Anak_, sons of Anak. Caleb, assisted by the tribe of Judah, took\nKirjath-Arba, and destroyed the Anakim, A. M. 2559. Josh. xv, 14; Judg.\ni, 20.\n\nANALOGY OF FAITH. This has been often and largely descanted upon as an\nimportant rule for interpreting Scripture, founded, as it is said, upon\nRom. xii, 6, \u201cLet us prophesy according to the proportion\u201d (_analogy_)\n\u201cof faith.\u201d\n\nThe principle of this rule has been thus stated: It is evident the\nAlmighty doth not act without a design in the system of Christianity,\nany more than in the works of nature. Now this design must be uniform;\nfor as in the system of the universe every part is proportioned to the\nwhole, and made subservient to it,--so, in the system of the Gospel, all\nthe various truths, doctrines, declarations, precepts, and promises must\ncorrespond with, and tend to, the end designed. For instance, supposing\nthe glory of God in the salvation of sinners by free grace be the grand\ndesign,--then, whatever doctrine, assertion, or hypothesis agrees not\nwith this, it is to be considered as false. The effect however of this\nview of the case appears to be often delusive. If nothing more be meant\nthan that, what is obscure in a revelation should be interpreted by that\nwhich is plain, the same rule applies to all sober interpretations of\nany book whatever; but if we call our opinions, perhaps hastily taken\nup, or admitted on some authority without examination by the light of\nScripture, \u201cthe analogy of faith,\u201d we shall greatly err. On this subject\nDr. Campbell remarks:--\n\n\u201cIn vain do we search the Scriptures for their testimony concerning\nChrist, if, independently of these Scriptures, we have received a\ntestimony from another quarter, and are determined to admit nothing as\nthe testimony of Scripture which will not perfectly quadrate with that\nformerly received. This was the very source of the blindness of the Jews\nin our Saviour\u2019s time. They searched the Scriptures as much as we do;\nbut, in the disposition they were in, they would never have discovered\nwhat that sacred volume testifies of Christ. Why? because their great\nrule of interpretation was _the analogy of the faith_; or, in other\nwords, the system of the Pharisean scribes, the doctrine then in vogue,\nand in the profound veneration of which they had been educated. This is\nthat veil by which the understandings of that people were darkened, even\nin reading the law, and of which the Apostle observed, that it remained\nunremoved in his day, and of which we ourselves have occasion to\nobserve, that it remains unremoved in ours. And is it not precisely in\nthe same way that the phrase is used by every sect of Christians, for\nthe particular system or digest of tenets for which they themselves have\nthe greatest reverence? The Latin church, and even the Greek, are\nexplicit in their declarations on this article. With each, _the analogy\nof the faith_ is their own system alone. And that different parties of\nProtestants, though more reserved in their manner of speaking, aim at\nthe same thing, is undeniable; the same, I mean, considered relatively\nto the speakers; for, absolutely considered, every party means a\ndifferent thing. \u2018But,\u2019 say some, \u2018is not this mode of interpretation\nwarranted by Apostolical authority? Does not Paul, Rom. xii, 6, in\nspeaking of the exercise of the spiritual gifts, enjoin the prophets to\nprophesy \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03d6\u03af\u03db\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _according to the proportion of\nfaith_, as our translators render it, but as some critics explain it,\n_according to the analogy of the faith_?\u2019 Though this exposition has\nbeen admitted into some versions, and adopted by Hammond and other\ncommentators, and may be called literal, it is suited neither to the\nordinary meaning of the words, nor to the tenor of the context. The word\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 strictly denotes proportion, measure, rate, but by no means\nthat complex notion conveyed in the aforesaid phrase by the term\n_analogy_, which has been well observed by Whitby to be particularly\nunsuitable in this place, where the Apostle treats of those who speak by\ninspiration, not of those who explain what has been thus spoken by\nothers. The context manifestly leads us to understand \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03d6\u03af\u03db\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\nverse 6, as equivalent to \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03d6\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, verse 3. And for the better\nunderstanding of this phrase, _the measure of faith_, it may be proper\nto observe, 1. That a strong conviction of any tenet, from whatever\ncause it arises, is in Scripture sometimes termed _faith_. Thus in the\nsame epistle, Rom. xiv, 22, the Apostle says, \u2018Hast thou faith? have it\nto thyself before God.\u2019 The scope of his reasoning shows that nothing is\nthere meant by faith, but a conviction of the truth in regard to the\narticle of which he had been treating, namely, the equality of days and\nmeats, in point of sanctity, under the Gospel dispensation. The same is\nevidently the meaning of the word, verse 23, \u2018Whatsoever is not of\nfaith, is sin;\u2019 where, without regard to the morality of an action\nabstractly considered, that is concluded to be sin which is done by one\nwho doubts of its lawfulness. 2. As to spiritual gifts, prophecy and\ninspiration in particular, they appear to have been accompanied with\nsuch a faith or conviction that they came from the Spirit, as left no\nroom for hesitation. And indeed it is easy to perceive that something of\nthis kind was absolutely necessary to enable the inspired person to\ndistinguish what proceeded from the Spirit of God, from what was the\ncreature of his own imagination. The prophets of God were not acted upon\nlike machines in delivering their predictions, as the diviners were\nsupposed to be among the Heathen, but had then, as at other times, the\nfree use of their faculties, both of body and mind.\u201d This caution is\ntherefore with great propriety given them by the Apostle, to induce them\nto be attentive in prophesying, not to exceed the precise measure\nallowed them, (for different measures of the same gift were committed to\ndifferent persons,) and not to mingle aught of their own with the things\nof God\u2019s Spirit. Let him prophesy according to the proportion in which\nhe has received this gift, which is in proportion to his faith. Though a\nsense somewhat different has been given to the words by some ancient\nGreek expositors, none of them seems to have formed a conception of that\nsense, which, as was observed above, has been given by some moderns.\nThis has, nevertheless, a sound and sober principle included in it,\nalthough capable of great abuse. Undoubtedly there is a class of great\nand leading truths in the Scriptures so clearly revealed as to afford\nprinciples of interpretation in doubtful passages, and these are so\nobvious that persons of sound minds and hearts will not need those\nformal rules for the application of the analogy of faith to\ninterpretation, which have been drawn up by several writers, and which\nwhen not misleading, are generally superfluous.\n\nANANIAS was the son of Nebed\u00e6us, high priest of the Jews. According to\nJosephus, he succeeded Joseph, the son of Camith, in the forty-seventh\nyear of the Christian \u00e6ra; and was himself succeeded by Ishmael, the son\nof Tab\u00e6us, in the year 63. Quadratus, governor of Syria, coming into\nJud\u00e6a, on the rumours which prevailed among the Samaritans and Jews,\nsent the high priest Ananias to Rome, to vindicate his conduct to the\nemperor. The high priest justified himself, was acquitted, and returned.\nSt. Paul being apprehended at Jerusalem by the tribune of the Roman\ntroops that guarded the temple, declared to him that he was a citizen of\nRome. This obliged the officer to treat him with some regard. As he was\nignorant of what the Jews accused him, the next day he convened the\npriests, and placed St. Paul in the midst of them, that he might justify\nhimself. St. Paul began as follows: \u201cMen and brethren, I have lived in\nall good conscience before God until this day.\u201d He had scarcely spoken\nthis, when the high priest, Ananias, commanded those who were near him\nto smite him on the face. The Apostle immediately replied, \u201cGod shall\njudge thee, thou whited wall; for, sittest thou to judge me after the\nlaw, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?\u201d They that\nstood by said, \u201cRevilest thou God\u2019s high priest?\u201d And Paul answered, \u201cI\nwist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou\nshalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people,\u201d Acts xxii, 23, 24;\nxxiii, 1\u20135; by which words many suppose that the Apostle spake in bitter\nirony; or at least that he considered Ananias as a usurper of the office\nof the priesthood.\n\nAfter this, the assembly being divided in opinion, St. Paul was sent by\nthe tribune to C\u00e6sarea, that Felix, governor of the province, might take\ncognizance of the affair. When it was known that the Apostle had arrived\nat C\u00e6sarea, Ananias the high priest, and other Jews, went thither to\naccuse him; but the affair was adjourned, and St. Paul continued two\nyears in prison in that city, Acts xxiv.\n\nThe Apostle\u2019s prediction that God would smite Ananias, was thus\naccomplished: Albinus, governor of Jud\u00e6a, being come into that country,\nAnanias found means to gain him by presents; and Ananias, by reason of\nthis patronage, was considered as the first man of his nation. However,\nthere were in his party some violent persons, who plundered the country,\nand seized the tithes of the priests; and this they did with impunity,\non account of the great credit of Ananias. At the same time, several\ncompanies of assassins infested Jud\u00e6a, and committed great ravages. When\nany of their companions fell into the hands of the governors of the\nprovince, and were about to be executed, they failed not to seize some\ndomestic or relation of the high priest Ananias, that he might procure\nthe liberty of their associates, in exchange for those whom they\ndetained. Having taken Eleazer, one of Ananias\u2019s sons, they did not\nrelease him till ten of their companions were liberated. By this means\ntheir number considerably increased, and the country was exposed to\ntheir ravages. At length, Eleazer, the son of Ananias, heading a party\nof mutineers, seized the temple, and forbade any sacrifices for the\nemperor. Being joined by the assassins, he pulled down the house of his\nfather Ananias, with his brother, hid himself in the aqueducts belonging\nto the royal palace, but was soon discovered, and both of them were\nkilled. Thus God smote this whited wall, in the very beginning of the\nJewish wars.\n\n2. ANANIAS, one of the first Christians of Jerusalem, who being\nconverted, with his wife Sapphira, sold his estate; (as did the other\nChristians at Jerusalem, under a temporary regulation that they were to\nhave all things in common;) but privately reserved a part of the\npurchase money to himself. Having brought the remainder to St. Peter, as\nthe whole price of the inheritance sold, the Apostle, to whom the Holy\nGhost had revealed this falsehood, rebuked him severely, as having lied\nnot unto men but unto God, Acts v. At that instant, Ananias, being\nstruck dead, fell down at the Apostle\u2019s feet; and in the course of three\nhours after, his wife suffered a similar punishment. This happened, A.\nD. 33, or 34. It is evident, that in this and similar events, the\nspectators and civil magistrates must have been convinced that some\nextraordinary power was exerted; for if Peter had himself slain Ananias,\nhe would have been amenable to the laws as a murderer. But, if by\nforewarning him that he should immediately die, and the prediction came\nto pass, it is evident that the power which attended this word of Peter\nwas not from Peter, but from God. This was made the more certain by the\ndeath of two persons, in the same manner, and under the same\ncircumstances, which could not be attributed to accident.\n\n3. _Ananias_, a disciple of Christ, at Damascus, whom the Lord directed\nto visit Paul, then lately converted. Ananias answered, \u201cLord, I have\nheard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at\nJerusalem; and how he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all\nthat call upon thy name.\u201d But the Lord said unto him, \u201cGo thy way, for\nhe is a chosen vessel unto me.\u201d Ananias, therefore, went to the house in\nwhich God had revealed unto him that Paul was, and putting his hands on\nhim, said, \u201cBrother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared unto thee in the\nway, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled\nwith the Holy Ghost,\u201d Acts ix, 10\u201312, &c. We are not informed of any\nother circumstance of the life of Ananias.\n\nANATHEMA, from \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9, signifies something set apart, separated, or\ndevoted, Mic. iv, 13, or the _formula_ by which this is effected. To\nanathematize is generally understood to denote the cutting off or\nseparating any one from the communion of the faithful, the number of the\nliving, or the privileges of society; or the devoting of an animal,\ncity, or other thing, to destruction. See ACCURSED.\n\nANATHEMA MARANATHA. \u201cIf any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him\nbe Anathema Maranatha,\u201d 1 Cor. xvi, 22. Why these two words, one Greek\nand the other Syriac, were not translated, is not obvious. They are the\nwords with which the Jews began their greater excommunication, whereby\nthey not only excluded sinners from their society, but delivered them up\nto the divine _cherem_, or anathema, that is, to misery in this life,\nand perdition in the life to come. \u201cLet him be Anathema\u201d is, \u201cLet him be\naccursed.\u201d Maranatha signifies, \u201cThe Lord cometh,\u201d or, \u201cwill come;\u201d that\nis, to take vengeance. See See ACCURSED.\n\nANDREW, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a native of Bethsaida, and the\nbrother of Peter. He was at first a disciple of John the Baptist, whom\nhe left to follow our Saviour, after the testimony of John, \u201cBehold the\nLamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,\u201d John i, 29, and was\nthe first disciple received by our Saviour. Andrew then introduced his\nbrother Simon, and they went with him to the marriage in Cana, but\nafterward returned to their ordinary occupation, not expecting, perhaps,\nto be farther employed in his service. However, some months after, Jesus\nmeeting them, while fishing together, called them to a regular\nattendance upon him, and promised to make them fishers of men, Matt. iv,\n19.\n\nAfter our Saviour\u2019s ascension, tradition states that Andrew was\nappointed to preach in Scythia and the neighbouring countries. According\nto Eusebius, after this Apostle had planted the Gospel in several\nplaces, he came to Patr\u00e6, in Achaia, where, endeavouring to convert the\npro-consul \u00c6geas, he was, by that governor\u2019s orders, first scourged, and\nthen crucified. The time of his suffering martyrdom is not known; but\nall the ancient and modern martyrologies of the Greeks and Latins agree\nin celebrating his festival on the 30th of November. His body was\nembalmed, and decently interred at Patr\u00e6, by Maximilla, a lady of great\nquality and estate. It was afterward removed to Constantinople, by\nConstantine the Great, who buried it in the great church which he had\nbuilt to the honour of the Apostles. It is not known for what reason\npainters represent St. Andrew\u2019s cross like an X. Peter Chrysologus says\nthat he was crucified upon a tree; and the spurious Hippolytus assures\nus that it was an olive tree. Nevertheless, the tradition which\ndescribes him to have been nailed to a cross is very ancient.\n\nANGEL, a spiritual, intelligent substance, the first in rank and dignity\namong created beings. The word angel, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, is not properly a\ndenomination of nature but of office; denoting as much as _nuncius_,\nmessenger, a person employed to carry one\u2019s orders, or declare his will.\nThus it is St. Paul represents angels, Heb. i, 14, where he calls them\n\u201cministering spirits;\u201d and yet custom has prevailed so much, that angel\nis now commonly taken for the denomination of a particular order of\nspiritual beings, of great understanding and power, superior to the\nsouls or spirits of men. Some of these are spoken of in Scripture in\nsuch a manner as plainly to signify that they are real beings, of a\nspiritual nature, of high power, perfection, dignity, and happiness.\nOthers of them are distinguished as not having kept their first station,\nJude 6. These are represented as evil spirits, enemies of God, and\nintent on mischief. The devil as the head of them, and they as his\nangels, are represented as the rulers of the darkness of this world, or\nspiritual wickednesses, or wicked spirits, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03d6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03d6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u0223\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, Eph. vi, 12; which may not be unfitly rendered, \u201cthe\nspiritual managers of opposition to the kingdom of God.\u201d\n\nThe existence of angels is supposed in all religions, though it is\nincapable of being proved _a priori_. Indeed, the ancient Sadducees are\nrepresented as denying all spirits; and yet the Samaritans, and\nCaraites, who are reputed Sadducees, openly allowed them: witness\nAbusaid, the author of an Arabic version of the Pentateuch; and Aaron, a\nCaraite Jew, in his comment on the Pentateuch; both extant in manuscript\nin the king of France\u2019s library. In the Alcoran we find frequent mention\nof angels. The Mussulmen believe them of different orders or degrees,\nand to be destined for different employments both in heaven and on\nearth. They attribute exceedingly great power to the angel Gabriel, as\nthat he is able to descend in the space of an hour from heaven to earth;\nto overturn a mountain with a single feather of his wing, &c. The angel\nAsrael, they suppose, is appointed to take the souls of such as die; and\nanother angel, named Esraphil, they tell us, stands with a trumpet ready\nin his mouth to proclaim the day of judgment.\n\nThe Heathen philosophers and poets were also agreed as to the existence\nof intelligent beings, superior to man; as is shown by St. Cyprian in\nhis treatise of the vanity of idols; from the testimonies of Plato,\nSocrates, Trismegistus, &c. They were acknowledged under different\nappellations; the Greeks calling them d\u00e6mons, and the Romans genii, or\nlares. Epicurus seems to have been the only one among the old\nphilosophers who absolutely rejected them.\n\nAuthors are not so unanimous about the nature as about the existence of\nangels. Clemens Alexandrinus believed they had bodies; which was also\nthe opinion of Origen, C\u00e6sarius, Tertullian, and several others.\nAthanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nicene, St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom,\n&c, held them to be mere spirits. It has been the more current opinion,\nespecially in later times, that they are substances entirely spiritual,\nwho can, at any time, assume bodies, and appear in human or other\nshapes. Ecclesiastical writers make a hierarchy of nine orders of\nangels. Others have distributed angels into nine orders, according to\nthe names by which they are called in Scripture, and reduced these\norders into three hierarchies; to the first of which belong seraphim,\ncherubim, and thrones; to the second, dominions, virtues, and powers;\nand to the third, principalities, archangels, and angels. The Jews\nreckon four orders or companies of angels, each headed by an archangel;\nthe first order being that of Michael; the second, of Gabriel; the\nthird, of Uriel; and the fourth, of Raphael. Following the Scripture\naccount, we shall find mention made of different orders of these\nsuperior beings; for such a distinction of orders seems intimated in the\nnames given to different classes. Thus we have _thrones_, _dominions_,\n_principalities_, or princedoms, _powers_, _authorities_, _living ones_,\n_cherubim_, and _seraphim_. That some of these titles may indicate the\nsame class of angels is probable; but that they all should be but\ndifferent appellations of one common and equal order is improbable. We\nlearn also from Scripture, that they dwell in the immediate presence of\nGod; that they \u201cexcel in strength;\u201d that they are immortal; and that\nthey are the agents through which God very often accomplishes his\nspecial purposes of judgment and mercy. Nothing is more frequent in\nScripture than the missions and appearances of good and bad angels, whom\nGod employed to declare his will; to correct, teach, reprove, and\ncomfort. God gave the law to Moses, and appeared to the old patriarchs,\nby the mediation of angels, who represented him, and spoke in his name,\nActs vii, 30, 35; Gal. iii, 19; Heb. xiii, 2.\n\nThough the Jews, in general, believed the existence of angels, there was\na sect among them, namely, the Sadducees, who denied the existence of\nall spirits whatever, God only excepted, Acts xxiii, 8. Before the\nBabylonish captivity, the Hebrews seem not to have known the names of\nany angel. The Talmudists say they brought the names of angels from\nBabylon. Tobit, who is thought to have resided in Nineveh some time\nbefore the captivity, mentions the angel Raphael, Tob. iii, 17; xi, 2,\n7; and Daniel, who lived at Babylon some time after Tobit, has taught us\nthe names of Michael and Gabriel, Dan. viii, 16; ix, 21; x, 21. In the\nNew Testament, we find only the two latter mentioned by name.\n\nThere are various opinions as to the time when the angels were created.\nSome think this took place when our heavens and the earth were made. For\nthis opinion, however, there is no just foundation in the Mosaic\naccount. Others think that angels existed long before the formation of\nour solar system; and Scripture seems to favour this opinion, Job\nxxxviii, 4, 7, where God says, \u201cWhere wast thou when I laid the\nfoundations of the earth?--and all the sons of God shouted for joy.\u201d\nThough it be a universal opinion that angels are of a spiritual and\nincorporeal nature, yet some of the fathers, misled by a passage in Gen.\nvi, 2, where it is said, \u201cThe sons of God saw the daughters of men, that\nthey were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,\u201d\nimagined them to be corporeal, and capable of sensual pleasures. But,\nwithout noticing all the wild reveries which have been propagated by\nbold or ignorant persons, let it suffice to observe, that by \u201cthe sons\nof God\u201d we are evidently to understand the descendants of Seth, who, for\nthe great piety wherein they continued for some time, were so called;\nand that \u201cthe daughters of men\u201d were the progeny of wicked Cain.\n\nAs to the doctrine of tutelary or guarding angels, presiding over the\naffairs of empires, nations, provinces, and particular persons, though\nreceived by the later Jews, it appears to be wholly Pagan in its origin,\nand to have no countenance in the Scriptures. The passages in Daniel\nbrought to favour this notion are capable of a much better explanation;\nand when our Lord declares that the \u201c_angels_\u201d of little children \u201cdo\nalways behold the face of God,\u201d he either speaks of children as being\nthe objects of the general ministry of angels, or, still more probably,\nby _angels_ he there means the disembodied spirits of children; for that\nthe Jews called disembodied spirits by the name of angels, appears from\nActs xii, 15.\n\nOn this question of guardian angels, Bishop Horsley observes: \u201cThat the\nholy angels are often employed by God in his government of this\nsublunary world, is indeed to be clearly proved by holy writ. That they\nhave power over the matter of the universe, analogous to the powers over\nit which men possess, greater in extent, but still limited, is a thing\nwhich might reasonably be supposed, if it were not declared. But it\nseems to be confirmed by many passages of holy writ; from which it seems\nalso evident that they are occasionally, for certain specific purposes,\ncommissioned to exercise those powers to a prescribed extent. That the\nevil angels possessed before their fall the like powers, which they are\nstill occasionally permitted to exercise for the punishment of wicked\nnations, seems also evident. That they have a power over the human\nsensory, which they are occasionally permitted to exercise, and by means\nof which they may inflict diseases, suggest evil thoughts, and be the\ninstruments of temptation, must also be admitted. But all this amounts\nnot to any thing of a discretional authority placed in the hands of\ntutelar angels, or to an authority to advise the Lord God with respect\nto the measures of his government. Confidently I deny that a single text\nis to be found in holy writ, which, rightly understood, gives the least\ncountenance to the abominable doctrine of such a participation of the\nholy angels in God\u2019s government of the world. In what manner then, it\nmay be asked, are the holy angels made at all subservient to the\npurposes of God\u2019s government? This question is answered by St. Paul in\nhis Epistle to the Hebrews, in the last verse of the first chapter; and\nthis is the only passage in the whole Bible in which we have any thing\nexplicit upon the office and employment of angels: \u2018Are they not all,\u2019\nsaith he, \u2018ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them that\nshall be heirs of salvation?\u2019 They are all, however high in rank and\norder, nothing more than \u2018ministering spirits,\u2019 or, literally, \u2018serving\nspirits;\u2019 not invested with authority of their own, but \u2018sent forth,\u2019\noccasionally sent forth, to do such service as may be required of them,\n\u2018for them that shall be heirs of salvation.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe exact number of angels is no where mentioned in Scripture; but it is\nalways represented as very great. Daniel, vii, 10, says of the Ancient\nof Days, \u201cA fiery stream came from before him; thousand thousands\nministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before\nhim.\u201d Jesus Christ says, that his heavenly Father could have given him\nmore than twelve legions of angels, that is, more than seventy-two\nthousand, Matt. xxvi, 53; and the Psalmist declares, that the chariots\nof God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, lxviii, 17, These\nare all intended not to express any exact number, but indefinitely a\nvery large one.\n\nThough all the angels were created alike good, yet Jude informs us,\nverse 6, that some of them \u201ckept not their first estate, but left their\nown habitation,\u201d and these God hath \u201creserved in everlasting chains\nunder darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.\u201d Speculations on the\ncause and occasion of their fall are all vain and trifling. Milton is to\nbe read on this subject, as on others, not as a divine, but as a poet.\nAll we know, is, that they are not in their first \u201cestate,\u201d or in their\noriginal place; that this was their own fault, for \u201cthey left their own\nhabitation;\u201d that they are in chains, yet with liberty to tempt; and\nthat they are reserved to the general judgment.\n\nDr. Prideaux observes, that the minister of the synagogue, who\nofficiated in offering the public prayers, being the mouth of the\ncongregation, delegated by them, as their representative, messenger, or\nangel, to address God in prayer for them, was in Hebrew called\n_sheliack-zibbor_, that is, the _angel of the church_; and that from\nhence the chief ministers of the seven churches of Asia are in the\nRevelation, by a name borrowed from the synagogue, called angels of\nthose churches.\n\nTHE ANGEL OF THE LORD, or _the Angel Jehovah_, a title given to Christ\nin his different appearances to the patriarchs and others in the Old\nTestament.\n\nWhen the Angel of the Lord found Hagar in the wilderness, \u201cshe called\nthe name of JEHOVAH that spake to her, Thou God seest me.\u201d--JEHOVAH\nappeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Abraham lifted up his\neyes, and three _men_, three persons in human form, \u201cstood by him.\u201d One\nof the three is called Jehovah. And JEHOVAH said, \u201cShall I hide from\nAbraham the thing that I do?\u201d Appearances of the same personage occur to\nIsaac and to Jacob under the name of \u201cthe God of Abraham, and of Isaac.\u201d\nAfter one of these manifestations, Jacob says, \u201cI have seen God face to\nface;\u201d and at another, \u201cSurely the Lord (JEHOVAH) is in this place.\u201d The\nsame Jehovah was made visible to Moses, and gave him his commission; and\nGod said, \u201cI AM THAT I AM; thou shalt say to the children of Israel, I\nAM hath sent me unto you.\u201d The same JEHOVAH went before the Israelites\nby day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire; and by\nHim the law was given amidst terrible displays of power and majesty from\nMount Sinai. \u201cI am the Lord (JEHOVAH) thy God, which have brought thee\nout of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: Thou shalt have\nno other gods before me,\u201d &c. The collation of a few passages, or of the\ndifferent parts of the same passages, of Scripture, will show that\nJehovah, and \u201cthe Angel of the Lord,\u201d when used in this eminent sense,\nare the same person. Jacob says of Bethel, where he had exclaimed,\n\u201cSurely _Jehovah_ is in this place;\u201d \u201cThe _Angel_ of God appeared to me\nin a dream, saying, I am the God of Bethel.\u201d Upon his death bed he gives\nthe names of _God_ and _Angel_ to this same person: \u201cThe _God_ which fed\nme all my life long unto this day, the _Angel_ which redeemed me from\nall evil, bless the lads.\u201d So in Hosea xii, 2, 5, it is said, \u201cBy his\nstrength he had power with _God_; yea, he had power over the _Angel_,\nand prevailed.\u201d \u201cWe found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us,\neven the _Lord God of Hosts_; the Lord is his memorial.\u201d Here the same\nperson has the names, _God_, _Angel_, and _Lord God of Hosts_. \u201cThe\n_Angel of the Lord_ called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and\nsaid, By _myself_ have I sworn, saith the Lord, (JEHOVAH,) that, since\nthou hast done this thing, in blessing will I bless thee.\u201d The _Angel of\nthe Lord_ appeared to Moses in a flame of fire; but this same Angel\n\u201ccalled to him out of the bush, and said, I am the God of thy fathers,\nthe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and Moses\nhid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.\u201d To omit many other\npassages, St. Stephen, in alluding to this part of the history of Moses,\nin his speech before the council, says, \u201cThere appeared to Moses in the\nwilderness of Mount Sinai, _an Angel of the Lord_ in a flame of fire,\u201d\nshowing that that phraseology was in use among the Jews in his day, and\nthat this Angel and Jehovah were regarded as the same being; for he\nadds, \u201cMoses was in the church in the wilderness with the _Angel_ which\nspoke unto him in Mount Sinai.\u201d There is one part of the history of the\nJews in the wilderness, which so fully shows that they distinguished\nthis Angel of Jehovah from all created angels, as to deserve particular\nattention. In Exodus xxiii, 20, God makes this promise to Moses and the\nIsraelites: \u201cBehold, I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the\nway, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of\nhim, and obey his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your\ntransgressions, for my name is in him.\u201d Of this Angel let it be\nobserved, that he is here represented as the guide and protector of the\nIsraelites; to him they were to owe their conquests and their settlement\nin the promised land, which are in other places often attributed to the\n_immediate_ agency of God; that they are cautioned to \u201cbeware of him,\u201d\nto reverence and stand in dread of him; that the pardoning of\ntransgressions belongs to him; finally, \u201cthat the _name_ of God was in\nhim.\u201d This _name_ must be understood of God\u2019s own peculiar name,\nJEHOVAH, I AM, which he assumed as his distinctive appellation at his\nfirst appearing to Moses; and as the names of God are indicative of his\nnature, he who had a right to bear the peculiar name of God, must also\nhave his essence. This view is put beyond all doubt by the fact, that\nMoses and the Jews so understood the matter; for afterward when their\nsins had provoked God to threaten not to go up with them _himself_, but\nto commit them to \u201can angel who should drive out the Canaanite,\u201d &c, the\npeople mourned over this as a great calamity, and Moses betook himself\nto special intercession, and rested not until he obtained the repeal of\nthe threat, and the renewed promise, \u201cMy _presence_ shall go with thee,\nand I will give thee rest.\u201d Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than\nthat Moses and the Israelites considered the promise of the Angel, in\nwhom was \u201cthe name of God,\u201d as a promise that God _himself_ would go\nwith them. With this uncreated Angel, this _presence_ of the Lord, they\nwere satisfied, but not with \u201can angel\u201d indefinitely, who was by\n_nature_ of that order of beings usually so called, and therefore a\ncreated being; for at the news of God\u2019s determination not to go up with\nthem, Moses hastens to the tabernacle to make his intercessions, and\nrefuses an inferior conductor:--\u201cIf thy presence go not with me, carry\nus not up hence.\u201d\n\nThe Jews held this Word, or Angel of the Lord, to be the future Messiah,\nas appears from the writings of their older rabbins. So that he appears\nas the Jehovah of all the three dispensations, and yet is invariably\ndescribed as a separate person from the unseen Jehovah who sends him. He\nwas then the Word to be made flesh, and to dwell for a time among us, to\nopen the way to God by his sacrifice, and to rescue the race, whose\nnature he should assume, from sin and death. This he has now actually\neffected; and the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian religions are thus\nfounded upon the same great principles,--the fall and misery of mankind,\nand their deliverance by a _Divine Redeemer_.\n\nANGELICS, worshippers of angels. Those who consider this as a sect of\nthe Apostolic age, think St. Paul, Coloss. ii, 18, cautions Christians\nagainst a superstitious reverence of these celestial agents of the\nDeity, which they conceive to have been borrowed from the idolatrous\nreverence paid by the Heathen to genii and demons. The Jews of that time\nare also accused of worshipping angels, and probably this superstition\nmight through them influence the Judaizing members of some of the\nApostolic churches. This idolatry may now be too justly charged upon the\nRomish and some other corrupt churches.\n\nANGER, a resentful emotion of the mind, arising upon the receipt, or\nsupposed receipt, of an affront or injury; and also simple feeling of\nstrong displacency at that which is in itself evil, or base, or\ninjurious to others. In the latter sense it is not only innocent but\ncommendable. Strong displeasure against evil doers, provided it be free\nfrom hatred and malice, and interferes not with a just placableness, is\nalso blameless, Eph. iv, 26. When it is vindictive against the person of\nour neighbour, or against the innocent creatures of God, it is wicked,\nMatt. v, 22. When anger, hatred, wrath, and fury, are ascribed to God,\nthey denote no tumultuous passion, but merely his holy and just\ndispleasure with sin and sinners; and the evidence of it in his terrible\nthreatenings, or righteous judgments, Psalm vi, 1, and vii, 11. We must,\nhowever, take care that we refine not too much. These are Scriptural\nterms, and are often used of God; and though they express not a\ntumultuous, much less an unjust, passion, there is something in God\nwhich answers to them. In him they are _principles_ arising out of his\nholy and just nature; and for this reason they are more steady and\nuniform, and more terrible, than if they were emotions, or as we say\npassions. Nor can we rightly regard the severity of the judgments which\nGod has so often executed upon sin without standing in awe of him, \u201cas a\nconsuming fire\u201d to the ungodly.\n\nANIMAL, is an organized and living body, endowed with sensation.\nMinerals are said to grow or increase, plants to grow and live, and\nanimals alone to have sensation. The Hebrews distinguished animals into\npure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and\noffered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they\noffered, were, 1. Of the beeve kind; a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could\nnot be offered, because it was mutilated; and when it is said oxen were\nsacrificed, we are to understand bulls, Lev. xxii, 18, 19. Calmet\nthinks, that the mutilation of animals was neither permitted, nor used,\namong the Israelites. 2. Of the goat kind; a he-goat, a she-goat, or\nkid, Lev. xxii, 24. 3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it\nis said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in\nburnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or\nsacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered,\nprovided it was pure, and without blemish, Lev. iii, 1.\n\nBesides these three sorts of animals, used in sacrifices, many others\nmight be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in general\nall that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Lev. ix, 2, 3, &c. All\nthat have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed\nimpure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of\nanimals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of\nanimals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death,\nLev. iii, 17; vii, 23\u201327. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which\nhad been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as a dog, a\nwolf, a boar, &c, Exodus xxii, 3; nor of any animal that died of itself.\nWhoever touched its carcass was impure until the evening; and till that\ntime, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the\ncompany of other Jews, Lev. xi, 39, 40; xvii, 15; xxii, 8. Fish that had\nneither fins nor scales were unclean, Lev. xi, 20. Birds which walk on\nthe ground with four feet, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were\nimpure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet\nhigher than those before, and rather leap than walk. These were clean,\nand might be eaten, Lev. xi, 21, 22, as they still are in Palestine. The\ndistinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously\naccounted for. Some have thought it _symbolical_, intended to teach the\navoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were\nremarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved\nfrom _idolatry_, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which\nwere sacred among the Egyptians, and were taught to look with abhorrence\nupon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the\nunwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to\nbe unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a _sanative_ regulation.\nBut it is not to be forgotten that this division of animals into clean\nand unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the\nflood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly _sacrificial_; for\nbefore the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal\nfood was not allowed to man prior to the deluge; and as no other ground\nfor the distinction appears, except that of sacrifice, it must therefore\nhave had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to\nGod, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by\nexpiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some it is true, have\nregarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses\nby way of _prolepsis_, or anticipation,--a notion which, if it could not\nbe refuted by the context, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are\nthe beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean;\nbut it will be noticed, that, in the command to take them into the ark,\na difference is made in the _number_ to be preserved--the _clean_ being\nto be received by _sevens_, and the _unclean_ by _two_ of a kind. This\nshows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the\ntime of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. The\ncritical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed\nto man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed.\n\nA second argument is furnished by the prohibition of blood for food,\nafter animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the\n\u201cherb of the field.\u201d This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the\nIsraelites, with this explanation:--\u201cI have given it upon the altar to\nmake _an atonement_ for your souls.\u201d From this it has indeed been\nargued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was\nthen, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the\nprohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That\nunless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to\nNoah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be\nconceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from\nNoah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration\nof Moses to the Jews, that God had \u201cgiven them the blood for an\natonement,\u201d is an _additional reason_ for the interdict, not to be found\nin the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Lev. xvii, is,\n\u201cAnd thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of\nIsrael, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any\nmanner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth\nblood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the\nflesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make\natonement for your souls: _for it is the_ BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh\natonement for the soul.\u201d The great reason, then, of the prohibition of\nblood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is\n_exegetical_ of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or\nlife is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original\nprohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given:\n\u201cBut the flesh with the blood, which is _the life_ thereof, shall ye not\neat.\u201d The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the\nexegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the\ngeneral reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for\nthis cause, that it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is \u201cthe\nblood,\u201d _or life_, \u201cwhich makes atonement.\u201d Let any one attempt to\ndiscover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere\ncircumstance that it is \u201cthe life,\u201d and he will find it impossible. It\nis no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was _life_\nsubstituted for _life_, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life\nof man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in\nwhich Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was\nrenewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a \u201cnew doctrine;\u201d he does\nnot teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to\nmake atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had\nmade this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with\nwhich they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was\nsprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the\nsacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a\nsufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood\nnot eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was\nthis confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks,\nwho, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at\ntheir altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they\nderived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion,\nindeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods,\nis impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.\n\nIf, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed\nbefore the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice,\nwe have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it\nwas of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws\nfor its right and acceptable performance. Still farther, if animal\nsacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical\nonly, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and\nto direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the\nsins of men;--\u201cthe Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,\u201d--the\nvictim \u201cwithout spot,\u201d who suffered the just for the unjust, that he\nmight bring us to God. See SACRIFICES.\n\nANISE, an annual umbeliferous plant, the seeds of which have an aromatic\nsmell, a pleasant warm taste, and a carminative quality. But by \u1f04\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd,\nMatt. xxiii, 23, the _dill_ is meant. Our translators seem to have been\nfirst misled by a resemblance of the sound. No other versions have\nfallen into the mistake. The Greek of _anise_ is \u1f04\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd; but of _dill_,\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nANNA, the daughter of Phanuel, a prophetess and widow, of the tribe of\nAsher, Luke ii, 36, 37. She was married early, and had lived only seven\nyears with her husband. Being then disengaged from the ties of marriage,\nshe thought only of pleasing the Lord; and continued without ceasing in\nthe temple, serving God night and day, with fasting and prayer, as the\nEvangelist expresses it. However, her serving God at the temple night\nand day, says Dr. Prideaux, is to be understood no otherwise than that\nshe constantly attended the morning and evening sacrifice at the temple;\nand then with great devotion offered up her prayers to God; the time of\nmorning and evening sacrifice being the most solemn time of prayer among\nthe Jews, and the temple the most solemn place for this devotion. Anna\nwas fourscore years of age when the holy virgin came to present Jesus in\nthe temple; and entering accidentally, while Simeon was pronouncing his\nthanksgiving, she likewise began to praise God, and to speak of the\nMessiah to all those who waited for redemption in Jerusalem. We know\nnothing more either of the life or death of this holy woman.\n\nANNAS, or ANANUS, as Josephus calls him, was the son of Seth, and high\npriest of the Jews. He succeeded Joazar, the son of Simon, enjoyed the\nhigh priesthood eleven years, and was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of\nPhabi. After he was deposed, he still preserved the title of high\npriest, and had a great share in the management of public affairs. He is\ncalled high priest in conjunction with Caiaphas, when John the Baptist\nentered upon the exercise of his mission; though Calmet thinks that at\nthat time he did not, strictly speaking, possess or officiate in that\ncharacter, Luke iii, 2. On the contrary, Macknight and some others are\nof opinion, that at this time Caiaphas was only the deputy of Annas. He\nwas father-in-law to Caiaphas; and Jesus Christ was carried before him,\ndirectly after his seizure in the garden of Olives, John xviii, 13.\nJosephus remarks, that Annas was considered as one of the happiest men\nof his nation, for five of his sons were high priests, and he himself\npossessed that great dignity many years. This was an instance of good\nfortune which, till that time, had happened to no person.\n\nANOINT, to pour oil upon, Gen. xxviii, 18; xxxi, 13. The setting up of a\nstone and anointing it by Jacob, as here recorded, in grateful memory of\nhis celestial vision, probably became the occasion of idolatry in\nsucceeding ages, and gave rise to the erection of temples composed of\nshapeless masses of unhewn stone, of which so many astonishing remains\nare scattered up and down the Asiatic and the European world.\n\nUnder the law persons and things set apart for sacred purposes were\nanointed with the holy oil; which appears to have been a typical\nrepresentation of the communication of the Holy Ghost to Christ and to\nhis church. See Exod. xxviii, xxix. Hence the Holy Spirit is called an\n_unction_ or _anointing_, 1 John ii, 20, 27; and our Lord is called the\n\u201cMessiah,\u201d or \u201cAnointed One,\u201d to denote his being called to the offices\nof mediator, prophet, priest, and king, to all of which he was\nconsecrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, Matt. iii, 16, 17.\n\nWhen we hear of the anointing of the Jewish kings, we are to understand\nby it the same as their inauguration; inasmuch as anointing was the\nprincipal ceremony on such an occasion, 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 3. As far as we\nare informed, however, unction, as a sign of investiture with the royal\nauthority, was bestowed only upon Saul and David, and subsequently upon\nSolomon and Joash, who ascended the throne under such circumstances,\nthat there was danger of their right to the succession being forcibly\ndisputed, 1 Sam. x, 24; 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 1\u20133; 1 Chron. xi, 1, 2; 2 Kings\nxi, 12\u201320; 2 Chron. xxiii, 1\u201321. The ceremony of regal anointing needed\nnot to be repeated in every instance of succession to the throne,\nbecause the unction which the first one who held the sceptre in any\nparticular line of princes had received was supposed to suffice for the\nsucceeding incumbents in the same descent.\n\nIn the kingdom of Israel, those who were inducted into the royal office\nappear to have been inaugurated with some additional ceremonies, 2 Kings\nix, 13. The private anointings which we learn to have been performed by\nthe prophets, 2 Kings ix, 3, comp. 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi, 1\u201313, were only\nprophetic symbols or intimations that the persons who were thus anointed\nshould eventually receive the kingdom.\n\nThe holy anointing oil which was made by Moses, Exod. xxx, 22\u201333, for\nthe maintaining and consecrating of the king, the high priest, and all\nthe sacred vessels made use of in the house of God, was one of those\nthings, as Dr. Prideaux observes, which was wanting in the second\ntemple. The oil made and consecrated for this use was commanded to be\nkept by the children of Israel, throughout their generations, and\ntherefore it was laid up in the most holy place of the tabernacle and\nthe first temple.\n\nANOM\u0152ANS, the name by which the pure Arians were called in the fourth\ncentury, in contradistinction to the Semi-Arians. The word is formed\nfrom the Greek \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _different_. For the pure Arians asserted, that\nthe Son was of a nature different from, and in nothing like, that of the\nFather; whereas the Semi-Arians acknowledged a likeness of nature in the\nSon, at the same time that they denied, with the pure Arians, the\nconsubstantiality of the Word. The Semi-Arians condemned the Anom\u0153ans\nin the council of Seleucia; and the Anom\u0153ans, in their turn,\ncondemned the Semi-Arians in the councils of Constantinople and Antioch,\nerasing the word _like_ out of the formula of Rimini and Constantinople.\n\nANSWER. Beside the common usage of this word, in the sense of a reply,\nit has other significations. Moses, having composed a thanksgiving,\nafter the passage of the Red Sea, Miriam, it is said, _answered_, \u201cSing\nye to the Lord\u201d &c,--meaning, that Moses, with the men on one side, and\nMiriam, with the women on the other side, sung the same song, as it\nwere, in two choruses, or divisions; of which one _answered_ the other.\nNum. xxi, 17, \u201cThen Israel sung this song, Spring up, O well, _answer_\nunto it;\u201d that is, sing responsively, one side (or choir) singing first,\nand then the other. 1 Sam. xxix, 5, \u201cIs not this David of whom they sung\none to another in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and\nDavid his ten thousands?\u201d They sung this song to his honour in distinct\nchoruses.\n\nThis word is taken likewise for, _to accuse_ or to _defend_ any one,\n_judicially_. Gen. xxx, 33, \u201cMy righteousness shall _answer_ for me;\u201d it\nshall be my advocate before thee. Deut. xxxi, 21, \u201cThe song which thou\nshalt compose and teach them shall _testify_ (answer) against them as a\nwitness.\u201d Isaiah says, \u201cThe show of their countenance will _testify_\n(answer) against them;\u201d their impudence will be like a witness and an\naccuser. Hosea, v, 5, \u201cThe pride of Israel doth _testify_ (answer) to\nhis face.\u201d\n\n_To answer_, is likewise taken in a bad sense; as when it is said that a\nson _answers_ his father insolently, or a servant his master. Rom. ix,\n20, \u201cWho art thou that _repliest_ against God?\u201d that is, to contest or\ndebate with him. John xviii, 22, \u201cAnswerest thou the high priest so?\u201d\nSt. Paul declares that he \u201chad in himself the _answer_ (or sentence) of\ndeath;\u201d 2 Cor. i, 9; like a man who has had notice of condemnation, he\nhad a certain assurance of dying.\n\n_To answer_ is also used in Scripture for the commencement of a\ndiscourse, when no reply to any question or objection is intended. This\nmode of speaking is often used by the evangelists, \u201cAnd Jesus _answered_\nand said.\u201d It is a Hebrew idiom.\n\nANT, \u05e0\u05de\u05dc\u05d4, in the Turkish and Arabic, _neml_, Prov. vi, 6; xxx, 25. It\nis a little insect, famous from all antiquity for its social habits, its\neconomy, unwearied industry, and prudent foresight. It has afforded a\npattern of commendable frugality to the profuse, and of unceasing\ndiligence to the slothful. Solomon calls the ants \u201cexceeding wise; for\nthough a race not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer.\u201d He\ntherefore sends the sluggard to these little creatures, to learn wisdom,\nforesight, care, and diligence.\n\n            \u201cGo to the ant; learn of its ways, be wise;\n            It early heaps its stores, lest want surprise.\n            Skill\u2019d in the various year, the prescient sage\n            Beholds the summer chill\u2019d in winter\u2019s rage.\n            Survey its arts; in each partition\u2019d cell\n            Economy and plenty deign to dwell.\u201d\n\nThat the ant hoarded up grains of corn against winter for its\nsustenance, was very generally believed by the ancients, though modern\nnaturalists seem to question the fact. Thus Horace says,\n\n                                \u201c------_Sicut\n            Parvula (nam exemplo est) magni formica laboris\n            Ore trahit quodcunque potest, atque addit acervo\n            Quem struit, haud ignara ac non incauta futuri;\n            Qu\u00e6, simul inversum contristat aquarius annum,\n            Non usquam prorepit, et illis utitur ante\n            Qu\u00e6sitis sapiens._\u201d\n\n                                                  _Sat._ i, l. i, v. 33.\n\n             \u201cFor thus the little ant (to human lore\n             No mean example) forms her frugal store,\n             Gather\u2019d with mighty toil on every side,\n             Nor ignorant nor careless to provide\n             For future want; yet, when the stars appear\n             That darkly sadden the declining year,\n             No more she comes abroad, but wisely lives\n             On the fair stores industrious summer gives.\u201d\n\nThe learned Bochart, in his _Hierozoicon_, has displayed his vast\nreading on this subject, and has cited passages from Pliny, Lucian,\n\u00c6lian, Zoroaster, Origen, Basil, and Epiphanius, the Jewish rabbins and\nArabian naturalists, all concurring in opinion that ants cut off the\nheads of grain, to prevent their germinating; and it is observable that\nthe Hebrew name of the insect is derived from the verb \u05e0\u05de\u05dc, which\nsignifies _to cut off_, and is used for cutting off ears of corn, Job\nxxiv, 24.\n\nThe following remarks are from \u201cthe Introduction to Entomology,\u201d by\nKirby and Spence:\n\n\u201cTill the manners of exotic ants are more accurately explored, it would\nbe rash to affirm that no ants have magazines of provisions; for,\nalthough, during the cold of our winters in this country, they remain in\na state of torpidity, and have no need of food, yet in warmer regions,\nduring the rainy seasons, when they are probably confined to their\nnests, a store of provisions may be necessary for them. Even in northern\nclimates, against wet seasons, they may provide in this way for their\nsustenance and that of the young brood, which, as Mr. Smeatham observes,\nare very voracious, and cannot bear to be long deprived of their food;\nelse why do ants carry worms, living insects, and many other such\nthings, into their nests? Solomon\u2019s lesson to the sluggard has been\ngenerally adduced as a strong confirmation of the ancient opinion: it\ncan, however, only relate to the species of a warm climate, the habits\nof which are probably different from those of a cold one; so that his\nwords, as commonly interpreted, may be perfectly correct and consistent\nwith nature, and yet be not at all applicable to the species that are\nindigenous to Europe.\u201d\n\nThe ant, according to the royal preacher, is one of those things which\nare little upon the earth, but exceeding _wise_. The superior wisdom of\nthe ant has been recognised by many writers. Horace in the passage from\nwhich the preceding quotation is taken, praises its sagacity; Virgil\ncelebrates its foresight, in providing for the wants and infirmities of\nold age, while it is young and vigorous:--\n\n              ----_atque inopi metuens formica senect\u00e6._\n              [And the ant dreading a destitute old age.]\n\nAnd we learn from Hesiod, that among the earliest Greeks it was called\nIdris, that is, wise, because it foresaw the coming storm, and the\ninauspicious day, and collected her store. Cicero believed that the ant\nis not only furnished with senses, but also with mind, reason and\nmemory:--_In formica non modo sensus sed etiam mens, ratio, memoria_.\n[The ant possesses not only senses, but also mind, reason, memory.] The\nunion of so many noble qualities in so small a corpuscle, is indeed one\nof the most remarkable phenomena in the works of nature.\n\nANTHROPOMORPHITES, a sect of ancient heretics, who were so denominated\nfrom two Greek words \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, _man_, and \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03b7, _shape_. They\nunderstood every thing spoken in Scripture in a literal sense, and\nparticularly that passage of Genesis in which it is said, \u201cGod made man\nafter his own image.\u201d Hence they maintained, that God had a human shape.\n\nANTHROPOPATHY, a metaphor by which things belonging to creatures and\nespecially to man are ascribed to God. Instances of this abound in the\nScriptures, by which they adapt themselves to human modes of speaking,\nand to the limited capacities of men. These anthropopathies we must\nhowever interpret in a manner suitable to the majesty of the divine\nnature. Thus, when the members of a human body are ascribed to God, we\nmust understand by them those perfections of which such members in us\nare the instruments. The _eye_, for instance, represents God\u2019s knowledge\nand watchful care; the _arm_, his power and strength; the _ears_, the\nregard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery, &c.\nFarther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so\ninterpret them as to imply no imperfection, such as perturbed feeling in\nhim. When God is said to repent, the antecedent, by a frequent figure of\nspeech, is put for the consequent; and in this case we are to understand\nan altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the\neffect of repenting.\n\nANTICHRIST, compounded of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76, _contra_, _against_, and \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u1f78\u03c2,\n_Christ_, in a general sense, denotes an adversary of Christ, or one who\ndenies that the Messiah is come. In this sense, Jews, infidels, &c, may\nbe said to be _antichrists_. The epithet, in the _general_ sense of it,\nis also applicable to any power or person acting in direct opposition to\nChrist or his doctrine. Its _particular_ meaning is to be collected from\nthose passages of Scripture in which it occurs. Accordingly, it may\neither signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one\nwho maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him. The Fathers all\nspeak of antichrist as a single man; though they also assure us, that he\nis to have divers precursors, or forerunners. Yet many Protestant\nwriters apply to the Romish church, and the pope who is at the head of\nit, the several marks and signatures of antichrist enumerated in the\nApocalypse, which would imply antichrist to be, not a single person, but\na corrupt society, or a long series of persecuting pontiffs, or rather,\na certain power and government, that may be held for many generations,\nby a number of individuals succeeding one another. The antichrist\nmentioned by the Apostle John, first Epistle ii, 18, and more\nparticularly described in the book of Revelation, seems evidently to be\nthe same with the _man of sin_, &c, characterized by St. Paul in his\nSecond Epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. ii; and the whole description\nliterally applies to the Papal power. A late writer, after collecting\nthe principal prophecies relating to antichrist, infers from them that a\npower, sometimes represented as the little horn, the man of sin, the\nantichrist, the beast, the harlot, the star falling from heaven, the\nfalse prophet, the dragon, or as the operation of false teachers, was to\nbe expected to arise in the Christian world to persecute and oppress,\nand delude the disciples of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the\nprimitive church, enact new laws, and establish its dominion over the\nminds of mankind. He then proceeds to show, from the application of\nprophecy to history, and to the remarkable train of events that are now\npassing in the world, how exactly Popery, Mohammedanism, and Infidelity,\ncorrespond with the character given in Scripture of the power of\nantichrist, which was to prevail a certain time for the especial trial\nand punishment of the corrupted church of Christ. Upon this system, the\ndifferent opinions of the Protestants and Papists, concerning the power\nof antichrist, derived from partial views of the subject, are not wholly\nincompatible with each other. With respect to the commonly received\nopinion, that the church of Rome is antichrist, Mede and Newton, Daubuz\nand Clarke, Lowman and Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, and many other members of\nthe Protestant churches who have written upon the subject, concur in\nmaintaining, that the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John,\npoint directly to this church. This was likewise the opinion of the\nfirst reformers; and it was the prevalent opinion of Christians, in the\nearliest ages, that antichrist would appear soon after the fall of the\nRoman empire. Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, applied the\nprophecies concerning the beast in the Revelation, the man of sin, and\nthe apostasy from the faith mentioned by St. Paul, to him who should\npresume to claim the title of universal priest, or universal bishop, in\nthe Christian church; and yet his immediate successor, Boniface III,\nreceived from the tyrant Phocas the precise title which Gregory had thus\ncensured. At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth century, Arnulphus,\nbishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the bishop of\nRome was not the antichrist of St. Paul, \u201csitting in the temple of God,\u201d\nand perfectly corresponding with the description of him given by St.\nPaul. In the eleventh century, all the characters of antichrist seemed\nto be so united in the person of Pope Hildebrand, who took the name of\nGregory VII, that Johannes Aventinus, a Romish historian, speaks of it\nas a subject in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous\nwriters agreed, that at that time began the reign of antichrist. And the\nAlbigenses and Waldenses, who may be called the Protestants of the\ntwelfth and thirteenth centuries, expressly asserted in their\ndeclarations of faith, that the church of Rome was the whore of Babylon.\nThe Papists imagine they view in the prophetical picture of antichrist,\nimperial Rome, elated by her victories, exulting in her sensuality and\nher spoils, polluted by idolatry, persecuting the people of God, and\nfinally falling like the first Babylon; whilst a new and holy city,\nrepresented by their own communion, filled with the spotless votaries of\nthe Christian faith, rises out of its ruins, and the victory of the\ncross is completed over the temples of Paganism. This scheme has had its\nable advocates, at the head of whom may be placed Bossuet, bishop of\nMeaux, Grotius, and Hammond. Some writers have maintained, that Caligula\nwas antichrist; and others have asserted the same of Nero. But in order\nto establish the resemblance, they violate the order of time, disregard\nthe opinions of the primitive Christians, and overlook the appropriate\ndescriptions of the Apostles. After the point had been maturely debated\nat the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution was taken thereupon to\ninsert an article in the confession of faith, whereby the Pope is\nformally declared to be antichrist. Pope Clement VIII was stung with\nthis decision; and even king Henry IV, of France was not a little\nmortified, to be thus declared, as he said, an imp of antichrist.\n\nIn the book of Daniel it is foretold, that this power should exercise\ndominion until a time and times, and the dividing of time, Dan. vii, 25.\nThis expression is generally admitted to denote 1260 years. The Papal\npower was completely established in the year 755, when it obtained the\nexarchate of Ravenna. Some, however, date the rise of antichrist in the\nyear of Christ 606; and Mede places it in 456. If the rise of antichrist\nbe not reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, his fall\nwill happen when this power shall be taken away. If his rise began,\naccording to Mede in 456, he must have fallen in 1716; if in 606, it\nmust be in 1866; if in 755, in 2015. If, however, we use prophetical\nyears, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, and date the rise of\nantichrist in the year 755, his fall will happen in the year of Christ\n2000. Every thing however in the state of the world betokens a speedy\noverthrow of the Papal and Mohammedan powers, both of which have indeed\nbeen already greatly weakened.\n\nANTI-LIBANUS. The Greeks give this name to that chain of mountains east\nof Libanus, which, properly speaking, forms, together with Libanus, but\none ridge of mountains, extending from north to south, and afterward\nfrom south to north, in the shape almost of a horse shoe, for the space\nof about fourscore leagues. The western part of these mountains was\ncalled Libanus; the eastern was called Antilibanus; the former reached\nalong the Mediterranean, from Sidon, almost to Arada, or Symira. The\nHebrew text never mentions Antilibanus; but uses the general name\nLibanus: and the coins struck at Laodicea and Hierapolis, have the\ninscription, \u201ccities of Libanus,\u201d though they belong rather to\nAntilibanus. The Septuagint, on the contrary, puts Antilibanus often\ninstead of Libanus. The valley which separates Libanus from Antilibanus\nis very fruitful: it was formerly, on the side of Syria, inclosed with a\nwall, whereof there are now no traces. Strabo says, that the name of\nC\u0153lo-Syria, or \u201cthe hollow Syria,\u201d belongs principally to the valley\nbetween Libanus and Antilibanus.\n\nANTINOMIANS are those who maintain that the law is of no use or\nobligation under the Gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that\nclearly supersede the necessity of good works and a virtuous life. The\nAntinomians took their origin from John Agricola, about the year 1538,\nwho taught that the law was in no wise necessary under the Gospel; that\ngood works do not promote our salvation, nor ill ones hinder it; that\nrepentance is not to be preached from the decalogue, but only from the\nGospel. This sect sprung up in England during the protectorate of Oliver\nCromwell; and extended their system of libertinism much farther than\nAgricola, the disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers expressly\nmaintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the\ndivine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor\nare to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law;\nand that consequently they have no occasion either to confess their\nsins, or to break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one\nof the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they\ncannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford,\nSchlusselburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, &c, have\nwritten refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c, defences, of the\nAntinomians; Wigandus, a comparison between ancient and modern\nAntinomians.\n\nThe doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and is thought to have\nbeen represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote against\nhim with acrimony, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians.\nAgricola, in defending himself, complained that opinions were imputed to\nhim which he did not hold. The writings of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth\ncentury are considered as highly favourable to Antinomianism, though he\nacknowledges that, \u201cin respect of the rules of righteousness, or the\nmatter of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,\u201d as he adds,\n\u201cwe are lawless, to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which\nno true Christian dares so much as think of.\u201d The following sentiments,\nhowever, among others, are taught in his sermons: \u201cThe law is cruel and\ntyrannical, requiring what is naturally impossible.\u201d \u201cThe sins of the\nelect were so imputed to Christ, as that though he did not commit them,\nyet they became actually his transgressions, and ceased to be theirs.\u201d\n\u201cThe feelings of conscience, which tell them that sin is theirs, arise\nfrom a want of knowing the truth.\u201d \u201cIt is but the voice of a lying\nspirit in the hearts of believers, that saith they have yet sin wasting\ntheir consciences, and lying as a burden too heavy for them to bear.\u201d\n\u201cChrist\u2019s righteousness is so imputed to the elect, that they, ceasing\nto be sinners, are as righteous as he was, and all that he was.\u201d \u201cAn\nelect person is not in a condemned state while an unbeliever; and should\nhe happen to die before God call him to believe, he would not be lost.\u201d\n\u201cRepentance and confession of sin are not necessary to forgiveness. A\nbeliever may certainly conclude before confession, yea, as soon as he\nhath committed sin, the interest he hath in Christ, and the love of\nChrist embracing him.\u201d These dangerous sentiments, and others of a\nsimilar bearing, have been fully answered by many writers; but by none\nmore ably than by the Rev. John Fletcher, in his \u201cChecks to\nAntinomianism.\u201d\n\nANTIOCH, a city of Upper Syria, on the river Orontes, about twenty miles\nfrom the place where it discharges itself into the Mediterranean. It was\nbuilt by Seleucus Nicanor, about three hundred years before Christ; and\nbecame the seat of empire of the Syrian kings of the Macedonian race,\nand afterward of the Roman governors of the eastern provinces; being\nvery centrally and commodiously situated midway between Constantinople\nand Alexandria, about seven hundred miles from each, in 37\u00b0 17\u00b4 north\nlatitude, and 36\u00b0 45\u00b4 east longitude. No city perhaps, Jerusalem\nexcepted, has experienced more frequent revolutions, or suffered more\nnumerous and dire calamities, than Antioch; as, besides the common\nplagues of eastern cities, pestilence, famine, fire, and sword, it has\nseveral times been entirely overthrown by earthquakes.\n\nIn 362, the emperor Julian spent some months at Antioch; which were\nchiefly occupied in his favourite object of reviving the mythology of\nPaganism. The grove at Daphne, planted by Seleucus, which, with its\ntemple and oracle, presented, during the reigns of the Macedonian kings\nof Syria, the most splendid and fashionable place of resort for Pagan\nworship in the east, had sunk into neglect since the establishment of\nChristianity. The altar of the god was deserted, the oracle was\nsilenced, and the sacred grove itself defiled by the interment of\nChristians. Julian undertook to restore the ancient honours and usages\nof the place; but it was first necessary to take away the pollution\noccasioned by the dead bodies of the Christians, which were disinterred\nand removed! Among these was that of Babylas, a bishop of Antioch, who\ndied in prison in the persecution of Decius, and after resting near a\ncentury in his grave within the walls of Antioch, had been removed by\norder of Gallus into the midst of the grove of Daphne, where a church\nwas built over him; the remains of the Christian saint effectually\nsupplanting the former divinity of the place, whose temple and statue,\nhowever, though neglected, remained uninjured. The Christians of\nAntioch, undaunted by the conspiracy against their religion, or the\npresence of the emperor himself, conveyed the relics of their former\nbishop in triumph back to their ancient repository within the city. The\nimmense multitude who joined in the procession, chanted forth their\nexecrations against idols and idolaters; and on the same night the image\nand the temple of the Heathen god were consumed by the flames. A\ndreadful vengeance might be expected to have followed these scenes; but\nthe real or affected clemency of Julian contented itself with shutting\nup the cathedral, and confiscating its wealth. Many Christians, indeed,\nsuffered from the zeal of the Pagans; but, as it would appear, without\nthe sanction of the emperor.\n\nIn 1268, Antioch was taken by Bibars, or Bondocdar, sultan of Egypt. The\nslaughter of seventeen thousand, and the captivity of one hundred\nthousand of its inhabitants, mark the final siege and fall of Antioch;\nwhich, while they close the long catalogue of its public woes, attest\nits extent and population. From this time it remained in a ruinous and\nnearly deserted condition, till, with the rest of Syria, it passed into\nthe hands of the Ottoman Turks, with whose empire it has ever since been\nincorporated.\n\nTo distinguish it from other cities of the same name, the capital of\nSyria was called _Antiochia apud Daphnem_, or Antioch near Daphne, a\nvillage in the neighbourhood, where was a temple dedicated to the\ngoddess of that name; though, in truth, the chief deity of the place was\nApollo, under the fable of his amorous pursuit of the nymph Daphne; and\nthe worship was worthy of its object. The temple stood in the midst of a\ngrove of laurels and cypresses, where every thing was assembled which\ncould minister to the senses; and in whose recesses the juvenile devotee\nwanted not the countenance of a libertine god to abandon himself to\nvoluptuousness. Even those of riper years and graver morals could not\nwith safety breathe the atmosphere of a place where pleasure, assuming\nthe character of religion, roused the dormant passions, and subdued the\nfirmness of virtuous resolution. Such being the source, the stream could\nscarcely be expected to be more pure; in fact, the citizens of Antioch\nwere distinguished only for their luxury in life and licentiousness in\nmanners. This was an unpromising soil for Christianity to take root in.\nBut here, nevertheless, it was planted at an early period, and\nflourished vigorously. It should be observed, that the inhabitants of\nAntioch were partly Syrians, and partly Greeks; chiefly, perhaps, the\nlatter, who were invited to the new city by Seleucus. To these Greeks,\nin particular, certain Cypriot and Cyrenian converts, who had fled from\nthe persecution which followed the death of Stephen, addressed\nthemselves; \u201cand a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.\u201d\nWhen the heads of the church at Jerusalem were informed of this success,\nthey sent Barnabas to Antioch, who encouraged the new disciples, and\nadded many to their number; and finding how great were both the field\nand the harvest, went to Tarsus to solicit the assistance of Paul. Both\nthis Apostle and Barnabas then taught conjointly at Antioch; and great\nnumbers were, by their labours during a whole year, added to the rising\nchurch, Acts xi, 19\u201326; xv, 22\u201335. Here they were also joined by Peter,\nwho was reproved by Paul for his dissimulation, and his concession to\nthe Jews respecting the observance of the law, Gal. ii, 11\u201314.\n\nAntioch was the birthplace of St. Luke and Theophilus, and the see of\nthe martyr Ignatius. In this city the followers of Christ had first the\nname of Christians given them. We have the testimony of Chrysostom, both\nof the vast increase of this illustrious church in the fourth century,\nand of the spirit of charity which continued to actuate it. It consisted\nat this time of not less than a hundred thousand persons, three thousand\nof whom were supported out of the public donations. It is painful to\ntrace the progress of declension in such a church as this. But the\nperiod now referred to, namely, the age of Chrysostom, toward the close\nof the fourth century, may be considered as the brightest of its history\nsubsequent to the Apostolic age, and that from which the church at\nAntioch may date its fall. It continued, indeed, outwardly prosperous;\nbut superstition, secular ambition, the pride of life; pomp and\nformality in the service of God, in place of humility and sincere\ndevotion; the growth of faction, and the decay of charity; showed that\nreal religion was fast disappearing, and that the foundations were laid\nof that great apostasy which, in two centuries from this time,\noverspread the whole Christian world, led to the entire extinction of\nthe church in the east, and still holds dominion over the fairest\nportions of the west.\n\nAntioch, under its modern name of Antakia, is now but little known to\nthe western nations. It occupies, or rather did till lately occupy, a\nremote corner of the ancient enclosure of its walls. Its splendid\nbuildings were reduced to hovels; and its population of half a million,\nto ten thousand wretched beings, living in the usual debasement and\ninsecurity of Turkish subjects. Such was nearly its condition when\nvisited by Pocock about the year 1738, and again by Kinneir in 1813. But\nits ancient subterranean enemy, which, since its destruction in 587,\nnever long together withheld its assaults, has again triumphed over it:\nthe earthquake of the 13th of August, 1822, laid it once more in ruins;\nand every thing relating to Antioch is past.\n\nANTIOCH, of Pisidia. Beside the Syrian capital, there was another\nAntioch visited by St. Paul when in Asia, and called, for the sake of\ndistinction, _Antiochia ad Pisidiam_, as belonging to that province, of\nwhich it was the capital. Here Paul and Barnabas preached; but the Jews,\njealous, as usual, of the reception of the Gospel by the Gentiles,\nraised a sedition against them, and obliged them to leave the city, Acts\nxiii, 14, to the end. There were several other cities of the same name,\nsixteen in number, in Syria and Asia Minor, built by the Seleucid\u00e6, the\nsuccessors of Alexander in these countries; but the above two are the\nonly ones which it is necessary to describe as occurring in Scripture.\n\nANTIOCHUS. There were many kings of this name in Syria, much celebrated\nin the Greek, Roman, and Jewish histories, after the time of Seleucus\nNicanor, the father of Antiochus Soter, and reckoned the first king of\nSyria, after Alexander the Great.\n\n1. ANTIOCHUS SOTER was the son of Seleucus Nicanor, and obtained the\nsurname of Soter, or Saviour, from having hindered the invasion of Asia\nby the Gauls. Some think that it was on the following occasion: The\nGalatians having marched to attack the Jews in Babylon, whose army\nconsisted only of eight thousand men, reinforced with four thousand\nMacedonians, the Jews defended themselves with so much bravery, that\nthey killed one hundred and twenty thousand men, 2 Mac. viii, 20. It was\nperhaps, too, on this occasion, that Antiochus Soter made the Jews of\nAsia free of the cities belonging to the Gentiles, and permitted them to\nlive according to their own laws.\n\n2. ANTIOCHUS THEOS, or, the God, was the son and successor of Antiochus\nSoter. He married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of\nEgypt. Laodice, his first wife, seeing herself despised, poisoned\nAntiochus, Berenice, and their son, who was intended to succeed in the\nkingdom. After this, Laodice procured Seleucus Callinicus, her son by\nAntiochus, to be acknowledged king of Syria. These events were foretold\nby Daniel: \u201cAnd in the end of years,\u201d the king of Egypt, or of the\nsouth, and the king of Syria, or of the north, \u201cshall join themselves\ntogether; for the king\u2019s daughter of the south shall come to the king of\nthe north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of\nthe arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up,\nand they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that\nstrengthened her in these times,\u201d Dan. xi, 6.\n\n3. ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and brother\nto Seleucus Ceraunus, whom he succeeded in the year of the world 3781,\nand before Jesus Christ 223. He made war against Ptolemy Philopator,\nking of Egypt, but was defeated near Raphia, 3 Mac. i. Thirteen years\nafter, Ptolemy Philopator being dead, Antiochus resolved to become\nmaster of Egypt. He immediately seized C\u0153lo-Syria, Phenicia, and\nJudea; but Scopas, general of the Egyptian army, entered Judea while\nAntiochus was occupied by the war against Attalus, and retook those\nplaces. However, he soon lost them again to Antiochus. On this occasion\nhappened what Josephus relates of this prince\u2019s journey to Jerusalem.\nAfter a victory which he had obtained over Scopas, near the springs of\nJordan, he became master of the strong places in C\u0153lo-Syria and\nSamaria; and the Jews submitted freely to him, received him into their\ncity and furnished his army plentifully with provisions. In reward for\ntheir affection, Antiochus granted them, according to Josephus, twenty\nthousand pieces of silver, to purchase beasts for sacrifice, one\nthousand four hundred and sixty measures of meal, and three hundred and\nseventy-five measures of salt to be offered with the sacrifices, and\ntimber to rebuild the porches of the Lord\u2019s house. He exempted the\nsenators, scribes, and singing men of the temple, from the capitation\ntax; and he permitted the Jews to live according to their own laws in\nevery part of his dominions. He also remitted the third part of their\ntribute, to indemnify them for their losses in the war; he forbade the\nHeathens to enter the temple without being purified, and to bring into\nthe city the flesh of mules, asses, and horses to sell, under a severe\npenalty.\n\nIn the year of the world 3815, Antiochus was overcome by the Romans, and\nobliged to cede all his possessions beyond Mount Taurus, to give twenty\nhostages, among whom was his own son Antiochus, afterward surnamed\nEpiphanes, and to pay a tribute of twelve thousand Euboic talents, each\nfourteen Roman pounds in weight. To defray these charges, he resolved to\nseize the treasures of the temple of Belus, at Elymais; but the people\nof that country, informed of his design, surprised and destroyed him,\nwith all his army, in the year of the world 3817, and before Jesus\nChrist 187. He left two sons, Seleucus Philopator, and Antiochus\nEpiphanes, who succeeded him.\n\n4. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, the son of Antiochus the Great, having continued\na hostage at Rome fourteen years, his brother Seleucus resolved to\nprocure his return to Syria, and sent his own son Demetrius to Rome in\nthe place of Antiochus. Whilst Antiochus was on his journey to Syria,\nSeleucus died, in the year of the world 3829. When, therefore, Antiochus\nlanded, the people received him as some propitious deity come to assume\nthe government, and to oppose the enterprises of Ptolemy, king of Egypt,\nwho threatened to invade Syria. For this reason Antiochus obtained the\nsurname of Epiphanes, the illustrious, or of one appearing like a god.\n\nAntiochus quickly turned his attention to the possession of Egypt, which\nwas then enjoyed by Ptolemy Philometor, his nephew, son to his sister\nCleopatra, whom Antiochus the Great had married to Ptolemy Epiphanes,\nking of Egypt. He sent Apollonius, one of his officers, into Egypt,\napparently to honour Ptolemy\u2019s coronation, but in reality to obtain\nintelligence whether the great men of the kingdom were inclined to place\nthe government of Egypt in his hands during the minority of the king his\nnephew, 2 Mac. iv, 21, &c. Apollonius, however, found them not disposed\nto favour his master; and this obliged Antiochus to make war against\nPhilometor. He came to Jerusalem in 3831, and was received there by\nJason, to whom he had sold the high priesthood. He designed to attack\nEgypt, but returned without effecting any thing. The ambition of those\nJews who sought the high priesthood, and bought it of Antiochus, was the\nbeginning of those calamities which overwhelmed their nation under this\nprince. Jason procured himself to be constituted in this dignity in the\nstead of Onias III; but Menelaus offering a greater price, Jason was\ndeprived, and Menelaus appointed in his place. These usurpers of the\nhigh priesthood, to gratify the Syrians, assumed the manners of the\nGreeks, their games and exercises, and neglected the worship of the\nLord, and the temple service.\n\nWar broke out between Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philometor.\nAntiochus entered Egypt in the year of the world 3833, and reduced\nalmost the whole of it to his obedience, 2 Mac. v, 3\u20135. The next year he\nreturned; and whilst he was engaged in the siege of Alexandria, a false\nreport was spread of his death. The inhabitants of Jerusalem testifying\ntheir joy at this news, Antiochus, when returning from Egypt, entered\nthis city by force, treated the Jews as rebels, and commanded his troops\nto slay all they met. Eighty thousand were killed, made captives, or\nsold on this occasion. Antiochus, conducted by the corrupt high priest\nMenelaus, entered into the holy of holies, whence he took and carried\noff the most precious vessels of that holy place, to the value of one\nthousand eight hundred talents. In the year 3835, Antiochus made a third\nexpedition against Egypt, which he entirely subdued. The year following,\nhe sent Apollonius into Judea, with an army of twenty-two thousand men,\nand commanded him to kill all the Jews who were of full age, and to sell\nthe women and young men, 2 Mac. v, 24, 25. These orders were too\npunctually executed. It was on this occasion that Judas Maccab\u00e6us\nretired into the wilderness with his father and his brethren, 2 Mac. v,\n29. These misfortunes were only preludes of what they were to suffer;\nfor Antiochus, apprehending that the Jews would never be constant in\ntheir obedience to him, unless he obliged them to change their religion,\nand to embrace that of the Greeks, issued an edict, enjoining them to\nconform to the laws of other nations, and forbidding their usual\nsacrifices in the temple, their festivals, and their Sabbath. The statue\nof Jupiter Olympus was placed upon the altar of the temple, and thus the\nabomination of desolation was seen in the temple of God. Many corrupt\nJews complied with these orders; but others resisted them. Mattathias\nand his sons retired to the mountains. Old Eleazar, and the seven\nbrethren, suffered death with great courage at Antioch, 2 Mac. vii.\nMattathias being dead, Judas Maccab\u00e6us headed those Jews who continued\nfaithful, and opposed with success the generals whom king Antiochus sent\ninto Judea. The king, informed of the valour and resistance of Judas,\nsent new forces; and, finding his treasures exhausted, he resolved to go\ninto Persia to levy tributes, and to collect large sums which he had\nagreed to pay to the Romans, 1 Mac. iii, 5\u201331; 2 Mac. ix, 1, &c; 1 Mac.\nvi, 1, &c. Knowing that very great riches were lodged in the temple of\nElyma\u00efs, he determined to carry it off; but the inhabitants of the\ncountry made so vigorous a resistance, that he was forced to retreat\ntoward Babylonia. When he was come to Ecbatana, he was informed of the\ndefeat of Nicanor and Timotheus, and that Judas Maccab\u00e6us had retaken\nthe temple of Jerusalem, and restored the worship of the Lord, and the\nusual sacrifices. On receiving this intelligence, the king was\ntransported with indignation; and, threatening to make Jerusalem a grave\nfor the Jews, commanded the driver of his chariot to urge the horses\nforward, and to hasten his journey. However, divine vengeance soon\novertook him: he fell from his chariot, and bruised all his limbs. He\nwas also tormented with such pains in his bowels, as allowed him no\nrest; and his disease was aggravated by grief and vexation. In this\ncondition he wrote to the Jews very humbly, promised them many things,\nand engaged even to turn Jew, if God would restore him to health. He\nearnestly recommended to them his son Antiochus, who was to succeed him,\nand entreated them to favour the young prince, and to continue faithful\nto him. He died, overwhelmed with pain and grief, in the mountains of\nParatacene, in the little town of Tabes, in the year of the world 3840,\nand before Jesus Christ 164.\n\n5. ANTIOCHUS EUPATOR, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, was only nine years\nold when his father died and left him the kingdom of Syria. Lysias, who\ngoverned the kingdom in the name of the young prince, led against Judea\nan army of one hundred thousand foot, twenty thousand horse, and thirty\nelephants, 1 Mac. vi; 2 Mac. xiii. He besieged and took the fortress of\nBethsura, and thence marched against Jerusalem. The city was ready to\nfall into his hands when Lysias received the news that Philip, whom\nAntiochus Epiphanes had entrusted with the regency of the kingdom, had\ncome to Antioch to take the government, according to the disposition of\nthe late king. He therefore proposed an accommodation with the Jews,\nthat he might return speedily to Antioch and oppose Philip. After\nconcluding a peace, he immediately returned into Syria, with the young\nking and his army.\n\nIn the meantime, Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator, and nephew\nto Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom by right the kingdom belonged, having\nescaped from Rome, came into Syria. Finding the people disposed for\nrevolt, Demetrius headed an army, and marched directly to Antioch,\nagainst Antiochus and Lysias. However, the inhabitants did not wait till\nhe besieged the city; but opened the gates, and delivered to him Lysias\nand the young king Antiochus Eupator, whom Demetrius caused to be put to\ndeath, without suffering them to appear in his presence. Antiochus\nEupator reigned only two years, and died in the year of the world 3842,\nand before Jesus Christ 162.\n\n6. ANTIOCHUS THEOS, or the _Divine_, the son of Alexander Balas, king of\nSyria, was brought up by the Arabian prince Elmachuel, or, as he is\ncalled in the Greek, Simalcue, 1 Mac. xi, 39, 40, &c. Demetrius Nicanor,\nking of Syria, having rendered himself odious to his troops, one\nDiodotus, otherwise called Tryphon, came to Zabdiel, a king in Arabia,\nand desired him to entrust him with young Antiochus, whom he promised to\nplace on the throne of Syria, which was then possessed by Demetrius\nNicanor. After some hesitation, Zabdiel complied with the request; and\nTryphon carried Antiochus into Syria, and put the crown on his head. The\ntroops dismissed by Demetrius, came and joined Tryphon, who, having\nformed a powerful army, defeated Demetrius, and forced him to retreat to\nSeleucia. Tryphon seized his elephants, and rendered himself master of\nAntioch, in the year of the world 3859, and before Jesus Christ 145.\nAntiochus Theos, to strengthen himself in his new acquisition, sent\nletters to Jonathan Maccab\u00e6us, high priest and prince of the Jews,\nconfirming him in the high priesthood, and granting him four toparchies,\nor four considerable places, in Judea. He also received Jonathan into\nthe number of his friends, sent him vessels of gold, permitted him to\nuse a gold cup, to wear purple, and a golden buckle; and he gave his\nbrother, Simon Maccab\u00e6us, the command of all his troops on the coast of\nthe Mediterranean, from Tyre to Egypt. Jonathan, engaged by so many\nfavours, declared resolutely for Antiochus, or rather for Tryphon, who\nreigned under the name of this young prince; and on several occasions,\nhe attacked the generals of Demetrius, who still possessed many places\nbeyond Jordan and in Galilee, 1 Macc. xi, 63, &c; xii, 24, 34. Tryphon,\nseeing young Antiochus in peaceable possession of the kingdom of Syria,\nresolved to usurp his crown. He thought it necessary, in the first\nplace, to secure Jonathan Maccab\u00e6us who was one of the most powerful\nsupporters of Antiochus\u2019s throne. He came, therefore, with troops into\nJudea, invited Jonathan to Ptolemais, and there, on frivolous pretences,\nmade him prisoner. However, Simon, Jonathan\u2019s brother, headed the troops\nof Judea, and opposed Tryphon, who intended to take Jerusalem. Tryphon,\nbeing disappointed, put Jonathan to death at Bassa or Bascama, and\nreturned into Syria, where, without delay, he executed his design of\nkilling Antiochus. He corrupted the royal physicians, who, having\npublished that Antiochus was tormented with the stone, murdered him, by\ncutting him without any necessity. Thus Tryphon was left master of\nSyria, in the year of the world 3861, and before Jesus Christ 143.\n\n7. ANTIOCHUS SIDETES, or _Soter_ the Saviour, or _Eusebes_ the pious,\nwas the son of Demetrius Soter, and brother to Demetrius Nicanor.\nTryphon, the usurper of the kingdom of Syria, having rendered himself\nodious to his troops, they deserted him, and offered their services to\nCleopatra, the wife of Demetrius Nicanor. She lived in the city of\nSeleucia, shut up with her children, while her husband Demetrius was a\nprisoner in Persia, where he had married Rodeguna, the daughter of\nArsaces king of Persia. Cleopatra, therefore sent to Antiochus Sidetes,\nher brother-in-law, and offered him the crown of Syria, if he would\nmarry her; to which Antiochus consented. This prince was then at Cnidus,\nwhere his father, Demetrius Soter had placed him with one of his\nfriends. He came into Syria, and wrote to Simon Maccab\u00e6us, to engage him\nagainst Tryphon, 1 Macc. xv, 1, 2, 3, &c. He confirmed the privileges\nwhich the kings of Syria had granted to Simon, permitted him to coin\nmoney with his own stamp, declared Jerusalem and the temple exempt from\nroyal jurisdiction, and promised other favours as soon as he should\nobtain peaceable possession of the kingdom which had belonged to his\nancestors. Antiochus Sidetes having married his sister-in-law,\nCleopatra, in the year of the world 3865, the troops of Tryphon resorted\nto him in crowds. Tryphon, thus abandoned, retired to Dora, in\nPh\u0153nicia, whither Antiochus pursued him with an army of 120,000 foot,\n800 horse, and a powerful fleet. Simon Maccab\u00e6us sent Antiochus two\nthousand chosen men, but the latter refused them and revoked all his\npromises. He also sent Athenobius to Jerusalem to oblige Simon to\nrestore to him Gazara and Joppa, with the citadel of Jerusalem; and to\ndemand of him five hundred talents more, as reparation for injuries the\nking had suffered, and as tribute for his own cities. At the same time\nhe threatened to make war upon him, if he did not comply. Simon showed\nAthenobius all the lustre of his wealth and power, told him he had in\nhis possession no place which belonged to Antiochus, and said that the\ncities of Gazara and Joppa had greatly injured his people, and he would\ngive the king for the property of them one hundred talents. Athenobius\nreturned with great indignation to Antiochus, who was extremely offended\nat Simon\u2019s answer. In the meantime, Tryphon having escaped privately\nfrom Dora, embarked in a vessel and fled. Antiochus pursued him, and\nsent Cendebeus with troops into the maritime parts of Palestine, and\ncommanded him to rebuild Cedron, and fight the Jews. John Hircanus, son\nof Simon Maccab\u00e6us, was then at Gaza, and gave notice to his father of\nthe coming of Cendebeus. Simon furnished his sons, John Hircanus and\nJudas with troops, and sent them against Cendebeus, whom they routed in\nthe plain and pursued to Azotus.\n\nAntiochus followed Tryphon, till he forced him to kill himself in the\nyear of the world 3869. After this, Antiochus thought only of reducing\nto his obedience those cities which, in the beginning of his father\u2019s\nreign, had shaken off their subjection. Simon Maccab\u00e6us, prince and high\npriest of the Jews, being treacherously murdered by Ptolemy, his\nson-in-law, in the castle of Docus, near Jericho, the murderer\nimmediately sent to Antiochus Sidetes to demand troops, that he might\nrecover for him the country and cities of the Jews. Antiochus came in\nperson with an army, and besieged Jerusalem, which was bravely defended\nby John Hircanus. The siege was long protracted; and the king divided\nhis army into seven parts, and guarded all the avenues of the city. It\nbeing the time for celebrating the feast of tabernacles, the Jews\ndesired of Antiochus a truce for seven days. The king not only granted\nthis request, but sent them bulls with gilded horns, and vessels of gold\nand silver filled with incense, to be offered in the temple. He also\nordered such provisions as they wanted, to be given to the Jewish\nsoldiers. This courtesy of the king so won the hearts of the Jews, that\nthey sent ambassadors to treat of peace, and to desire that they might\nlive according to their own laws. Antiochus required that they should\nsurrender their arms, demolish the city walls, pay tribute for Joppa and\nthe other cities they possessed out of Judea, and receive a garrison\ninto Jerusalem. To these conditions, except the last, the Jews\nconsented; for they could not be induced to see an army of strangers in\ntheir capital, and chose rather to give hostages and five hundred\ntalents of silver. The king entered the city, beat down the breast work\nabove the walls, and returned to Syria, in the year of the world 3870,\nand before Jesus Christ 134. Three years after, Antiochus marched\nagainst the Persians, or Parthians, and demanded the liberty of his\nbrother Demetrius Nicanor, who had been made prisoner long before by\nArsaces, and was detained for the purpose of being employed in exciting\na war against Antiochus. This war, therefore, Antiochus thought proper\nto prevent. With an army of eighty thousand, or, as Orosius says, of one\nhundred thousand men, he marched toward Persia, and no sooner appeared\non the frontiers of that country, than several eastern princes,\ndetesting the pride and avarice of the Persians, came and surrendered.\nAntiochus defeated his enemies in three engagements, and took Babylon.\nHe was accompanied in these expeditions by John Hircanus, high priest of\nthe Jews, who, it is supposed, obtained the surname of Hircanus from\nsome gallant action which he performed.\n\nAs the army of Antiochus was too numerous to continue assembled in any\none place, he was obliged to divide it, to put it into winter quarters.\nThese troops behaved with so much insolence, that they alienated the\nminds of all men. The cities in which they were, privately surrendered\nto the Persians; and all resolved to attack, in one day, the garrisons\nthey contained, that the troops being separated might not assist each\nother. Antiochus at Babylon obtained intelligence of this design, and,\nwith the few soldiers about him, endeavoured to succour his people. He\nwas attacked in the way by Phraates, king of Persia, whom he fought with\ngreat bravery; but being at length deserted by his own forces, according\nto the generality of historians, he was overpowered and killed by the\nPersians or Parthians. Appian, however, says that he killed himself, and\n\u00c6lian, that he threw himself headlong from a precipice. This event took\nplace in the year of the world 3874, and before Jesus Christ 130. After\nthe death of Sidetes, Demetrius Nicanor, or Nicetor, reascended the\nthrone of Syria.\n\nANTIP\u00c6DOBAPTISTS, a denomination given to those who object to the\nbaptism of infants. The word is derived from \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76, _against_, \u03d6\u1fb6\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03d6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2, _a child_, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, _I baptize_. See BAPTISM.\n\nANTIPAS, Antipas-Herod, or Herod-Antipas, was the son of Herod the\nGreat, and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Herod the Great, in his first will,\ndeclared him his successor in the kingdom; but he afterward named his\nson Archelaus king of Judea, and gave to Antipas only the title of\ntetrarch of Galilee and Per\u00e6a. Archelaus going to Rome, to persuade the\nemperor to confirm his father\u2019s will, Antipas also went thither. The\nemperor bestowed on Archelaus one moity of what had been assigned him by\nHerod, with the quality of ethnarch, and promised to grant him the title\nof king when he had shown himself deserving of it by his virtues. To\nAntipas, Augustus gave Galilee and Per\u00e6a; and to Philip, Herod\u2019s other\nson, the Batan\u00e6a, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, with some other places.\n\nAntipas, returning to Judea, took great pains in adorning and fortifying\nthe principal places of his dominions. He married the daughter of\nAretas, king of Arabia, whom he divorced about A. D. 33, that he might\nmarry his sister-in-law, Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, who\nwas still living. John the Baptist, exclaiming against this incest, was\nseized by order of Antipas, and imprisoned in the castle of Mach\u00e6rus.\nJosephus says, that Antipas caused John to be taken, because he drew too\ngreat a concourse after him; and Antipas was afraid he should use his\ninfluence over the people to induce them to revolt. But Josephus has\nreported the pretence for the true cause. The evangelists, who were\nbetter informed than Josephus, as being eye witnesses of what passed,\nand particularly acquainted with John and his disciples, assure us, that\nthe true reason of imprisoning John was the aversion of Herod and\nHerodias against him, on account of his liberty in censuring their\nscandalous marriage, Matt. xiv, 3, 4; Mark vi, 14, 17, 18; Luke iii, 19,\n20. When the king was celebrating his birth day, with the principal\npersons of his court, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and\npleased him so well that he swore to give her whatever she should ask.\nShe consulted her mother, who advised her to ask the head of John the\nBaptist. Returning, therefore, to the hall, she addressed herself to the\nking, and said, \u201cGive me here John Baptist\u2019s head in a charger.\u201d The\nking was afflicted at this request; but in consideration of his oath,\nand of the persons at table with him, he sent one of his guards, who\nbeheaded John in prison. The head was brought in, and given to the young\nwoman, who delivered it to her mother, Matt. xiv, 5, 6, &c. Aretas, king\nof Arabia, to revenge the affront which Herod had offered to his\ndaughter, declared war against him, and vanquished him in a very\nobstinate contest. Josephus tells us, that the Jews attributed the\ndefeat of Herod to the death of John the Baptist. In the year of the\nChristian \u00e6ra 39, Herodias being jealous of the prosperity of her\nbrother Agrippa, who from a private person had become king of Judea,\npersuaded her husband, Herod-Antipas, to visit Rome, and desire the same\ndignity of the emperor Caius. She resolved to accompany him; and hoped\nthat her presents and appearance would contribute to procure the\nemperor\u2019s favour. However, Agrippa obtaining intelligence of this\ndesign, wrote to the emperor and accused Antipas. The messenger of\nAgrippa arrived at Bai\u00e6, where the emperor was, at the very time when\nHerod received his first audience. Caius, on the delivery of Agrippa\u2019s\nletters, read them with great earnestness. In these letters, Agrippa\naccused Antipas of having been a party in Sejanus\u2019s conspiracy against\nTiberius, and said that he still carried on a correspondence with\nArtabanus, king of Partha, against the Romans. As a proof of this, he\naffirmed that Antipas had in his arsenals arms for seventy thousand men.\nCaius being angry, demanded hastily of Antipas, if it were true that he\nhad such a quantity of arms? The king not daring to deny it, was\ninstantly banished to Lyons in Gaul. The emperor offered to forgive\nHerodias, in consideration of her brother Agrippa; but she chose rather\nto follow her husband, and to share his fortune in banishment. This is\nthat Antipas, who, being at Jerusalem at the time of our Saviour\u2019s\npassion, ridiculed Jesus whom Pilate had sent to him, dressed him in\nworn-out royalty, and sent him back to Pilate as a mock king, whose\nambition gave him no umbrage, Luke xxiii, 7, 11. The year of the death\nof Antipas is unknown; but it is certain that he, as well as Herodias,\ndied in exile. Josephus says, that he died in Spain, whither Caius, on\nhis coming into Gaul the first year of his banishment, might order him\nto be sent.\n\n2. ANTIPAS, the faithful martyr or witness mentioned in the book of\nRevelation, ii, 13. He is said to have been one of our Saviour\u2019s first\ndisciples, and to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamus, of which he was\nbishop. His Acts relate that he was burnt in a brazen bull. Though\nancient ecclesiastical history furnishes no account of this Antipas, yet\nit is certain that, according to all the rules of language, what is said\nconcerning him by St. John must be understood literally, and not\nmystically, as some interpreters have done.\n\nANTIPATRIS, Acts xxiii, 31, a town in Palestine, anciently called\nCaphar-Saba, according to Josephus; but named Antipatris by Herod the\nGreat, in honour of his father Antipater. It was situated in a pleasant\nvalley, near the mountains, in the way from Jerusalem to C\u00e6sarea.\nJosephus places it at about the distance of seventeen miles from Joppa.\nTo this place St. Paul was brought in his way to the governor of Judea\nat C\u00e6sarea, Acts xxiii, 31.\n\nANTITYPE, that which answers to a type or figure. A type is a model,\nmould, or pattern; that which is formed according to it is an antitype.\nSee TYPE.\n\nANTONIA, one of the towers of Jerusalem, called by Herod after M.\nAntony. The Romans generally kept a garrison in this tower; and from\nthence it was that the tribune ran with his soldiers to rescue St. Paul\nout of the hands of the Jews, who had seized him in the temple, and\ndesigned to have murdered him, Acts xxi, 31, 32.\n\nAPE, \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e3, \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, _cephus_, 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21.\nThis animal seems to be the same with the _ceph_ of the Ethiopians, of\nwhich Pliny speaks, l. viii, c. 19: \u201cAt the games given by Pompey the\nGreat,\u201d says he, \u201cwere shown _cephs_ brought from Ethiopia, which had\ntheir fore feet like a human hand, their hind legs and feet also\nresembled those of a man.\u201d The Scripture says that the fleet of Solomon\nbrought apes, or rather monkeys, &c, from Ophir. The learned are not\nagreed respecting the situation of that country; but Major Wilford says\nthat the ancient name of the River Landi sindh in India was _Cophes_.\nMay it not have been so called from the \u05e7\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd inhabiting its banks?\n\nWe now distinguish this tribe of creatures into 1. _Monkeys_, those with\nlong tails; 2. _Apes_, those with short tails; 3. _Baboons_, those\nwithout tails. The ancient Egyptians are said to have worshipped apes;\nit is certain that they are still adored in many places in India.\nMaffeus describes a magnificent temple dedicated to the ape, with a\nportico for receiving the victims sacrificed, supported by seven hundred\ncolumns.\n\n          \u201cWith glittering gold and sparkling gems they shine,\n          But apes and monkeys are the gods within.\u201d\n\nFigures of apes are also made and reverenced as idols, of which we have\nseveral in Moore\u2019s \u201cHindoo Pantheon;\u201d also in the avatars, given in\nMaurice\u2019s \u201cHistory of India,\u201d &c. In some parts of the country the apes\nare held sacred, though not resident in temples; and incautious English\ngentlemen, by attempting to shoot these apes, (rather, perhaps,\nmonkeys,) have been exposed, not only to all manner of insults and\nvexations from the inhabitants of the villages, &c, adjacent, but have\neven been in danger of their lives.\n\nAPHARSACHITES, a people sent by the kings of Assyria to inhabit the\ncountry of Samaria, in the room of those Israelites who had been removed\nbeyond the Euphrates, Ezra v, 6. They, with the other Samaritans,\nopposed the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Ezra iv, 9.\n\nAPIS, a symbolical deity worshipped by the Egyptians. It was an ox,\nhaving certain exterior marks, in which animal the soul of the great\nOsiris was supposed to subsist. The ox was probably made the symbol of\nOsiris because he presided over agriculture.\n\nAPOCALYPSE, \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, signifies _revelation_. It is, however,\nparticularly applied to the Revelations which St. John had in the isle\nof Patmos, whither he had been banished. The testimonies in favour of\nthe book of the Revelation being a genuine work of St. John the\nEvangelist are very full and satisfactory. Andrew, bishop of C\u00e6sarea in\nCapadocia, in the fifth century, assures us that Papias acknowledged the\nRevelation to be inspired. But the earliest author now extant who\nmentions this book is Justin Martyr, who lived about sixty years after\nit was written, and he ascribes it to St. John. So does Ir\u00e6neus, whose\nevidence is alone sufficient upon this point; for he was the disciple of\nPolycarp, who was the disciple of John himself; and he expressly tells\nus that he had the explanation of a certain passage in this book from\nthose who had conversed with St. John the author. These two fathers are\nfollowed by Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian,\nOrigen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, Athanasius, and many other\necclesiastical writers, all of whom concur in considering the Apostle\nJohn as the author of the Revelation. Some few persons, however, doubted\nthe genuineness of this book in the third and fourth centuries; but\nsince that time it has been very generally acknowledged to be canonical;\nand, indeed, as Mr. Lowman observes, \u201chardly any one book has received\nmore early, more authentic, and more satisfactory attestations.\u201d The\nomission of this book in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures,\nwas probably not owing to any suspicion concerning its authenticity or\ngenuineness, but because its obscurity and mysteriousness were thought\nto render it less fit to be read publicly and generally. It is called\nthe Revelation of John the Divine; and this appellation was first given\nto St. John by Eusebius, not to distinguish him from any other person of\nthe same name, but as an honourable title, intimating that to him was\nmore fully revealed the system of divine counsels than to any other\nprophet of the Christian dispensation.\n\nSt. John was banished to Patmos in the latter part of the reign of\nDomitian, and he returned to Ephesus immediately after the death of that\nemperor, which happened in the year 96; and as the Apostle states, that\nthese visions appeared to him while he was in that island, we may\nconsider this book as written in the year 95 or 96.\n\nIn the first chapter, St. John asserts the divine authority of the\npredictions which he is about to deliver; addresses himself to the\nchurches of the Proconsular Asia; and describes the first vision, in\nwhich he is commanded to write the things then revealed to him. The\nsecond and third chapters contain seven epistles to the seven churches\nin Asia; namely, of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis,\nPhiladelphia, and Laodicea, which relate chiefly to their then\nrespective circumstances and situation. At the fourth chapter the\nprophetic visions begin, and reach to the end of the book. They contain\na prediction of all the most remarkable revolutions and events in the\nChristian church from the time of the Apostle to the final consummation\nof all things. An attempt to explain these prophecies does not fall\nwithin the design of this work; and therefore those who are disposed to\nstudy this sublime and mysterious book are referred to Mede, Daubuz, Sir\nIsaac Newton, Lowman, Bishop Newton, Bishop Hurd, and many other\nexcellent commentators. These learned men agree in their general\nprinciples concerning the interpretation of this book, although they\ndiffer in some particular points; and it is not to be expected that\nthere should be a perfect coincidence of opinion in the explanation of\nthose predictions which relate to still future times; for, as the\nincomparable Sir Isaac Newton observes, \u201cGod gave these and the\nprophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men\u2019s curiosity, by\nenabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled\nthey might be interpreted by the event, and his own prescience, not that\nof the interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world.\u201d \u201cTo\nexplain this book perfectly,\u201d says Bishop Newton, \u201cis not the work of\none man, or of one age; but probably it never will be clearly\nunderstood, till it is all fulfilled.\u201d It is graciously designed, that\nthe gradual accomplishment of these predictions should afford, in every\nsucceeding period of time, additional testimony to the divine origin of\nour holy religion.\n\nAPOCRYPHA, books not admitted into the sacred canon, being either\nspurious, or at least not acknowledged to be divine. The word Apocrypha\nis of Greek origin, and is either derived from the words \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, because the books in question were removed _from the crypt_,\nchest, ark, or other receptacle in which the sacred books were deposited\nwhose authority was never doubted, or more probably from the verb\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, _to hide_ or _conceal_, because they were concealed from the\ngenerality of readers, their authority not being recognised by the\nchurch, and because they are books which are destitute of proper\ntestimonials, their original being obscure, their authors unknown, and\ntheir character either heretical or suspected. The advocates of the\nchurch of Rome, indeed, affirm that some of these books are divinely\ninspired; but it is easy to account for this: the apocryphal writings\nserve to countenance some of the corrupt practices of that church. The\nProtestant churches not only account those books to be apocryphal and\nmerely human compositions which are esteemed such by the church of Rome,\nas the Prayer of Manasseh, the third and fourth books of Esdras, the\naddition at the end of Job, and the hundred and fifty-first Psalm; but\nalso the books of Tobit, Judith, the additions to the book of Esther,\nWisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch the Prophet, with the Epistle of\nJeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna, the\nStory of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of\nMaccabees. The books here enumerated are unanimously rejected by\nProtestants for the following reasons:--\n\n1. They possess no authority whatever, either external or internal, to\nprocure their admission into the sacred canon. None of them are extant\nin Hebrew; all of them are in the Greek language, except the fourth book\nof Esdras, which is only extant in Latin. They were written for the most\npart by Alexandrian Jews, subsequently to the cessation of the prophetic\nspirit, though before the promulgation of the Gospel. Not one of the\nwriters in direct terms advances a claim to inspiration; nor were they\never received into the sacred canon by the Jewish church, and therefore\nthey were not sanctioned by our Saviour. No part of the apocrypha is\nquoted, or even alluded to, by him or by any of his Apostles; and both\nPhilo and Josephus, who flourished in the first century of the Christian\n\u00e6ra, are totally silent concerning them.\n\n2. The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture\nduring the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not\nmentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito bishop of\nSardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen in\nthe third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem,\nEpiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerom, Rufinus, and others\nof the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books\nrecognised by the council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose\ncanons were received by the catholic church; so that as Bishop Burnet\nwell observes, we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God\nin this matter. To this decisive evidence against the canonical\nauthority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read\nin the Christian church until the fourth century; when, as Jerom informs\nus, they were read \u201cfor example of life, and instruction of planners;\nbut were not applied to establish any doctrine.\u201d And contemporary\nwriters state, that although they were not approved as canonical or\ninspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and\nEcclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As a proof\nthat they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine\nrelates, that when the book of Wisdom and other writings of the same\nclass were publicly read in the church, they were given to the readers\nor inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read them in a lower place than\nthose which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were\nread by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous\nmanner. To conclude: notwithstanding the veneration in which these books\nwere held by the western church, it is evident that the same authority\nwas never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament until the\nlast council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all\n(except the Prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras)\nin the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets.\n\nAPOLLINARIANS, or Apollinarists, or, as they are called by Epiphanius,\nDimarit\u00e6, a sect who derive their principal name from Apollinaris,\nbishop of Laodicea, in the fourth century. Apollinaris strenuously\ndefended the divinity of Christ against the Arians; but by indulging too\nfreely in philosophical distinctions and subtleties, he denied in some\nmeasure his humanity. He maintained that the body which Christ assumed\nwas endowed with a sensitive, and not a rational, soul; and that the\ndivine nature performed the functions of reason, and supplied the place\nof the intellectual principle in man. Hence it seemed to follow, that\nthe divine nature in Christ was blended with the human and suffered with\nit the pains of crucifixion and death. Apollinaris and his followers\nhave been charged with other errors by certain ancient waiters; but it\nis not easy to determine how far their charge is worthy of credit. The\ndoctrine of Apollinaris was first condemned by a council at Alexandria\nin 362, and afterward in a more formal manner by a council at Rome in\n375, and by another council in 378, which deposed Apollinaris from his\nbishopric. In short, it was attacked at the same time by the laws of the\nemperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learned; and\nsunk by degrees under their united force.\n\nAPOLLOS was a Jew of Alexandria, who came to Ephesus in the year of our\nLord 54, during the absence of St. Paul, who had gone to Jerusalem, Acts\nxviii, 24. He was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures; but he\nknew only the baptism of John, and was not fully informed of the higher\nbranches of Gospel doctrine. However, he acknowledged that Jesus Christ\nwas the Messiah, and declared himself openly as his disciple. At\nEphesus, therefore, he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and\ndemonstrated by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Aquila and\nPriscilla, having heard him there, took him with them, and instructed\nhim more fully in the ways of God. Some time after, he was inclined to\ngo into Achaia, and the brethren wrote to the disciples there, desiring\nthem to receive him. He was very useful at Corinth, where he watered\nwhat St. Paul had planted, 1 Cor. iii, 6. It has been supposed, that the\ngreat admiration of his disciples for him tended to produce a schism.\nSome said, \u201cI am of Paul;\u201d some, \u201cI am of Apollos;\u201d and others, \u201cI am of\nCephas.\u201d But this division, which St. Paul mentions and reproves in his\nFirst Epistle to the Corinthians, did not prevent Paul and Apollos,\npersonally, from being closely united in the bonds of Christian charity\nand affection. Apollos, hearing that the Apostle was at Ephesus, went to\nmeet him, and was there when St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians; in which he observes, that he had earnestly entreated\nApollos to return to Corinth: but though he had not prevailed with him,\nApollos gave him room to hope that he would visit that city at a\nfavourable opportunity. Some have supposed, that the Apostle names\nApollos and Cephas, not as the real persons in whose name parties had\nbeen formed in Corinth, but that, in order to avoid provoking a temper\nwhich he wished to subside, he transfers \u201cby a figure\u201d to Apollos and\nhimself what was really meant of other parties, whom from prudence he\ndeclines to mention. However this might be, the reluctance of Apollos to\nreturn to Corinth seems to countenance the general opinion. St. Jerom\nsays that Apollos was so dissatisfied with the division which had\nhappened on his account at Corinth, that he retired into Crete with\nZeno, a doctor of the law; but that the evil having been corrected by\nthe letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Apollos returned to that\ncity, of which he afterward became bishop. The Greeks say that he was\nbishop of Duras; some, that he was bishop of Iconium, in Phrygia; and\nothers of C\u00e6sarea.\n\nAPOLLYON. See ABADDON.\n\nAPOLOGIES, in ecclesiastical history, were defences (so the Greek word\nmeans) of Christianity, presented to Heathen emperors, by the Christian\nfathers, who were therefore called Apologists. The first was presented\nto the emperor Adrian, by Quadratus, A. D. 126, a fragment of which is\npreserved by Eusebius; but another, presented soon after to the same, by\nAristides, a converted Athenian philosopher, is totally lost. Justin\nMartyr wrote two apologies; the latter (to the Roman senate) is\nimperfect at the beginning; but the former, addressed to Antoninus Pius,\nis preserved entire, and was published in English, in 1709, by the Rev.\nW. Reeves, together with one by Tertullian, the Octavius (a dialogue) of\nMinucius Felix, and the Commentary of Vincentius Lirinensis, with notes\nand preliminary dissertations to each, in 2 vols. 8vo. The Apologies are\ncurious and valuable remains of antiquity, as showing what were the\nobjections of the Heathens, and the manner in which they were rebutted\nby the early Christians.\n\nAPOSTASY, a deserting or abandoning of the true religion. The word is\nborrowed from the Latin _apostatare_, or _apostare_, _to despise_ or\n_violate_ any thing. Hence _apostatare leges_ anciently signified _to\ntransgress the laws_. The Latin _apostatare_, again, comes from \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78,\n_from_, and \u1f33\u03db\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9, _I stand_. Among the Romanists, apostasy also\nsignifies the forsaking of a religious order, whereof a man had made\nprofession, without a lawful dispensation. The ancients distinguished\nthree kinds of apostasy: the first, _a supererogatione_, is committed by\na priest, or religious, who abandons his profession, and returns to his\nlay state; the second, _a mandatis Dei_, by a person of any condition,\nwho abandons the commands of God, though he retains his faith; the\nthird, _a fide_, by him who not only abandons his works, but also the\nfaith. There is this difference between an apostate and a heretic; that\nthe latter only abandons a part of the faith, whereas the former\nrenounces the whole. The primitive Christian church distinguished\nseveral kinds of apostasy. The first was that of those who relapsed from\nChristianity into Judaism; the second, that of those who blended Judaism\nand Christianity together; and the third was that of those who, after\nhaving been Christians, voluntarily relapsed into Paganism.\n\nAPOSTLE, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03db\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ,\ncommissioned by him to preach his Gospel, and propagate it to all parts\nof the earth. The word originally signifies a person _delegated_ or\n_sent_; from \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03db\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, _mitto_; in which sense it occurs in Herodotus,\nand other profane authors. Hence, in the New Testament, the term is\napplied to divers sorts of delegates; and to the twelve disciples by way\nof eminence. They were limited to the number twelve, in allusion to the\ntwelve tribes of Israel. See Matt. xix, 28; Luke xxii, 30; Rev. xxi,\n12\u201314; and compare Exod. xxiv, 4; Deut. i, 23; and Josh. iv, 2, 3.\nAccordingly care was taken, on the death of Judas, to choose another, to\nmake up the number, Acts i, 21, 22, 26. Of the first selection and\ncommission of the twelve Apostles, we have an account, Luke vi, 13, &c;\nMatt. x, 1, &c. Having chosen and constituted twelve persons, under the\nname of Apostles, our blessed Lord determined that for some time they\nshould be continually with him, not only to attend upon his public\nministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation, that he\nmight furnish them the better for the great work in which they were to\nbe employed; and that, at length, after suitable preparation, he might,\nwith greater advantage, send them abroad to preach his Gospel, and thus\nmake way for his own visits to some more distant parts, where he had not\nyet been; and to enable them more effectually to do this, he endowed\nthem with the power of working miracles, of curing diseases, and casting\nout demons. About the commencement of the third year of his ministry,\naccording to the common account of its duration, he sent them out two by\ntwo, that they might be assistants to each other in their work; and\ncommanded them to restrict their teaching and services to the people of\nIsrael, and to avoid going to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans; to\ndeclare the approach of the kingdom of heaven, and the establishment of\nthe Gospel dispensation; to exercise the miraculous powers with which\nthey had been endowed gratuitously; and to depend for their subsistence\non the providence of God, and on the donations of those to whom they\nministered. Their names were, Simon Peter; Andrew, his brother; James\nthe greater, the son of Zebedee; and John his brother, who was the\nbeloved disciple; Philip of Bethsaida; Bartholomew; Thomas, called\nDidymus, as having a twin brother; Matthew or Levi, who had been a\npublican; James, the son of Alpheus, called James the less; Lebbeus,\nsurnamed Thaddeus, and who was also called Judas or Jude, the brother of\nJames; Simon, the Canaanite, so called, as some have thought, because he\nwas a native of Cana, or, as Dr. Hammond thinks, from the Hebrew \u05e7\u05e0\u05d0,\nsignifying the same with Zelotes, or the Zelot, a name given to him on\naccount of his having before professed a distinguishing zeal for the\nlaw; and Judas Iscariot, or a man of Carioth, Josh. xv, 25, who\nafterward betrayed him, and then laid violent hands on himself. Of\nthese, Simon, Andrew, James the greater, and John, were fishermen;\nMatthew, and James the son of Alpheus, were publicans; and the other six\nwere probably fishermen, though their occupation is not distinctly\nspecified.\n\nAfter the resurrection of our Saviour, and not long before his\nascension, the place of Judas the traitor was supplied by Matthias,\nsupposed by some to have been Nathanael of Galilee, to whom our Lord had\ngiven the distinguishing character of an \u201cIsraelite indeed, in whom\nthere was no guile;\u201d and the twelve Apostles, whose number was now\ncompleted, received a new commission, of a more extensive nature than\nthe first, to preach the Gospel to all nations, and to be witnesses of\nChrist, not only in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and in Samaria, but unto\nthe uttermost parts of the earth; and they were qualified for the\nexecution of their office by a plenteous effusion of miraculous powers\nand spiritual gifts, and particularly the gift of tongues. In\nconsequence of this commission, they preached first to the Jews, then to\nthe Samaritans, and afterward to the idolatrous Gentiles. Their signal\nsuccess at Jerusalem, where they opened their commission, alarmed the\nJewish sanhedrim, before which Peter and John were summoned, and from\nwhich they received a strict charge never more to teach, publicly or\nprivately, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The noble reply and\nsubsequent conduct of the Apostles are well known. This court of the\nJews was so awed and incensed, as to plot the death of the twelve\nApostles, as the only effectual measure for preventing the farther\nspread of Christianity. Gamaliel interposed, by his prudent and moderate\ncounsel; and his speech had so good an effect upon the sanhedrim, that,\ninstead of putting Peter and John to death, they scourged them, renewed\ntheir charge and threats, and then dismissed them. The Apostles,\nhowever, were not discouraged nor restrained; they counted it an honour\nto suffer such indignities, in token of their affection to their Master,\nand zeal in his cause; and they persisted in preaching daily in the\ncourts of the temple, and in other places, that Jesus of Nazareth was\nthe promised and long expected Messiah. Their doctrine spread, and the\nnumber of converts in Jerusalem still increased. During the violent\npersecution that raged at Jerusalem, soon after the martyrdom of St.\nStephen, several of the leading men among the Christians were dispersed;\nsome of them travelled through the regions of Judea and Samaria, and\nothers to Damascus, Ph\u0153nicia, the Island of Cyprus, and various parts\nof Syria; but the twelve Apostles remained, with undaunted firmness, at\nJerusalem, avowing their attachment to the persecuted interest of\nChrist, and consulting how they might best provide for the emergencies\nof the church, in its infant and oppressed state.\n\nWhen the Apostles, during their abode at Jerusalem, heard that many of\nthe Samaritans had embraced the Gospel, Peter and John were deputed to\nconfer upon them the gift of the Holy Spirit; for to the Apostles\nbelonged the prerogative of conferring upon others spiritual gifts and\nmiraculous powers. In their return to Jerusalem, from the city of\nSamaria, they preached the Gospel in many Samaritan villages. The manner\nof its being sent to Ethiopia, by the conversion of the eunuch who was\nchief treasurer to Candace, queen of the country, is related in Acts\nviii, 26, &c. After the Christian religion had been planted in\nJerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and sent into Ethiopia, one of the\nuttermost parts of the earth, Acts i, 8; and after it had been preached\nabout eight years to the Jews only, God, in his wise and merciful\nprovidence, disposed things for the preaching of it among the Gentiles.\nC\u00e6sarea was the scene in which the Apostle Peter was to open his\ncommission for this purpose; and Cornelius, one of the devout Gentiles,\nand a man distinguished by his piety and charity, was the first\nproselyte to Christianity. After Peter had laid the foundation of a\nChristian church among the devout Gentiles, others imitated his example,\nand a great number of persons of this description embraced the Christian\nfaith, more especially at Antioch, where the disciples, whom their\nenemies had hitherto called Galileans, Nazarenes, and other names of\nreproach, and who, among themselves, had been called \u201cdisciples,\u201d\n\u201cbelievers,\u201d \u201cthe church,\u201d \u201cthe saints,\u201d and \u201cbrethren,\u201d were\ndenominated, probably not without a divine direction, Christians.\n\nWhen Christianity had been preached for about eight years among the Jews\nonly, and for about three years more among the Jews and devout Gentiles,\nthe next stage of its progress was to the idolatrous Gentiles, in the\nyear of Christ 44, and the fourth year of the emperor Claudius. Barnabas\nand Saul were selected for this purpose, and constituted in an\nextraordinary manner Apostles of the Gentiles, or uncircumcision.\nBarnabas was probably an elder of the first rank; he had seen Christ in\nthe flesh, had been an eye witness of his being alive again after his\ncrucifixion, and had received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost,\nas being one of the hundred and twenty. Saul also, since his conversion\nhad preached as a superior prophet, about seven years to the Jews only,\nand about two years more to the Jews and devout Gentiles. They had both\nbeen born in Gentile countries; and therefore may be supposed to have\nhad more respect and affection for the Gentiles than most of the Jews,\nwho were natives of Judea. Saul had been converted, and had hitherto\npreached chiefly on Gentile ground; and he had joined with Barnabas in\nteaching devout Gentiles for a whole year, at Antioch in Syria; by all\nwhich previous steps they were regularly conducted to the last\ngradation, or the conversion of the idolatrous Gentiles. But it was\nnecessary, in order to the being an Apostle, to have seen our Lord Jesus\nChrist alive after his crucifixion, for the Apostles were in a peculiar\nmanner the witnesses of his resurrection. Some have supposed that Saul\nsaw the person of Jesus, when he was converted, near the city of\nDamascus; but others, who conceive from the history of this event, that\nthis could not have been the case, as he was instantly struck blind, are\nof opinion that the season, when his Apostolic qualification and\ncommission were completed, was that mentioned by himself, Acts xxii, 17,\nwhen he returned to Jerusalem the second time after his conversion, saw\nthe Lord Jesus Christ in person, and received the command to go quickly\nout of Jerusalem, that he might be sent unto the Gentiles. See also Acts\nxxvi, 16\u201320, where he gives an account of the object of his commission.\nHe also received a variety of gifts and powers, which, superadded to his\nown genius and learning, as well as fortitude and patience, eminently\nqualified him for the office of an Apostle, and for that particular\nexercise of it which was assigned to him. St. Paul is frequently called\nthe _Apostle_, by way of eminence; and the _Apostle of the Gentiles_,\nbecause his ministry was chiefly employed for the conversion of the\nGentiles, as that of St. Peter was for Jews, who is therefore styled the\n_Apostle of the circumcision_.\n\nThe Apostles having continued at Jerusalem twelve years after the\nascension of Christ, as tradition reports, according to his command,\ndetermined to disperse themselves in different parts of the world. But\nwhat were the particular provinces assigned to each, does not certainly\nappear from any authentic history. Socrates says, that Thomas took\nParthia for his lot; Matthew, Ethiopia, and Bartholomew, India. Eusebius\ngives the following account: \u201cThomas, as we learn by tradition, had\nParthia for his lot; Andrew, Scythia; John, Asia, who having lived there\na long time, died at Ephesus. Peter, as it seems, preached to the\ndispersed Jews in Pontus and Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at\nlength, coming to Rome, he was crucified with his head downward, as he\nhad desired. What need I to speak of St. Paul, who fully preached the\nGospel of Christ, from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and at last died a martyr\nat Rome, in the time of Nero?\u201d From this passage we may conclude, that\nat the beginning of the fourth century, there were not any certain and\nwell attested accounts of the places out of Judea, in which several of\nthe Apostles of Christ preached; for if there had, Eusebius must have\nbeen acquainted with them.\n\nThe stories that are told concerning their arrival and exploits among\nthe Gauls, the English, the Spaniards, the Germans, the Americans, the\nChinese, the Indians, and the Russians, are too romantic in their\nnature, and of too recent a date, to be received by an impartial\ninquirer after truth. These fables were for the most part forged after\nthe time of Charlemagne, when most of the Christian churches contended\nabout the antiquity of their origin, with as much vehemence as the\nArcadians, Egyptians, and Greeks disputed formerly about their seniority\nand precedence.\n\nIt appears, however, that all of the Apostles did not die by martyrdom.\nHeraclion, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, reckons among the Apostles who\ndid not suffer martyrdom, Matthew, Thomas, Philip, and Levi, probably\nmeaning Lebbeus.\n\nTo the Apostles belonged the peculiar and exclusive prerogative of\nwriting doctrinal and preceptive books of authority in the Christian\nchurch; and it sufficiently appears that no epistles or other doctrinal\nwritings of any person who was of a rank below that of an Apostle, were\nreceived by Christians as a part of their rule of faith. With respect to\nthe writings of Mark and Luke, they are reckoned historical, not\ndoctrinal or dogmatical; and Augustine says, that Mark and Luke wrote at\na time when their writings might be approved not only by the church, but\nby Apostles still living.\n\nThe appellation of Apostles was also given to the ordinary travelling\nministers of the church. Thus St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans,\nxvi, 7, says, \u201cSalute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow\nprisoners, who are of note among the Apostles.\u201d In this inferior sense\nthe appellation is applied, by Clement of Alexandria, to Barnabas; who\nwas not an Apostle in the highest sense of the word, so as the twelve\nand Paul were Apostles. Tertullian calls all the seventy disciples\nApostles; and Clement calls Barnabas Apostolical merely in another\nplace, and says that he was one of the seventy, and fellow labourer of\nPaul. These, says Dr. Lardner, are the highest characters which he\nreally intends to give to Barnabas, and what he means when he styles him\nApostle; therefore he need not be supposed to ascribe to Barnabas that\nlarge measure of inspiration and high authority, which was peculiar to\nthe Apostles, strictly and properly so called. In a similar subordinate\nform, St. Clement of Rome is called Apostle. Timothy also is called by\nSalvian, Apostle, meaning merely Apostolical, or a companion and\ndisciple of Apostles.\n\nApostle was likewise a title given to those sent by the churches, to\ncarry their alms to the poor of other churches. This usage they borrowed\nfrom the synagogues, who called those whom they sent on this message, by\nthe same name; and the function or office itself \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03db\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74, that is,\n_mission_. Thus St. Paul, writing to the Philippians, tells them, that\nEpaphroditus, their _Apostle_, had ministered to his wants, chap. ii,\n25. It is applied in like manner to those persons who first planted the\nChristian faith in any place.\n\nApostle is also used among the Jews, for a kind of officer anciently\nsent into the several parts and provinces in their jurisdiction, by way\nof visiter, or commissary; to see that the laws were duly observed, and\nto receive the moneys collected for the reparation of the temple, and\nthe tribute payable to the Romans. These apostles were a degree below\nthe officers of the synagogues, called _patriarchs_, and received their\ncommissions from them. Some authors observe, that St. Paul had borne\nthis office; and that it is this he alludes to in the beginning of the\nEpistle to the Galatians: as if he had said, Paul, no longer an apostle\nof the synagogue, nor sent by men to maintain the law of Moses, but now\nan Apostle and envoy of Jesus Christ, &c. St. Jerom, though he does not\nbelieve that St. Paul had been an apostle of this kind, yet imagines\nthat he alludes to it in the passage just cited.\n\nAPOSTLES\u2019 CREED. See CREED.\n\nAPPELLATIO, an appeal. The Sempronian law secured this privilege to the\nRoman citizens, that they could not be capitally convicted, but by the\nsuffrage of the people; and in whatever provinces they happened to\nreside, if the governor showed a disposition to condemn them to death,\nto scourge, or deprive them of their property, they had liberty to\nappeal from his jurisdiction to the judgment of the people. This law,\nwhich was enacted under the republican form of government, continued in\nforce under the emperors; so that if any freeman of Rome thought himself\nill used and aggrieved by the presidents in any of the provinces, he\ncould, by appeal, remove his cause to Rome, to the determination of the\nemperor. A number of persons, we are told, were delegated by Augustus,\nall of consular rank, to receive the appeals of the people in the\nprovinces. These observations will explain the nature of St. Paul\u2019s\nappeal in the Acts of the Apostles.\n\nAPPII FORUM, a place about fifty miles from Rome, near the modern town\nof Piperno on the road to Naples. It probably had its name from the\nstatue of Appius Claudius, a Roman consul, who paved the famous way from\nRome to Capua, and whose statue was set up here. To this place some\nChristians from Rome came to meet St. Paul, Acts xxviii, 15.\n\nAPPLE TREE, \u05ea\u05e4\u05d5\u05d7, Prov. xxv, 11; Cant. ii, 3, 5; vii, 8; viii, 5; Joel\ni, 12. As the best apples of Egypt, though ordinary, are brought thither\nby sea from Rhodes, and by land from Damascus, we may believe that\nJudea, an intermediate country between Egypt and Damascus, has none that\nare of any value. Can it be imagined, then, that the apple trees of\nwhich the Prophet Joel speaks, i, 12, and which he mentions among the\nthings that gave joy to the inhabitants of Judea, were those that we\ncall by that name? Our translators must surely have been mistaken here,\nsince the apples which the inhabitants of Judea eat at this day are of\nforeign growth, and at the same time but very indifferent.\n\nThere are five places, beside this in Joel, in which the word occurs;\nand from them we learn that it was thought the noblest of the trees of\nthe wood, and that its fruit was very sweet or pleasant, Cant. ii, 3; of\nthe colour of gold, Prov. xxv, 11; extremely fragrant, Cant. vii, 8; and\nproper for those to smell that were ready to faint, Cant. ii, 5. We may\nbe sure that the _taphuach_ was very early known in the holy land, as it\nis mentioned in the book of Joshua as having given name to a city of\nManasseh and one of Judah. Several interpreters and critics render \u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e5\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8, Lev. xxiii, 40, _branches_, or fruit, _of the beautiful tree_; and\nunderstand it of the citron; and it is known that the Jews still make\nuse of the fruit of this tree at their yearly feast of tabernacles.\n\nCitron trees are very noble, being large, their leaves beautiful, ever\ncontinuing on the trees, of an exquisite smell, and affording a most\ndelightful shade. It might well, therefore, be said, \u201cAs the citron tree\nis among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons.\u201d This\nis a delicate compliment, comparing the fine appearance of the prince,\namid his escort, to the superior beauty with which the citron tree\nappears among the ordinary trees of the forest; and the compliment is\nheightened by an allusion to the refreshing shade and the exhilarating\nfruit.\n\nThe exhilarating effects of the fruit are mentioned Cant. ii, 5,\n\u201cComfort me with citrons.\u201d Egmont and Heyman tell us of an Arabian who\nwas in a great measure brought to himself, when overcome with wine, by\nthe help of citrons and coffee.\n\nTo the manner of serving up these citrons in his court, Solomon seems to\nrefer, when he says, \u201cA word fitly spoken is like golden citrons in\nsilver baskets;\u201d whether, as Maimonides supposes, in baskets wrought\nwith open work, or in salvers curiously chased, it nothing concerns us\nto determine; the meaning is, that an excellent saying, suitably\nexpressed, is as the most acceptable gift in the fairest conveyance. So\nthe rabbins say, that the tribute of the first ripe fruits was carried\nto the temple in silver baskets.\n\nAPRIES, a king of Egypt, called in the sacred writings Pharaoh Hophrah,\nJer. xliv, 30. Apries was the son of Psammis, and grandson of Necho, or\nNechao, who waged war against Josiah, king of the Jews. He reigned\ntwenty-five years, and was long considered as one of the happiest\nprinces in the world; but having equipped a fleet for the reduction of\nthe Cyrenians, he lost in this expedition almost the whole of his army.\nThe Egyptians resolved to make him responsible for this ill success,\nrebelled, and pretended that he undertook the war only to get rid of his\nsubjects, and that he might govern the remainder more absolutely. Apries\ndeputed Amasis, one of his officers, to suppress the rebellion, and\ninduce the people to return to their allegiance. But, while Amasis was\nharanguing them, one of the multitude placed a diadem about his helmet,\nand proclaimed him king. The rest applauded him; and Amasis having\naccepted their offer, continued with them, and confirmed them in their\nrebellion. Amasis put himself at the head of the rebels, and marched\nagainst Apries, whom he defeated and took prisoner. Amasis treated him\nwith kindness; but the people were not satisfied till they had taken him\nfrom Amasis and strangled him. Such was the end of Apries, according to\nHerodotus. Jeremiah threatened this prince with being delivered into the\nhands of his enemies, as he had delivered Zedekiah, king of Judah, into\nthe hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.\n\nApries had made a league with Zedekiah, and promised him assistance,\nEzek. xvii, 15. Zedekiah, therefore, relying on his forces, revolted\nfrom Nebuchadnezzar, in the year of the world 3414, and before Jesus\nChrist 590. Early in the year following, Nebuchadnezzar marched against\nHezekiah; but as other nations of Syria had shaken off their obedience,\nhe first reduced them to their duty, and toward the end of the year\nbesieged Jerusalem, 2 Kings xxv, 5; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 17; Jer. xxxix, 1;\nlii, 4. Zedekiah defended himself in Jerusalem, long and obstinately,\nthat he might give time to Pharaoh Hophrah, or Apries, to come to his\nassistance. Apries advanced with a powerful army; and the king of\nBabylon raised the siege, and marched to meet him. But Apries not daring\nto hazard a battle against the Chaldeans, retreated into Egypt, and\nabandoned Zedekiah. Ezekiel reproaches Egypt severely with this\nbaseness, and says that it had been a staff of reed to the house of\nIsrael, and an occasion of falling; for when they took hold of it by the\nhand, it broke and rent all their shoulder. He therefore prophesies that\nEgypt should be reduced to a solitude, and that God would send against\nit the sword, which would destroy in it man and beast, Ezek. xxix. This\nwas afterward accomplished, first, in the time of Apries; and secondly,\nin the conquest of Egypt by the Persians.\n\nAQUILA. This person was a native of Pontus in Asia Minor, and was\nconverted by St. Paul, together with his wife Priscilla, to the\nChristian religion. As Aquila was by trade a tentmaker, Acts xviii, 2,\n3, as St. Paul was, the Apostle lodged and wrought with him at Corinth.\nAquila came thither, not long before, from Italy, being obliged to leave\nRome upon the edict which the emperor Claudius had published, banishing\nthe Jews from that city. St. Paul afterward quitted Aquila\u2019s house, and\nabode with Justus, near the Jewish synagogue at Corinth; probably, as\nCalmet thinks, because Aquila was a converted Jew, and Justus was a\nconvert from Paganism, that in this case the Gentiles might come and\nhear him with more liberty. When the Apostle left Corinth, Aquila and\nPriscilla accompanied him as far as Ephesus, where he left them with\nthat church while he pursued his journey to Jerusalem. They rendered him\ngreat service in that city, so far as to expose their own lives to\npreserve his. They had returned to Rome when St. Paul wrote his Epistle\nto the Romans, xvi, 4, wherein he salutes them with great kindness.\nLastly, they were come back to Ephesus again, when St. Paul wrote his\nSecond Epistle to Timothy, iv, 19, wherein he desires him to salute them\nin his name. What became of them after this time is not known.\n\nAR, the capital city of the Moabites, situated in the hills on the south\nof the river Arnon. This city was likewise called Rabbah or Rabbath\nMoab, to distinguish it from the Ammonite Rabbah. It was afterward\ncalled by the Greeks Areopolis; and is at present termed El-Rabba. See\nMOAB.\n\nARABIA. A vast country of Asia, extending one thousand five hundred\nmiles from north to south, and one thousand two hundred from east to\nwest; containing a surface equal to four times that of France. The near\napproach of the Euphrates to the Mediterranean constitutes it a\npeninsula, the largest in the world. It is called Jezirat-el-Arab by the\nArabs; and by the Persians and Turks, Arebistan. This is one of the most\ninteresting countries on the face of the earth. It has, in agreement\nwith prophecy, never been subdued; and its inhabitants, at once\npastoral, commercial, and warlike, are the same wild, wandering people\nas the immediate descendants of their great ancestor Ishmael are\nrepresented to have been.\n\nArabia, or at least the eastern and northern parts of it, were first\npeopled by some of the numerous families of Cush, who appear to have\nextended themselves, or to have given their name as the land of Cush, or\nAsiatic Ethiopia, to all the country from the Indus on the east, to the\nborders of Egypt on the west, and from Armenia on the north to Arabia\nDeserta on the south. By these Cushites, whose first plantations were on\nboth sides of the Euphrates and Gulf of Persia, and who were the first\nthat traversed the desert of Arabia, the earliest commercial\ncommunications were established between the east and the west. But of\ntheir Arabian territory, and of the occupation dependent on it, they\nwere deprived by the sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Midian; by whom they\nwere obliterated in this country as a distinct race, either by\nsuperiority of numbers after mingling with them, or by obliging them to\nrecede altogether to their more eastern possessions, or over the Gulf of\nArabia into Africa. From this time, that is, about five hundred and\nfifty years after the flood, we read only of Ishmaelites and Midianites\nas the shepherds and carriers of the deserts; who also appear to have\nbeen intermingled, and to have shared both the territory and the\ntraffic, as the traders who bought Joseph are called by both names, and\nthe same are probably referred to by Jeremiah, xxv, as \u201cthe mingled\npeople that dwell in the desert.\u201d But Ishmael maintained the\nsuperiority, and succeeded in giving his name to the whole people.\n\nArabia, it is well known, is divided by geographers into three separate\nregions, called Arabia Petr\u00e6a, Arabia Deserta, and Arabia Felix.\n\nThe first, or Arabia Petr\u00e6a, is the north-western division, and is\nbounded on the north by Palestine and the Dead Sea, on the east by\nArabia Deserta, on the south by Arabia Felix, and on the west by the\nHeroopolitan branch of the Red Sea and the Isthmus of Suez. The greater\npart of this division was more exclusively the possession of the\nMidianites, or land of Midian; where Moses, having fled from Egypt,\nmarried the daughter of Jethro, and spent forty years keeping the flocks\nof his father-in-law: no humiliating occupation in those days, and\nparticularly in Midian, which was a land of shepherds; the whole people\nhaving no other way of life than that of rearing and tending their\nflocks, or in carrying the goods they received from the east and south\ninto Phenicia and Egypt. The word flock, used here, must not convey the\nidea naturally entertained in our own country of sheep only, but,\ntogether with these or goats, horned cattle and camels, the most\nindispensable of animals to the Midianite. It was a mixed flock of this\nkind which was the sole care of Moses, during a third part of his long\nlife; in which he must have had abundance of leisure, by night and by\nday, to reflect on the unhappy condition of his own people, still\nenduring all the rigours of slavery in Egypt. It was a similar flock\nalso which the daughters of Jethro were watering when first encountered\nby Moses; a trifling event in itself, but important in the history of\nthe future leader of the Jews; and showing, at the same time, the simple\nlife of the people among whom he was newly come, as well as the scanty\nsupply of water in their country, and the strifes frequently occasioned\nin obtaining a share of it. Through a considerable part of this region,\nthe Israelites wandered after they had escaped from Egypt; and in it\nwere situated the mountains Horeb and Sinai. Beside the tribes of\nMidian, which gradually became blended with those of Ishmael, this was\nthe country of the Edomites, the Amalekites, and the Nabath\u00e6i, the only\ntribe of pure Ishmaelites within its precincts. But all those families\nhave long since been confounded under the general name of Arabs. The\ngreater part of this district consists of naked rocks and sandy and\nflinty plains; but it contained also some fertile spots, particularly in\nthe peninsula of Mount Sinai, and through the long range of Mount Seir.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Map of the\n  JOURNEYINGS & ENCAMPMENTS\n  _of the_ ISRAELITES _from_\n  EGYPT TO CANAAN\n  Through the Desert of\n  _Arabia Petr\u00e6a_\n]\n\nThe second region, or Arabia Deserta, is bounded on the north and\nnorth-east by the Euphrates, on the east by a ridge of mountains which\nseparates it from Chaldea, on the south by Arabia Felix, and on the west\nby Syria, Judea, and Arabia Petr\u00e6a. This was more particularly the\ncountry first of the Cushites, and afterward of the Ishmaelites; as it\nis still of their descendants, the modern Bedouins, who maintain the\nsame predatory and wandering habits. It consists almost entirely of one\nvast and lonesome wilderness, a boundless level of sand, whose dry and\nburning surface denies existence to all but the Arab and his camel. Yet,\nwidely scattered over this dreary waste, some spots of comparative\nfertility are to be found, where, spread around a feeble spring of\nbrackish water, a stunted verdure, or a few palm trees, fix the\nprincipal settlement of a tribe, and afford stages of refreshment in\nthese otherwise impassable deserts. Here, with a few dates, the milk of\nhis faithful camel, and perhaps a little corn, brought by painful\njourneys from distant regions, or plundered from a passing caravan, the\nArab supports a hard existence, until the failure of his resources\nimpels him to seek another _oasis_, or the scanty herbage furnished on a\npatch of soil by transient rains; or else, which is frequently the case,\nto resort, by more distant migration, to the banks of the Euphrates; or,\nby hostile inroads on the neighbouring countries, to supply those wants\nwhich the recesses of the desert have denied. The numbers leading this\nwandering and precarious mode of life are incredible. From these deserts\nZerah drew his army of a million of men; and the same deserts, fifteen\nhundred years after, poured forth the countless swarms, which, under\nMohammed and his successors, devastated half of the then known world.\n\nThe third region, or Arabia Felix, so denominated from the happier\ncondition of its soil and climate, occupies the southern part of the\nArabian peninsula. It is bounded on the north by the two other divisions\nof the country; on the south and south-east by the Indian Ocean; on the\neast by part of the same ocean and the Persian Gulf; and on the west by\nthe Red Sea. This division is subdivided into the kingdoms or provinces\nof Yemen, at the southern extremity of the peninsula; Hejaz, on the\nnorth of the former, and toward the Red Sea; Nejed, in the central\nregion; and Hadramant and Oman, on the shores of the Indian Ocean. The\nfour latter subdivisions partake of much of the character of the other\ngreater divisions of the country, though of a more varied surface, and\nwith a larger portion capable of cultivation. But Yemen seems to belong\nto another country and climate. It is very mountainous, is well watered\nwith rains and springs, and is blessed with an abundant produce in corn\nand fruits, and especially in coffee, of which vast quantities are\nexported. In this division were the ancient cities of Nysa, Musa or\nMoosa, and Aden. This is also supposed to have been the country of the\nqueen of Sheba. In Hejaz are the celebrated cities of Mecca and Medina.\n\nArabia Felix is inhabited by a people who claim Jotkan for their father,\nand so trace their descent direct from Shem, instead of Abraham and Ham.\nThey are indeed a totally different people from those inhabiting the\nother quarters, and pride themselves on being the only pure and unmixed\nArabs. Instead of being shepherds and robbers, they are fixed in towns\nand cities; and live by agriculture and commerce, chiefly maritime. Here\nwere the people who were found by the Greeks of Egypt enjoying an entire\nmonopoly of the trade with the east, and possessing a high degree of\nwealth and consequent refinement. It was here, in the ports of Sab\u00e6a,\nthat the spices, muslins, and precious stones of India, were for many\nages obtained by the Greek traders of Egypt, before they had acquired\nskill or courage sufficient to pass the straits of the Red Sea; which\nwere long considered by the nations of Europe to be the produce of\nArabia itself. These articles, before the invention of shipping, or the\nestablishment of a maritime intercourse, were conveyed across the\ndeserts by the Cushite, Ishmaelite, and Midianite carriers. It was the\nproduce partly of India, and partly of Arabia, which the travelling\nmerchants, to whom Joseph was sold, were carrying into Egypt. The balm\nand myrrh were probably Arabian, as they are still the produce of the\nsame country; but the spicery was undoubtedly brought farther from the\neast. These circumstances are adverted to, to show how extensive was the\ncommunication, in which the Arabians formed the principal link: and that\nin the earliest ages of which we have any account, in those of Joseph,\nof Moses, of Isaiah, and of Ezekiel, \u201cthe mingled people\u201d inhabiting the\nvast Arabian deserts, the Cushites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites, were\nthe chief agents in that commercial intercourse which has, from the most\nremote period of antiquity, subsisted between the extreme east and west.\nAnd although the current of trade is now turned, caravans of merchants,\nthe descendants of these people, may still be found traversing the same\ndeserts, conveying the same articles, and in the same manner as\ndescribed by Moses!\n\nThe singular and important fact that Arabia has never been conquered,\nhas already been cursorily adverted to. But Mr. Gibbon, unwilling to\npass by an opportunity of cavilling at revelation, says, \u201cThe perpetual\nindependence of the Arabs has been the theme of praise among strangers\nand natives; and the arts of controversy transform this singular event\ninto a prophecy and a miracle in favour of the posterity of Ishmael.\nSome exceptions, that can neither be dissembled nor eluded, render this\nmode of reasoning as indiscreet as it is superfluous. The kingdom of\nYemen has been successively subdued by the Abyssinians, the Persians,\nthe Sultans of Egypt, and the Turks; the holy cities of Mecca and Medina\nhave repeatedly bowed under a Scythian tyrant; and the Roman province of\nArabia embraced the peculiar wilderness in which Ishmael and his sons\nmust have pitched their tents in the face of their brethren.\u201d But this\nlearned writer has, with a peculiar infelicity, annulled his own\nargument; and we have only to follow on the above passage, to obtain a\ncomplete refutation of the unworthy position with which it begins: \u201cYet\nthese exceptions,\u201d says Mr. Gibbon, \u201care temporary or local; the body of\nthe nation has escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies: the\narms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of Pompey, and Trajan, could never achieve\nthe conquest of Arabia; the present sovereign of the Turks may exercise\na shadow of jurisdiction, but his pride is reduced to solicit the\nfriendship of a people whom it is dangerous to provoke, and fruitless to\nattack. The obvious causes of their freedom are inscribed on the\ncharacter and country of the Arabs. Many ages before Mohammed, their\nintrepid valour had been severely felt by their neighbours, in offensive\nand defensive war. The patient and active virtues of a soldier are\ninsensibly nursed in the habits and discipline of a pastoral life. The\ncare of the sheep and camels is abandoned to the women of the tribe; but\nthe martial youth, under the banner of the emir, is ever on horseback\nand in the field, to practise the exercise of the bow, the javelin, and\nthe scimitar. The long memory of their independence is the firmest\npledge of its perpetuity; and succeeding generations are animated to\nprove their descent, and to maintain their inheritance. Their domestic\nfeuds are suspended on the approach of a common enemy; and in their last\nhostilities against the Turks, the caravan of Mecca was attacked and\npillaged by four score thousand of the confederates. When they advance\nto battle, the hope of victory is in the front, in the rear the\nassurance of a retreat. Their horses and camels, who in eight or ten\ndays can perform a march of four or five hundred miles, disappear before\nthe conqueror; the secret waters of the desert elude his search; and his\nvictorious troops are consumed with thirst, hunger, and fatigue, in the\npursuit of an invisible foe, who scorns his efforts, and safely reposes\nin the heart of the burning solitude. The arms and deserts of the\nBedouins are not only the safeguards of their own freedom, but the\nbarriers also of the happy Arabia, whose inhabitants, remote from war,\nare enervated by the luxury of the soil and climate. The legions of\nAugustus melted away in disease and lassitude; and it is only by a naval\npower that the reduction of Yemen has been successfully attempted. When\nMohammed erected his holy standard, that kingdom was a province of the\nPersian empire; yet seven princes of the Homerites still reigned in the\nmountains; and the vicegerent of Chosroes was tempted to forget his\ndistant country and his unfortunate master.\u201d\n\nYemen was the only Arabian province which had the appearance of\nsubmitting to a foreign yoke; but even here, as Mr. Gibbon himself\nacknowledges, seven of the native princes remained unsubdued: and even\nadmitting its subjugation to have been complete, the perpetual\nindependence of the Ishmaelites remains unimpeached. For this is not\ntheir country. Petra, the capital of the Stony Arabia, and the principal\nsettlement of the Nabath\u00e6i, it is true, was long in the hands of the\nPersians and Romans; but this never made them masters of the country.\nHovering troops of Arabs confined the intruders within their walls, and\ncut off their supplies; and the possession of this fortress gave as\nlittle reason to the Romans to exult as the conquerors of Arabia Petr\u00e6a,\nas that of Gibraltar does to us to boast of the conquest of Spain.\n\nThe Arabian tribes were confounded by the Greeks and Romans under the\nindiscriminate appellation of Saracens; a name whose etymology has been\nvariously, but never satisfactorily, explained. This was their general\nname when Mohammed appeared in the beginning of the seventh century.\nTheir religion at this time was Sabianism, or the worship of the sun,\nmoon, &c; variously transformed by the different tribes, and\nintermingled with some Jewish and Christian maxims and traditions. The\ntribes themselves were generally at variance, from some hereditary and\nimplacable animosities; and their only warfare consisted in desultory\nskirmishes arising out of these feuds, and in their predatory\nexcursions, where superiority of numbers rendered courage of less value\nthan activity and vigilance. Yet of such materials Mohammed constructed\na mighty empire; converted the relapsed Ishmaelites into good Musselmen;\nunited the jarring tribes under one banner; supplied what was wanting in\npersonal courage by the ardour of religious zeal; and out of a banditti,\nlittle known and little feared beyond their own deserts, raised an armed\nmultitude, which proved the scourge of the world.\n\nMohammed was born in the year 569, of the noble tribe of the Koreish,\nand descended, according to eastern historians, in a direct line from\nIshmael. His person is represented as beautiful, his manners engaging,\nand his eloquence powerful; but he was illiterate, like the rest of his\ncountrymen, and indebted to a Jewish or Christian scribe for penning his\nKoran. Whatever the views of Mohammed might have been in the earlier\npart of his life, it was not till the fortieth year of his age that he\navowed his mission as the Apostle of God: when so little credit did he\ngain for his pretensions, that in the first three years he could only\nnumber fourteen converts; and even at the end of ten years his labours\nand his friends were alike confined within the walls of Mecca, when the\ndesigns of his enemies compelled him to fly to Medina, where he was\nfavourably received by a party of the most considerable inhabitants, who\nhad recently imbibed his doctrines at Mecca. This flight, or _Hegira_,\nwas made the Mohammedan \u00e6ra, from which time is computed, and\ncorresponds with the 16th of July, 622, of the Christian \u00e6ra. Mohammed\nnow found himself sufficiently powerful to throw aside all reserve;\ndeclared that he was commanded to compel unbelievers by the sword to\nreceive the faith of one God, and his prophet Mohammed; and confirming\nhis credulous followers by the threats of eternal pain on the one hand,\nand the allurements of a sensual paradise on the other, he had, before\nhis death, which happened in the year 632, gained over the whole of\nArabia to his imposture. His death threw a temporary gloom over his\ncause, and the disunion of his followers threatened its extinction. Any\nother empire placed in the same circumstances would have crumbled to\npieces; but the Arabs felt their power; they revered their founder as\nthe chosen prophet of God; and their ardent temperament, animated by a\nreligious enthusiasm, gave an earnest of future success, and encouraged\nthe zeal or the ambition of their leaders. The succession, after some\nbloodshed, was settled, and unnumbered hordes of barbarians were ready\nto carry into execution the sanguinary dictates of their prophet; and,\nwith \u201cthe Koran, tribute, or death,\u201d as their motto, to invade the\ncountries of the infidels. During the whole of the succeeding century,\ntheir rapid career was unchecked; the disciplined armies of the Greeks\nand Romans were unable to stand against them; the Christian churches of\nAsia and Africa were annihilated; and from India to the Atlantic,\nthrough Persia, Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, with the\nwhole of northern Africa, Spain, and part of France, the impostor was\nacknowledged. Constantinople was besieged; Rome itself was plundered;\nand nothing less than the subjection of the whole Christian world was\nmeditated on the one hand and tremblingly expected on the other.\n\nAll this was wonderful; but the avenging justice of an incensed Deity,\nand the sure word of prophecy, relieve our astonishment. It was to\npunish an apostate race, that the Saracen locusts were let loose upon\nthe earth; and the countries which they were permitted to ravage were\nthose in which the pure light of revelation had been most abused. The\neastern church was sunk in gross idolatry; vice and wickedness prevailed\nin their worst forms; and those who still called themselves Christians\ntrusted more to images, relics, altars, austerities, and pilgrimages,\nthan to a crucified Saviour.\n\nAbout a hundred and eighty years from the foundation of Bagdad, during\nwhich period the power of the Saracens had gradually declined, a\ndreadful reaction took place in the conquered countries. The Persians on\nthe east, and the Greeks on the west, were simultaneously roused from\ntheir long thraldom, and, assisted by the Turks, who, issuing from the\nplains of Tartary, now for the first time made their appearance in the\neast, extinguished the power of the caliphate, and virtually put an end\nto the Arabian monarchy in the year 936. A succession of nominal caliphs\ncontinued to the year 1258: but the provinces were lost; their power was\nconfined to the walls of their capital; and they were in real subjection\nto the Turks and the Persians until the above year, when Mostacem, the\nlast of the Abbassides, was dethroned and murdered by Holagou, or\nHulaku, the Tartar, the grandson of Zingis. This event, although it\nterminated the foreign dominion of the Arabians, left their native\nindependence untouched. They were no longer, indeed, the masters of the\nfinest parts of the three great divisions of the ancient world: their\nwork was finished; and returning to the state in which Mohammed found\nthem three centuries before, with the exception of the change in their\nreligion, they remained, and still remain, the unconquered rovers of the\ndesert.\n\nIt is not the least singular circumstance in the history of this\nextraordinary people, that those who, in the enthusiasm of their first\nsuccesses, were the sworn foes of literature, should become for several\nages its exclusive patrons. Almansor, the founder of Bagdad, has the\nmerit of first exciting this spirit, which was encouraged in a still\ngreater degree by his grandson Almamon. This caliph employed his agents\nin Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and at Constantinople, in collecting the most\ncelebrated works on Grecian science, and had them translated into the\nArabic language. Philosophy, astronomy, geometry, and medicine, were\nthus introduced and taught; public schools were established; and\nlearning, which had altogether fled from Europe, found an asylum on the\nbanks of the Tigris. Nor was this spirit confined to the capital: native\nworks began to appear; and by the hands of copyists were multiplied out\nof number, for the information of the studious, or the pride of the\nwealthy. The rage for literature extended to Egypt and to Spain. In the\nformer country, the Fatimites collected a library of a hundred thousand\nmanuscripts, beautifully transcribed, and very elegantly bound; and in\nthe latter, the Ommiades formed another of six hundred thousand volumes;\nforty-four of which were employed in the catalogue. Their capital,\nCordova, with the towns of Malaga, Almeria, and Murcia, produced three\nhundred writers; and seventy public libraries were established in the\ncities of Andalusia. What a change since the days of Omar, when the\nsplendid library of the Ptolemies was wantonly destroyed by the same\npeople! A retribution, though a slight one, was thus made for their\nformer devastations; and many Grecian works, lost in the original, have\nbeen recovered in their Arabic dress. Neither was this learning confined\nto mere parade, though much of it must undoubtedly have been so. Their\nproficiency in astronomy and geometry is attested by their astronomical\ntables, and by the accuracy with which, in the plain of Chaldea, a\ndegree of the great circle of the earth was measured. But it was in\nmedicine that, in this dark age, the Arabians shone most: the works of\nHippocrates and Galen had been translated and commented on; their\nphysicians were sought after by the princes of Asia and Europe; and the\nnames of Rhazis, Albucasis, and Avicenna are still revered by the\nmembers of the healing art. So little, indeed, did the physicians of\nEurope in that age know of the history of their own science, that they\nwere astonished, on the revival of learning, to find in the ancient\nGreek authors those systems for which they thought themselves indebted\nto the Arabians!\n\nThe last remnant of Arabian science was found in Spain; from whence it\nwas expelled in the beginning of the seventeenth century, by the\nintemperate bigots of that country, who have never had any thing of\ntheir own with which to supply its place. The Arabians are the only\npeople who have preserved their descent, their independence, their\nlanguage, and their manners and customs, from the earliest ages to the\npresent times; and it is among them that we are to look for examples of\npatriarchal life and manners. A very lively sketch of this mode of life\nis given by Sir R. K. Porter, in the person and tribe of an Arab sheik,\nwhom he encountered in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. \u201cI had met\nthis warrior,\u201d says Sir R. K. P., \u201cat the house of the British resident\nat Bagdad; and came, according to his repeated wish, to see him in a\nplace more consonant with his habits, the tented field; and, as he\nexpressed it, \u2018at the head of his children.\u2019 As soon as we arrived in\nsight of his camp, we were met by crowds of its inhabitants, who, with a\nwild and hurrying delight, led us toward the tent of their chief. The\nvenerable old man came forth to the door, attended by his subjects of\nall sizes and descriptions, and greeted us with a countenance beaming\nkindness; while his words, which our interpreter explained, were\ndemonstrative of patriarchal welcome. One of my Hindoo troopers spoke\nArabic; hence the substance of our succeeding discourse was not lost on\neach other. Having entered, I sat down by my host; and the whole of the\npersons present, to far beyond the boundaries of the tent, (the sides of\nwhich were open,) seated themselves also, without any regard to those\nmore civilized ceremonies of subjection, the crouching of slaves, or the\nstanding of vassalage. These persons, in rows beyond rows, appeared just\nas he had described, the offspring of his house, the descendants of his\nfathers, from age to age; and like brethren, whether holding the highest\nor the lowest rank, they seemed to gather round their common parent. But\nperhaps their sense of perfect equality in the mind of their chief could\nnot be more forcibly shown, than in the share they took in the objects\nwhich appeared to interest his feelings; and as I looked from the elders\nor leaders of the people, seated immediately around him, to the circles\nbeyond circles of brilliant faces, bending eagerly toward him and his\nguest, (all, from the most respectably clad to those with hardly a\ngarment covering their active limbs, earnest to evince some attention to\nthe stranger he bade welcome,) I thought I had never before seen so\ncomplete an assemblage of fine and animated countenances, both old and\nyoung: nor could I suppose a better specimen of the still existing state\nof the true Arab; nor a more lively picture of the scene which must have\npresented itself, ages ago, in the fields of Haran, when Terah sat in\nhis tent door, surrounded by his sons, and his sons\u2019 sons, and the\npeople born in his house. The venerable Arabian sheik was also seated on\nthe ground with a piece of carpet spread under him; and, like his\nancient Chaldean ancestor, turned to the one side and the other,\ngraciously answering or questioning the groups around him, with an\ninterest in them all which clearly showed the abiding simplicity of his\ngovernment, and their obedience. On the smallest computation, such must\nhave been the manners of these people for more than three thousand\nyears; thus, in all things, verifying the prediction given of Ishmael at\nhis birth, that he, in his posterity, should \u2018be a wild man,\u2019 and always\ncontinue to be so, though \u2018he shall dwell for ever in the presence of\nhis brethren.\u2019 And that an acute and active people, surrounded for ages\nby polished and luxurious nations, should from their earliest to their\nlatest times, be still found _a wild people, dwelling in the presence of\nall their brethren_, (as we may call these nations,) unsubdued and\nunchangeable, is, indeed, a standing miracle: one of those mysterious\nfacts which establish the truth of prophecy.\u201d But although the manners\nof the Arabians have remained unaltered through so many ages, and will\nprobably so continue, their religion, as we have seen, has sustained an\nimportant change; and must again, in the fulness of time, give place to\na faith more worthy of the people.\n\nSt. Paul first preached the Gospel in Arabia, Gal. i, 17. Christian\nchurches were subsequently founded, and many of their tribes embraced\nChristianity prior to the fifth century; most of which appear to have\nbeen tinctured with the Nestorian heresy. At this time, however, it does\nnot appear that the Arabians had any version of the Scriptures in their\nown language, to which some writers attribute the ease with which they\nwere drawn into the Mohammedan delusion; while the \u201cGreeks, Syrians,\nArmenians, Abyssinians, Copts, and others,\u201d who enjoyed that privilege,\nwere able to resist it.\n\nARAM, the fifth son of Shem, Gen. x, 22. He was the father of the\nSyrians, who from him were called Aram\u00e6ans, or Aramites.\n\nARARAT, a mountain of Asia, in Armenia, on which the ark of Noah rested\nafter the cessation of the deluge. Concerning the etymology of the name,\nDr. Bryant observes, that it is a compound of _Ar-Arat_, and signifies\n\u201cthe mountain of descent,\u201d being equivalent to \u05d4\u05e8\u05be\u05d9\u05e8\u05e8, of the Hebrews.\nOf the precise situation of this mountain, different accounts have been\ngiven. Some have supposed that it was one of the mountains which divide\nArmenia on the south from Mesopotamia, and that part of Assyria\ninhabited by the Curds, from whom those mountains took the name of\nCurdue, or Cardu; by the Greeks denominated _Gordy\u00e6i_. It is called by\nthe Arabs _Al-Judi_, and also _Thamanin_. In confirmation of this\nopinion, it is alleged that the remains of the ark were to be seen on\nthese mountains; and it is said, that Berosus and Abydenus both declare,\nthat such a report existed in their time. Epiphanius pretends, if we may\ncredit his assertion, that the relics of the ark were to be seen in his\nday; and we are farther told, that the emperor Heraclius went from the\ntown of Thamanin, up the mountain Al-Judi, and saw the place of the ark.\nOthers maintain, that mount Ararat was situated toward the middle of\nArmenia, near the river Araxes, or Aras, about twelve miles from it,\naccording to Tournefort, above two hundred and eighty miles distant from\nAl-Judi, to the north-east. Ararat seems to be a part of that vast chain\nof mountains called Caucasus and Taurus; and upon these mountains, and\nin the adjacent country, were preserved more authentic accounts of the\nark than in almost any other part of the world. The region about Ararat,\ncalled Araratia, was esteemed among the ancients as nearly a central\npart of the earth; and it is certainly as well calculated as any other\nfor the accommodation of its first inhabitants, and for the migration of\ncolonies, upon the increase of mankind. The soil of the country was very\nfruitful, and especially of that part where the patriarch made his first\ndescent. The country also was very high, though it had fine plains and\nvalleys between the mountains. Such a country, therefore, must, after\nthe flood, have been the soonest exsiccated, and, consequently, the\nsoonest habitable.\n\nThe mountain which has still the name of Ararat, has retained it through\nall ages. Tournefort has particularly described it, and from his account\nit seems to consist chiefly of freestone, or calcareous sandstone. It is\na detached mountain in form of a sugar loaf, in the midst of a very\nextensive plain, consisting of two summits; the lesser, more sharp and\npointed; the higher, which is that of the ark, lies north-west of it,\nand raises its head far above the neighbouring mountains, and is covered\nwith perpetual snow. When the air is clear, it does not appear to be\nabove two leagues from Erivan, and may be seen at the distance of four\nor five days\u2019 journey. Its being visible at such a distance, however, is\nascribed not so much to its height, as to its lonely situation, in a\nlarge plain, and upon the most elevated part of the country. The ascent\nis difficult and fatiguing. Tournefort attempted it; and, after a whole\nday\u2019s toil, he was obliged, by the snow and intense cold, to return\nwithout accomplishing his design, though in the middle of summer. On the\nside of the mountain that looks toward Erivan, is a prodigious\nprecipice, very deep, with perpendicular sides, and of a rough, black\nappearance, as if tinged with smoke.\n\nThe summit of Ararat has never been reached, though several attempts\nhave been made; and if the ark rested on the summit, it is certain that\nthose who have spoken of its fragments being seen there in different\nages, must have been imposed upon. It is, however, not necessary to\nsuppose that the ark rested upon either of its tops; and that spot would\ncertainly be chosen which would afford the greatest facility of descent.\nSir Robert Ker Porter is among the modern travellers who have given us\nan account of this celebrated mountain:--\u201cAs the vale opened beneath us\nin our descent, my whole attention became absorbed in the view before\nme. A vast plain, peopled with countless villages; the towers and spires\nof the churches of Eitch-mai-adzen, arising from amidst them; the\nglittering waters of the Araxes, flowing through the fresh green of the\nvale; and the subordinate range of mountains, skirting the base of the\nawful monument of the antediluvian world. It seemed to stand a\nstupendous link in the history of man, uniting the two races of men\nbefore and after the flood. But it was not until we had arrived upon the\nflat plain, that I beheld Ararat in all its amplitude of grandeur. From\nthe spot on which I stood, it appeared as if the hugest mountains of the\nworld had been piled upon each other, to form this one sublime immensity\nof earth, and rock, and snow. The icy peaks of its double heads rose\nmajestically into the clear and cloudless heavens; the sun blazed bright\nupon them; and the reflection sent forth a dazzling radiance, equal to\nother suns. This point of the view united the utmost grandeur of plain\nand height. But the feelings I experienced while looking on the\nmountain, are hardly to be described. My eye, not able to rest for any\nlength of time upon the blinding glory of its summits, wandered down the\napparently interminable sides, till I could no longer trace their vast\nlines in the mists of the horizon; when an inexpressible impulse,\nimmediately carrying my eye upward again, refixed my gaze upon the awful\nglare of Ararat; and this bewildered sensibility of sight being answered\nby a similar feeling in the mind, for some moments I was lost in a\nstrange suspension of the powers of thought.\u201d\n\nThe separate peaks are called Great and Little Ararat, and the space\nbetween them is about seven miles. \u201cThese inaccessible summits,\u201d\ncontinues Sir R. K. Porter, \u201chave never been trodden by the foot of man\nsince the days of Noah, if even then; for my idea is, that the ark\nrested in the space between these heads, and not on the top of either.\nVarious attempts have been made in different ages to ascend these\ntremendous mountain-pyramids, but in vain: their form, snows, and\nglaciers, are insurmountable obstacles: the distance being so great from\nthe commencement of the icy region to the highest points, cold alone\nwould be the destruction of any person who should have the hardihood to\npersevere. On viewing mount Ararat from the northern side of the plain,\nits two heads are separated by a wide cleft, or rather glen, in the body\nof the mountain. The rocky side of the greater head runs almost\nperpendicularly down to the north-east, while the lesser head rises from\nthe sloping bottom of the cleft, in a perfectly conical shape. Both\nheads are covered with snow. The form of the greater is similar to the\nless, only broader and rounder at the top; and shows to the north-west a\nbroken and abrupt front, opening, about half way down, into a stupendous\nchasm, deep, rocky, and peculiarly black. At that part of the mountain,\nthe hollow of the chasm receives an interruption from the projection of\nminor mountains, which start from the sides of Ararat like branches from\nthe root of a tree, and run along, in undulating progression, till lost\nin the distant vapours of the plain.\u201d Dr. Shuckford argues that the true\nArarat lies among the mountains of the north of India; but Mr. Faber has\nanswered his reasoning, and proved by a comparison of geographical\nnotices incidentally mentioned in the Old Testament, that the Ararat of\nArmenia is the true Ararat.\n\nARCHANGEL, according to some, means an angel occupying the eighth rank\nin the celestial order or hierarchy; but others reckon it a title only\napplicable to our Saviour; Jude 9; Dan. xii, 1; 1 Thess. iv, 16. On this\npoint Bishop Horsley has the following observations:--\u201cIt has been for a\nlong time a fashion in the church to speak very frequently and\nfamiliarly of archangels as beings of an order with which we are\nperfectly well acquainted. Some say there are seven of them. Upon what\nsolid ground that assertion stands, I know not; but this I know, the\nword \u2018archangel\u2019 is not to be found in any one passage of the Old\nTestament: in the New Testament it occurs twice, and only twice. One of\nthe two passages is in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; where the\nApostle, among the circumstances of the pomp of our Lord\u2019s descent from\nheaven to the final judgment, mentions \u2018the voice of the archangel;\u2019 the\nother passage is in the Epistle of St. Jude, where the title of\narchangel is coupled with the name of \u2018Michael the archangel.\u2019 This\npassage is so remarkably obscure that I shall not attempt to draw any\nconclusion from it but this, which manifestly follows, be the particular\nsense of the passage what it may: since this is one of the two texts in\nwhich alone the word \u2018archangel\u2019 is found in the whole Bible; since in\nthis one text only the title of archangel is coupled with any name; and\nsince the name with which it is here coupled is Michael; it follows\nundeniably that the archangel Michael is the only archangel of whom we\nknow any thing from holy writ. It cannot be proved from holy writ, and,\nif not from holy writ, it cannot be proved at all, that any archangel\nexists but the one archangel Michael, and this one archangel Michael is\nunquestionably the Michael of the book of Daniel.\n\n\u201cI must observe by the way, with respect to the import of the title of\narchangel, that the word, by etymology, clearly implies a superiority of\nrank and authority in the person to whom it is applied. It implies a\ncommand over angels; and this is all that the word of necessity implies.\nBut it follows not, by any sound rule of argument, that, because no\nother superiority than that of rank and authority is implied in the\ntitle, no other belongs to the person distinguished by the title, and\nthat he is in all other respects a mere angel. Since we admit various\norders of intelligent beings, it is evident that a being highly above\nthe angelic order may command angels.\n\n\u201cTo ascertain, if we can, to what order of beings the archangel Michael\nmay belong, let us see how he is described by the Prophet Daniel, who\nnever mentions him by that title; and what action is attributed to him\nin the book of Daniel and in another book, in which he bears a principal\npart.\n\n\u201cNow Daniel calls him \u2018one of the chief princes,\u2018 or \u2018one of the capital\nprinces,\u2019 or \u2018one of the princes that are at the head of all:\u2019 for this\nI maintain to be the full and not more than the full import of the\nHebrew words. Now we are clearly got above the earth, into the order of\ncelestials, who are the princes that are _first_, or _at the head of\nall_? Are they any other than the three persons in the Godhead? Michael,\ntherefore, is one of them; but which of them? This is not left in doubt.\nGabriel, speaking of him to Daniel, calls him \u2018Michael _your_ prince,\u2019\nand \u2018the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people;\u2018\nthat is, not for the nation of the Jews in particular, but for the\nchildren, the spiritual children, of that holy seed the elect people of\nGod; a description which applies particularly to the Son of God, and to\nno one else; and in perfect consistence with this description of Michael\nin the book of Daniel, is the action assigned to him in the Apocalypse,\nin which we find him fighting with the old serpent, the deceiver of the\nworld, and victorious in the combat. That combat who was to maintain? in\nthat combat who was to be victorious, but the seed of the woman? From\nall this it is evident, that Michael is a name for our Lord himself, in\nhis particular character of the champion of his faithful people, against\nthe violence of the apostate faction and the wiles of the devil.\u201d To\nthis opinion there is nothing irreconcilable in the \u201cvoice of the\narchangel\u201d mentioned in 1 Thess. iv, 16: since the \u201cshout,\u201d the \u201cvoice,\u201d\nthe \u201ctrump of God,\u201d may all be the majestic summons of the Judge\nhimself. At the same time we must feel that the reasoning of Bishop\nHorsley, though ingenious, is for from being conclusive against the\nexistence of one or more archangels.\n\nARCHBISHOP, a bishop of the first class, who superintends the conduct of\nother bishops. Archbishops were not known in the east till about the\nyear 320; and though there were some soon after this, who had the title,\nyet it was only a personal honour, by which the bishops of considerable\ncities were distinguished. It was not till of late that archbishops\nbecame metropolitans, and had suffragans under them. Athanasius appears\nto have been the first who used the title archbishop, which he gave\noccasionally to his predecessor. Gregory Nazianzen, in like manner, gave\nit to Athanasius; not that either of them was entitled to any\njurisdiction, or even any precedency, in virtue of this title. Among the\nLatins, Isidore Hispalensis is the first who speaks of archbishops.\n\nARCHELAUS, son of Herod the Great, and Maltace, his fifth wife. Herod\nhaving put to death his sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, and\nexpunged out of his will Herod Antipas, whom he had declared king, he\nsubstituted Archelaus, and gave Antipas the title of tetrarch only.\nAfter the death of Herod, Archelaus ordered that king\u2019s will to be read,\nwherein he, Archelaus, was declared king, on condition that Augustus\nconsented. Hereupon the assembly cried, \u201cLong live king Archelaus!\u201d and\nthe soldiers promised the same fidelity to him as they had shown to his\nfather. Archelaus buried his father magnificently, came to Jerusalem,\nand there mourned seven days, according to custom. He then gave a\nsplendid entertainment to the people, went to the temple, harangued the\nmultitude, promised them good treatment, and declared he would not\nassume the title of king till the emperor had confirmed it, A. M. 4001;\nB. C. 3. The people, notwithstanding, tumultuously demanded the\nexecution of those who advised Herod to slay certain zealots, who had\npulled down a golden eagle from one of the temple gates. They also\nrequired Archelaus to divest Joazar of the high priesthood; and they\nvehemently reproached the memory of the late king. Archelaus sent troops\nto suppress the mutineers, and killed near three thousand of them about\nthe temple. After this he embarked at C\u00e6sarea for Rome, to procure from\nAugustus the confirmation of Herod\u2019s will. Antipas, his brother, went to\nRome likewise, to dispute his title, pretending that Herod\u2019s first will\nshould be preferred to his last, which he alleged to have been made by\nhim when his understanding was not sound.\n\nThe two brothers, Archelaus and Antipas, procured able orators to\ndisplay their pretensions before the emperor; and when they had done\nspeaking, Archelaus threw himself at Augustus\u2019s feet. Augustus gently\nraised him, said he would do nothing contrary to Herod\u2019s intention or\nhis interest, but refused to decide the affair at that time. Some time\nafterward, the Jews sent a solemn embassy to Rome, to desire Augustus\nwould permit them to live according to their own laws, and on the\nfooting of a Roman province, without being subject to kings of Herod\u2019s\nfamily, but only to the governors of Syria. Augustus heard them, and\nlikewise heard Archelaus in reply; then broke up the assembly without\ndeclaring himself. After some days, he sent for Archelaus, gave him the\ntitle, not of king, but of ethnarch, with one moiety of the territories\nwhich his father Herod had enjoyed; promising him the crown likewise, if\nhis good conduct deserved it. Archelaus returned to Judea, and, under\npretence that he had countenanced the seditious against him, he deprived\nJoazar of the high priesthood, and gave that dignity to his brother\nEleazar. He governed Judea with so much violence, that, after seven\nyears, the chiefs of the Samaritans and Jews accused him before\nAugustus. The emperor immediately sent for his agent at Rome, and\nwithout condescending to write to Archelaus he commanded the agent to\ndepart instantly for Judea, and order Archelaus to Rome, to give an\naccount of his conduct. On his arrival at Rome, the emperor called for\nhis accusers, and permitted him to defend himself; which he did so\ninsufficiently, that Augustus banished him to Vienne, in Gaul, where he\ncontinued in exile to the end of his life. See ANTIPAS.\n\nARCHI-SYNAGOGUS, _the ruler of a synagogue_. See SYNAGOGUE.\n\nARCHITRICLINUS, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, generally translated steward, signifies\nrather the _master_ or _superintendent of the feast_; \u201cone,\u201d says\nGaudentius, \u201cwho is the husband\u2019s friend, and commissioned to conduct\nthe order and economy of the feast.\u201d He gave directions to the servants,\nsuperintended every thing, commanded the tables to be covered, or to be\ncleared of the dishes, as he thought proper: whence his name, as\nregulator of the triclinium, or festive board. He also tasted the wine,\nand distributed it to the guests. The author of Ecclesiasticus thus\ndescribes this office, xxxii, 1, 2: \u201cIf thou be made the master of a\nfeast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the rest: take\ndiligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast done all thy\noffice, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with them, and receive\na crown for the well ordering of the feast.\u201d This office is mentioned,\nJohn ii, 8, 9, upon which Theophylact remarks: \u201cThat no one might\nsuspect that their taste was vitiated by having drunk to excess, so as\nnot to know water from wine, our Saviour orders it to be first carried\nto the governor of the feast, who _certainly_ was sober; for those who\non such occasions are intrusted with this office, observe the strictest\nsobriety, that they may be able properly to regulate the whole.\u201d\n\nAREOPAGUS, the high court at Athens, famed for the justice of its\ndecisions; and so called, because it sat on a hill of the same name, or\nin the suburbs of the city, dedicated to Mars, the god of war, as the\ncity was to Minerva, his sister. St. Paul, Acts xvii, 19, &c, having\npreached at Athens, was carried before the Areopagites, as \u201ca setter\nforth of strange gods.\u201d On this occasion he delivered that fine sermon\nwhich is in substance recorded in Acts xvii. Dionysius, one of the\njudges, was converted; and the Apostle was dismissed without any farther\ntrouble.\n\nARGOB, a canton lying beyond Jordan, in the half tribe of Manasseh, and\nin the country of Bashan, one of the most fruitful on the other side of\nJordan. In the region of Argob there were sixty cities, called\nBashan-havoth-Jair, which had very high walls and strong gates, without\nreckoning many villages and hamlets, which were not inclosed, Deut. iii,\n4\u201314; 1 Kings iv, 13. But Argob was more peculiarly the name of the\ncapital city of the region of Argob, which Eusebius says was fifteen\nmiles west of Gerara.\n\nARIANS, this ancient sect, was unquestionably so called from Arius, a\npresbyter of Alexandria, in the early part of the fourth century. It\nis said that he aspired to episcopal honours; and after the death of\nAchilles, in A. D. 313, felt not a little chagrined that Alexander\nshould be preferred before him. Whether this circumstance had any\ninfluence on his opinions, it is impossible to say; but one day, when\nhis rival (Alexander) had been addressing the clergy in favour of the\northodox doctrine, and maintaining, in strong and pointed language,\n\u201cthat the Son of God was co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with\nthe Father,\u201d Arius considered this as a species of Sabellianism, and\nventured to say, that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the\nFather, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten: the\nlatter, therefore, could not be absolutely eternal. Alexander at first\nadmonished Arius, and endeavoured to convince him of his error; but\nwithout effect, except that he became the more bold in contradiction.\nSome of the clergy thought their bishop too forbearing, and it is\npossible he felt his inferiority of talent; for Arius was a man of\naccomplished learning, and commanding eloquence; venerable in person,\nand fascinating in address. At length Alexander was roused, and\nattempted to silence Arius by his authority; but this not succeeding,\nas the latter was bold and pertinacious, Alexander, about the year\n320, called a council of his clergy, by whom the reputed heretic was\ndeposed and excommunicated. Arius now retired into Palestine, where\nhis talents and address soon made a number of converts; and among the\nrest, the celebrated Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and other bishops\nand clergy of those parts, who assembled in council, and received the\nexcommunicated presbyter into their communion. Eusebius also, having\ngreat interest with Constantia, the sister of Constantine, and wife of\nLicinius, recommended Arius to her protection and patronage; through\nwhich, and by his own eloquent letters to the clergy in various parts,\nhis system spread with great rapidity, and to a vast extent. The\nemperor Constantine, who had no great skill in these matters, was\ngrieved to see the Christian church (but just escaped from the red\ndragon of persecution) thus torn by intestine animosity and\ndissensions; he therefore determined to summon a general council of\nthe clergy, which met at Nice, A. D. 325, and contained more than 300\nbishops. Constantine attended in person, and strongly recommended\npeace and unanimity. Athanasius was the chief opponent of the Arians.\nBoth parties were willing to subscribe to the language of the\nScriptures, but each insisted on interpreting for themselves. \u201cDid the\nTrinitarians,\u201d says Mr. Milner, \u201cassert that Christ was God? The\nArians allowed it, but in the same sense as holy men and angels are\nstyled gods in Scripture. Did they affirm that he was truly God? The\nothers allowed that he was made so by God. Did they affirm that the\nSon was naturally of God? It was granted: Even we, said they, are of\nGod, \u2018of whom are all things.\u2019\u201d At length the Athanasians collected a\nnumber of texts, which they conceived amounted to full proof of the\nSon being of one and _the same_ substance with the Father; the Arians\nadmitted he was of _like_ substance, the difference in the Greek\nphrases being only in a single letter,--\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _homoousios_ and\n\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _homoiousios_. At length the former was decreed to be the\northodox faith, and the Nicene creed was framed as it remains at this\nday so far as concerns the person of the Son of God, who is said to be\n\u201cbegotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light,\nvery God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the\nFather, by whom all things were made,\u201d &c.\n\nArius was now excommunicated. The sentence of the council pronounced\nagainst him and his associates was followed by another of the emperor,\nwhereby the excommunicated persons were condemned to banishment, that\nthey might be debarred the society of their countrymen whom the church\nhad judged unworthy to remain in her communion. Soon after which,\nEusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, being found to continue\ntheir countenance and protection to the Arian cause, to communicate with\nthose whom they had anathematized, and to concur in those sentiments\nwhich they had condemned by their subscriptions; they were both\nsubjected to the same penalty of exile by the emperor, and were actually\ndeposed, (as we learn from Athanasius,) and had successors ordained to\ntheir sees, though history is silent as to the council by which this was\ndone. But such was the good nature and credulity of Constantine, that\nthese men, by their usual artifices, easily imposed upon him, and\nbrought him to such a full persuasion of their agreement with the Nicene\nfaith, that in about three years\u2019 time they were not only recalled from\nbanishment, but restored to their sees, and to a considerable degree of\ninterest at court. Their thorough attachment to the cause of Arius, and\ntheir hatred of Athanasius, who had so vigorously withstood them in the\ncouncil, and was now advanced to the see of Alexandria, made them\nwatchful of every opportunity to defeat the decisions of the council.\n\nIn the meantime one who wished well to their designs, and whom\nConstantia had upon her death bed recommended to the emperor, did so far\nprevail upon the easy credulity of Constantine, by complaining that\nArius had been misrepresented, and differed nothing in his sentiments\nfrom the Nicene fathers, that the indulgent emperor recalled him from\nhis banishment, and required him to exhibit in writing, a confession of\nhis faith. He did this in such terms as, though they admitted of a\nlatent reservation, yet bore the appearance of being entirely catholic;\nand therefore not only gave satisfaction to the emperor, but even\noffended some of his own followers, who from that time forth separated\nfrom him. The discerning Athanasius was not so easily imposed upon as\nConstantine; but, well assured of the heretic\u2019s prevarication, was\nresolute in refusing to admit him to communion, whom the Nicene council\nhad so openly condemned. Upon this the emperor sent for Arius to\nConstantinople, and insisted upon his being received into communion, by\nAlexander, bishop of that city. However, on the day before this was to\nhave taken place, Arius died suddenly from a complaint in his bowels.\nSome attributed this to poison; others to the judgment of God. The\nemperor did not long survive; and Constantius, his successor, became\nwarmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party.\nSuccessive emperors took different sides, and thus was the peace of the\nchurch agitated for many years, and practical religion sacrificed\nalternately to the dogmas or the interests of one party or the other;\nand each was in turn excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished.\nConstantius supported Arianism triumphantly, Julian laughed at both\nparties, but persecuted neither, Jovian supported the Nicene doctrine.\nValentinian, and his brother Valens, took contrary sides; the former\nsupporting Athanasianism in the west, and the latter Arianism in the\neast; so that what was orthodoxy at Rome was heresy at Constantinople,\nand _vice versa_. The Arians themselves were not unanimous, but divided\ninto various shades of sentiment, under their respective leaders; as\nEusebians, Eudoxians, Acasians, A\u00ebtians, &c; but the more general\ndistinction was into Arians and Semi-Arians; the former sinking the\ncharacter of the Son of God into that of a mere creature, while the\nlatter admitted every thing but the _homoousian_ doctrine, or his\nabsolute equality with the Father. After this period we hear little of\nArianism, till it was revived in England in the beginning of the last\ncentury by the eccentric Mr. Whiston, by Mr. Emlyn, and Dr. Samuel\nClarke. The latter was what may be called a _high_ or Semi-Arian, who\ncame within a shade of orthodoxy; the two _former_ were low Arians,\nreducing the rank of our Saviour to the scale of angelic beings--a\ncreature \u201cmade out of nothing.\u201d Since this time, however, both Arians\nand Socinians are sunk into the common appellation of _Unitarians_, or\nrather _Humanitarians_, who believe our Saviour (as Dr. Priestley\nexpresses it) to be \u201ca _man_ like themselves.\u201d The last advocates of the\npure Arian doctrine, of any celebrity, were Mr. Henry Taylor, (under the\nsignature of Ben Mordecai,) and Dr. Richard Price, in his \u201cSermons on\nthe Christian Doctrine.\u201d It may be proper to observe, that the Arians,\nthough they denied the absolute _eternity_ of the Son, strongly\ncontended for his pre\u00ebxistence, as the _Logos_, or the Word of God, \u201cby\nwhom the worlds were made;\u201d and admitted, more or less explicitly, the\nsacrifice which he offered for sin upon the cross.\n\nARIEL, the capital city of Moab, frequently mentioned in Scripture, Ezra\nviii, 16. See MOAB.\n\nARIMATHEA, or RAMAH, now called Raml\u00e8, or Ramla, a pleasant town,\nbeautifully situated on the borders of a fertile and extensive plain,\nabounding in gardens, vineyards, olive and date trees. It stands about\nthirty miles north-west of Jerusalem, on the high road to Jaffa. At this\nRama, which was likewise called Ramathaim Zophim, as lying in the\ndistrict of Zuph, or Zoph, Samuel was born, 1 Sam. i. This was likewise\nthe native place of Joseph, called Joseph of Arimathea, who begged and\nobtained the body of Jesus from Pilate, Matt. xxvi, 57. There was\nanother Ramah, about six miles north of Jerusalem, in a pass which\nseparated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which Baasha, king of\nIsrael, took and began to fortify; but he was obliged to relinquish it,\nin consequence of the alliance formed between Asa, king of Judah, and\nBenhadad, king of Syria, 1 Kings xv. This is the Ramah, supposed to be\nalluded to in the lamentation of Rachel for her children.\n\nARISTARCHUS, spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, iv,\n10, and often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. He was a\nMacedonian, and a native of Thessalonica. He accompanied St. Paul to\nEphesus, and there continued with him during the two years of his abode\nin that place, sharing with him in all the dangers and labours of the\nministry, Acts xix, 29; xx, 4; xxvii, 2. He was near losing his life in\na tumult raised by the Ephesian silversmiths. He left Ephesus with the\nApostle, and went with him into Greece. From thence he attended him into\nAsia; from Asia into Judea, and from Judea to Rome.\n\nARK, _arca_, denotes a kind of floating vessel built by Noah, for the\npreservation of himself and family, with several species of animals\nduring the deluge. The Hebrew word by which the ark is expressed, is \u05ea\u05d1\u05d4\nor \u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4, the constructive form of \u05ea\u05d1\u05d4, which is evidently the Greek\n\u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b7; and so the LXX render the word in Exod. ii, 3, where only it again\noccurs. They also render it \u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd; Josephus, \u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1; and the Vulgate,\n_arcam_; signifying an ark, coffer, or chest. Although the ark of Noah\nanswered, in some respects, the purpose of a ship, it is not so certain\nthat it was of the same form and shape. It has been inconclusively\nargued by Michaelis and some others, that if its form had not been like\nthat of a ship, it could not have resisted the force of the waves;\nbecause it was not intended to be conducted, like a ship, from one place\nto another, but merely \u201cto float on the surface of the waters,\u201d Gen.\nvii, 17. It appears to have had neither helm, nor mast, nor oars; but\nwas merely a bulky capacious vessel, light enough to be raised aloft\nwith all its contents, by the gradual rise of the deluge. Its shape,\ntherefore, was of little importance; more especially as it seems to have\nbeen the purpose of Providence, in this whole transaction, to signify to\nthose who were saved, as well as to their latest posterity, that their\npreservation was not in any degree effected by human contrivance. The\nark in which Moses was exposed bears the same name; and some have\nthought that both were of the same materials. With respect to the\netymology of the Hebrew word, the most rational seems to be that of\nClodius, who derives it from the Arabic word \u05ea\u05d0\u05d4, \u201che collected,\u201d from\nwhich is formed \u05ea\u05d1\u05d4, or \u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4, denoting a place in which things are\ncollected. Foster deduces it from two Egyptian words, _thoi_, \u201ca ship,\u201d\nand _bai_, \u201ca palm tree branch\u201d; and such ships are still to be seen not\nonly in Egypt, but in India and other countries; particularly in some\nisles of the Pacific Ocean.\n\nTo the insufficiency of the ark to contain all the creatures said to\nhave been brought into it, objections have, at different times, been\nmade. Bishop Wilkins and others have learnedly discussed this subject,\nand afforded the most satisfactory answers. Dr. Hales proves the ark to\nhave been of the burden of forty-two thousand four hundred and thirteen\ntons; and asks, \u201cCan we doubt of its being sufficient to contain eight\npersons, and about two hundred or two hundred and fifty pair of\nfour-footed animals, (a number to which, according to M. Buffon, all the\nvarious distinct species may be reduced,) together with all the\nsubsistence necessary for a twelvemonth, with the fowls of the air, and\nsuch reptiles and insects as cannot live under water?\u201d All these various\nanimals were controlled by the power of God, whose special agency is\nsupposed in the whole transaction, and \u201cthe lion was made to lie down\nwith the kid.\u201d\n\nWhether Noah was commanded to bring with him, into the ark, a pair of\n_all_ living creatures, zoologically and numerically considered, has\nbeen doubted. During the long period between the creation and the flood,\nanimals must have spread themselves over a great part of the\nantediluvian earth, and certain animals would, as now, probably become\nindigenous to certain climates. The pairs saved must therefore, if all\nthe kinds were included, have travelled from immense distances. But of\nsuch marches no intimation is given in the history; and this seems to\nrender it probable that the animals which Noah was \u201c_to bring with him_\u201d\ninto the ark, were the animals clean and unclean of the country in which\nhe dwelt, and which, from the capacity of the ark, must have been in\ngreat variety and number. The terms used, it is true, are universal; and\nit is satisfactory to know, that if taken in the largest sense there was\nample accommodation in the ark. Nevertheless, universal terms in\nScripture are not always to be taken mathematically, and in the vision\nof Peter, the phrase \u03d6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2,--_all the four-footed\nbeasts of the earth_, must be understood of _varii generis quadrupedes_,\nas Schleusner paraphrases it. Thus we may easily account for the exuvi\u00e6\nof animals, whose species no longer exist, which have been discovered in\nvarious places. The number of such extinct species probably has been\ngreatly over-rated by Cuvier; but of the fact, to a considerable extent,\nthere can be no doubt. It is also to be observed that the presumptive\nevidence of the truth of the fact of the preparation of such a vessel,\nand of the supernatural circumstances which attended it, is exceedingly\nstrong. It is, in truth, the only solution of a difficulty which has no\nother explanation; for as a universal deluge is confirmed by the general\nhistory of the world, and by a variety of existing facts and monuments,\nsuch a structure as the ark, for the preservation and sustenance of\nvarious animals, seems to have been absolutely necessary; for as we can\ntrace up the first imperfect rudiments of the art of ship building among\nthe Greeks, there could be no ships before the flood; and, consequently,\nno animals could have been saved. Nay, it is highly improbable that even\nmen and domestic animals could be saved, not to mention wild beasts,\nserpents, &c, though we should admit that the antediluvians had\nshipping, unless we should suppose, also, that they had a divine\nintimation respecting the flood, such as Moses relates; but this would\nbe to give up the cause of infidelity. Mr. Bryant has collected a\nvariety of ancient historical relations, which show that some records\nconcerning the ark had been preserved among most nations of the world,\nand in the general system of Gentile mythology. Abydenus, with whom all\nthe eastern writers concur, informs us that the place of descent from\nthe ark was Armenia; and that its remains had been preserved for a long\ntime. Plutarch mentions the Noachic dove, and its being sent out of the\nark. Lucian speaks of Deucalion\u2019s going forth from the ark, and raising\nan altar to God. The priests of Ammonia had a custom, at particular\nseasons, of carrying in procession a boat, in which was an oracular\nshrine, held in great veneration: and this custom of carrying the deity\nin an ark or boat was in use also among the Egyptians. Bishop Pococke\nhas preserved three specimens of ancient sculpture, in which this\nceremony is displayed. They were very ancient, and found by him in Upper\nEgypt. The ship of Isis referred to the ark, and its name, \u201cBaris,\u201d was\nthat of the mountain corresponding to Ararat in Armenia. Bryant finds\nreference to the ark in the temples of the serpent worship, called\n_Dracontia_; and also in that of Sesostris, fashioned after the model of\nthe ark, in commemoration of which it was built, and consecrated to\nOsiris at Theba; and he conjectures that the city, said to be one of the\nmost ancient in Egypt, as well as the province, was denominated from it,\nTheba being the appellation of the ark. In other countries, as well as\nin Egypt, an ark, or ship, was introduced in their mysteries, and often\ncarried about in the seasons of their festivals. He finds, also, in the\nstory of the Argonauts several particulars, that are thought to refer to\nthe ark of Noah. As many cities, not in Egypt only and B\u0153otia, but in\nCilicia, Ionia, Attica, Phthiotis, Cataonia, Syria, and Italy, were\ncalled Theba; so likewise the city Apamea was denominated _Cibotus_,\nfrom \u03ba\u03b9\u03d0\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, in memory of the ark, and of the history connected with\nit. The ark, according to the traditions of the Gentile world, was\nprophetic; and was regarded as a kind of temple or residence of the\ndeity. It comprehended all mankind, within the circle of eight persons,\nwho were thought to be so highly favoured of Heaven that they at last\nwere reputed to be deities. Hence in the ancient mythology of Egypt,\nthere were precisely eight gods; and the ark was esteemed an emblem of\nthe system of the heavens. The principal terms by which the ancients\ndistinguished the ark were Theba, Baris, Arguz, Aren, Arene, Arni,\nLaris, Boutas, B\u0153otus, and Cibotus; and out of these they formed\ndifferent personages. See DELUGE.\n\nARK OF THE COVENANT, a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in\nlength, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in\nheight; in which were contained the golden pot that had manna, Aaron\u2019s\nrod, and the tables of the covenant, Num. xvii, 10; Heb. ix, 4. This\ncoffer was made of shittim wood, and was covered with a lid, called the\n_mercy seat_, Exod. xxv, 17\u201322, &c, which was of solid gold, at the two\nends whereof were two figures, called _cherubim_, looking toward each\nother, with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of\nthe mercy seat, met in the middle. The whole, according to the rabbins,\nwas made out of the same mass, without any of the parts being joined by\nsolder. Over this it was that the Shechinah, or visible display of the\ndivine presence in a luminous cloud rested, both in the tabernacle and\nin the temple, Lev. xvi, 2; and from hence the divine oracles were given\nforth by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in behalf of\nhis people. Hence it is that God is said in Scripture to dwell between\nthe cherubim, on the mercy seat, because there was the seat or throne of\nthe visible appearance of his glory among them, 2 Kings xix, 15; 2\nChron, xiii, 6; Psalm lxxx, 1, &c; and for this reason the high priest\nappeared before the mercy seat once every year, on the great day of\nexpiation, at which time he was to make his nearest approach to the\ndivine presence, to mediate and make atonement for the whole people of\nIsrael. On the two sides of the ark there were four rings of gold, two\non each side, through which staves, overlaid with gold, were put, by\nmeans whereof they carried it as they marched through the wilderness,\n&c, on the shoulders of the Levites, Exod. xxv, 13, 14; xxvii, 5. After\nthe passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for some time at Gilgal,\nfrom whence it was removed to Shiloh. From this place the Israelites\ncarried it to their camp, where, in an engagement with the Philistines,\nit fell into their hands. The Philistines, having gotten possession of\nthe ark, carried it in triumph to one of their principal cities, named\nAshdod, and placed it in the temple of Dagon, whose image fell to the\nground and was broken. The Philistines also were so afflicted with\nemerods, that they afterward returned the ark with various presents; and\nit was lodged at Kirjath-Jearim, and afterward at Nob. David conveyed it\nto the house of Obededom, and from thence to his palace at Zion; and\nlastly, Solomon brought it into the temple which he had built at\nJerusalem. It remained in the temple till the times of the last kings of\nJudah, who gave themselves up to idolatry, and even dared to place their\nidols in the holy temple itself. The priests, being unable to bear this\nprofanation, took the ark and carried it from place to place, to\npreserve it from the hands of those impious princes. Josiah commanded\nthem to bring it back to the sanctuary, and it was accordingly replaced,\n2 Chron. xxxv, 3. What became of the ark at the destruction of the\ntemple by Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the rabbins. Had it been\ncarried to Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would, in\nall probability, have been brought back with them at the close of the\ncaptivity. But that this was not the case, is agreed on all hands;\nwhence it is probable that it was destroyed with the temple.\n\nThe ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all\nthose of the Hebrew nation who served God according to the Levitical\nlaw; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but\nevery where else in their dispersions through the whole world; whenever\nthey prayed, they turned their faces toward the place where the ark\nstood, and directed all their devotions that way, Dan. vi, 10. Whence\nthe author of the book of Cosri, justly says, that the ark, with the\nmercy seat and cherubim, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow of\nthe whole temple, and all the Levitical worship performed therein; and,\ntherefore, had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple but\nthe ark only, this alone would have been a sufficient reason for the old\nmen to have wept when they remembered the first temple in which it\nstood; and for the saying of Haggai, ii, 3, that the second temple was\nas nothing compared with the first; so great a share had the ark of the\ncovenant in the glory of Solomon\u2019s temple. However, the defect was\nsupplied as to the outward form, for in the second temple there was also\nan ark of the same dimensions with the first, and put in the same place;\nbut it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron\u2019s rod, and the pot of manna;\nnor was there any appearance of the divine glory over it; nor any\noracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it was to be a\nrepresentation of the former on the great day of expiation, and to be a\nrepository of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the original copy of that\ncollection of them made by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of\nwhich the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark or coffer in\nwhich they keep their Scriptures.\n\nFor the temple of Solomon a new ark was not made; but he constructed\ncherubim in the most holy place, which were designed to give additional\nstate to this most sacred symbol of God\u2019s grace and mercy. These\ncherubim were fifteen feet high, and were placed at equal distance from\nthe centre of the ark and from each side of the wall, so that their\nwings being expanded, the two wings which were extended behind touched\nthe wall, and the other two met over the ark and so overshadowed it.\nWhen these magnificent cherubim were finished, the ark was brought in\nand placed under their wings, 2 Chron. v, 7\u201310.\n\nThe ark was called the _ark of the covenant_, because it was a symbol of\nthe covenant between God and his people. It was also named the _ark of\nthe testimony_, because the two tables which were deposited in it were\nwitnesses against every transgression.\n\nARM. As it is by this member of the body that we chiefly exert our\nstrength, it is therefore used in Scripture for an emblem of power. Thus\nGod is said to have delivered his people from Egyptian bondage \u201cwith a\nstretched-out arm,\u201d Deut. v, 15; and he thus threatens Eli the high\npriest, \u201cI will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father\u2019s house,\u201d 1\nSam. ii, 31; that is, I will deprive thee and thy family of power and\nauthority.\n\nARMAGEDDON, a place spoken of, Rev. xvi, 16, which literally signifies\n\u201cthe mountain of Mageddon,\u201d or \u201cMegiddo,\u201d a city situated in the great\nplain at the foot of Mount Carmel, where the good prince Josiah received\nhis mortal wound, in the battle against Necho, king of Egypt. At\nArmageddon, the three unclean spirits coming out of the dragon\u2019s mouth\nshall gather together the kings of the earth, to the battle of the great\nday of God Almighty, Rev. xvi, 13, 14; where the word Armageddon,\naccording to Mr. Pool, does not signify any particular place, but is\nused in allusion to Megiddo, mentioned Judges v, 19, where Barak\novercame Sisera with his great army, and where Josiah was slain, 2 Kings\nxxiii, 30. If so, the term must have been a proverbial one for a place\nof destruction and mourning.\n\nARMENIA, a considerable country of Asia, having Colchis and Iberia on\nthe north, Media on the east, Mesopotamia on the south, Pontus and\nCappadocia on the west, and the Euphrates and Syria on the south-west.\nArmenia is often confounded with Aram\u00e6a, the land of Aram or Syria; but\nthey are totally different. Armenia, which is separated from Aram by\nMount Taurus, was so denominated from Ar-Men, the mountainous country of\nMeni or Minni, the people of which country are mentioned under this name\nby Jeremiah, when summoning the nations against Babylon.\n\nThe people of this country have in all ages maintained a great\nsimilarity of character, partly commercial and partly pastoral. They\nhave, in fact, in the northern parts of the Asiatic continent, been what\nthe Cushites and Ishmaelites were in the south, tenders of cattle,\nliving on the produce of their flocks and herds, and carriers of\nmerchandize between the neighbouring nations; a part living at home with\ntheir flocks, and a part travelling as merchants and dealers into\ndistant countries. In the flourishing times of Tyre, the Armenians,\naccording to Ezekiel, xxvii, 14, brought horses and mules to the markets\nof that city; and, according to Herodotus, they had a considerable trade\nin wine, which they sent down the Euphrates to Babylon, &c. At the\npresent day, the Armenians are the principal traders of the east; and\nare to be found in the capacity of merchants or commercial agents all\nover Asia, a patient, frugal, industrious, and honest people, whose\nknown character for these virtues has withstood the tyranny and\nextortions of the wretched governments under which they chiefly live.\n\nThe religion of the Armenians is a corrupt Christianity of the sect of\nEutyches; that is, they own but one nature in Jesus Christ. Their rites\npartake of those of the Greek and Latin churches, but they reject the\nidolatries of both. It is indeed a remarkable instance of the firmness\nof this people, that while the surrounding nations submitted to the\nreligion as well as the arms of the Turks, they have preserved the\npurity of their ancient faith, such as it is, to the present day. It\ncannot be supposed but that the Turks used every effort to impose on the\nconquered Armenians the doctrines of the Koran. More tolerant, indeed,\nthan the Saracens, liberty of conscience was still not to be purchased\nof them but by great sacrifices, which for three centuries the Armenians\nhave patiently endured, and exhibit to the world an honourable and\nsolitary instance of a successful national opposition of Christianity to\nMohammedanism.\n\nARMENIAN CHURCH, a branch, originally, of the Greek church, residing in\nArmenia. They probably received Christianity in the fourth century. Mr.\nYeates gives the most recent account of them:--\n\n\u201cTheir whole ecclesiastical establishment is under the government of\nfour patriarchs; the first has his residence in Echmiadzin, or\nEgmiathin, near Irivan; the second, at Sis, in the lesser Armenia; the\nthird, in Georgia; and the fourth, in Achtamar, or Altamar, on the Lake\nof Van; but the power of the two last is bounded within their own\ndiocesses, while the others have more extensive authority, and the\npatriarch of Egmiathan has, or had, under him eighteen bishops, beside\nthose who are priors of monasteries. The Armenians every where perform\ndivine service in their own tongue, in which their liturgy and offices\nare written, in the dialect of the fourth or fifth centuries. They have\nthe whole Bible translated from the Septuagint, as they say, so early as\nthe time of Chrysostom. The Armenian confession is similar to that of\nthe Jacobite Christians, both being Monophysites, acknowledging but one\nnature in the person of Christ; but this, according to Mr. Simon, is\nlittle more than a dispute about terms; few of them being able to enter\ninto the subtilties of polemics.\n\n\u201cIn the year 1664, an Armenian bishop, named Uscan, visited Europe for\nthe purpose of getting printed the Armenian Bible, and communicated the\nabove particulars to Mr. Simon. In 1667, a certain patriarch of the\nlesser Armenia visited Rome, and made a profession of faith which was\nconsidered orthodox, and procured him a cordial reception, with the hope\nof reconciling the Armenian Christians to the Roman church; but, before\nhe got out of Italy, it was found he had prevaricated, and still\npersisted in the errors of his church. About this time, Clement IX,\nwrote to the king of Persia, in favour of some Catholic converts in\nArmenia, and received a favourable answer; but the Armenian church could\nnever be persuaded to acknowledge the authority of Rome.\n\n\u201cThey have among them a number of monasteries and convents, in which is\nmaintained a severe discipline; marriage is discountenanced, though not\nabsolutely prohibited; a married priest cannot obtain promotion, and the\nhigher clergy are not allowed to marry. They worship in the eastern\nmanner, by prostration: they are very superstitious, and their\nceremonies much resemble those of the Greek church. Once in their lives\nthey generally perform a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; and in 1819, the\nnumber of Armenian pilgrims was thirteen hundred, nearly as many as the\nGreeks. Dr. Buchanan, however, says, \u2018Of all the Christians in central\nAsia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mohammedan and Papal\ncorruptions.\u2019\u201d\n\nARMIES. In the reign of David, the Hebrews acquired such skill in the\nmilitary art, together with such strength, as gave them a decided\nsuperiority over their competitors on the field of battle. David\nincreased the standing army, which Saul had introduced. Solomon\nintroduced cavalry into the military force of the nation, also chariots.\nBoth cavalry and chariots were retained in the subsequent age; an age,\nin which military arms were improved in their construction, the science\nof fortification made advances, and large armies were mustered. From\nthis period, till the time when the Hebrews became subject to the\nAssyrians and Chaldeans, but little improvement was made in the arts of\nwar. The Maccabees, after the return of the Hebrews from the captivity,\ngave a new existence to the military art among them. But their\ndescendants were under the necessity of submitting to the superior power\nof the Romans.\n\nWhenever there was an immediate prospect of war, a levy was made by the\ngenealogists, Deut. xx, 5\u20139. In the time of the kings, there was a head\nor ruler of the persons, that made the levy, denominated \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8, who kept\nan account of the number of the soldiers, but who is, nevertheless, to\nbe distinguished from the generalissimo, \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8, 2 Chron. xxvi, 11.\nCompare 2 Sam. viii, 17; xx, 25; 1 Chron. xviii, 16. After the levy was\nfully made out, the genealogists gave public notice, that the following\npersons might be excused, from military service, Deut. xx, 5\u20138: 1. Those\nwho had built a house, and had not yet inhabited it. 2. Those who had\nplanted a \u05db\u05e8\u05e1, that is, _an olive_ or _vine garden_, and had not as yet\ntasted the fruit of it; an exemption, consequently, which extended\nthrough the first five years after such planting. 3. Those who had\nbargained for a spouse, but had not celebrated the nuptials; also those\nwho had not as yet lived with their wife, for a year. 4. The\nfaint-hearted, who would be likely to discourage others, and who, if\nthey had gone into battle, where, in those early times, every thing\ndepended on personal prowess, would only have fallen victims.\n\nAt the head of each rank or file of fifty, was the captain of fifty. The\nother divisions consisted of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand\nmen, each one of which was headed by its appropriate commander. These\ndivisions ranked in respect to each other according to their families,\nand were subject to the authority of the heads of those families, 2\nChron. xxv, 5; xxvi, 12, 13. The centurions, and _chiliarchs_ or\ncaptains of thousands, were admitted into the councils of war, 1 Chron.\nxiii, 1\u20133; 1 Sam. xviii, 13. The leader of the whole army was\ndenominated \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4\u05e6\u05db\u05d0, _the captain of the host_. The genealogists, (in\nthe English version, _officers_,) according to a law in Deut. xx, 9, had\nthe right of appointing the persons who were to act as officers in the\narmy; and they, undoubtedly, made it a point, in their selections, to\nchoose those who are called heads of families. The practice of thus\nselecting military officers ceased under the kings. Some of them were\nthen chosen by the king, and in other instances the office became\npermanent and hereditary in the heads of families. Both kings and\ngenerals had armour bearers, \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd. They were chosen from the bravest\nof the soldiery, and not only bore the arms of their masters, but were\nemployed to give his commands to the subordinate captains, and were\npresent at his side in the hour of peril, 1 Sam. xiv, 6; xvii, 7. The\ninfantry, the cavalry, and the chariots of war were so arranged, as to\nmake separate divisions of an army, Exod. xiv, 6, 7. The infantry were\ndivided likewise into light-armed troops, \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, and into spearmen,\nGenesis xlix, 19; 1 Samuel xxx, 8, 15, 23; 2 Sam. iii, 22; iv, 2; xxii,\n30; Psalm xviii, 30; 2 Kings v, 2; Hosea vii, 1. The light-armed\ninfantry were furnished with a sling and javelin, with a bow, arrows,\nand quiver, and also, at least in latter times, with a buckler. They\nfought the enemy at a distance. The spearmen, on the contrary, who were\narmed with spears, swords, and shields, fought hand to hand, 1 Chron.\nxii, 24, 34; 2 Chron. xiv, 8; xvii, 17. The light-armed troops were\ncommonly taken from the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin, 2 Chron. xiv, 8;\nxvii, 17. Compare Gen. xlix, 27; Psalm lxxviii, 9.\n\nThe art of laying out an encampment appears to have been well understood\nin Egypt, long before the departure of the Hebrews from that country. It\nwas there that Moses became acquainted with that mode of encamping,\nwhich, in the second chapter of Numbers, is prescribed to the Hebrews.\nIn the encampment of the Israelites, it appears that the holy tabernacle\noccupied the centre. In reference to this circumstance, it may be\nremarked, that it is the common practice in the east, for the prince or\nleader of a tribe to have his tent pitched in the centre of the others;\nand it ought not to be forgotten, that God, whose tent or palace was the\nholy tabernacle, was the prince, the leader of the Hebrews. The tents\nnearest to the tabernacle were those of the Levites, whose business it\nwas to watch it, in the manner of a Pretorian guard. The family of\nGershom pitched to the west, that of Kehath to the south, that of Merari\nto the north. The priests occupied a position to the east, opposite to\nthe entrance of the tabernacle, Num. i, 53; iii, 21\u201338. At some distance\nto the east, were the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon; on the\nsouth were those of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad; to the west were Ephraim,\nManasseh, and Benjamin; to the north, Dan, Asher, and Napthali. The\npeople were thus divided into four bodies, three tribes to a division;\neach of which divisions had its separate standard, \u05d3\u05d2\u05dc. Each of the\nlarge family associations likewise, of which the different tribes were\ncomposed, had a separate standard, termed, in contradistinction from the\nother, \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea; and every Hebrew was obliged to number himself with his\nparticular division, and follow his appropriate standard. Of military\nstandards, there were,--1. The standard, denominated \u05d3\u05d2\u05dc; one of which\npertained to each of the four general divisions. The four standards of\nthis name were large, and ornamented with colours in white, purple,\ncrimson, and dark blue. The Jewish Rabbins assert, (founding their\nstatement on Genesis xlix, 3, 9, 17, 22, which in this case is very\ndoubtful authority,) that the first of these standards, namely, that, of\nJudah, bore a lion; the second, or that of Reuben, bore a man; that of\nEphraim, which was the third, displayed the figure of a bull; while that\nof Dan, which was the fourth, exhibited the representation of cherubim.\nThey were wrought into the standards with embroidered work. 2. The\nstandard, called \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea. The ensign of this name belonged to the separate\nclasses of families. 3. The standard, called \u05e0\u05e1. This standard was not,\nlike the others, borne from place to place. It appears from Num. xxi, 8,\n9, that it was a long pole, fixed into the earth. A flag was fastened to\nits top, which was agitated by the wind, and seen at a great distance,\nJer. iv, 6, 21; li, 2, 12, 27; Ezek. xxvii, 7. In order to render it\nvisible, as far as possible, it was erected on lofty mountains, and was\nin this way used as a signal, to assemble soldiers. It no sooner made\nits appearance on such an elevated position, than the war-cry was\nuttered, and the trumpets were blown, Isaiah v, 26; xiii, 2; xviii, 3;\nxxx, 17; xlix, 22; lxii, 10\u201313.\n\nBefore battle the various kinds of arms were put into the best order;\nthe shields were anointed, and the soldiers refreshed themselves by\ntaking food, lest they should become weary and faint under the pressure\nof their labours, Jer. xlvi, 3, 4; Isaiah xxi, 5. The soldiers, more\nespecially the generals and kings, except when they wished to remain\nunknown, 1 Kings xxii, 30\u201334, were clothed in splendid habiliments,\nwhich are denominated, \u05d1\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9-\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9, _the sacred dress_, Psalm cx, 3. It\nwas the duty of the priests, before the commencement of the battle, to\nexhort the Hebrews to exhibit that courage which was required by the\nexigency of the occasion. The words which they used were as\nfollows:--\u201cHear, O Israel; ye approach this day unto battle against your\nenemies; let not your hearts faint; fear not, and do not tremble;\nneither be ye terrified, because of them. For the Lord your God is he\nthat goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save\nyou,\u201d Deut. xx, 2, &c. The last ceremony, previous to an engagement, was\nthe sounding of the sacred trumpets by the priests, Num. x, 9, 10; 2\nChron. xiii, 12\u201314; 1 Macc. iii, 54.\n\nARMINIANISM, strictly speaking, is that system of religious doctrine\nwhich was taught by Arminius, professor of divinity in the university of\nLeyden. If therefore we would learn precisely what Arminianism is, we\nmust have recourse to those writings in which that divine himself has\nstated and expounded his peculiar tenets. This, however, will by no\nmeans give us an accurate idea of that which, since his time, has been\nusually denominated Arminianism. On examination, it will be found, that\nin many important particulars, those who have called themselves\nArminians, or have been accounted such by others, differ as widely from\nthe nominal head and founder of their sect, as he himself did from\nCalvin, and other doctors of Geneva. There are, indeed, certain points,\nwith regard to which he has been strictly and uniformly followed by\nalmost all his pretended adherents; but there are others of equal or of\ngreater importance, dogmatically insisted on by them, to which he\nunquestionably never gave his sanction, and even appears to have been\ndecidedly hostile. Such a distinction, obvious as it must be to every\nattentive reader, has yet been generally so far overlooked, that the\nmemory of Arminius is frequently loaded with imputations the most\nunreasonable and unjust. He is accused, by the ignorant and the\nprejudiced, of introducing corruptions into the Christian church, which\nhe probably never thought of, and which certainly have no place in his\nworks. And all the odium which his followers have from time to time\nincurred by their varied and increasing heterodoxy, has been absurdly\nreflected upon him, as if he could be responsible for every error that\nmay be sent abroad under the sanction of his name. Whatever be the\nnumber or the species of these errors, and in whatever way they may be\nassociated with his principles, it is fair to the character of Arminius,\nand useful to the interests of religious truth, to revert to his own\nwritings as the only source from which we ought to derive information\nconcerning the Arminian scheme; and by doing so, it may be discovered,\nthat genuine unadulterated Arminianism is not that great and dangerous\nheresy which among a certain class of Christians it is too often\nrepresented to be.\n\nArminianism, in its proper sense, is to be considered as a separation\nfrom Calvinism, with regard to the doctrines of unconditional election,\nparticular redemption, and other points necessarily resulting from\nthese. The Calvinists held that God had elected a certain portion of the\nhuman race to eternal life, passing by the rest, or rather dooming them\nto everlasting destruction; that God\u2019s election proceeded upon no\nprescience of the moral principles and character of those whom he had\nthus predestinated, but originated solely in the motions of his free and\nsovereign mercy; that Christ died for the elect only, and therefore that\nthe merits of his death can avail for the salvation of none but them;\nand that they are constrained by the irresistible power of divine grace\nto accept of him as their Saviour. To this doctrine, that of Arminius\nand his legitimate followers stands opposed. They do not deny an\nelection; but they deny that it is absolute and unconditional. They\nargue, that an election of this kind is inconsistent with the character\nof God, that it destroys the liberty of the human will, that it\ncontradicts the language of Scripture, and that it tends to encourage a\ncareless and licentious practice in those by whom it is believed. They\nmaintain that God has elected those only who, according, not to his\ndecree, but to his foreknowledge, and in the exercise of their natural\npowers of self-determination, acting under the influence of his grace,\nwould possess that faith and holiness to which salvation is annexed in\nthe Gospel scheme. And those who are _not_ elected are allowed to\nperish, not because they were not elected, but merely and solely in\nconsequence of their infidelity and disobedience; on account, indeed, of\nwhich infidelity and disobedience being foreseen by God, their election\ndid not take place. They hold, that Christ died for _all_ men in the\nliteral and unrestricted sense of that phrase; that his atonement is\nable, both from its own merit, and from the intention of him who\nappointed it, to expiate the guilt of every individual; that every\nindividual is invited to partake of the benefits which it has procured;\nthat the grace of God is offered to make the will comply with this\ninvitation, but that this grace may be resisted and rendered ineffectual\nby the sinner\u2019s perversity. Whether true believers necessarily\npersevered, or whether they might fall from their faith, and forfeit\ntheir state of grace, was a question which Arminius left in a great\nmeasure unresolved, but which was soon determined by his followers in\nthis additional proposition, that saints may fall from the state of\ngrace, in which they are placed by the operation of the Holy Spirit.\nThis, indeed, seems to follow as a corollary, from what Arminius\nmaintained respecting the natural freedom and corruption of the will,\nand the resistibility of divine grace.\n\nIt may now be proper to mention some tenets with regard to which\nArminianism has been much misrepresented. If a man hold that good works\nare necessary to justification; if he maintain that faith includes good\nworks in its own nature; if he reject the doctrine of original sin; if\nhe deny that divine grace is requisite for the whole work of\nsanctification; if he speak of human virtue as meritorious in the sight\nof God; it is very generally concluded, that he is an Arminian. But the\ntruth is, that a man of such sentiments is properly a disciple of the\nPelagian and Socinian schools. To such sentiments pure Arminianism is as\ndiametrically opposite as Calvinism itself. The genuine Arminians admit\nthe corruption of human nature in its full extent. They admit, that we\nare justified by faith only. They admit, that our justification\noriginates solely in the grace of God. They admit, that the procuring\nand meritorious cause of our justification is the righteousness of\nChrist. _Propter quam_, says Arminius, _Deus credentibus peccatum\ncondonat, eosque pro justis reputat non aliter atque si legem perfect\u00e8\nimplevissent_. [For the sake of which God pardons believers, and\naccounts them as righteous precisely as if they had perfectly obeyed the\nlaw.] They admit in this way, that justification implies not merely\nforgiveness of sin, but acceptance to everlasting happiness. _Junctam\nhabet adoptionem in filios, et collationem juris in hereditatem vit\u00e6\netern\u00e6._ [It has connected with it adoption to sonship, and the grant of\na right to the inheritance of eternal life.] They admit, in fine, that\nthe work of sanctification, from its very commencement to its perfection\nin glory, is carried on by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is\nthe gift of God by Jesus Christ. So sound, indeed, are the Arminians\nwith respect to the doctrine of justification, a doctrine so important\nand essential in the opinion of Luther, that he scrupled not to call it,\n_articulus ecclesi\u00e6 stantis vel cadentis_; [the article with which the\nchurch stands or falls;] that those who look into the writings of\nArminius may be disposed to suspect him of having even exceeded Calvin\nin orthodoxy. It is certain, at least, that he declares his willingness\nto subscribe to every thing that Calvin has written on that leading\nsubject of Christianity, in the third book of his Institutes; and with\nthis declaration the tenor of his writings invariably corresponds.\n\nThe system of Arminius, then, appears to have been the same with that\nwhich was generally maintained in the reformed churches at that time;\nexcept in so far as the doctrine of the divine decrees was concerned.\nBut the most eminent of those who became Arminians, or ranked among his\nprofessed followers, by embracing and avowing his peculiar tenets with\nrespect to election and redemption, soon began to depart widely from the\nother tenets of his theological creed. They adopted views of the\ncorruption of man, of justification, of the righteousness of Christ, of\nthe nature of faith, of the province of good works, of the necessity and\noperations of grace, that are quite contrary to those which he had\nentertained and published. Many of them, in process of time, differed\nmore or less from one another, on some or all of these points. And so\ndiversified are the forms which Arminianism, as it is called, has\nassumed in the course of its progress, that to describe precisely what\nit has been since the synod of Dort, or what it is at the present day,\nwould be a most difficult, if not an impossible, task. Even the\nconfession of faith, which was drawn out for the Arminians by\nEpiscopius, and is to be found in the second volume of his works, cannot\nbe referred to as a standard. It was composed merely to counteract the\nreproach of their being a society without any common principles. It is\nexpressed chiefly in the words and phrases of Scripture, to which, of\ncourse, every one would annex his own meaning. Beside, no person, not\neven a pastor, was obliged, by any form, to adhere strictly to it; but\nevery one was left entirely at liberty to interpret its language in the\nmanner that was most agreeable to his own private sentiments.\nAccordingly, so various and inconsistent are their opinions, that could\nArminius peruse the unnumbered volumes which have been written as\nexpositions and illustrations of Arminian doctrine, he would be at a\nloss to discover his own simple system, amidst that heterogeneous mass\nof error with which it has been rudely mixed; and would be astonished to\nfind, that the controversy which he had conscientiously introduced, had\nwandered far from the point to which he had confined it, and that with\nhis name dogmas were associated, the unscriptural and dangerous nature\nof which he had pointed out and condemned.\n\nThe same temper of mind which led him to renounce the peculiarities of\nCalvinism, induced him also to adopt more enlarged and liberal views of\nchurch communion than those which had hitherto prevailed. While he\nmaintained that the mercy of God is not confined to a chosen few, he\nconceived it to be quite inconsistent with the genius of Christianity,\nthat men of that religion should keep at a distance from each other, and\nconstitute separate churches, merely because they differed in their\nopinions as to some of its doctrinal articles. He thought that\nChristians of all denominations should form one great community, united\nand upheld by the bonds of charity and brotherly love; with the\nexception, however, of Roman Catholics, who, on account of their\nidolatrous worship and persecuting spirit, must be unfit members of such\na society. That this was not only agreeable to the wishes of Arminius,\nbut one chief object of his labours, is evident from a passage in his\nlast will, which he made a little before his death:--_Ea proposui et\ndocui qu\u00e6 ad propagationem amplificationemque veritatis religionis\nChristian\u00e6, veri Dei cultus, communis pietatis, et sanct\u00e6 inter homines\nconvers[at]ionis, denique ad convenientem Christiano nomini\ntranquillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent conferre, excludens ex\niis papatum, cum quo nulla unitas fidei, nullum pietatis aut Christian\u00e6\npacis vinculum servari potest_. [I have advanced and taught those things\nwhich might contribute to the propagation and spread of the truth of\nChristianity, the worship of the true God, general piety, and a holy\nfellowship among men;--in fine, to a tranquillity and peace according to\nGod\u2019s word and becoming the Christian name, excluding the Papacy, with\nwhich no unity of faith, no bond of piety, or of Christian peace can be\nmaintained.]\n\nMosheim has stated this circumstance in a note to his history of the\nArminian church; but his statement, or rather the conclusion which he\ndeduces from it, is evidently unfair and incorrect. He alleges, that\nArminius had actually laid the plan of that theological system which was\nafterward embraced by his followers; that he had inculcated the main and\nleading principles of it on the minds of his disciples; and that\nEpiscopius and others, who rejected Calvinism in more points than in\nthat which related to the divine decrees, only propagated, with greater\ncourage and perspicuity, the doctrines which Arminianism, as taught by\nits founder, already contained. These allegations, it is clear, have no\nsort of connection with the passage from which they are drawn as\ninferences; and they are wholly inconsistent with the assertions, and\nreasonings, and declarations of Arminius, when he is discussing the\nmerits of the question that was agitated between him and the Geneva\nschool. Arminius, in addition to the scheme of doctrine which he taught,\nwas anxious to establish this maxim, and to reduce it to practice, that,\nwith the exception above mentioned, no difference of opinions should\nprevent Christians from remaining in one church or religious body. He\ndid not mean to insinuate, that a difference of opinion was of no\nconsequence at all; that they who thought one way were just as right as\nthey who thought a contrary way; or that men have no occasion to be\nsolicitous about the religious tenets which they hold. He did not mean\nto give up his own system as equally true, or equally false, with that\nof Calvin; and as little could he be supposed to sanction those\nsentiments of his followers which were in direct opposition to the\nsentiments which he himself had maintained. But he endeavoured, in the\nfirst place, to assert liberty of conscience, and of worship; and then,\nupon that fundamental principle, to persuade all Christians, however\ndivided in opinion, to lay aside the distinctions of sect and party, and\nin one united body to consult that tranquillity and peace which is so\nagreeable to the Christian name. This we conceive to have been the\nobject of Arminius; an object so indicative of an enlightened mind, so\ncongenial to that charity which hopeth all things, and thinketh no evil,\nand so conducive to the interests of religion and the peace of the\nworld, as to reflect the highest honour on him by whom it was first\npursued, and to constitute the true glory of Arminianism.\n\nThe controversy to which Arminianism had given rise, was carried on\nafter the death of its founder, with the greatest eagerness, and\nproduced the most bitter and deplorable dissensions. The Arminians\nrequested nothing more than a bare toleration. This moderate demand, at\nall times reasonable and just, was particularly so in Holland, which had\nthrown off the yoke of civil and spiritual despotism, and where the\nreceived confession of faith had not determined the questions under\ndebate. It was strongly urged by Grotius, Hoogerbeets, Olden Barnevelt,\nand other persons of respectability and influence. And Maurice, prince\nof Orange, and his mother the princess dowager, giving countenance to\nthe claim, there was some prospect of the Calvinists being persuaded to\nenter into pacific measures, and to treat their dissenting brethren with\nforbearance. Accordingly, in the year 1611, a conference between the\ncontending parties was held at the Hague, on which occasion, it is\ncommonly asserted, the toleration required was offered to the Arminians,\nprovided they would renounce the errors of Socinianism,--though the\npapers which passed between the parties at that conference, as\nauthenticated by each of them, contain no proviso of that description.\nAnother conference was held at Delft, in 1613. And in 1614, the States\nof Holland promulgated an edict, exhorting the disputants to the\nexercise of mutual charity. But these and other expedients employed for\nthe same purpose, had not the desired effect. The Calvinists expressed\ngreat indignation at the magistrates, for endeavouring, by their\nauthority, to promote a union with such adversaries. The conduct of the\nStates was ably and eloquently defended by Grotius, in two treatises,\nentitled, \u201c_De Jure Summarum Potestatum circa sacra_,\u201d and \u201c_Ordinum\nHollandi\u00e6, ac West-Frisi\u00e6 Pietas a multorum calumniis vindicata_.\u201d\n\nThe hopes of success which the Arminians entertained from the indulgent\nmanner in which they were treated by the civil authorities, were soon\nblasted by a misunderstanding which had secretly subsisted for some time\nbetween the stadtholder and the principal magistrates, and at last broke\nforth into an open rupture. Maurice, being suspected of aiming at\nsovereign power, was firmly opposed by the leading persons in the\ngovernment, who had been the friends and patrons of the Arminians, and\nto whom, therefore, these adhered at this difficult crisis. On the other\nhand, the Gomarists, or Calvinists, attached themselves to Maurice, and\ninflamed the resentment which he had already, for various reasons,\nconceived against the Arminians. The prince was resolved, at once to\nruin the ministers who had ventured to oppose his schemes of usurpation,\nand to crush the Arminians, by whom those statesmen had been warmly\nsupported. For this purpose he got the leading men cast into prison.\nBarnevelt, whose long and faithful services deserved a better fate, died\non the scaffold: and Grotius and Hoogerbeets, under pretexts more\nplausible than solid, were unjustly condemned to perpetual imprisonment,\nfrom which, however, the former afterward escaped, and fled into France.\nThe alleged crime of the Arminians being of an ecclesiastical nature, it\nwas thought proper to bring their cause before a national assembly of\ndivines by which their religious opinions might be regularly and finally\ncondemned.\n\nUnder the auspices of Maurice, therefore, and by the authority of the\nstates general, a synod was convoked at Dort, in the year 1618. Before\nthis meeting, which consisted of deputies from the United Provinces,\nfrom England, Scotland, Switzerland, and other places, the Arminians\nappeared, with Episcopius at their head, to answer to the accusations\nbrought against them, of departing from the established religion. For a\nfull account of the proceedings of this synod, the reader may consult\nthe second and third volumes of Brandt\u2019s History of the Reformation, and\nthe Remains of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, who was present at the meeting,\nand gives a simple narrative of what he saw and heard. The conduct of\nthe synod has been applauded by some, and condemned by others. On the\none hand, it has been placed above every other synod since the Apostolic\nage, for its temper, moderation, and sanctity; on the other, it has been\ncharged with injustice and cruelty, and burlesqued in such lines as\nthese:--\n\n_Dordrechti synodus nodus; chorus integer, \u00e6ger; Conventus, ventus;\nsessio, stramen, Amen._\n\n[The point of this doggrel, which consists chiefly in the gingle of the\nLatin words, is lost in a translation. The following is a literal\nversion:--\n\n          The synod of Dort, a knot; the whole assembly, sick;\n          The convention, wind; the session, straw, Amen.]\n\nNeal remarks, that it behaved as well as most assemblies of a similar\nkind have done, \u201cwho have pretended to establish articles for other\nmen\u2019s faith, with penal sanctions.\u201d This says very little for the synod\nof Dort; though, perhaps, it is even more than can be said with truth.\nMartinius of Bremen seems to have spoken much more correctly, when he\ntold his friends, \u201cI believe now what Gregory Nazianzen says, that he\nhad never seen any council attended with good effects, but that it\nalways increased the evil rather than removed it. I declare as well as\nthat father, that I will never set my foot in any synod again. O Dort!\nDort! would to God that I had never seen thee!\u201d The Arminians, it is\ncontended, asked more indulgence than they had reason to expect; however\nit is certain that the treatment which they received from the synod, was\narbitrary, faithless, and oppressive. They were at length found guilty\nof heresy, and of hostility to their country and its religion. And the\nmeasures adopted against them, in consequence of this sentence, were of\nthe most severe and rigorous kind. They were excommunicated; they were\ndriven from all their offices, civil and ecclesiastical; their ministers\nwere prohibited from preaching; and their congregations were suppressed.\nRefusing to submit to the two last of these hard decrees, they were\nsubjected to fines, imprisonments, and various other punishments. To\navoid this tyrannical treatment, many of them retired to Antwerp, others\nto France, and a considerable number into Holstein, where they were\nkindly received by Frederick the duke, and where, in the form of a\ncolony, they built for themselves a handsome town, naming it\nFrederickstadt, in compliment to their friend and protector. The history\nof this colony may be found in a work entitled _Epistol\u00e6 Pr\u00e6stantium et\nEruditorum Virorum Ecclesiastic\u00e6 et Theologic\u00e6_, and published by\nLimborch and Hartsoeker.\n\nThe tenets of the Arminians may be comprised in the following five\narticles relating to predestination, universal redemption, the\ncorruption of men, conversion, and perseverance, viz. 1. That God, from\nall eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw\nwould persevere unto the end in their faith in Christ Jesus; and to\ninflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their\nunbelief, and resist unto the end his divine succours; so that election\nwas conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result of foreseen\ninfidelity and persevering wickedness. 2. That Jesus Christ, by his\nsufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in\ngeneral, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but\nthose who believe in him can be partakers of the divine benefits. 3.\nThat true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural\nfaculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will;\nsince man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either\nof thinking or doing any good thing; and that, therefore, it is\nnecessary, in order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed\nby the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through\nJesus Christ. 4. That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost\nbegins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and\nconsequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that,\nnevertheless, this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to\nact against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered\nineffectual by the perverse wills of impenitent sinners. 5. That God\ngives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his grace, the means\nof preserving themselves in this state; and though the first Arminians\nmade some doubt with respect to the closing part of this article, their\nfollowers uniformly maintain, that the regenerate may lose true\njustifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in their sins.\nThe Arminians are also called _Remonstrants_, from an humble petition\nentitled their _Remonstrance_, which, in the year 1610, they addressed\nto the States of Holland. Their principal writers are, _Arminius_,\n_Episcopius_, _Uitenbogart_, _Grotius_, _Curcell\u00e6us_, _Limborch_, _Le\nClerc_, _Wetstein_, _Goodwin_, _Whitby_, _Wesley_, _Fletcher_,\n_Tomline_, _&c._ The works of Arminius, with a copious account of his\nlife and times, have been recently translated into English, by Mr. James\nNichols; and have not only served to dissipate many misconceptions\nrespecting the sentiments of this celebrated divine, which had prevailed\nin England, where the Pelagianism of some eminent divines, generally\ncalled ARMINIAN, had been unjustly charged upon him; but have added a\nmost valuable collection of treatises to our theological literature.\n\nARMS. The Hebrews do not appear to have had any peculiar military habit.\nAs the flowing dress which they ordinarily wore would have impeded their\nmovements, they girt it closely around them when preparing for battle,\nand loosened it on their return, 2 Sam. xx, 8; 1 Kings xx, 11. They used\nthe same arms as the neighbouring nations, both defensive and offensive;\nand these were made either of iron or of brass, principally of the\nlatter metal. Of the defensive arms of the Hebrews, the following were\nthe most remarkable; namely,\n\n1. The helmet, \u05db\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2, for covering and defending the head. This was a\npart of the military provision made by Uzziah for his vast army, 2\nChron. xxvi, 14; and long before the time of that king, the helmets of\nSaul and of the Philistine champion were of the same metal, 1 Sam. xvii,\n38. This military cap was also worn by the Persians, Ethiopians, and\nLibyans, Ezek. xxxviii, 5, and by the troops which Antiochus sent\nagainst Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac. vi, 35.\n\n2. The breastplate or corslet, \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05df, was another piece of defensive\narmour. Goliath, and the soldiers of Antiochus, 1 Sam. xvii, 5; 1 Mac.\nvi, 35, were accoutred with this defence; which, in our authorized\ntranslation, is variously rendered _habergeon_, _coat of mail_, and\n_brigandine_, 1 Sam. xvii, 38; 2 Chron. xxvi, 14; Isa. lix, 17; Jer.\nxlvi, 4. Between the joints of this _harness_, as it is termed in 1\nKings xxii, 4, the profligate Ahab was mortally wounded by an arrow,\nshot at a venture. From these various renderings of the original word,\nit should seem that this piece of armour covered both the back and\nbreast, but principally the latter. The corslets were made of various\nmaterials: sometimes they were made of flax or cotton, woven very thick,\nor of a kind of woollen felt: others again were made of iron or brazen\nscales, or lamin\u00e6, laid one over another, like the scales of a fish;\nothers were properly what we call coats of mail; and others were\ncomposed of two pieces of iron or brass, which protected the back and\nbreast. All these kinds of corslets are mentioned in the Scriptures.\nGoliath\u2019s coat of mail, 1 Sam. xvii, 5, was literally a corslet of\nscales, that is, composed of numerous lamin\u00e6 of brass, crossing each\nother. It was called by Virgil, and other Latin writers, _squama\nlorica_. Similar corslets were worn by the Persians and other nations.\nThe breastplate worn by the unhappy Saul, when he perished in battle, is\nsupposed to have been of flax, or cotton, woven very close and thick, 2\nSam. i, 9, marginal rendering.\n\n3. The shield defended the whole body during the battle. It was of\nvarious forms, and made of wood covered with tough hides, or of brass,\nand sometimes was overlaid with gold, 1 Kings x, 16, 17; xiv, 26, 27.\nTwo sorts are mentioned in the Scriptures; namely, the \u05e6\u05e0\u05d4, _great\nshield_ or _buckler_, and the \u05de\u05dc\u05df, or _smaller shield_. It was much used\nby the Jews, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Egyptians. David,\nwho was a great warrior, often mentions a shield and buckler in his\ndivine poems, to signify that defence and protection of Heaven which he\nexpected and experienced, and in which he reposed all his trust, Psalm\nv, 12; and when he says, \u201cGod will with favour compass the righteous as\nwith a shield,\u201d he seems to allude to the use of the great shield\n_tsinnah_, (which is the word he uses,) with which they covered and\ndefended their whole bodies. King Solomon caused two different sorts of\nshields to be made; namely, the _tsinnah_, (which answers to _clypeus_\namong the Latins,) such a large shield as the infantry wore, and the\n_maginnim_, or _scuta_, which were used by the horsemen, and were of a\nmuch less size, 2 Chron. ix, 15, 16. The former of these are translated\n_targets_, and are double in weight to the other. The Philistines came\ninto the field with this weapon: so we find their formidable champion\nwas appointed, 1 Sam. xvii, 7. One bearing a shield went before him,\nwhose proper duty it was to carry this and some other weapons, with\nwhich to furnish his master upon occasion.\n\nThe loss of the shield in fight was excessively resented by the Jewish\nwarriors, as well as lamented by them; for it was a signal aggravation\nof the public mourning, that \u201cthe shield of the mighty was vilely cast\naway,\u201d 2 Sam. i, 21. David, a man of arms, who composed this beautiful\nelegy on the death of Saul, felt how disgraceful a thing it was for\nsoldiers to quit their shields in the field.\n\nThese honourable sentiments were not confined to the Jews. We find them\nprevailing among most other ancient nations, who considered it infamous\nto cast away or lose their shield. With the Greeks it was a capital\ncrime, and punished with death. The Lacedemonian women, it is well\nknown, in order to excite the courage of their sons, used to deliver to\nthem their fathers\u2019 shields, with this short address: \u201cThis shield thy\nfather always preserved: do thou preserve it also, or perish.\u201d Alluding\nperhaps to these sentiments, St. Paul, when exhorting the Hebrew\nChristians to steadfastness in the faith of the Gospel, urges them not\nto cast away their confidence, which \u201chath great recompense of reward,\u201d\nHeb. x, 35.\n\n4. Another defensive provision in war was the military girdle, which was\nfor a double purpose: first, in order to hold the sword, which hung, as\nit to this day, at the soldier\u2019s girdle or belt, 1 Sam. xvii, 39:\nsecondly, it was necessary to gird the clothes and the armour together.\n_To gird_ and _to arm_ are synonymous words in Scripture; for those who\nare said to be able to put on armour are, according to the Hebrew and\nthe Septuagint, girt with a girdle; and hence comes the expression of\n\u201cgirding to the battle,\u201d 1 Kings xx, 11; Isa. viii, 9; 2 Sam. xxii, 40;\n1 Sam. xviii, 4. There is express mention of this military girdle, where\nit is recorded that Jonathan, to assure David of his entire love and\nfriendship by some visible pledges, stripped himself not only of his\nusual garments, but of his military habiliments, his sword, bow, and\ngirdle, and gave them to David.\n\n5. Boots or greaves were part of the ancient defensive harness, because\nit was the custom to cast certain \u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, _impediments_, (so called,\nbecause they entangled the feet,) in the way before the enemy. The\nmilitary boot or shoe was therefore necessary to guard the legs and feet\nfrom the iron stakes placed in the way to gall and wound them; and thus\nwe are enabled to account for Goliath\u2019s greaves of brass which were upon\nhis legs.\n\nThe offensive weapons were of two sorts; namely, such as were employed\nwhen they came to a close engagement, and those with which they annoyed\nthe enemy at a distance. Of the former description were the sword and\nthe battle-axe.\n\n1. The sword is the most ancient weapon of offence mentioned in the\nBible. With it Jacob\u2019s sons treacherously assassinated the Shechemites,\nGen. xxxiv, 2. It was worn on the thigh, Psalm xlv, 4; Exod. xxxii, 27;\nand, it should seem on the left thigh; for it is particularly mentioned\nthat Ehud put a dagger or short sword under his garments on his right\nthigh, Judges iii, 16. There appear to have been two kinds of swords in\nuse, a larger one with one edge, which is called in Hebrew the _mouth_\nof the sword, Joshua vi, 21; and a shorter one with two edges, like that\nof Ehud. The modern Arabs, it is well known, wear a sabre on one side,\nand a _cangiar_ or dagger in their girdles.\n\n2. Of the battle-axe we have no description in the sacred volume: it\nseems to have been a most powerful weapon in the hands of cavalry, from\nthe allusion made to it by Jeremiah: \u201cThou art my battle-axe and weapons\nof war; for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee\nwill I destroy kingdoms: and with thee will I break in pieces the horse\nand his rider, and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his\nrider,\u201d Jer. li, 20, 21.\n\n3. The spear and javelin (as the words \u05e8\u05de\u05d7 and \u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea are variously\nrendered in Num. xxv, 7; 1 Sam. xiii, 19, and Jer. xlvi, 4) were of\ndifferent kinds, according to their length or make. Some of them might\nbe thrown or darted, 1 Sam. xviii, 11; others were a kind of long\nswords, Num. xxv, 8; and it appears from 2 Sam. ii, 23, that some of\nthem were pointed at both ends. When armies were encamped, the spear of\nthe general or commander-in-chief was stuck into the ground at his head.\n\n4. Slings are enumerated among the military stores collected by Uzziah,\n2 Chron. xxvi, 14. In the use of the sling David eminently excelled, and\nhe slew Goliath with a stone from one. The Benjaminites were celebrated\nin battle because they had attained to great skill and accuracy in\nhandling this weapon; \u201cthey could sling stones to a hair\u2019s breadth, and\nnot miss,\u201d Judges xx, 16; and where it is said that they were\nleft-handed, it should rather be rendered _ambidexters_; for we are told\nthey could use \u201cboth the right hand and the left,\u201d 1 Chron. xii, 2; that\nis, they did not constantly use the right hand as others did, when they\nshot arrows or slung stones; but they were so expert in their military\nexercises, that they could perform them with their left hand as well as\nwith their right.\n\n5. Bows and arrows are of great antiquity; indeed, no weapon is\nmentioned so early. Thus Isaac said to Esau, \u201cTake thy weapons, thy\nquiver and thy bow,\u201d Gen. xxvii, 3; though, it is true, these are not\nspoken of as used in war, but in hunting; and so they are supposed and\nimplied before this, where it is said of Ishmael, that he became an\narcher, he used bows and arrows in shooting of wild beasts, Gen. xxi,\n20. This afterward became so useful a weapon, that care was taken to\ntrain up the Hebrew youth to it betimes. When David had, in a solemn\nmanner, lamented the death of King Saul, he gave orders for teaching the\nyoung men the use of the bow, 1 Sam. i, 18, that they might be as expert\nas the Philistines, by whose bows and arrows Saul and his army were\nslain. These were part of the military ammunition; for in those times\nbows were used instead of guns, and arrows supplied the place of powder\nand ball. From the book of Job, xx, 24, it may be collected, that the\nmilitary bow was made of steel, and consequently was very stiff and hard\nto bend, on which account they used their foot in bending their bows;\nand therefore when the prophets speak of _treading the bow_ and of _bows\ntrodden_, they are to be understood of _bows bent_, as our translators\nrightly render it, Jer. 1, 14; Isa. v, 28; xxi, 15; but the Hebrew word\nwhich is used in these places, signifies _to tread upon_. This weapon\nwas thought so necessary in war, that it is there called, \u201cthe bow of\nwar,\u201d or the \u201cbattle-bow,\u201d Zech. ix, 10; x, 14.\n\nARNON, a river or brook, mentioned Num. xxi, 24, and elsewhere. Its\nspring head is in the mountains of Gilead, or of the Moabites, and it\ndischarges itself into the Dead Sea.\n\nARROW. See ARMS. Divination with arrows was a method of presaging future\nevents, practised by the ancients. Ezekiel, xxi, 21, informs us, that\nNebuchadnezzar, putting himself at the head of his armies, to march\nagainst Zedekiah, king of the Jews, and against the king of the\nAmmonites, stood at the parting of two ways, to mingle his arrows\ntogether in a quiver, in order to divine from thence which way he should\nmarch. Jerom, Theodoret, and the modern commentators after them, believe\nthat this prince took several arrows, and upon each of them wrote the\nname of the king, town, or province, which he was to attack: for\nexample, upon one, Jerusalem; upon another, Rabbah, the capital of the\nAmmonites; and upon another, Egypt, &c. After having put these into a\nquiver, he shook them together, and then drew them out; and the arrow\nwhich was drawn was thought to declare the will of the gods to attack\nfirst that city, province, or kingdom, with whose name it was inscribed.\n\nARTAXERXES, or AHASUERUS, a king of Persia, the husband of Esther, who,\nin the opinion of the learned Usher and Calmet, was the Darius of\nprofane authors. See AHASUERUS.\n\n2. ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS is supposed by Dr. Prideaux to be the Ahasuerus\nof Esther. He was the son of Xerxes, and grandson of Darius Hystaspes,\nand reigned in Persia from the year of the world 3531 to 3579. He\npermitted Ezra, with all those inclined to follow him, to return into\nJudea, in the year of the world 3537, Ezra vii, viii. Afterward,\nNehemiah also obtained leave to return, and to build the walls and gates\nof Jerusalem, in the year of the world 3550, Nehem. i, 11. From this\nyear, chronologers reckon the beginning of Daniel\u2019s seventy weeks,\nDaniel xi, 29. These are weeks of years, and make four hundred and\nninety years. Dr. Prideaux, who discourses very copiously, and with\ngreat learning, on this prophecy, maintains that the decree mentioned in\nit for the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem, cannot be understood\nof that granted to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; but of\nthat granted to Ezra, by the same Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his\nreign. From that time to the death of Christ, are exactly four hundred\nand ninety years, to a month: for in the month Nisan the decree was\ngranted to Ezra; and in the middle of the same month Nisan, Christ\nsuffered, just four hundred and ninety years afterward.\n\nThe easterns think that the surname of Longimanus was given to\nArtaxerxes by reason of the extent of his dominions; as it is commonly\nsaid that princes have long hands: but the Greeks maintain that this\nprince had really longer hands or arms than usual; and that, when he\nstood upright, he could touch his knees. He is said to have been the\nhandsomest man of his time. The eastern people call him Bahaman, and\ngive him the surname of Ardschir-diraz-dest, or the long-handed. He was\nthe son of Asfendiar, sixth king of the second dynasty of the Persians.\nAfter having extinguished the family of Rostam, which was formidable to\nhim on account of the great men who composed it, he carried his arms\ninto the western provinces, Mesopotamia and Syria, which formed part of\nhis empire. He took Babylon from Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar; and\nhe put in his place Kiresch, who by us is called Cyrus. Some Persian\nhistorians assert that the mother of Artaxerxes was a Jewess, of the\ntribe of Benjamin, and family of Saul; and that the most beloved of his\nwives was of the tribe of Judah, and race of Solomon, by Rehoboam, king\nof Judah. If this be true, we need not wonder that he should recommend\nto Cyrus to favour the Jewish nation. This Cyrus performed, by sending\nback the people into their own country, and permitting them to rebuild\ntheir temple. But the truth of this story is doubtful; and were it true,\nthe interference of the special providence of God must still be\nacknowledged. Artaxerxes reigned forty-seven years, and died in the year\nof the world 3579, and before Jesus Christ 425.\n\nARTEMAS, St. Paul\u2019s disciple, who was sent by that Apostle into Crete,\nin the room of Titus, chap. iii, 12, while he continued with St. Paul at\nNicopolis, where he passed the winter. We know nothing particular of the\nlife or death of Artemas; but the employment to which he was appointed\nby the Apostle is a proof of his great merit.\n\nASA, the son and successor of Abijam, king of Judah, began to reign in\nthe year of the world 3049, and before Christ 955. He reigned forty-one\nyears at Jerusalem, and did right in the sight of the Lord. He purged\nJerusalem from the infamous practices attending the worship of idols;\nand he deprived his mother of her office and dignity of queen, because\nshe erected an idol to Astarte, which he burnt in the valley of Hinnom,\n1 Kings xv, 8, &c.\n\nThe Scripture reproaches Asa with not destroying the high places, which,\nperhaps, he thought it politic to tolerate, to avoid the greater evil of\nidolatry. He carried into the house of the Lord the gold and silver\nvessels which his father Abijam had vowed to consecrate. He fortified\nseveral cities, and repaired others, encouraging his people to this\nlabour while the kingdom was at peace; and the Lord favoured them with\nhis protection. After this he levied three hundred thousand men in\nJudah, armed with shields and pikes; and two hundred and eighty thousand\nmen in Benjamin, armed with shields and bows, all men of courage and\nvalour. About this time, Zerah, king of Ethiopia, or rather of Cush,\nwhich is part of Arabia, marched against Asa with a million of foot, and\nthree hundred chariots of war, and advanced as far as Mareshah. This\nprobably happened in the fifteenth year of Asa\u2019s reign, and in the year\nof the world 3064, 2 Chron. xv, 10. Asa advanced to meet Zerah, and\nencamped in the plain of Zephathah, or rather Zephatah, near Mareshah,\nand having prayed to the Lord, God struck the forces of Zerah with such\na panic that they began to flee. Asa and his army pursued them to Geran,\nand slew of them a great number. After this, Asa\u2019s army returned to\nJerusalem, laden with booty. The prophet Azariah met them, and said,\n\u201cHear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin, The Lord is with you while\nye be with him, and if ye seek him he will be found of you; but if ye\nforsake him, he will forsake you.--Be ye strong, therefore, and let not\nyour hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded,\u201d 2 Chron. xv, 2, 7.\nAfter this exhortation, Asa, being animated with new courage, destroyed\nthe idols of Judah, Benjamin, and Mount Ephraim; repaired the altar of\nburnt-offerings; and assembled Judah and Benjamin, with many from the\ntribes of Simeon, Ephraim, and Manasseh, and on the third day, in the\nfifteenth year of his reign, celebrated a solemn festival. Of the cattle\ntaken from Zerah, they sacrificed seven hundred oxen, and seven thousand\nsheep; they renewed the covenant with the Lord; and, with cymbals and\ntrumpets sounding, they swore to the covenant, and declared that whoever\nshould forsake the true worship of God, should be put to death. The Lord\ngave them peace; and, according to the Chronicles, the kingdom of Judah\nhad rest till the thirty-fifth year of Asa. Concerning this year,\nhowever, there are difficulties; and some think that we should read the\ntwenty-fifth, instead of the thirty-fifth; since Baasha, who made war on\nAsa, lived no longer than the twenty-sixth year of Asa, 1 Kings xvi, 8.\n\nIn this year Baasha, king of Israel, began to fortify Ramah, on the\nfrontiers of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, that he might prevent\nthe Israelites from resorting to the kingdom of Judah, and the temple of\nthe Lord at Jerusalem. When Asa was informed of this, he sent to\nBenhadad, king of Damascus, all the gold and silver of his palace, and\nof the temple, to induce him to break his alliance with Baasha, and to\nassist him against the king of Israel. Benhadad accepted Asa\u2019s presents,\nand invaded Baasha\u2019s country, where he took several cities belonging to\nthe tribe of Naphtali. This obliged Baasha to retire from Ramah, that he\nmight defend his dominions nearer home. Asa immediately ordered his\npeople to Ramah, carried off all the materials prepared by Baasha, and\nemployed them in building Geba and Mizpah. This application to Benhadad\nfor assistance was inexcusable. It implied, that Asa distrusted God\u2019s\npower and goodness, which he had so lately experienced. Therefore the\nProphet Hanani was sent to reprove him for his conduct. Asa, however,\nwas so exasperated at his rebukes that he put the Prophet in chains, and\nat the same time ordered the execution of several persons in Judah.\nToward the latter part of his life, he was incommoded with swellings in\nhis feet, which, gradually rising upwards, killed him. The Scripture\nreproaches him with having had recourse to physicians, rather than to\nthe Lord. He was buried in the sepulchre which he had provided for\nhimself in the city of David; and after his death they placed on the bed\ngreat quantities of perfumes and spices, with which his body was burned.\nHis bones and ashes were then collected, and put into his grave.\n\nASAHEL, the son of Zeruiah, and brother of Joab. He was killed by Abner,\nin the battle of Gibeon, 2 Sam. ii, 18, 19, while he obstinately\npersisted in the pursuit of that general. To revenge his death, his\nbrother Joab, some years after, treacherously killed Abner, who had come\nto wait on David at Hebron, in order to procure him to be acknowledged\nking by all Israel, 2 Sam. iii, 26, 27. See ABNER.\n\nASAPH, a celebrated musician in the time of David, was the son of\nBarachias of the tribe of Levi. Asaph, and also his descendants,\npresided over the musical band in the service of the temple. Several of\nthe psalms, as the fiftieth, the seventy-third to the eighty-third, have\nthe name of Asaph prefixed; but it is not certain whether the words or\nthe music were composed by him. With regard to some of them, which were\nwritten during the Babylonish captivity, they cannot in any respect be\nascribed to him. Perhaps they were written or set to music by his\ndescendants, who bore his name, or by some of that class of musicians of\nwhich the family of Asaph was the head, 1 Chron. vi, 39; 2 Chron. xxix,\n30; xxxv, 15; Neh. xii, 46. The psalms which bear the name of Asaph are\ndoctrinal or preceptive: their style, though less sweet than that of\nDavid, is more vehement, and little inferior to the grandeur of Isaiah.\n\nASCENSION OF CHRIST, his visible elevation to heaven. Our Saviour,\nhaving repeatedly conversed with his Apostles after his resurrection,\nand afforded them many infallible proofs of its reality, led them from\nJerusalem to Bethany, and was raised up to heaven in their sight; there\nto continue till he shall descend at the last day to judge the quick and\nthe dead. The evidences of this fact were numerous. The disciples saw\nhim ascend, Acts i, 9, 10. Two angels testified that he did ascend, Acts\ni, 11. Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state, Acts vii,\n55, 56; ix; Rev. i. The ascension was demonstrated by the descent of the\nHoly Ghost, John xvi, 7, 14; Acts ii, 33; and the terrible overthrow and\ndispersion of the Jewish nation is still a standing proof of it, John\nviii, 21; Matt. xxvi, 64. The time of Christ\u2019s ascension was forty days\nafter his resurrection. He continued so many days upon earth that he\nmight give repeated proofs of his resurrection, Acts i, 3; instruct his\nApostles in every thing of importance respecting their office and\nministry, Acts i, 3; and might open to them the Scriptures concerning\nhimself, and renew their commission to preach the Gospel, Acts i, 5, 6;\nMark xvi, 15. As to the manner of his ascension, it was from mount\nOlivet to heaven, not in appearance only, but in reality, and that\nvisibly and locally. It was a real motion of his human nature; sudden,\nswift, glorious, and in a triumphant manner. He was parted from his\ndisciples while he was solemnly blessing them; and multitudes of angels\nattended him with shouts of praise, Psalm lxviii, 17; xlvii, 5, 6.\n\nThe effects or ends of his ascension were, 1. To fulfil the types and\nprophecies concerning it; 2. To \u201cappear\u201d as a priest \u201cin the presence of\nGod for us;\u201d 3. To take upon him more openly the exercise of his kingly\noffice; 4. To receive gifts for men, both ordinary and extraordinary,\nPsalm lxviii, 18; 5. To open the way to heaven for his people, Heb. x,\n19, 20; 6. To assure the saints of their ascension to heaven after their\nresurrection from the dead, John xiv, 1, 2.\n\nASHDOD, AZOTH, according to the Vulgate, or Azotus, according to the\nGreek, a city which was assigned by Joshua to the tribe of Judah, but\nwas possessed a long time by the Philistines, and rendered famous for\nthe temple of their god Dagon, Joshua xv, 47. It lies upon the\nMediterranean Sea, about nine or ten miles north of Gaza; and in the\ntimes when Christianity flourished in these parts was made an episcopal\nsee, and continued a fair village till the days of St. Jerom. Here the\nark of Jehovah triumphed over the Philistine idol Dagon, 1 Sam. v, 2.\n\nASHER, tribe of. The province allotted to this tribe was a maritime one,\nstretching along the coast from Sidon on the north to Mount Carmel on\nthe south; including the cities Abdon, Achshaph, Accho, Achzib, Sarepta,\nSidon, and Tyre. But of the northern half of this territory, that is,\nfrom Tyre northward, this tribe never became possessed, not having\nexpelled the Ph\u0153nician inhabitants, who are supposed not to have been\npure Canaanites, but a mixture of this people with a Cuthite colony from\nEgypt. Asher was the most northerly of the tribes; and had that of\nNaphtali on the west, and Zebulun on the south.\n\nASHES. Several religious ceremonies, and some symbolical ones, anciently\ndepended upon the use of ashes. To repent in sackcloth and ashes, or, as\nan external sign of self-affliction for sin, or of suffering under some\nmisfortune, to sit in ashes, are expressions common in Scripture. \u201cI am\nbut dust and ashes,\u201d exclaims Abraham before the Lord, Gen. xviii, 27;\nindicating a deep sense of his own meanness in comparison with God. God\nthreatens to shower down dust and ashes on the lands instead of rain,\nDeut. xxviii, 24; thereby to make them barren instead of blessing them,\nto dry them up instead of watering them. Tamar, after the injury she had\nreceived from Amnon, covered her head with ashes, 2 Sam. xiii, 19. The\nPsalmist, in great sorrow, says poetically, he had \u201ceaten ashes as it\nwere bread,\u201d Psalm cii, 9; that is, he sat on ashes, he threw ashes on\nhis head; and his food, his bread, was sprinkled with the ashes\nwherewith he was himself covered. So Jeremiah introduces Jerusalem\nsaying, \u201cThe Lord hath covered me with ashes,\u201d Lamentations iii, 16.\nSitting on ashes, or lying down among ashes, was a token of extreme\ngrief. We find it adopted by Job, ii, 8; by many Jews when in great\nfear, Esther iv, 3; and by the king of Nineveh, Jonah iii, 6. He arose\nfrom his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth,\nand sat in ashes. This token of affliction is illustrated by Homer\u2019s\ndescription of old Laertes grieving for the absence of his son,\n\u201cSleeping in the apartment where the slaves slept, in the ashes, near\nthe fire.\u201d Compare Jer. vi, 26, \u201cDaughter of my people, wallow thyself\nin ashes.\u201d There was a sort of ley and lustral water, made with the\nashes of the heifer sacrificed on the great day of expiation; these\nashes were distributed to the people, and used in purifications, by\nsprinkling, to such as had touched a dead body, or had been present at\nfunerals, Num. xix, 17.\n\nASHKENAZ, one of the sons of Gomer, and grandson of Japheth, who gave\nhis name to the country first peopled by him in the north and\nnorth-western part of Asia Minor, answering to Bithynia; where were\ntraces long after of his name, particularly in that of Ascanius, applied\nto a bay and city, as well as to some islands lying along the coast. It\nwas also from this country, most probably, that the king Ascanius,\nmentioned by Homer, came to the aid of Priamus at the siege of Troy.\nFrom the same source, likewise, the Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea,\nderived its name. It may farther be remarked on the identity of these\ncountries, that the Prophet Jeremiah, predicting the capture of Babylon,\nand calling by name the countries which were to rise against it,\nexclaims, \u201cCall together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, (or\nArmenia,) Minni, and Ashkenaz:\u201d which was literally fulfilled; as\nXenophen informs us that Cyrus, after taking Sardis, became master of\nPhrygia on the Hellespont, and took along with him many soldiers of that\ncountry.\n\nASHTAROTH, or ASTARTE, a goddess of the Zidonians. The word Ashtaroth\nproperly signifies flocks of sheep, or goats; and sometimes the grove,\nor woods, because she was goddess of woods, and groves were her temples.\nIn groves consecrated to her, such lasciviousness was committed as\nrendered her worship infamous. She was also called the queen of heaven;\nand sometimes her worship is said to be that of \u201cthe host of heaven.\u201d\nShe was certainly represented in the same manner as Isis, with cows\u2019\nhorns on her head, to denote the increase and decrease of the moon.\nCicero calls her the fourth Venus of the Syrians. She is almost always\njoined with Baal, and is called a god, the Scriptures having no\nparticular word to express a goddess. It is believed that the moon was\nadored in this idol. Her temples generally accompanied those of the sun;\nand while bloody sacrifices or human victims were offered to Baal,\nbread, liquors, and perfumes were presented to Astarte. For her, tables\nwere prepared upon the flat terrace roofs of houses, near gates, in\nporches, and at crossways, on the first day of every month; and this was\ncalled by the Greeks, Hecate\u2019s supper.\n\nSolomon, seduced by his foreign wives, introduced the worship of\nAshtaroth into Israel; but Jezebel, daughter of the king of Tyre, and\nwife to Ahab, principally established her worship. She caused altars to\nbe erected to this idol in every part of Israel; and at one time four\nhundred priests attended the worship of Ashtaroth, 1 Kings xviii, 7.\n\nASHUR, the son of Shem, who gave his name to Assyria. It is believed\nthat Ashur originally dwelt in the land of Shinar and about Babylonia,\nbut that he was compelled by the usurper Nimrod to depart from thence,\nand settle higher toward the springs of the Tigris, in the province of\nAssyria, so called from him, where some think he built the famous city\nof Nineveh, and those of Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen, Gen. x, 11, 12.\n\nASIA, one of the four grand divisions of the earth. It is also used in a\nmore restricted sense for Asia Minor, or Anatolia. In the New Testament\nit always signifies the Roman Proconsular Asia, in which the seven\nApocalyptic churches were situated.\n\nASKELON, a city in the land of the Philistines, situated between Azoth\nand Gaza, upon the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, about 520 furlongs\nfrom Jerusalem. The tribe of Judah, after the death of Joshua, took the\ncity of Askelon, Judges i, 18, being one of the five governments\nbelonging to the Philistines. The place at present is in ruins.\n\nASMON\u00c6ANS, a name given to the Maccabees, the descendants of Mattathias.\nAfter the death of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews were governed by their\nhigh priest, in subjection, however, to the Persian kings, to whom they\npaid tribute; but with full enjoyment of their liberties, civil and\nreligious. Nearly three centuries of prosperity ensued, until they were\ncruelly oppressed by Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were\ncompelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the able conduct\nof Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, and his valiant brothers, the Jews\nmaintained a religious war for twenty-six years with five successive\nkings of Syria; and after destroying upwards of two hundred thousand of\ntheir best troops, the Maccabees finally established the independence of\ntheir own country, and the aggrandisement of their family. This\nillustrious house, whose princes united the regal and pontifical dignity\nin their own persons, administered the affairs of the Jews during a\nperiod of a hundred and twenty-six years; until, disputes arising\nbetween Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the latter was\ndefeated by the Romans, who captured Jerusalem, and reduced Judea to a\nmilitary province, B. C. 59.\n\nASNAPPER, the king of Assyria, who sent the Cutheans into the country\nbelonging to the ten tribes, Ezra iv, 10. Many take this prince to be\nShalmaneser; but others, with more probability, think him to be\nEsar-haddon.\n\nASP, \u05e4\u05ea\u05df. Deut. xxxii, 33; Job xx, 14, 16; Psalm lviii, 4; xci, 13;\nIsaiah xi, 8. A very venomous serpent, whose poison is so subtle as to\nkill within a few hours with a universal gangrene. This may well refer\nto the _b\u00e6ten_ of the Arabians, which M. Forskal describes as spotted\nwith black and white, about one foot in length, and nearly half an inch\nin thickness, oviparous, and whose bite is death. It is the _aspic_ of\nthe ancients, and is so called now by the literati of Cyprus, though the\ncommon people call it _kufi_, (\u03ba\u0223\u0301\u03c6\u03b7,) _deaf_. With the PETHEN we may\nconnect the _python_ of the Greeks, which was, according to fable, a\nhuge serpent that had an oracle at mount Parnassus, famous for\npredicting future events. Apollo is said to have slain this serpent, and\nhence he was called \u201cPythius.\u201d Those possessed with a spirit of\ndivination were also styled \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. The word occurs in Acts, xvi, 16,\nas the characteristic of a young woman who had _a pythonic spirit_. It\nis well known that the _serpent_ was particularly employed by the\nHeathens in their enchantments and divinations. See SERPENT].\n\nPethen, \u05e4\u05ea\u05df, is variously translated in our version; but interpreters\ngenerally consider it as referring to the asp. Zophar alludes to it more\nthan once in his description of a wicked man: \u201cYet his meat in his\nbowels is turned, it is the gall of asps within him. He shall suck the\npoison of asps: the viper\u2019s tongue shall slay him.\u201d The venom of asps is\nthe most subtle of all; it is incurable; and, if the wounded part be not\ninstantly amputated, it speedily terminates the existence of the\nsufferer. To these circumstances, Moses evidently alludes in his\ncharacter of the Heathen: \u201cTheir wine is the poison of dragons, and the\ncruel venom of asps.\u201d To tread upon the asp is attended with extreme\ndanger; therefore, to express in the strongest manner the safety which\nthe godly man enjoys under the protection of his heavenly Father, it is\npromised, that he shall tread with impunity upon these venomous\ncreatures. No person of his own accord approaches the hole of these\ndeadly reptiles; for he who gives them the smallest disturbance is in\nextreme danger of paying the forfeit of his rashness with his life.\nHence, the Prophet Isaiah, predicting the conversion of the Gentiles to\nthe faith of Christ, and the glorious reign of peace and truth in those\nregions which, prior to that period, were full of horrid cruelty,\nmarvellously heightens the force of the whole description by declaring,\n\u201cThe sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned\nchild shall put his hand on the cockatrice\u2019 den. They shall not hurt nor\ndestroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the\nknowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.\u201d\n\nASS, \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e8, Arabic, _chamara_ and _hamar_. There are three words referred\nby translators to the ass: 1. \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e8, which is the usual appellation, and\ndenotes the ordinary kind; such as is employed in labour, carriage, and\ndomestic services. 2. \u05e4\u05e8\u05e8\u05d0, rendered _onager_, or \u201cwild ass.\u201d 3. \u05d0\u05d4\u05d5\u05df,\nrendered _she ass_. To these we must add, \u05e2\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05d0, rendered _wild asses_,\nDan. v, 21. The prevailing colour of this animal in the east is reddish;\nand the Arabic word, _chamara_, signifies _to be red_.\n\nIn his natural state he is fleet, fierce, formidable, and intractable;\nbut when domesticated, the most gentle of all animals, and assumes a\npatience and submission even more humble than his situation. Le Clerc\nobserves, that the Israelites not being allowed to keep horses, the ass\nwas not only made a beast of burden, but used on journeys; and that even\nthe most honourable of the nation were wont to be mounted on asses,\nwhich in the eastern countries were much larger and more beautiful than\nthey are with us. Jair of Gilead had thirty sons who rode on as many\nasses, and commanded in thirty cities, Judges x, 4. Abdon\u2019s sons and\ngrandsons rode also upon asses, Judges xii, 4. And Christ makes his\nsolemn entry into Jerusalem riding upon an ass, Matt. xxi, 4; John xii,\n14. To draw with an ox and ass together was prohibited in the Mosaic\nlaw, Deut. xxii, 10. This law is thought to have respect to some\nidolatrous custom of the Gentiles, who were taught to believe that their\nfields would be more fruitful if thus ploughed; for it is not likely\nthat men would have yoked together two creatures so different in their\ntempers and motions, had they not been led to it by some superstition.\nThere might be, however, a physical reason for this injunction. Two\nbeasts of a different species cannot well associate together; and on\nthis account never pull pleasantly either in the cart or plough, and are\nnot therefore \u201ctrue yoke fellows.\u201d Le Clerc considers this law as merely\nsymbolical, importing that we are not to form improper alliances in\ncivil and religious life; and he thinks his opinion confirmed by these\nwords of St. Paul, 2 Cor. vi, 14: \u201cBe ye not unequally yoked with\nunbelievers;\u201d which are simply to be understood as prohibiting all\nintercourse between Christians and idolaters, in social, matrimonial,\nand religious life. To teach the Jews the propriety of this, a variety\nof precepts relative to improper and heterogeneous mixtures were\ninterspersed through their law; so that in civil and domestic life they\nmight have them ever before their eyes.\n\nThe _wild ass_, called PARA, is probably the _onager_ of the ancients.\nIt is taller and a much more dignified animal than the common or\ndomestic ass; its legs are more elegantly shaped; and it bears its head\nhigher. It is peculiarly distinguished by a dusky woolly mane, long\nerect ears, and a forehead highly arched. The colour of the hair, in\ngeneral, is of a silvery white. These animals associate in herds, under\na leader, and are very shy. They inhabit the mountainous regions and\ndesert parts of Tartary, Persia, &c. Anciently they were likewise found\nin Lycaonia, Phrygia, Mesopotamia, and Arabia Deserta. They are\nremarkably wild; and Job, xxxix, 5\u20138, describes the liberty they enjoy,\nthe place of their retreat, their manners, and wild, impetuous, and\nuntamable spirit. \u201cVain man would be wise, though he be born a wild\nass\u2019s colt,\u201d Job xi, 12; \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e4\u05e8\u05d0, \u201cass colt,\u201d not \u201cass\u2019s colt;\u201d \u05d9\u05e8 being\nin apposition with \u05e4\u05e8\u05d0, and not in government. The whole is a proverbial\nexpression, denoting extreme perversity and ferocity, and repeatedly\nalluded to in the Old Testament. Thus, Gen. xvi, 12, it is prophesied of\nIshmael that he should be \u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd, a wild ass man; rough, untaught, and\nlibertine as a wild ass. So Hosea, xiii, 15; \u201cHe (Ephraim) hath _run\nwild_ (literally _assified_ himself) amidst the braying monsters.\u201d So\nagain, Hosea viii, 9, the very same character is given of Ephraim, who\nis called \u201ca solitary wild ass by himself,\u201d or perhaps a solitary wild\nass of the _desert_; for the original will bear to be so rendered. This\nproverbial expression has descended among the Arabians to the present\nday, who still employ, as Schultens has remarked, the expressions, \u201cthe\nass of the desert,\u201d or \u201cthe wild ass,\u201d to describe an obstinate,\nindocile, and contumacious person. The Prophet Isaiah, xxxii, 14,\ndescribes great desolation by saying that \u201cthe wild asses shall rejoice\nwhere a city stood.\u201d There is another kind of ass called, \u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u05df. Abraham\nhad ATONOTH, Gen. xii, 16; Balaam rode on an ATON, Num. xxii, 23. We\nfind from 1 Chron. xxvii, 30, that David had an officer expressly\nappointed to superintend his ATONOTH; not his ordinary asses, but those\nof a nobler race; which implies at least equal dignity in this officer\nto his colleagues mentioned with him. This notion of the ATON gives also\na spirit to the history of Saul, who, when his father\u2019s ATONOTH were\nlost, was at no little pains to seek them; moreover, as beside being\nvaluable, they were _uncommon_, he might the more readily hear of them\nif they had been noticed or taken up by any one; and this leads to the\ntrue interpretation of the servant\u2019s proposed application to Samuel,\nverse 6, as though he said, \u201cIn his office of magistracy this honourable\nman may have heard of these strayed rarities, and secured them;\nperadventure he can direct us.\u201d\n\nThus we find that these _atonoth_ are mentioned in Scripture, only in\nthe possession of judges, patriarchs, and other great men; insomuch that\nwhere these are there is dignity, either expressed or implied. They were\nalso a present for a prince; for Jacob presented Esau with twenty, Gen.\nxxxii, 15. What then shall we say of the wealth of Job, who possessed a\nthousand? Another word which is rendered \u201c_wild ass_\u201d by our\ntranslators, Job xxxix, 5, is ORUD; which seems to be the same, that in\nthe Chaldee of Daniel, v, 21, is called _oredia_. Mr. Parkhurst supposes\nthat this word denotes _the brayer_, and that PARA and ORUD are only two\nnames for the same animal. But these names _may_ perhaps refer to\ndifferent races, though of the same species; so that a description of\nthe properties of one may apply to both, though not without some\nvariation.\n\n             Who sent out the _para_ free?\n             Or who hath loosed the bands of the _orud_?\n             Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness,\n             And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort:\n             The range of open mountains are his pasture,\n             And he searcheth after every green thing.\n\nGmelin observes that the _onager_ is very fond of salt. Whether the\n\u201cdeserts\u201d of the above text were salt marshes, or salt deserts, is of\nvery little consequence; the circumstance shows the correctness of the\nHebrew poet. In Daniel we read that Nebuchadnezzar dwelt with the\nOREDIA. We need not suppose that he was banished to the deserts, but was\nat most kept safely in an enclosure of his own park, where curious\nanimals were kept for state and pleasure. If this be correct, then the\nORUD was somewhat, at least, of a rarity at Babylon; and it might be of\na kind different from the PARA, as it is denoted by another name. May it\nnot be the _Gicquetei_ of Professor Pallas, the wild mule of Mongalia\nwhich surpasses the _onager_ in size, beauty, and perhaps in swiftness.\n\nASSIDEANS, by some named Chasideans, from _chasidim_, \u201cmerciful, pious.\u201d\nThey were a kind of religious society among the Jews, whose chief and\ndistinguishing character was, to maintain the honour of the temple, and\nobserve punctually the traditions of the elders. They were therefore not\nonly content to pay the usual tribute for the maintenance of the house\nof God, but charged themselves with farther expense upon that account;\nfor every day, except that of the great expiation, they sacrificed a\nlamb, in addition to the daily oblation, which was called the sin\noffering of the Assideans. They practised greater hardships and\nmortifications than others; and their common oath was, \u201cBy the temple;\u201d\nfor which our Saviour reproves the Pharisees, who had learned that oath\nof them, Matt. xxiii, 16. From this sect the Pharisees sprung. The\nAssideans are represented as a numerous sect, distinguished by its\nvalour, as well as by its zeal for the law, 1 Mac. ii, 42. A company of\nthem resorted to Mattathias, to fight for the law of God, and the\nliberties of their country. This sect arose either during the captivity,\nor soon after the restoration, of the Jews; and were probably in the\ncommencement, and long afterward, a truly pious part of the nation; but\nthey at length became superstitious.\n\nASSURANCE. The sense in which this term is used theologically is that of\na firm persuasion of our being in a state of salvation. The doctrine\nitself has been matter of dispute among divines, and when considered as\nimplying not only that we are now accepted of God through Christ, but\nthat we shall be finally saved, or when it is so taken as to deny a\nstate of salvation to those who are not so assured as to be free from\nall doubt, it is in many views questionable. Assurance of final\nsalvation must stand or fall with the doctrine of personal unconditional\nelection, and is chiefly held by divines of the Calvinistic school; and\nthat nothing is an evidence of a state of present salvation but so\nentire a persuasion as amounts to assurance in the strongest sense,\nmight be denied upon the ground that degrees of grace, of real saving\ngrace, are undoubtedly mentioned in Scripture. Assurance, however, is\nspoken of in the New Testament, and stands prominent as one of the\nleading doctrines of religious experience. We have \u201cfull assurance of\nunderstanding;\u201d that is a perfect knowledge and entire persuasion of the\ntruth of the doctrine of Christ. The \u201cassurance of faith,\u201d in Hebrews\nix, 22, is an entire trust in the sacrifice and priestly office of\nChrist. The \u201cassurance of hope,\u201d mentioned in Hebrews vi, 11, relates to\nthe heavenly inheritance, and must necessarily imply a full persuasion\nthat we are \u201cthe children of God,\u201d and therefore \u201cheirs of his glory;\u201d\nand from this passage it must certainly be concluded that such an\nassurance is what every Christian ought to aim at, and that it is\nattainable. This, however, does not exclude occasional doubt and\nweakness of faith, from the earlier stages of his experience.\n\nA comforting and abiding persuasion of present acceptance by God,\nthrough Christ, we may therefore affirm, must in various degrees follow\ntrue faith. In support of this view, the following remarks may be\noffered:--\n\nIf it is the doctrine of the inspired records, that man is by nature\nprone to evil, and that in practice he violates that law under which as\na creature he is placed, and is thereby exposed to punishment;--if also\nit is there stated, that an act of grace and pardon is promised on the\nconditions of repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus\nChrist;--if that repentance implies consideration of our ways, a sense\nof the displeasure of Almighty God, contrition of heart, and\nconsequently trouble and grief of mind, mixed, however, with a hope\ninspired by the promise of forgiveness, and which leads to earnest\nsupplication for the actual pardon of sin so promised, it will follow\nfrom these premises--either, 1. That forgiveness is not to be expected\ntill after the termination of our course of probation, that is, in\nanother life; and that, therefore, this trouble and apprehension of mind\ncan only be assuaged by the hope we may have of a favourable final\ndecision on our case;--or, 2. That sin is, in the present life, forgiven\nas often as it is thus repented of, and as often as we exercise the\nrequired and specific acts of trust in the merits of our Saviour; but\nthat this forgiveness of our sins is not in any way made known unto us:\nso that we are left, as to our feelings, in precisely the same state as\nif sin were not forgiven till after death, namely, in grief and trouble\nof mind, relieved only by hope;--or, 3. The Scriptural view is, that\nwhen sin is forgiven by the mercy of God through Christ, we are, by some\nmeans, assured of it, and peace and satisfaction of mind take the place\nof anxiety and fear.\n\nThe first of these conclusions is sufficiently disproved by the\nauthority of Scripture, which exhibits justification as a blessing\nattainable in this life, and represents it as actually experienced by\ntrue believers. \u201cTherefore being justified by faith.\u201d \u201cThere is _now_ no\ncondemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.\u201d \u201cWhosoever believeth is\njustified from all things,\u201d &c. The quotations might be multiplied, but\nthese are decisive. The notion that though an act of forgiveness may\ntake place, we are unable to ascertain a fact so important to us, is\nalso irreconcilable with many scriptures in which the writers of the New\nTestament speak of an experience, not confined personally to themselves,\nor to those Christians who were endowed with spiritual gifts, but common\nto all Christians. \u201cBeing justified by faith we have _peace_ with God.\u201d\n\u201cWe joy in God, by whom we have received the _reconciliation_.\u201d \u201cBeing\nreconciled unto God by the death of his Son.\u201d \u201cWe have not received the\nspirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption, by which\nwe cry, Abba, Father.\u201d To these may be added innumerable passages which\nexpress the comfort, the confidence, and the joy of Christians; their\n\u201cfriendship\u201d with God; their \u201caccess\u201d to him; their entire union and\ndelightful intercourse with him; and their absolute confidence in the\nsuccess of their prayers. All such passages are perfectly consistent\nwith deep humility, and self-diffidence; but they are irreconcilable\nwith a state of hostility between the parties, and with an unascertained\nand only hoped-for restoration of friendship and favour.\n\nAn assurance, therefore, that the sins which are felt to \u201cbe a burden\nintolerable\u201d are forgiven, and that the ground of that apprehension of\nfuture punishment which causes the penitent to \u201c_bewail_ his manifold\nsins,\u201d is taken away by restoration to the favour of the offended God,\nmust be allowed, or nothing would be more incongruous and impossible\nthan the comfort, the peace, the rejoicing of spirit, which in the\nScriptures are attributed to believers.\n\nFew Christians of evangelical views have, therefore, denied the\npossibility of our becoming assured of the favour of God in a sufficient\ndegree to give substantial comfort to the mind. Their differences have\nrather respected the means by which the contrite become assured of that\nchange in their relation to Almighty God, whom they have offended, which\nin Scripture is expressed by the term justification. The question has\nbeen, (where the notion of an assurance of eternal salvation has not\nbeen under discussion,) by what means the assurance of the divine favour\nis conveyed to the mind. Some have concluded that we obtain it by\n_inference_, others by the _direct testimony_ of the Holy Spirit to the\nmind. See HOLY SPIRIT.\n\nASSYRIA, a kingdom of Asia, of the extent, origin, and duration of which\nvery different accounts have been given by ancient writers. Ctesias and\nDiodorus Siculus affirm, that the Assyrian monarchy, under Ninus and\nSemiramis, comprehended the greater part of the known world: but, if\nthis had been the case, it is not likely that Homer and Herodotus would\nhave omitted a fact so remarkable. The sacred records intimate that none\nof the ancient states or kingdoms were of considerable extent; for\nneither Chederlaomer, nor any of the neighbouring princes, were\ntributary or subject to Assyria; and \u201cwe find nothing,\u201d says Playfair,\n\u201cof the greatness or power of this kingdom in the history of the judges\nand succeeding kings of Israel, though the latter kingdom was oppressed\nand enslaved by many different powers in that period.\u201d It is therefore\nhighly probable that Assyria was originally of small extent. According\nto Ptolemy, this country was bounded on the north by part of Armenia and\nMount Niphates; on the west by the Tigris; on the south by Susiana; and\non the east by part of Media and the mountains Choatra and Zagros. Of\nthe origin, revolutions, and termination of Assyria, properly so called,\nand distinguished from the grand monarchy which afterward bore this\nappellation, the following account is given by Mr. Playfair, as the most\nprobable:--\u201cThe founder of it was Ashur, the second son of Shem, who\ndeparted from Shinar, upon the usurpation of Nimrod, at the head of a\nlarge body of adventurers, and laid the foundations of Nineveh, where he\nresided, and erected a new kingdom, called Assyria, after his name, Gen.\nx, 11. These events happened not long after Nimrod had established the\nChaldean monarchy, and fixed his residence at Babylon; but it does not\nappear that Nimrod reigned in Assyria. The kingdoms of Assyria and\nBabylon were originally distinct and separate, Micah v, 6; and in this\nstate they remained until Ninus conquered Babylon, and made it tributary\nto the Assyrian empire. Ninus, the successor of Ashur, Gen. x, 11,\nseized on Chaldea after the death of Nimrod, and united the kingdoms of\nAssyria and Babylon. This great prince is said to have subdued Asia,\nPersia, Media, Egypt, &c. If he did so, the effects of his conquests\nwere of no long duration; for, in the days of Abraham, we do not find\nthat any of the neighbouring kingdoms were subject to Assyria. Ninus was\nsucceeded by Semiramis, a princess bold, enterprising, and fortunate; of\nwhose adventures and exploits many fabulous relations have been\nrecorded. Playfair is of opinion that there were two princesses of this\nname, who flourished at different periods: one, the consort of Ninus;\nand another, who lived five generations before Nitocris, queen of\nNebuchadnezzar. Of the successors of Ninus and Semiramis nothing certain\nis recorded. The last of the ancient Assyrian kings was Sardanapalus,\nwho was besieged in his capital by Arbaces, governor of Media, in\nconcurrence with the Babylonians. These united forces defeated the\nAssyrian army, demolished the capital, and became masters of the empire,\nB. C. 821.\n\n\u201cAfter the death of Sardanapalus,\u201d says Mr. Playfair, \u201cthe Assyrian\nempire was divided into three kingdoms; namely, the Median, Assyrian,\nand Babylonian. Arbaces retained the supreme authority, and nominated\ngovernors in Assyria and Babylon, who were honoured with the title of\nkings, while they remained subject and tributary to the Persian monarchs\nBelesis,\u201d he says, \u201ca Chaldean priest, who assisted Arbaces in the\nconquest of Sardanapalus, received the government of Babylon as the\nreward of his services; and Phul was intrusted with that of Assyria. The\nAssyrian governor gradually enlarged the boundaries of his kingdom, and\nwas succeeded by Tiglath-pileser, Salmanasar, and Sennacherib, who\nasserted and maintained their independence. After the death of\nAssar-haddon, the brother and successor of Sennacherib, the kingdom of\nAssyria was split, and annexed to the kingdoms of Media and Babylon.\nSeveral tributary princes afterward reigned in Nineveh; but we hear no\nmore of the kings of Assyria, but of those of Babylon. Cyaxares, king of\nMedia, assisted Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the siege of\nNineveh, which they took and destroyed, B. C. 606.\u201d\n\nThe history of Assyria, deduced from Scripture, and acknowledged as the\nonly authentic one by Sir Isaac Newton and many others, ascribes the\nfoundation of the monarchy to Pul, or Phul, about the second year of\nMenahem, king of Israel, twenty-four years before the \u00e6ra of Nabonassar,\n1579 years after the flood, and, according to Blair, 769, or, according\nto Newton, 790, years before Christ. Menahem, having taken forcible\npossession of the throne of Israel by the murder of Shallum, 2 Kings xv,\n10, was attacked by Pul, but prevented the hostilities meditated against\nhim by presenting the invader with a thousand talents of silver. Pul,\nthus gratified, took the kingdom of Israel under his protection,\nreturned to his own country, after having received voluntary homage from\nseveral nations in his march, as he had done from Israel, and became the\nfounder of a great empire. As it was in the days of Pul that the\nAssyrians began to afflict the inhabitants of Palestine, 2 Kings xi, 9;\n1 Chron. v, 26, this was the time, according to Sir Isaac Newton, when\nthe Assyrian empire arose. Thus he interprets the words, \u201csince the time\nof the kings of Assyria,\u201d Nehem. ix, 32; that is, since the time of the\nkingdom of Assyria, or since the rise of that empire. But though this\nwas the period in which the Assyrians afflicted Israel, it is not so\nevident that the time of the kings of Assyria must necessarily be\nunderstood of the rise of the Assyrian empire. However, Newton thus\nreasons; and observes, that \u201cPul and his successors afflicted Israel,\nand conquered the nations round about them; and upon the ruin of many\nsmall and ancient kingdoms erected their empire; conquering the Medes,\nas well as other nations.\u201d It is farther argued, that God, by the\nProphet Amos, in the reign of Jeroboam, about ten or twenty years before\nthe reign of Pul, (see Amos vi, 13, 14,) threatened to raise up a nation\nagainst Israel; and that, as Pul reigned presently after the prophecy of\nAmos, and was the first upon record who began to fulfil it, he may be\njustly reckoned the first conqueror and founder of this empire. See 1\nChron. v, 26. Pul was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by his elder\nson Tiglath-pileser; and at the same time he left Babylon to his younger\nson Nabonassar, B. C. 747. Of the conquests of this second king of\nAssyria against the kings of Israel and Syria, when he took Damascus,\nand subdued the Syrians, we have an account in 2 Kings xv, 29, 37; xvi,\n5,9; 1 Chron. v, 26; by which the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled, and\nfrom which it appears that the empire of the Assyrians was now become\ngreat and powerful. The next king of Assyria was Shalmaneser, or\nSalmanassar, who succeeded Tiglath-pileser, B. C. 729, and invaded\nPh\u0153nicia, took the city of Samaria, and, B. C. 721, carried the ten\ntribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Chabor, by the river\nGazon, and in the cities of the Medes, 2 Kings xvii, 6. Shalmaneser was\nsucceeded by Sennacherib, B. C. 719; and in the year B. C. 714, he was\nput to flight with great slaughter by the Ethiopians and Egyptians. In\nthe year B. C. 711 the Medes revolted from the Assyrians; Sennacherib\nwas slain; and he was succeeded by his son Esar-Haddon, Asserhaddon,\nAsordan, Assaradin, or Sarchedon, by which names he is called by\ndifferent writers. He began his reign at Nineveh, in the year of\nNabonassar 42; and in the year 68 extended it over Babylon. He then\ncarried the remainder of the Samaritans into captivity, and peopled\nSamaria with captives brought from several parts of his kingdom; and in\nthe year of Nabonassar 77 or 78 he seems to have put an end to the reign\nof the Ethiopians over Egypt. \u201cIn the reign of Sennacherib and\nAsser-Hadon,\u201d says Sir I. Newton, \u201cthe Assyrian empire seems arrived at\nits greatness; being united under one monarch, and containing Assyria,\nMedia, Apolloniatis, Susiana, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria,\nPh\u0153nicia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and part of Arabia; and reaching eastward\ninto Elymais, and Par\u00e6t\u00e6cene, a province of the Medes; and if Chalach\nand Chabor be Colchis and Iberia, as some think, and as may seem\nprobable from the circumcision used by those nations till the days of\nHerodotus, we are also to add these two provinces, with the two\nArmenias, Pontus, and Cappadocia, as far as to the river Halys: for\nHerodotus tells us that the people of Cappadocia, as far as to that\nriver, were called Syrians by the Greeks, both before and after the days\nof Cyrus; and that the Assyrians were also called Syrians by the\nGreeks.\u201d Asser-Hadon was succeeded in the year B. C. 668 by\nSaosduchinus. At this time Manasseh was allowed to return home, and\nfortify Jerusalem; and the Egyptians also, after the Assyrians had\nharassed Egypt and Ethiopia three years, Isa. xx, 3, 4, were set at\nliberty. Saosduchinus, after a reign of twenty years, was succeeded at\nBabylon, and probably at Nineveh also, by Chyniladon, in the year B. C.\n647. This Chyniladon is supposed by Newton to be the Nebuchadonosor\nmentioned in the book of Judith, i, 1\u201315, who made war upon Arphaxad,\nking of the Medes; and, though deserted by his auxiliaries of Cilicia,\nDamascus, Syria, Ph\u0153nicia, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, routed the army of\nthe Medes, and slew Arphaxad. This Arphaxad is supposed to be either\nDejoces or his son Phraortes, mentioned by Herodotus. Soon after the\ndeath of Phraortes, in the year B. C. 635, the Scythians invaded the\nMedes and Persians; and in 625, Nabopolassar, the commander of the\nforces of Chyniladon in Chaldea, revolted from him, and became king of\nBabylon. Chyniladon was either then or soon after succeeded at Nineveh\nby the last king of Assyria, called Sarac by Polyhistor. The authors of\nthe Universal History suppose Saosduchinus to have been the\nNebuchadonosor of Scripture, and Chyniladon or Chynaladan to have been\nthe Sarac of Polyhistor. At length Nebuchadnezzar, the son of\nNabopolassar, married Amyit, the daughter of Astyages, king of the\nMedes, and sister of Cyaxares; and by this marriage the two families\nhaving contracted affinity, they conspired against the Assyrians.\nNabopolassar being old, and Astyages dead, their sons Nebuchadnezzar and\nCyaxares led the armies of the two nations against Nineveh, slew Sarac,\ndestroyed the city, and shared the kingdom of the Assyrians. This\nvictory the Jews refer to the Chaldeans; the Greeks, to the Medes;\nTobit, xiv, 15, Polyhistor, and Ctesias, to both. With this victory\ncommenced the great successes of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares, and it\nlaid the foundation of the two collateral empires of the Babylonians and\nMedes, which were branches of the Assyrian empire; and hence the time of\nthe fall of the Assyrian empire is determined, the conquerors being then\nin their youth. In the reign of Josiah, when Zephaniah prophesied,\nNineveh and the kingdom of Assyria were standing; and their fall was\npredicted by that Prophet, Zeph. i, 3; ii, 13. And in the end of his\nreign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, the successor of Psammitichus, went\nup against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates, to fight against\nCarchemish, or Circutium; and in his way thither slew Josiah, 2 Kings\nxxiii, 29; 2 Chron. xxxv, 20; and therefore the last king of Assyria was\nnot yet slain. But in the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim, the\nsuccessor of Josiah, the two conquerors having taken Nineveh, and\nfinished their war in Assyria, prosecuted their conquests westward; and,\nleading their forces against the king of Egypt, as an invader of their\nright of conquest, they beat him at Carchemish, and took from him\nwhatever he had recently taken from the Assyrians, 2 Kings xxiv, 7; Jer.\nxlvi, 2; \u201cand therefore we cannot err,\u201d says Sir Isaac Newton, \u201cabove a\nyear or two, if we refer the destruction of Nineveh, and fall of the\nAssyrian empire, to the third year, of Jehoiakim,\u201d or the hundred and\nfortieth, or, according to Blair, the hundred and forty-first year of\nNabonassar; that is, the year B. C. 607.\n\nOf the government, laws, religion, learning, customs, &c, of the ancient\nAssyrians, nothing absolutely certain is recorded. Their kingdom was at\nfirst small, and subsisted for several ages under hereditary chiefs; and\ntheir government was simple. Afterward, when they rose to the sublimity\nof empire, their government seems to have been despotic, and the empire\nhereditary. Their laws were probably few, and depended upon the mere\nwill of the prince. To Ninus we may ascribe the division of the Assyrian\nempire into provinces and governments; for we find that this institution\nwas fully established in the reigns of Semiramis and her successors. The\npeople were distributed into a certain number of tribes; and their\noccupations or professions were hereditary. The Assyrians had several\ndistinct councils, and several tribunals for the regulation of public\naffairs. Of councils there were three, which were created by the body of\nthe people, and who governed the state in conjunction with the\nsovereign. The first consisted of officers who had retired from military\nemployments; the second, of the nobility; and the third, of the old men.\nThe sovereigns also had three tribunals, whose province it was to watch\nover the conduct of the people. The Assyrians have been competitors with\nthe Egyptians for the honour of having invented alphabetic writing. It\nappears, from the few remains now extant of the writing of these ancient\nnations, that their letters had a great affinity with each other. They\nmuch resembled one another in shape; and they ranged them in the same\nmanner, from right to left.\n\nASTROLOGY, the art of foretelling future events, from the aspects,\npositions, and influences of the heavenly bodies. The word is compounded\nof \u1f00\u03db\u1f74\u03c1 star, and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, discourse; whence, in the literal sense of the\nterm, astrology should signify no more than the doctrine or science of\nthe stars. Astrology judiciary, or judicial, is what we commonly call\nsimple astrology, or that which pretends to foretel mortal events, even\nthose which have a dependence on the free will and agency of man; as if\nthey were directed by the stars. This art, which owed its origin to the\npractice of knavery on credulity, is now universally exploded by the\nintelligent part of mankind. Judicial astrology is commonly said to have\nbeen invented in Chaldea, and thence transmitted to the Egyptians,\nGreeks, and Romans; though some will have it of Egyptian origin, and\nascribe the invention to Cham. But we derive it from the Arabians. The\nChaldeans, and the Egyptians, and indeed almost all the nations of\nantiquity, were infatuated with the chim\u00e6ras of astrology. It originated\nin the notion, that the stars have an influence, either beneficial or\nmalignant, upon the affairs of men, which may be discovered, and made\nthe ground of certain prediction, in particular cases; and the whole art\nconsisted in applying astronomical observations to this fanciful\npurpose. Diodorus Siculus relates, that the Chaldeans learned these arts\nfrom the Egyptians; and he would not have made this assertion, if there\nhad not been at least a general tradition that they were practised from\nthe earliest times in Egypt. The system was, in those remote ages,\nintimately connected with Sabaism, or the worship of the stars as\ndivinities; but whether it emanates from idolatry or fatality, it denies\nGod and his providence, and is therefore condemned in the Scriptures,\nand ranked with practices the most offensive and provoking to the Divine\nMajesty.\n\nASTYAGES, otherwise, Cyaxares, king of the Medes, and successor to\nPhraortes. He reigned forty years, and died A. M. 3409. He was father to\nAstyages, otherwise called Darius the Mede. He had two daughters,\nMandane and Amyit: Mandane married Cambyses, the Persian, and was the\nmother of Cyrus; Amyit married Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar,\nand was the mother of Evilmerodach.\n\nASTYAGES, otherwise called Ahasuerus in the Greek, Dan. ix, 1, or\nCyaxares in Xenophon, or Apandus in Ctesias, was appointed by his father\nCyaxares governor of Media, and sent with Nabopolassar, king of Babylon,\nagainst Saracus, otherwise called Chynaladanus, king of Assyria. These\ntwo princes besieged Saracus in Nineveh, took the city, and dismembered\nthe Assyrian empire. Astyages was with Cyrus at the conquest of Babylon,\nand succeeded Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, as is expressly\nmentioned in Daniel, v, 30, 31, A. M. 3447. After his death Cyrus\nsucceeded him, A. M. 3456.\n\nASUPPIM, a word which signifies gatherings, and the name of the treasury\nof the temple of Jerusalem, 1 Chron. xxvi, 15.\n\nATHALIAH, the daughter of Omri, king of Samaria, and wife to Jehoram,\nking of Judah. This princess, being informed that Jehu had slain her son\nAhaziah, resolved to take the government upon herself, 2 Kings xi; which\nthat she might effect without opposition, she destroyed all the children\nthat Jehoram had by other wives, and all their offspring. But Jehosheba,\nthe sister of Ahaziah, by the father\u2019s side only, was at this time\nmarried to Jehoiada, the high priest; and while Athaliah\u2019s executioners\nwere murdering the rest, she conveyed Joash the son of Ahaziah away, and\nkept him and his nurse concealed in an apartment of the temple, during\nsix years. In the seventh year, his uncle Jehoiada being determined to\nplace him on the throne of his ancestors, and procure the destruction of\nAthaliah, he engaged the priests and Levites, and the leading men in all\nthe parts of the kingdom in his interest, and in a public assembly\nproduced him, and made them take an oath of secrecy and fidelity to him.\nHe then distributed arms among the people, whom he divided into three\nbodies, one to guard the person of the king, and the other two to secure\nthe gates of the temple. After this, he brought out the young prince,\nset the crown on his head, put the book of the law into his hand, and\nwith sound of trumpet proclaimed him; which was seconded with the joyful\nshouts and acclamations of the people. Athaliah, hearing the noise, made\nall haste to the temple; but when, to her astonishment, she saw the\nyoung king seated on a throne, she rent her clothes and cried out,\n\u201cTreason!\u201d But, at the command of Jehoiada, the guards seized and\ncarried her out of the temple, putting all to the sword who offered to\nrescue or assist her; and then taking her to the stable gate belonging\nto the palace, there put her to death, A. M. 3126.\n\nATHANASIANS, the orthodox followers of St. Athanasius, the great and\nable antagonist of Arius. The Athanasian Creed, though generally\nadmitted not to be drawn up by this father, (but probably, as Doctor\nWaterland says, by Hilary, bishop of Arles, in the fifth century,) is\nuniversally allowed to contain a fair expression of his sentiments. This\ncreed says, \u201cThe Catholic faith is this: that we worship One God in\nTrinity, and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the persons, nor\ndividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another\nof the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the\nFather, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal,\nthe majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such\nis the Holy Ghost;\u201d namely, \u201cuncreate, incomprehensible, eternal,\u201d &c.\nThe true key to the Athanasian Creed lies in the knowledge of the errors\nto which it was opposed. The Sabellians considered the Father, Son, and\nHoly Spirit as one in person;--this was \u201cconfounding the persons:\u201d the\nArians considered them as differing in essence--three beings;--this was\n\u201cdividing the substance:\u201d and against these two hypotheses was the creed\noriginally framed. And since every sect was willing to adopt the\nlanguage of Scripture, it was thought necessary to adopt scholastic\nterms, in order to fix the sense of Scripture language. Many, however,\nhold the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, and approve its terms, who\nobject to its damnatory clauses. See ARIANS.\n\nATHANASIUS, the celebrated patriarch of Alexandria, resisted Arius and\nhis erroneous doctrines; and his sentiments as to the Trinity are\nembodied in the creed which bears his name, though not composed by him.\nAt the Council of Nice, though then but a deacon of Alexandria, his\nreputation for skill in controversy gained him an honourable place in\nthe council, and with great dexterity he exposed the sophistry of those\nwho pleaded on the side of Arius. Notwithstanding the influence of the\nemperor, who had recalled Arius from banishment, and upon a plausible\nconfession of his faith, in which he affected to be orthodox in his\nsentiments, directed that he should be received by the Alexandrian\nchurch, Athanasius refused to admit him to communion, and exposed his\nprevarication. The Arians upon this exerted themselves to raise tumults\nat Alexandria, and to injure the character of Athanasius with the\nemperor, who was prevailed upon to pronounce against him a sentence of\nbanishment. In the beginning of the reign of Constantius he was\nrecalled; but was again disturbed and deposed through the influence of\nthe Arians. Accusations were also sent against him and other bishops\nfrom the east to the west, but they were acquitted by Pope Julius in\nfull council. Athanasius was restored to his see upon the death of the\nArian bishop, who had been placed in it. Arianism, however, being in\nfavour at court, he was condemned by a council convened at Arles, and by\nanother at Milan, and was obliged to fly into the deserts. He returned\nwith the other bishops whom Julian the apostate recalled from\nbanishment, and in A. D. 362, held a council at Alexandria, where the\nbelief of a consubstantial Trinity was openly professed. Many now were\nrecovered from Arianism, and brought to subscribe the Nicene Creed.\nDuring the reign of Jovian also Athanasius held another council, which\ndeclared its adherence to the Nicene faith; and with the exception of a\nshort retirement under Valens he was permitted to sit down in quiet and\ngovern his affectionate church of Alexandria. Athanasius was an eminent\ninstrument of maintaining the truth in an age when errors affecting the\ngreat foundation of our faith were urged with great subtlety. He was by\nhis acuteness able to trace the enemy through his most insidious modes\nof attack; and thus to preserve the simple and unwary from being misled\nby terms and distinctions, which, whilst they sounded in unison with the\ntrue faith of the Gospel, did in fact imply, or at least open the door\nto, the most deadly errors. The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, as\nexplained by him, at length triumphed over the heresies which at one\ntime met with so much support and sanction; and the views of Athanasius\nhave been received, in substance, by all orthodox churches to the\npresent time.\n\nATHEIST, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not\nbelieve in the existence of a God, or who owns no being superior to\nnature. It is compounded of the two terms, \u03b1 negative, and \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, God,\nsignifying _without God_. Atheists have been also known by the name\ninfidels; but the word infidel is now commonly used to distinguish a\nmore numerous party, and is become almost synonymous with Deist. He who\ndisbelieves the existence of a God, as an infinite, intelligent, and a\nmoral agent, is a direct or speculative Atheist; he who confesses a\nDeity and providence in words, but denies them in his life and actions,\nis a practical Atheist. That Atheism existed in some sense before the\nflood, may be suspected from what we read in Scripture, as well as from\nHeathen tradition; and it is not very unreasonable to suppose, that the\ndeluge was partly intended to evince to the world a heavenly power, as\nLord of the universe, and superior to the visible system of nature. This\nwas at least a happy consequence of that fatal catastrophe; for, as it\nis observed by Dean Sherlock, \u201cThe universal deluge, and the confusion\nof languages, had so abundantly convinced mankind of a divine power and\nprovidence, that there was no such creature as an Atheist, till their\nridiculous idolatries had tempted some men of wit and thought, rather to\nown no God than such as the Heathens worshipped.\u201d\n\nAtheistical principles were long nourished and cherished in Greece, and\nespecially among the atomical, peripatetic, and skeptical philosophers;\nand hence some have ascribed the origin of Atheism to the philosophy of\nGreece. This is true, if they mean that species of refined Atheism,\nwhich contrives any impious scheme of principles to account for the\norigin of the world, without a divine being. For though there may have\nbeen in former ages, and in other countries, some persons irreligious in\nprinciple as well as in practice, yet we know of none who, forming a\nphilosophical scheme of impiety, became a sect, and erected colleges of\nAtheistical learning, till the arrogant and enterprising genius of\nGreece undertook that detestable work. Carrying their presumptuous and\nungoverned speculations into the very essence of the divinity, at first\nthey doubted, and at length denied, the existence of a first cause\nindependent of nature and of a providence that superintends its laws,\nand governs the concerns of mankind. These principles, with the other\nimprovements of Greece, were transferred to Rome; and, excepting in\nItaly, we hear little of Atheism, for many ages after the Christian \u00e6ra.\n\u201cFor some ages before the Reformation,\u201d says Archbishop Tillotson,\n\u201cAtheism was confined to Italy, and had its chief residence at Rome.\nBut, in this last age, Atheism has travelled over the Alps and infected\nFrance, and now of late it hath crossed the seas, and invaded our\nnation, and hath prevailed to amazement.\u201d However, to Tillotson, and\nother able writers, we owe its suppression in this country; for they\npressed it down with a weight of sound argument, from which it has never\nbeen able to raise itself. For although in our time, in France and\nGermany a subtle Atheism was revived, and spread its unhallowed and\ndestructive influence for many years throughout the Continent, it made\nbut little progress in this better-instructed nation.\n\nAtheism, in its primary sense, comprehends, or at least goes beyond,\nevery heresy in the world; for it professes to acknowledge no religion,\ntrue or false. The two leading hypotheses which have prevailed, among\nAtheists, respecting this world and its origin, are, that of Ocellus\nLucanus, adopted and improved by Aristotle, that it was eternal; and\nthat of Epicurus, that it was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms.\n\u201cThat the soul is material and mortal, Christianity an imposture, the\nScripture a forgery, the worship of God superstition, hell a fable, and\nheaven a dream, our life without providence, and our death without hope,\nlike that of asses and dogs, are part of the glorious gospel of our\nmodern Atheists.\u201d\n\nThe being of a God may be proved from the marks of design, and from the\norder and beauty visible in the world; from universal consent; from the\nrelation of cause and effect; from internal consciousness; and from the\nnecessity of a final as well as an efficient cause.\n\nOf all the false doctrines and foolish opinions that ever infested the\nmind of man, nothing can possibly equal that of Atheism, which is such a\nmonstrous contradiction of all evidence, to all the powers of\nunderstanding, and the dictates of common sense, that it may be well\nquestioned whether any man can really fall into it by a deliberate use\nof his judgment. All nature so clearly points out, and so loudly\nproclaims, a Creator of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, that\nwhoever hears not its voice, and sees not its proofs, may well be\nthought wilfully deaf, and obstinately blind. If it be evident,\nself-evident to every man of thought, that there can be no effect\nwithout a cause, what shall we say of that manifold combination of\neffects, that series of operations, that system of wonders, which fill\nthe universe, which present themselves to all our perceptions, and\nstrike our minds and our senses on every side? Every faculty, every\nobject of every faculty, demonstrates a Deity. The meanest insect we can\nsee, the minutest and most contemptible weed we can tread upon, is\nreally sufficient to confound Atheism, and baffle all its pretensions.\nHow much more that astonishing variety and multiplicity of God\u2019s works\nwith which we are continually surrounded! Let any man survey the face of\nthe earth, or lift up his eyes to the firmament; let him consider the\nnature and instincts of brute animals, and afterward look into the\noperations of his own mind, and will he presume to say or suppose that\nall the objects he meets with are nothing more than the result of\nunaccountable accidents and blind chance? Can he possibly conceive that\nsuch wonderful order should spring out of confusion? or that such\nperfect beauty should be ever formed by the fortuitous operations of\nunconscious, unactive particles of matter? As well, nay better, and more\neasily, might he suppose that an earthquake might happen to build towns\nand cities; or the materials carried down by a flood fit themselves up\nwithout hands into a regular fleet. For what are towns, cities, or\nfleets, in comparison of the vast and amazing fabric of the universe! In\nshort, Atheism offers such violence to all our faculties, that it seems\nscarce credible it should ever really find any place in the human\nunderstanding. Atheism is unreasonable, because it gives no tolerable\naccount of the existence of the world. This is one of the greatest\ndifficulties with which the Atheist has to contend. For he must suppose\neither that the world is eternal, or that it was formed by chance and a\nfortuitous concourse of the parts of matter. That the world had a\nbeginning, is evident from universal tradition, and the most ancient\nhistory that exists; from there being no memorials of any actions\nperformed previously to the time assigned in that history as the \u00e6ra of\nthe creation; from the origin of learning and arts, and the liability of\nthe parts of matter to decay. That the world was not produced by chance,\nis also evident. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to ascribe to\nchance an effect which appears with all the characters of a wise design\nand contrivance. Will chance fit means to ends, even in ten thousand\ninstances, and not fail in a single one? How often might a man, after\nshaking a set of letters in a bag, throw them on the ground, before they\nwould become an exact poem, or form a good discourse in prose? In short,\nthe arguments in proof of Deity are so numerous, and at the same time so\nobvious to a thinking mind, that to waste time in disputing with an\nAtheist, is approaching too much toward that irrationality, which may be\nconsidered as one of the most striking characteristics of the sect.\n\nThe more noted Atheist, since the Reformation, are Machiavel, Spinoza,\nHobbes, Blount, and Vanini. To these may be added Hume, and Voltaire the\ncorypheus of the sect, and the great nursing father of that swarm of\nthem which has appeared in these last days.\n\nDr. Samuel Clarke, in his \u201cDemonstration of the Being of a God,\u201d says,\nthat Atheism arises either from stupid ignorance, or from corruption of\nprinciples and manners, or from the reasonings of false philosophy; and\nhe adds, that the latter, who are the only Atheistical persons capable\nof being reasoned with at all, must of necessity own that, supposing it\ncannot be proved to be true, yet it is a thing very desirable, and which\nany wise man would wish to be true, for the great benefit and happiness\nof man, that there was a God, an intelligent and wise, a just and good\nBeing, to govern the world. Whatever hypothesis these men can possibly\nframe, whatever argument they can invent, by which they would exclude\nGod and providence out of the world; that very argument or hypothesis,\nwill of necessity lead them to this concession. If they argue, that our\nnotion of God arises not from nature and reason, but from the art and\ncontrivance of politicians; that argument itself forces them to confess,\nthat it is manifestly for the interest of human society, that it should\nbe believed there is a God. If they suppose that the world was made by\nchance, and is every moment subject to be destroyed by chance again; no\nman can be so absurd as to contend, that it is as comfortable and\ndesirable to live in such an uncertain state of things, and so\ncontinually liable to ruin, without any hope of renovation, as in a\nworld that is under the preservation and conduct of a powerful, wise,\nand good God. If they argue against the being of God, from the faults\nand defects which they imagine they can find in the frame and\nconstitution of the visible and material world; this supposition obliges\nthem to acknowledge that it would have been better the world had been\nmade by an intelligent and wise Being, who might have prevented all\nfaults and imperfections. If they argue against providence, from the\nfaultiness and inequality which they think they discover in the\nmanagement of the moral world; this is a plain confession, that it is a\nthing more fit and desirable in itself, that the world should be\ngoverned by a just and good Being, than by mere chance or unintelligent\nnecessity. Lastly, if they suppose the world to be eternally and\nnecessarily self-existent, and consequently that every thing in it is\nestablished by a blind and eternal fatality; no rational man can at the\nsame time deny, but that liberty and choice, or a free power of acting,\nis a more eligible state, than to be determined thus in all our actions,\nas a stone is to move, downward, by an absolute and inevitable fate. In\na word, which way soever they turn themselves, and whatever hypothesis\nthey make, concerning the original and frame of things, nothing is so\ncertain and undeniable, as that man, considered without the protection\nand conduct of a superior Being, is in a far worse case than upon\nsupposition of the being and government of God, and of men\u2019s being under\nhis peculiar conduct, protection, and favour.\n\nATHENS, a celebrated city of Greece, too well known to be here\ndescribed. St. Paul\u2019s celebrated sermon, Acts xvii, was preached on the\nAreopagus, or Hill of Mars, where a celebrated court was held which took\ncognizance of matters of religion, blasphemies against the gods, the\nbuilding of temples, &c. (See _Areopagus_.) The inscription on the\naltar, \u201cto the unknown God,\u201d which St. Paul so appropriately made the\ntext of his discourse, was adopted on the occasion of the city having\nbeen relieved from a pestilence; and they erected altars to \u201cthe God\nunknown,\u201d either as not knowing to which of their divinities they were\nindebted for the favour, or, which is more probable, because there was\nsomething in the circumstances of this deliverance, which led them to\nrefer it to a higher power than their own gods, even to the supreme God,\nwho was not unfrequently styled, the \u201cunknown,\u201d by the wiser Heathens.\nThe existence of such altars is expressly mentioned by Lucian. On the\nplace where the great Apostle bore his noble testimony against idols,\nand declared to them the God whom they ignorantly worshipped, Dr. E. D.\nClarke, the traveller, remarks, \u201cIt is not possible to conceive a\nsituation of greater peril, or one more calculated to prove the\nsincerity of a preacher, than that in which the Apostle was here placed;\nand the truth of this, perhaps, will never be better felt than by a\nspectator, who from this eminence actually beholds the monuments of\nPagan pomp and superstition by which he, whom the Athenians considered\nas the _setter forth of strange gods_, was then surrounded: representing\nto the imagination the disciples of Socrates and of Plato, the dogmatist\nof the porch, and the skeptic of the academy, addressed by a poor and\nlowly man, who, \u2018rude in speech,\u2019 without the \u2018enticing words of man\u2019s\nwisdom,\u2019 enjoined precepts contrary to their taste, and very hostile to\ntheir prejudices. One of the peculiar privileges of the Areopagit\u00e6 seems\nto have been set at defiance by the zeal of St. Paul on this occasion;\nnamely, that of inflicting extreme and exemplary punishment upon any\nperson who should slight the celebration of the holy mysteries, or\nblaspheme the gods of Greece. We ascended to the summit by means of\nsteps cut in the natural stone. The sublime scene here exhibited is so\nstriking, that a brief description of it may prove how truly it offers\nto us a commentary upon the Apostle\u2019s words, as they were delivered upon\nthe spot. He stood upon the top of the rock, and beneath the canopy of\nheaven. Before him there was spread a glorious prospect of mountains,\nislands, seas, and skies; behind him towered the lofty Acropolis,\ncrowned with all its marble temples. Thus every object, whether in the\nface of nature, or among the works of art, conspired to elevate the\nmind, and to fill it with reverence toward that Being who made and\ngoverns the world, Acts xvii, 24, 28; who sitteth in that light which no\nmortal eye can approach, and yet is nigh unto the meanest of his\ncreatures; in whom we live, and move, and have our being.\u201d\n\nATONEMENT, the satisfaction offered to divine justice by the death of\nChrist for the sins of mankind, by virtue of which all true penitents\nwho believe in Christ are personally reconciled to God, are freed from\nthe penalty of their sins, and entitled to eternal life. The atonement\nfor sin made by the death of Christ, is represented in the Christian\nsystem as the means by which mankind may be delivered from the awful\ncatastrophe of eternal death; from judicial inflictions of the\ndispleasure of a Governor, whose authority has been contemned, and whose\nwill has been resisted, which shall know no mitigation in their degree,\nnor bound to their duration. This end it professes to accomplish by\nmeans which, with respect to the Supreme Governor himself, preserve his\ncharacter from mistake, and maintain the authority of his government;\nand with respect to man, give him the strongest possible reason for\nhope, and render more favourable the condition of his earthly probation.\nThese are considerations which so manifestly show, from its own internal\nconstitution, the superlative importance and excellence of Christianity,\nthat it would be exceedingly criminal to overlook them.\n\nHow sin may be forgiven without leading to such misconceptions of the\ndivine character as would encourage disobedience, and thereby weaken the\ninfluence of the divine government, must be considered as a problem of\nvery difficult solution. A government which admitted no forgiveness,\nwould sink the guilty to despair; a government which never punishes\noffence, is a contradiction,--it cannot exist. Not to punish the guilty,\nis to dissolve authority; to punish without mercy, is to destroy, and\nwhere all are guilty, to make the destruction universal. That we cannot\nsin with impunity, is a matter determined. The Ruler of the world is not\ncareless of the conduct of his creatures; for that penal consequences\nare attached to the offence, is not a subject of argument, but is matter\nof fact evident by daily observation of the events and circumstances of\nthe present life. It is a principle therefore already laid down, that\nthe authority of God must be preserved; but it ought to be remarked,\nthat in that kind of administration which restrains evil by penalty, and\nencourages obedience by favour and hope, we and all moral creatures are\nthe interested parties, and not the divine Governor himself, whom,\nbecause of his independent and all-sufficient nature, our transgressions\ncannot injure. The reasons, therefore, which compel him to maintain his\nauthority do not terminate in himself. If he treats offenders with\nseverity, it is for our sake, and for the sake of the moral order of the\nuniverse, to which sin, if encouraged by a negligent administration, or\nby entire or frequent impunity, would be the source of endless disorder\nand misery; and if the granting of pardon to offence be strongly and\neven severely guarded, so that no less a satisfaction could be accepted\nthan the death of God\u2019s own Son, we are to refer this to the moral\nnecessity of the case as arising out of the general welfare of\naccountable creatures, liable to the deep evil of sin, and not to any\nreluctance on the part of our Maker to forgive, much less to any thing\nvindictive in his nature,--charges which have been most inconsiderately\nand unfairly said to be implied in the doctrine of Christ\u2019s vicarious\nsufferings. If it then be true, that the release of offending man from\nfuture punishment, and his restoration to the divine favour, ought, for\nthe interests of mankind themselves, and for the instruction and caution\nof other beings, to be so bestowed, that no license shall be given to\noffence;--that God himself, whilst he manifests his compassion, should\nnot appear less just, less holy, than he really is;--that his authority\nshould be felt to be as compelling, and that disobedience should as\ntruly, though not unconditionally, subject us to the deserved penalty,\nas though no hope of forgiveness had been exhibited;--we ask, On what\nscheme, save that which is developed in the New Testament, are these\nnecessary conditions provided for? Necessary they are, unless we contend\nfor a license and an impunity which shall annul all good government in\nthe universe, a point for which no reasonable man will contend; and if\nso, then we must allow that there is strong internal evidence of the\ntruth of the doctrine of Scripture, when it makes the offer of pardon\nconsequent only upon the securities we have before mentioned. If it be\nsaid, that sin may be pardoned in the exercise of the divine\nprerogative, the reply is, that if this prerogative were exercised\ntoward a part of mankind only, the passing by of the rest would be with\ndifficulty reconciled to the divine character; and if the benefit were\nextended to all, government would be at an end. This scheme of bringing\nmen within the exercise of a merciful prerogative, does not therefore\nmeet the obvious difficulty of the case; nor is it improved by confining\nthe act of grace only to repentant criminals. For in the immediate view\nof danger, what offender, surrounded with the wreck of former\nenjoyments, feeling the vanity of guilty pleasures, now past for ever,\nand beholding the approach of the delayed penal visitation, but would\nrepent? Were the principle of granting pardon to repentance to regulate\nhuman governments, every criminal would escape, and judicial forms would\nbecome a subject for ridicule. Nor is it recognised by the divine Being\nin his conduct to men in the present state, although in this world\npunishments are not final and absolute. Repentance does not restore\nhealth injured by intemperance; property, wasted by profusion; or\ncharacter, once stained by dishonourable practices. If repentance alone\ncould secure pardon, then all must be pardoned, and government\ndissolved, as in the case of forgiveness by the exercise of mere\nprerogative; but if an arbitrary selection be made, then different and\ndiscordant principles of government are introduced into the divine\nadministration, which is a derogatory supposition.\n\nThe question proposed abstractedly, How may mercy be extended to\noffending creatures, the subjects of the divine government, without\nencouraging vice, by lowering the righteous and holy character of God,\nand the authority of his government, in the maintenance of which the\nwhole universe of beings are interested? is, therefore, at once one of\nthe most important and one of the most difficult that can employ the\nhuman mind. None of the theories which have been opposed to Christianity\naffords a satisfactory solution of the problem. They assume principles\neither destructive of moral government, or which cannot, in the\ncircumstances of man, be acted upon. The only answer is found in the\nHoly Scriptures. They alone show, and, indeed, they alone profess to\nshow, how God may be \u201cjust,\u201d and yet the \u201cjustifier\u201d of the ungodly.\nOther schemes show how he may be merciful; but the difficulty does not\nlie there. The Gospel meets it, by declaring \u201cthe righteousness of God,\u201d\nat the same time that it proclaims his mercy. The voluntary sufferings\nof the Divine Son of God \u201cfor us,\u201d that is, in our room and stead,\nmagnify the justice of God; display his hatred to sin; proclaim \u201cthe\nexceeding sinfulness\u201d of transgression, by the deep and painful manner\nin which they were inflicted upon the Substitute; warn the persevering\noffender of the terribleness, as well as the certainty, of his\npunishment; and open the gates of salvation to every penitent. It is a\npart of the same divine plan also to engage the influence of the Holy\nSpirit, to awaken penitence in man, and to lead the wanderer back to\nhimself; to renew our fallen nature in righteousness, at the moment we\nare justified through faith, and to place us in circumstances in which\nwe may henceforth \u201cwalk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.\u201d All\nthe ends of government are here answered--no license is given to\noffence,--the moral law is unrepealed,--a day of judgment is still\nappointed,--future and eternal punishments still display their awful\nsanctions,--a new and singular display of the awful purity of the divine\ncharacter is afforded,--yet pardon is offered to all who seek it; and\nthe whole world may be saved.\n\nWith such evidence of suitableness to the case of mankind, under such\nlofty views of connection with the principles and ends of moral\ngovernment, does the doctrine of the atonement present itself. But other\nimportant considerations are not wanting to mark the united wisdom and\ngoodness of that method of extending mercy to the guilty, which\nChristianity teaches us to have been actually and exclusively adopted.\nIt is rendered, indeed, \u201cworthy of all acceptation,\u201d by the circumstance\nof its meeting the difficulties we have just dwelt upon,--difficulties\nwhich could not otherwise have failed to make a gloomy impression upon\nevery offender awakened to a sense of his spiritual danger; but it must\nbe very inattentively considered, if it does not farther commend itself\nto us, by not only removing the apprehensions we might feel as to the\nseverity of the divine Lawgiver, but as exalting him in our esteem as\n\u201cthe righteous Lord, who loveth righteousness,\u201d who surrendered his\nbeloved Son to suffering and death, that the influence of moral goodness\nmight not be weakened in the hearts of his creatures; and as a God of\nlove, affording in this instance a view of the tenderness and benignity\nof his nature infinitely more impressive and affecting than any abstract\ndescription could convey, or than any act of creating and providential\npower and grace could exhibit, and, therefore, most suitable to subdue\nthat enmity which had unnaturally grown up in the hearts of his\ncreatures, and which, when corrupt, they so easily transfer from a law\nwhich restrains their inclination to the Lawgiver himself. If it be\nimportant to us to know the extent and reality of our danger, by the\ndeath of Christ it is displayed, not in description, but in the most\nimpressive action; if it be important that we should have an assurance\nof the divine placability toward us, it here receives a demonstration\nincapable of being heightened; if gratitude be the most powerful motive\nof future obedience, and one which renders command on the one part, and\nactive service on the other, \u201cnot grievous but joyous,\u201d the recollection\nof such obligations as those which the \u201clove of Christ\u201d has laid us\nunder, is a perpetual spring to this energetic affection, and will be\nthe means of raising it to higher and more delightful activity for ever.\nAll that can most powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and awful\nmajesty of God, and the odiousness of sin; all that can win back the\nheart of man to his Maker and Lord, and render future obedience a matter\nof affection and delight as well as duty; all that can extinguish the\nangry and malignant passions of man to man; all that can inspire a\nmutual benevolence, and dispose to a self-denying charity for the\nbenefit of others; all that can arouse by hope, or tranquillize by\nfaith; is to be found in the vicarious death of Christ, and the\nprinciples and purposes for which it was endured.\n\nThe first declaration, on this subject, after the appearance of Christ,\nis that of John the Baptist, when he saw Jesus coming unto him, \u201cBehold\nthe Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;\u201d where it is\nobvious, that when John called our Lord, \u201cthe Lamb of God,\u201d he spoke of\nhim under a sacrificial character, and of the effect of that sacrifice\nas an atonement for the sins of mankind. This was said of our Lord, even\nbefore he entered on his public office; but if any doubt should exist\nrespecting the meaning of the Baptist\u2019s expression, it is removed by\nother passages, in which a similar allusion is adopted, and in which it\nis specifically applied to the death of Christ, as an atonement for sin.\nIn the Acts of the Apostles, the following words of Isaiah are, by\nPhilip the evangelist, distinctly applied to Christ, and to his death:\n\u201cHe was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his\nshearer, so opened he not his mouth. in his humiliation his judgment was\ntaken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken\nfrom the earth.\u201d This particular part of the prophecy being applied to\nour Lord\u2019s death, the whole must relate to the same subject; for it is\nundoubtedly one entire prophecy, and the other expressions in it are\nstill stronger: \u201cHe was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised\nfor our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with\nhis stripes we are healed: the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us\nall.\u201d In the First Epistle of Peter, is also a strong and very apposite\ntext, in which the application of the term \u201clamb\u201d to our Lord, and the\nsense in which it is applied, can admit of no doubt: \u201cForasmuch as ye\nknow that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the\nprecious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without\nspot,\u201d 1 Peter i, 18, 19. It is therefore evident that the Prophet\nIsaiah, six hundred years before the birth of Jesus; that John the\nBaptist, on the commencement of his ministry; and that St. Peter, his\nfriend, companion and Apostle, subsequent to the transaction; speak of\nChrist\u2019s death as an atonement for sin, under the figure of a lamb\nsacrificed.\n\nThe passages that follow, plainly and distinctly declare the atoning\nefficacy of Christ\u2019s death: \u201cNow once in the end of the world hath he\nappeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.\u201d \u201cChrist was once\noffered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall\nhe appear the second time without sin unto salvation,\u201d Heb. ix, 26, 28.\n\u201cThis man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down\non the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever\nthem that are sanctified,\u201d Heb. x, 12. It is observable, that nothing\nsimilar is said of the death of any other person, and that no such\nefficacy is imputed to any other martyrdom. \u201cWhile we were yet sinners\nChrist died for us; much more then, being now justified by his blood, we\nshall be saved from wrath through him: for if, when we were enemies, we\nwere reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being\nreconciled, we shall be saved by his life,\u201d Rom. v, 8\u201310. The words,\n\u201creconciled to God by the death of his Son,\u201d show that his death had an\nefficacy in our reconciliation; but reconciliation is only preparatory\nto salvation. \u201cHe has reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in\nthe body of his flesh through death,\u201d Col. i, 20, 22. What is said of\nreconciliation in these texts, is in some others spoken of\nsanctification, which is also preparatory to salvation. \u201cWe are\nsanctified,\u201d--how? \u201cby the offering of the body of Christ once for all,\u201d\nHeb. x, 10. In the same epistle, the blood of Jesus is called \u201cthe blood\nof the covenant by which we are sanctified.\u201d In these and many other\npassages that occur in different parts of the New Testament, it is\ntherefore asserted that the death of Christ had an efficacy in the\nprocuring of human salvation. Such expressions are used concerning no\nother person, and the death of no other person; and it is therefore\nevident, that Christ\u2019s death included something more than a confirmation\nof his preaching; something more than a pattern of a holy and patient\nmartyrdom; something more than a necessary antecedent to his\nresurrection, by which he gave a grand and clear proof of our\nresurrection from the dead. Christ\u2019s death was all these, but it was\nsomething more. It was an atonement for the sins of mankind; and in this\nway only it became the accomplishment of our eternal redemption. See DAY\nOF EXPIATION.\n\nAUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German princes\nwas convened by the emperor Charles V, to meet at Augsburgh, for the\nexpress purpose of composing the religious troubles which then\ndistracted Germany. On this occasion Melancthon was employed to draw up\nthis famous confession of faith which may be considered as the creed of\nthe German reformers, especially of the more temperate among them. It\nconsisted of twenty-one articles, including the following points:--The\nTrinity, original sin, the incarnation, justification by faith, the word\nand sacraments, necessity of good works, the perpetuity of the church,\ninfant baptism, the Lord\u2019s Supper, repentance and confession, the proper\nuse of the sacraments, church order, rites and ceremonies, the\nmagistracy, a future judgment, free will, the worship of saints, &c. It\nthen proceeds to state the abuses of which the reformers chiefly\ncomplained, as the denial of the sacramental cup to the laity, the\ncelibacy of the clergy, the mass, auricular confession, forced\nabstinence from meats, monastic vows, and the enormous power of the\nchurch of Rome. The confession was read at a full meeting of the diet,\nand signed by the elector of Saxony, and three other princes of the\nGerman empire.\n\nJohn Faber, afterward archbishop of Vienna, and two other Catholic\ndivines, were employed to draw up an answer to this confession, which\nwas replied to by Melancthon in his \u201cApology for the Augsburgh\nConfession\u201d in 1531. This confession and defence; the articles of\nSmalcald, drawn up by Luther; his catechisms, &c, form the symbolical\nbooks of the Lutheran church; and it must be owned that they contain\nconcessions in favour of some parts of popery, particularly the real\npresence, that few Protestants in this country would admit.\n\nAUGUSTINE, or, as he is sometimes called in the court style of the\nmiddle ages, ST. AUSTIN, one of the ancient fathers of the church, whose\nwritings for many centuries had almost as potent an influence on the\nreligious opinions of Christendom as those of Aristotle exercised over\nphilosophy. Indeed, it has often been mentioned as a fact, with\nexpressions of regret, that the writings of no man, those of the\nStagirite excepted, contributed more than those of St. Augustine to\nencourage that spirit of subtle disquisition which subsequently\ndistinguished the era of the Schoolmen. He was born, November 13th, A.\nD. 354, at Tagasta, an episcopal city of Numidia in Africa. His parents,\nPatricius and Monica, were Christians of respectable rank in life, who\nafforded their son all the means of instruction which his excellent\ngenius and wonderful aptitude for learning seemed to require. He studied\ngrammar and rhetoric at Madura, until he was sixteen years old; and\nafterward removed to Carthage, to complete his studies. In both these\ncities, in all the fervour of unregenerate youth, he entered eagerly\ninto the seducing scenes of dissipation and folly with which he was\nsurrounded, and became not only depraved but infamous in his conduct. In\nthis respect he was not improved by his subsequent connection with the\nManichees, whose unhallowed principles afforded an excuse for his\nimmorality, and threw a veil over the vilest of his actions. The\nsimplicity and minuteness with which he has narrated the numerous\nincidents of his childhood, youth, and mature age, in his celebrated\nbook of \u201cConfessions,\u201d have afforded abundant matter of ridicule to the\nprofane and infidel wits of this and the last age. The reflections,\nhowever, which accompany his narrative, are generally important and\njudicious, and furnish to the moral philosopher copious materials for a\nhistory of the varieties of the human heart, and are of superior value\nto the humble Christian for the investigation and better knowledge of\nhis own. With a strange though not uncommon inconsistency, few books\nhave been more frequently quoted as authority on matters relating to\ngeneral literature and philosophy by infidels themselves, than St.\nAugustine\u2019s otherwise despised \u201cConfessions,\u201d and his \u201cCity of God.\u201d\nBut, whatever else is taught in this remarkable piece of autobiography,\nevery pious reader will be delighted with the additional proofs which it\ncontains of the ultimate prevalence of faithful prayer, especially on\nthe part of Christian parents. Monica\u2019s importunate prayers to heaven\nfollowed the aberrations of her graceless son,--when he settled at\nCarthage as a teacher of rhetoric; when he removed to Rome, and lodged\nwith a Manichee;--and when he finally settled at Milan as professor of\nrhetoric. St. Ambrose was at that time, A. D. 384, bishop of Milan, and\nto his public discourses Augustine began to pay much attention. His\nheart became gradually prepared for the reception of divine truth, and\nfor that important change of heart and principles which constitutes\n\u201cconversion.\u201d The circumstances attending this change, though often\nrelated, are not unworthy of being repeated, if only to show that the\nmode of the Holy Spirit\u2019s operations was in substance the same in those\nearly days as they are now; and time was when some of the soundest\ndivines and most worthy dignitaries of the church of England were in the\nhabit of referring with approbation to this well attested instance of\nchange of heart. One of his Christian countrymen, Pontinius, who held a\nhigh situation at court, having perceived a copy of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles\nlying on the table, entered one day into conversation with him and his\nfriend Alipius about the nature of faith and the happiness of those who\nlived in the enjoyment of religion. Augustine was deeply affected at the\nclose of this visit; and when Pontinius had retired, giving vent to his\nfeelings he addressed Alipius in a most animated strain: \u201cHow is this?\nWhat shall we do? Ignorant people come, and seize upon heaven; and we,\nwith our learning, (senseless wretches that we are!) behold we are\nimmersed in flesh and blood! Are we ashamed to follow them? Yet is it\nnot a still greater shame, not even to be able to follow them?\u201d Full of\nremorse and contrition Augustine left the house and retired to a secret\npart of the garden, followed by his friend, who seemed on this occasion\nto be a partaker of his grief only because he saw him grieved in spirit.\nUnwilling to unman himself, as he accounted it, before Alipius, he left\nhim; and throwing himself down under the branches of a large fig tree he\npoured out a torrent of tears which he was unable any longer to\nrestrain, and exclaimed in bitterness of soul, \u201cWhen, O Lord, when will\nthy anger cease? Why tomorrow? Why not at this time?\u201d He instantly heard\nwhat he considered to be the voice of a child, saying _Tolle, lege_,\n\u201cTake and read.\u201d These two Latin words were repeated several times;\nAugustine reflected upon them, checked his tears, received them as the\nvoice of God, and running into the house, opened, according to the\ndivine direction, the Epistles of St. Paul which he had left on the\ntable, and attentively read the first passage which he found. It was\nRomans xiii, 13, 14; a passage peculiarly applicable to him, in\nreference to his former habits and present state of mind: \u201cNot in\nrioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife\nand envying: but put ye on THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, and make not provision\nfor the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.\u201d He shut up the book, and was\namazed that all his doubts and fears had vanished. Alipius was speedily\ninformed of this wonderful change in his feelings and views; and after\nhaving desired to see the two verses, in the spirit of a true seeker he\npointed out to Augustine the passage which immediately follows, and\nwhich he considered as peculiarly adapted to his own case: \u201cHim that is\nweak in the faith receive ye,\u201d &c, Rom. xiv, 1. The two friends then ran\nto acquaint Monica with these circumstances, the knowledge of which\ntransported her with joy.\n\nIn a frame of mind not unfamiliar to those who have themselves had \u201cmuch\nforgiven,\u201d Augustine wished to retire at once from so wicked a world as\nthat in which he had passed the first thirty-two years of his dissolute\nlife. His secession, however, was only a temporary one; for he and\nAlipius were, a few months afterward, received by baptism into the\nChristian church. After having composed several religious treatises in\nhis retreat near Tagasta, especially against the errors of the\nManichees, from which he had been so recently reclaimed, he was, in the\nyear 392, ordained priest by Valerius, bishop of Hippo, now a part of\nthe Barbary States on the coast of Africa. He there held a public\ndisputation with Fortunatus, a celebrated priest among the Manichees,\nand acquitted himself with great spirit and success, he also wrote and\npreached largely and to great effect against the Donatists and\nManichees. His reputation as a divine increased; and he was, at the\nclose of the year 395, ordained bishop of Hippo, in which high station\nhe continued with great advantage to wage war against various orders of\nheretics.\n\nAugustine had hitherto directed his theological artillery principally\nagainst the predestinarian errors of the Manichees; but he was soon\ncalled upon to change his weapons and his mode of warfare, in attacking\na new and not less dangerous class of heretics. In the year 412 he began\nto write against the injurious doctrines of Pelagias, a native of\nBritain, who had resided for a considerable time at Rome, and acquired\nuniversal esteem by the purity of his manners, his piety, and his\nerudition. Alarmed at the consequences which seemed to him obviously to\nresult from allowing that Adam\u2019s sin is transmitted to all his\nposterity, and fortified in his sentiments on this subject by those of\nOrigen and Ruffinus, with the latter of whom he had associated, he\nboldly denied tenets which he did not believe. In the defence of his\nopinions, Pelagius, was seconded by Celestius, a man equally eminent for\nhis talents and his virtues. Their principles were propagated at first\nrather by hints and intimations, than by open avowal and plain\ndeclarations; but this reserve was laid aside when they perceived the\nready reception which their doctrines obtained; and Celestius began\nzealously to disseminate them in Africa, while Pelagius sowed the same\ntares in Palestine, whence they were speedily transplanted to almost\nevery corner of Christendom. If the brief notices, which have come down\nto us respecting their tenets, in the writings of their adversaries, be\ncorrect, they affirmed, \u201cIt is not _free_ will if it requires the aid of\nGod; because every one has it within the power of his own will to do any\nthing, or not to do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from\nthe help which God affords, but is owing to our own free will. The\nprayers which the church offers up either for the conversion of\nunbelievers and other sinners, or for the perseverance of believers, are\npoured forth in vain. The unrestricted capability of men\u2019s own free will\nis amply sufficient for all these things, and therefore no necessity\nexists for asking of God those things which we are able of ourselves to\nobtain; the gifts of grace being only necessary to enable men to do that\nmore easily and completely which yet they could do themselves though\nmore slowly and with greater difficulty; and that they are perfectly\nfree creatures,\u201d in opposition to all the current notions of\npredestination and reprobation. These novel opinions were refuted by St.\nAugustine and St. Jerom, as well as by Orosius a Spanish presbyter, and\nthey were condemned as heresies in the council of Carthage and in that\nof Milevum. The discussions which then arose have been warmly agitated\nin various subsequent periods of the Christian church, though little new\nlight has been thrown upon them from that age to the present. In his\neagerness to confute these opponents St. Augustine employed language so\nstrong as made it susceptible of an interpretation wholly at variance\nwith the accountability of man. This led to farther explanations and\nmodifications of his sentiments, which were multiplied when the\nSemi-Pelagians arose, who thought that the truth lay between his\ndoctrines and those of the Pelagians. Concerning original sin, he\nmaintained that it was derived from our first parents; and he believed\nhe had ascertained in what the original sin conveyed by Adam to his\nposterity consisted. In his sentiments, however, upon the latter point\nhe was rather inconsistent, at one time asserting that the essence of\noriginal sin was concupiscence, and at another expressing doubts\nrespecting his own position. This subject was bequeathed as a legacy to\nthe schoolmen of a subsequent age, who exercised their subtle wits upon\nall its ramifications down to the period of the council of Trent. On the\nconsequences of the fall of our first parents, St. Augustine taught that\nby it human nature was totally corrupted, and deprived of all\ninclination and ability to do good. Before the age in which he lived,\nthe early fathers held what, in the language of systematic theology, is\ntermed the synergestic system, or the needfulness of human co\u00f6peration\nin the works of holiness; but though the freedom of the will was not\nconsidered by them as excluding or rendering unnecessary the grace of\nGod, yet much vagueness is perceptible in the manner in which they\nexpress themselves, because they had not examined the subject with the\nsame attention as the theologians by whom they were succeeded. Those\nearly divines generally used the language of Scripture, the fertile\ninvention of controversial writers, not having as yet displayed itself,\nexcept on the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and subsidiary terms and\nlearned distinctions not being then required by any great differences of\nopinion. But as soon as Pelagius broached his errors, the attention of\nChristians was naturally turned to the investigation of the doctrine of\ngrace. The opinions of St. Augustine on this subject, which soon became\nthose of the great body of the Christian church, admitted the necessity\nof divine grace, or the influence of the Holy Spirit, for our obedience\nto the law of God. He ascribed the renovation of our moral constitution\nwholly to this grace, denied all co\u00f6peration of man with it for\nanswering the end to be accomplished, and represented it as\nirresistible. He farther affirmed that it was given only to a certain\nportion of the human race, to those who showed the fruits of it in their\nsanctification, and that it secured the perseverance of all upon whom it\nwas bestowed. Plaifere in his \u201c_Appello Evangelium_\u201d has given the\nfollowing as the substance of that opinion of the order of\npredestination of which \u201cmany do say that St. Austin was the first\nauthor: 1. That God from all eternity decreed to create mankind holy and\ngood. 2. That he foresaw man, being tempted by Satan, would fall into\nsin, if God did not hinder it; he decreed not to hinder. 3. That out of\nmankind, seen fallen into sin and misery, he chose a certain number to\nraise to righteousness and to eternal life, and rejected the rest,\nleaving them in their sins. 4. That for these his chosen he decreed to\nsend his Son to redeem them, and his Spirit to call them and sanctify\nthem; the rest he decreed to forsake, leaving them to Satan and\nthemselves, and to punish them for their sins.\u201d\n\nAfter St. Augustine had thus in a great degree new moulded the science\nof theology, and had combined with it as an essential part of divine\ntruth, that the fate of mankind was determined by the divine decree\nindependently of their own efforts and conduct, and that they were thus\ndivided into the elect and reprobate, it became necessary, in order to\npreserve consistency, to introduce into his system a limitation with\nrespect to baptism, and to prevent the opinions concerning it from\ninterfering with those which flowed from the doctrine of predestination.\nHe accordingly taught, that baptism brings with it the forgiveness of\nsins; that it is so essential, that the omission of it will expose us to\ncondemnation; and that it is attended with regeneration. He also\naffirmed that the virtue of baptism is not in the water; that the\nministers of Christ perform the external ceremony, but that Christ\naccompanies it with invisible grace; that baptism is common to all,\nwhilst, grace is not so; and that the same external rite may be death to\nsome, and life to others. By this distinction he rids himself of the\ndifficulty which would have pressed upon his scheme of theology, had\npardon, regeneration, and salvation been _necessarily_ connected with\nthe outward ordinance of baptism; and limits its proper efficacy to\nthose who are comprehended, as the heirs of eternal life, in the decree\nof the Almighty. Many, however, of those who strictly adhere to him in\nother parts of his doctrinal system, desert him at this point. Bishop\nBedell speaks thus in disparagement of his baptismal views, in a letter\nto Dr. Ward: \u201cThis I do yield to my Lord of Sarum most willingly, that\nthe justification, sanctification, and adoption which children have in\nbaptism, is not _univoc\u00e8_ [univocally] the same with that which _adulti_\n[adults] have. I think the emphatical speeches of Augustine against the\nPelagians, and of Prosper, are not so much to be regarded (who say the\nlike of the eucharist also) touching the necessity and efficacy in the\ncase of infants; and they are very like the speeches of Lanfranc and\nGuitmund of Christ\u2019s presence in the sacrament, opposing _veracit\u00e9r_,\n[truly] and _ver\u00e9_ [truly] to _sacramentalit\u00e9r_; [sacramentally;] which\nis a false and absurd contraposition. The opinion of the Franciscans out\nof Scotus and Bernard, mentioned in the council of Trent, seems to be\nthe true opinion; for they make the sacraments to be effectual, \u2018because\nGod gives them _effectus regularit\u00e9r concomitantes_,\u2019 [regularly\naccompanying effects,] and to contain grace no otherwise than as an\neffectual sign; and that grace is received by them as an investiture by\na ring or staff, which is _obsignando_, [by signation.] Consider that if\nyou will aver, that baptism washes away otherwise than sacramentally,\nthat is, obsignatorily, original sin; yet you must allow that manner of\nwashing for future actual sins; and you must make two sorts of\njustification, one for children, another for _adulti_; [adults;] and\n(which passes all the rest) you must find some promise in God\u2019s covenant\nwherein he binds himself to wash away sin without faith or repentance.\nBy this doctrine, you must also maintain that children do spiritually\neat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, if they receive the\neucharist, as for ages they did, and by the analogy of the passover they\nmay; and sith [if] the use of this sacrament _toties quoties_ [as often\nas it is used] must needs confer grace, it seems it were necessary to\nlet them communicate, and the oftener the better, to the intent they\nmight be stronger in grace: which opinion, though St. Austin and many\nmore of the ancients do maintain, I believe you will not easily\ncondescend unto, or that children dying without baptism are damned.\u201d\nThese remarks are important, as proceeding from the pen of the personal\nfriend of Father Paul, who wrote the History of the council of Trent.\n\nIn the various discussions which have arisen concerning predestination\nand the doctrines with which it is connected, some modern divines have\nquoted the arguments of St. Augustine against the Manichees, and others\nthose which he employed against the Pelagians, according to the\ndiscordant views which the combatants severally entertain on these\ncontroverted points. One of them has thus expressed himself, in his\nendeavour to reconcile St Augustine with himself:--\u201cThe heresy of\nPelagius being suppressed, the catholic doctrine in that point became\nmore settled and confirmed by the opposition; such freedom being left to\nthe will of man, as was subservient unto grace, co\u00f6perating in some\nmeasure with those heavenly influences. And so much is confessed by St.\nAugustine himself, where he asks this question, \u2018Doth any man affirm\nthat free will is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam?\u2019 And\nthereunto he makes this answer: \u2018Freedom is perished by sin; but it is\nthat freedom only which we had in paradise, of having perfect\nrighteousness with immortality.\u2019 For, otherwise, it appears to be his\nopinion, that man was not merely passive in all the acts of grace which\nconduced to glory, according to the memorable saying of his, so common\nin the mouths of all men, \u2018He who first made us without our help will\nnot vouchsafe to save us at last without our concurrence.\u2019 If any\nharsher expressions have escaped his pen, (as commonly it happeneth in\nthe heats of a disputation,) they are to be qualified by this last rule,\nand by that before, in which it was affirmed, that \u2018God could not with\njustice judge and condemn the world, if all men\u2019s sins proceeded not\nfrom their own free will, but from some overruling providence which\ninforced them to it.\u2018\u201d Another admirer of this father offers the\nfollowing as an attempt at reconciliation: \u201cSt. Augustine denied that\nthe co\u00f6peration of man is at all exerted to produce the renewal of our\nnature; but, when the renewal had been produced, he admitted that there\nwas an exercise of the will combined with the workings of grace. In the\ntenth chapter of his work against the Manich\u00e6ans, the bishop of Hippo\nthus expresses himself: \u2018Who is it that will not exclaim, _How foolish\nit is to deliver precepts to that man who is not at liberty to perform\nwhat is commanded! And how unjust it is to condemn him who had not power\nto fulfil the commands!_ Yet these unhappy persons [the Manichees] do\nnot perceive that they are ascribing such injustice and want of equity\nto God. But what greater truth is there than this, that God has\ndelivered precepts, and that human spirits have freedom of will?\u2018\nElsewhere he says, \u2018Nothing is more within our power than our own will.\nThe will is that by which we commit sin, and by which we live\nrighteously.\u2019 Nothing can be plainer than that the writer of these\npassages admitted the liberty of the human will, and the necessity of\nour own exertions in conjunction with divine grace. How this is to be\nreconciled with his general doctrine, is perhaps indicated in the\nfollowing passage from his book _De Grati\u00e2 et lib. Arbitrio, c. 17_.\nSpeaking of grace he says, \u2018That we may _will_ God _works_ without us;\nbut when we _will_, and so _will_ as to _do_, he _co-works_ with us; yet\nunless he either _works_ that we may will, or _co-works_ when we do\nwill, we are utterly incapable of doing any thing in the good works of\npiety.\u2019\u201d These are but very slight specimens of the mode in which\nlearned and ingenious men have tried to give a kind of symmetrical\nproportion to this father\u2019s doctrinal system. Several large treatises\nhave been published with the same praiseworthy intention; the pious\nauthors of them either entirely forgetting, or having never read, the\nrather latitudinarian indulgence of opinion which St. Augustine claims\nfor himself in his \u201cRetractations,\u201d in which he has qualified the\nharshness of his previous assertions on many subjects. If, however, an\nestimate may be formed of what this father intended in his various\npacifacatory doctrinal explanations from what he has actually admitted\nand expressed, it may be safely affirmed that no systematic writer of\ntheology seems so completely to have entered into the last and best\nviews of the bishop of Hippo, or so nearly reconciled the apparent\ndiscordances in them, as Arminius has done; and few other authors have\nrendered more ample justice to his sentiments, talents, and character,\nthan the famous Dutch Professor.\n\nMany were the theological labours to which he was invited by the most\neminent of his contemporaries; and hastily as some of his lucubrations\nwere executed, it is not surprising that among two hundred and\nseventy-two treatises on different subjects, some are of inferior value\nand unworthy of the fame which he had acquired in the church. After a\nlife of various changes, and of a mixed character, he died A. D. 430, in\nthe seventy-sixth year of his age; having been harassed at the close of\nlife by seeing his country invaded by the Vandals, and the city of which\nhe was the bishop besieged. Though those barbarians took Hippo and\nburned it, they saved his library, which contained his voluminous\nwritings.\n\nSt. Augustine was a diligent man in the sacred calling; and that the\noffice of a bishop even in that age of the church was no sinecure, is\nevident from several notices in his letters. At the close of one\naddressed to Marcellinus he gives the subjoined account: \u201cIf I were able\nto give you a narrative of the manner in which I spend my time, you\nwould be both surprised and distressed on account of the great number of\naffairs which oppress me without my being able to suspend them. For when\nsome little leisure is allowed me by those who daily attend upon me\nabout business, and who are so urgent with me that I can neither shun\nthem nor ought to despise them, I have always some other writings to\ncompose, which indeed ought to be preferred, [to those which Marcellinus\nrequested,] because the present juncture will not permit them to be\npostponed. For the rule of charity is, not to consider the greatness of\nthe friendship, but the necessity of the affair. Thus I have continually\nsomething or other to compose which diverts me from writing what would\nbe more agreeable to my inclinations, daring the little intervals in\nthat multiplicity of business with which I am burdened either through\nthe wants or the passions of others.\u201d He frequently complains of this\noppressive weight of occupation in which his love of his flock had\nengaged him, by obeying the Apostolical precept, which forbids\nChristians from going to law before Pagan tribunals. In reference to\nthis employment his biographer, Posidonius, says: \u201cAt the desire of\nChristians, or of men belonging to any sect whatever, he would hear\ncauses with patience and attention, sometimes till the usual hour of\neating, and sometimes the whole day without eating at all, observing the\ndispositions of the parties, and how much they advanced or decreased in\nfaith and good works; and when he had opportunity he instructed them in\nthe law of God, and gave them suitable advice, requiring nothing of them\nexcept Christian obedience. He sometimes wrote letters, when desired, on\ntemporal subjects; but looked upon all this as unprofitable occupation,\nwhich drew him aside from that which was better and more agreeable to\nhimself.\u201d\n\nThe character of this eminent father has been much misrepresented both\nas a man and as a writer. Whoever looks into his writings for accurate\nand enlarged views of Christian doctrine, looks for that which could not\nbe expected in the very infancy of Biblical criticism. He was a\nrhetorician by profession, and the degenerate taste of that age must be\nblamed, rather than the individual who wrote in the style which then\nprevailed. The learning of St. Augustine, and particularly his knowledge\nof Greek, have been disputed; and hence the importance of his Biblical\ncriticisms has been depreciated. In the account of the early part of his\nlife he confesses his great aversion to the study of that language; and\nas he tells us, in his maturer age, that he read the Platonists in a\nLatin version, it has perhaps been too hastily concluded that he never\nmade any great proficiency in it. But though it be allowed that his\ncomments on Scripture consist chiefly of popular reflections, spiritual\nand moral, or allegorical and mystical perversions of the literal\nmeaning; yet the works of this father are not wholly destitute of\nremarks and critical interpretations, that are pertinent and judicious:\nto such, after a series of extracts from his writings, Dr. Lardner has\nreferred his readers. With regard to his knowledge of Greek, this\nimpartial and candid author is of opinion, that he understood that\nlanguage better than some have supposed; and he has cited several\npassages from which it may be perceived, that St. Augustine frequently\ncompared his copies of the Latin version with those of the Greek\noriginal. Le Clerc himself allows that he sometimes explains Greek words\nand phrases in a very felicitous manner. Indeed, the commencement of his\ncorrespondence with St. Jerom proves him to have been no contemptible\ncritic. In this he besought him, in the name of all the African\nchurches, to apply himself to the translation into Latin of the Greek\ninterpreters of Scripture, rather than to enter upon a new translation\nfrom the original Hebrew; and to point out those passages in which the\nHebrew differed from the Septuagint, as he had previously done in the\nbook of Job. Voltaire and other profane wits have, in the exercise of\ntheir buffoonery, impeached his moral conduct; but their charges, when\nimpartially examined, will be seen to be founded in ignorance or in\nmalice. They resemble those which the same parties prefer against\nProphets, Apostles, and against Christ himself. Mosheim observes that\nAugustine\u2019s high reputation filled the Christian world; and \u201cnot without\nreason, as a variety of great and shining qualities were united in the\ncharacter of that illustrious man. A sublime genius, an uninterrupted\nand zealous pursuit of truth, an indefatigable application, an\ninvincible patience, a sincere piety, and a subtle and lively wit,\nconspired to establish his fame upon the most lasting foundations.\u201d Such\na testimony as this far outweighs the vituperative remarks and petty\nsneers of a thousand infidels. See PELAGIANS and SYNODS.\n\nAUGUSTUS, emperor of Rome, and successor of Julius C\u00e6sar. The battle of\nActium, which he fought with Mark Antony, and which made him master of\nthe empire, happened fifteen years before the birth of Christ. This is\nthe emperor who appointed the enrolment mentioned Luke ii, 1, which\nobliged Joseph and the Virgin Mary to go to Bethlehem, the place where\nJesus Christ was born. Augustus procured the crown of Judea for Herod,\nfrom the Roman senate. After the defeat of Mark Antony, Herod adhered to\nAugustus, and was always faithful to him; so that Augustus loaded him\nwith honours and riches.\n\nAVEN, a city of Egypt, afterward called Heliopolis, and On, Ezek. xxx,\n17. Herodotus informs us that in this city there was an annual assembly\nin honour of the sun, and a temple dedicated to him. It appears,\nhowever, highly probable, by the behaviour of Pharaoh to Joseph and\nJacob, and especially by Joseph\u2019s care to preserve the land to the\npriests, Gen. xlvii, 22, 26, that the true religion prevailed in Egypt\nin his time; and it is incredible that Joseph should have married the\ndaughter of the priest of On, had that name among the Egyptians denoted\nonly the material light; which, however, no doubt they, like all the\nrest of the world, idolized in after times, and to which we find a\ntemple dedicated among the Canaanites, under this name, Joshua vii, 2.\n\nAVENGER OF BLOOD. He who prosecuted the man-slayer under the law was\ncalled the avenger of blood, and had a right to slay the person, if he\nfound him without a city of refuge. See GOEL.\n\nAVIMS, a people descended from Hevus, the son of Canaan. They dwelt at\nfirst in the country which was afterward possessed by the Caphtorims, or\nPhilistines. The Scripture says expressly, that the Caphtorims drove out\nthe Avims, who dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, Deut. ii, 23. There\nwere also Avims, or Hivites, at Shechem, or Gibeon, Joshua xi, 19; for\nthe inhabitants of Shechem were Hivites. Lastly, there were some of them\nbeyond Jordan, at the foot of Mount Hermon. Bochart thinks, that Cadmus,\nwho conducted a colony of the Ph\u0153nicians into Greece, was a Hivite.\nHis name, Cadmus, comes from the Hebrew _Kedem_, \u201cthe east,\u201d because he\ncame from the eastern parts of the land of Canaan. The name of his wife\nHermione was taken from Mount Hermon, at the foot whereof the Hivites\ndwelt. The metamorphoses of the companions of Cadmus into serpents is\nfounded upon the signification of the name of Hivites, which, in the\nPh\u0153nician language, signifies _serpents_.\n\nAZARIAH, or UZZIAH, king of Judah, son of Amaziah. He began to reign at\nthe age of sixteen years, and reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem; his\nmother\u2019s name being Jecholiah, 2 Kings xv. Azariah did that which was\nright in the sight of the Lord; nevertheless he did not destroy the high\nplaces; and, against the express prohibition of God, the people\ncontinued to sacrifice there. Having taken upon him to offer incense in\nthe temple, which office belonged entirely to the priests, he was struck\nwith a leprosy, and continued without the city, separated from other men\nuntil the day of his death, 2 Chron. xxvi. Josephus says, that upon this\noccasion a great earthquake happened; and that the temple opening at the\ntop, a ray of light darted upon the king\u2019s forehead, the very moment he\ntook the censer into his hand, and he instantly became a leper; nay,\nthat the earthquake was so very violent, that it tore in sunder a\nmountain west of Jerusalem, and rolled one half of it over and over to\nthe distance of four furlongs, till at length it was stopped by another\nmountain which stood over against it; but choked up the highway, and\ncovered the king\u2019s gardens with dust. This is what Josephus adds to the\nhistory related in the Chronicles; but the truth of it may be justly\nsuspected. We know, indeed, that there was a very great earthquake in\nthe reign of Uzziah; for Amos, chap. i, 1, and Zechariah, chap. xiv, 5,\nmake mention of it: however, it is not certain that it happened at the\nvery time that Uzziah took upon him to offer incense.\n\nDuring the time that Uzziah was a leper, his son Jotham, as his father\u2019s\nviceroy, took the public administration upon himself, and succeeded him\nafter his death, which happened in the fifty-second year of his reign,\nA. M. 3246. He was not buried in the royal sepulchre; but in the same\nfield, at some distance, on account of his leprosy.\n\nThe first part of Uzziah\u2019s reign was very successful: he obtained great\nadvantages over the Philistines, Ammonites, and Arabians. He made\nadditions to the fortifications at Jerusalem, and always kept an army on\nfoot of three hundred and seven thousand men, and upwards, 2 Chron.\nxxvi; and he had great magazines, well stored with all sorts of arms, as\nwell offensive as defensive; and he was a great lover of agriculture.\n\n\nBAAL, BEL, or BELUS, denoting _lord_, a divinity among several ancient\nnations; as the Canaanites, Ph\u0153nicians, Sidonians, Carthaginians,\nBabylonians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians. The term _Baal_, which is itself\nan appellative, served at first to denote the true God, among those who\nadhered to the true religion. Accordingly, the Ph\u0153nicians, being\noriginally Canaanites, having once had, as well as the rest of their\nkindred, the knowledge of the true God, probably called him _Baal_, or\n_lord_. But they, as well as other nations, gradually degenerating into\nidolatry, applied this appellation to their respective idols; and thus\nwere introduced a variety of divinities, called _Baalim_, or _Baal_,\nwith some epithet annexed to it, as _Baal Berith_, _Baal Gad_, _Baal\nMoloch_, _Baal Peor_, _Baal Zebub_, &c. Some have supposed that the\ndescendants of Ham first worshipped the sun under the title of Baal, 2\nKings xxiii, 5, 11; and that they afterward ascribed it to the patriarch\nwho was the head of their line; making the sun only an emblem of his\ninfluence or power. It is certain, however, that when the custom\nprevailed of deifying and worshipping those who were in any respect\ndistinguished among mankind, the appellation of Baal was not restricted\nto the sun, but extended to those eminent persons who were deified, and\nwho became objects of worship in different nations. The Ph\u0153nicians\nhad several divinities of this kind, who were not intended to represent\nthe sun. It is probable that Baal, Belus, or Bel, the great god of the\nCarthaginians, and also of the Sidonians, Babylonians, and Assyrians,\nwho, from the testimony of Scripture, appears to have been delighted\nwith human sacrifices, was the Moloch of the Ammonites; the Chronus of\nthe Greeks, who was the chief object of adoration in Italy, Crete,\nCyprus, and Rhodes, and all other countries where divine honours were\npaid him; and the Saturn of the Latins. In process of time, many other\ndeities, beside the principal ones just mentioned, were distinguished by\nthe title of Baal among the Ph\u0153nicians, particularly those of Tyre,\nand of course among the Carthaginians, and other nations. Such were\nJupiter, Mars, Bacchus, and Apollo, or the sun.\n\nThe temples and altars of Baal were generally placed on eminences: they\nwere places inclosed by walls, within which was maintained a perpetual\nfire; and some of them bad statues or images, called in Scripture\n\u201cChamanim.\u201d Maundrell, in his journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem,\nobserved, some remains of these enclosures in Syria. Baal had his\nprophets and his priests in great numbers; accordingly, we read of four\nhundred and fifty of them that were fed at the table of Jezebel only;\nand they conducted the worship of this deity, by offering sacrifices, by\ndancing round his altar with violent gesticulations and exclamations, by\ncutting their bodies with knives and lancets, and by raving and\npretending to prophesy, as if they were possessed by some invisible\npower.\n\nIt is remarkable that we do not find the name Baal so much in popular\nuse east of Babylonia; but it was general west of Babylonia, and to the\nvery extremity of western Europe, including the British isles. The\nworship of Bel, Belus, Belenus, or Belinus, was general throughout the\nBritish islands; and certain of its rites and observances are still\nmaintained among us, notwithstanding the establishment of Christianity\nduring so many ages. A town in Perthshire, on the borders of the\nHighlands, is called _Tilliebeltane_ or _Tulliebeltane_; that is, the\n_eminence_, or _rising ground, of the fire of Baal_. In the\nneighbourhood is a Druidical temple of eight upright stones, where it is\nsupposed the fire was kindled. At some distance from this is another\ntemple of the same kind, but smaller; and near it a well still held in\ngreat veneration. On Beltane morning, superstitious people go to this\nwell, and drink of it; then they make a procession round it nine times.\nAfter this they in like manner go round the temple. So deep-rooted is\nthis Heathenish superstition in the minds of many who reckon themselves\ngood Protestants, that they will not neglect these rites, even when\nBeltane falls on the Sabbath.\n\nIn Ireland, Bel-tein is celebrated on the twenty-first of June, at the\ntime of the solstice. There, as they make fires on the tops of hills,\nevery member of the family is made to pass through the fire; as they\nreckon this ceremony necessary to ensure good fortune through the\nsucceeding year. This resembles the rites used by the Romans in the\nPalilia. Bel-tein is also observed in Lancashire.\n\nIn Wales, this annual fire is kindled in autumn, on the first day of\nNovember; which being neither at the solstice nor equinox, deserves\nattention. It may be accounted for by supposing that the lapse of ages\nhas removed it from its ancient station, and that the observance is kept\non the same day, nominally, though that be now removed some weeks\nbackward from its true station. However that may be, in North Wales\nespecially, this fire is attended by many ceremonies; such as running\nthrough the fire and smoke, each participator casting a stone into the\nfire.\n\nThe Hebrews often imitated the idolatry of the Canaanites in adoring\nBaal. They offered human sacrifices to him in groves, upon high places,\nand upon the terraces of houses. Baal had priests and prophets\nconsecrated to his service. All sorts of infamous and immodest actions\nwere committed in the festivals of Baal and Astarte. See Jer. xxxii, 35;\n2 Kings xvii, 16; xxiii, 4, 5, 12; 1 Kings xviii, 22; 2 Kings x, 19; 1\nKings xiv, 24; xv, 12; 2 Kings xxiii, 7; Hosea iv, 14. This false deity\nis frequently mentioned in Scripture in the plural number, _Baalim_,\nwhich may intimate that the name _Baal_ was given to several different\ndeities.\n\nThere were many cities in Palestine, whose names were compounded of\n_Baal_ and some other word: whether it was that the god Baal was adored\nin them, or that these places were looked upon as the capital\ncities,--_lords_ of their respective provinces,--is uncertain.\n\nBAAL BERITH, the god of the Shechemites, Judges viii, 33; ix, 4, 46.\n\nBAAL PEOR. Peor is supposed to have been a part of Mount Abarim; and\nBaal was the great idol or chief god of the Ph\u0153nicians, and was known\nand worshipped under a similar name, with tumultuous and obscene rites,\nall over Asia. He is the same as the Bel of the Babylonians. Baal, by\nitself, signifies _lord_, and was a name of the solar or principal god.\nBut it was also variously compounded, in allusion to the different\ncharacters and attributes of the particular or local deities who were\nknown by it, as Baal Peor, Baal Zebub, Baal Zephon, &c. Baal Peor, then,\nwas probably the temple of an idol belonging to the Moabites, on Mount\nAbarim, which the Israelites worshipped when encamped at Shittim; this\nbrought a plague upon them, of which twenty-four thousand died, Num.\nxxxv. Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, to whom Solomon erected an\naltar, 1 Kings xi, 7, is supposed to have been the same deity. Baal Peor\nhas been farther supposed by some to have been Priapus; by others,\nSaturn; by others, Pluto; and by others again, Adonis. Mr. Faber agrees\nwith Calmet in making Baal Peor the same with Adonis; a part of whose\nworship consisted in bewailing him with funeral rites, as one lost or\ndead, and afterward welcoming, with extravagant joy, his fictitious\nreturn to life. He was in an eminent degree the god of impurity. Hosea,\nspeaking of the worship of this idol, emphatically calls it \u201cthat\nshame,\u201d Hos. ix, 10. Yet in the rites of this deity the Moabite and\nMidianite women seduced the Israelites to join.\n\nBAAL ZEBUB, BEELZEBUB, or BEL-ZEBUB, signifies the _god of flies_, and\nwas an idol of the Ekronites. It is not easy to discover how this false\ndeity obtained its name. Some commentators think that he was called Baal\nSamin, or the lord of heaven; but that the Jews, from contempt, gave him\nthe name of Baal-zebub. Others with greater reason believe that he was\ndenominated \u201cthe god of flies\u201d by his votaries, because he defended them\nfrom flies, which are extremely troublesome in hot countries; in the\nsame manner as the Eleans worshipped Hercules under the appellation of\n\u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _the fly chaser_. Pliny is of opinion, that the name of Achor,\nthe god invoked at Cyrene against flies, is derived from Accaron, or\nEkron, where Baal-zebub was worshipped, and where he had a famous temple\nand oracle. Winkelman has given the figures of two heads, \u201cboth of them\nimages of Jupiter, called by the Greeks \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and by the Romans\n_Muscarius_; that is to say, _fly driver_; for to this Jupiter was\nattributed the function of driving away flies.\u201d\n\nIt is evident that Beelzebub was considered as the patron deity of\nmedicine; for this is plainly implied in the conduct of Ahaziah, 2 Kings\ni. The Greek mythology considered Apollo as the god of medicine, and\nattributed also to him those possessions by a pythonic spirit which\noccasionally perplexed spectators, and of which we have an instance in\nActs xvi, 19. Apollo, too, was the sun. Hence we probably see the reason\nwhy Ahaziah sent to Beelzebub to inquire the issue of his accident;\nsince Beelzebub was Apollo, and Apollo was the god of physic. The Jews,\nwho changed _Beelzebub_ into _Beelzebul_, \u201cgod of a dunghill,\u201d perhaps\nhad a reference to the Greek of _pytho_, which signifies _putrefied_. In\nScripture Beelzebub is called \u201cthe prince of devils,\u201d Matt. xii, 24;\nLuke xi, 15; merely, it would seem, through the application of the name\nof the chief idol of the Heathen world to the prince of evil spirits.\nThis was natural, since the Jews were taught in their own Scriptures to\nconsider all the idols of the Heathens \u201cdevils.\u201d Those commentators who\nthink that the idol of Ekron himself is intended, have indulged in an\nimprobable fancy. See HORNET.\n\nBAAL ZEPHON, or _the god of the watch tower_, was probably the temple of\nsome idol, which served at the same time for a place of observation for\nthe neighbouring sea and country, and a beacon to the travellers by\neither. It was situated on a cape or promontory on the eastern side of\nthe western or Heroopolitan branch of the Red Sea, near its northern\nextremity, over against Pihahiroth, or the opening in the mountains\nwhich led from the desert, on the side of Egypt, to the Red Sea.\n\nBAASHA, the son of Ahijah, commander-in-chief of the armies belonging to\nNadab, the son of Jeroboam, king of Israel. Baasha killed his master\ntreacherously at the siege of Gibbethon, a city of the Philistines, A.\nM. 3051, and usurped the crown, which he possessed twenty-four years, 1\nKings xv, 27, &c. And, to secure himself in his usurpation, he massacred\nall the relatives of his predecessor; which barbarous action proved the\naccomplishment of the prophecy denounced against the house of Jeroboam\nby Ahijah, the prophet, 1 Kings xiv, 1, &c.\n\nBABEL, the tower and city founded by the descendants of Noah in the\nplain of Shinar. The different tribes descended from Noah were here\ncollected, and from this point were dispersed, through the confusion of\ntheir language. The time when this tower was built is differently stated\nin the Hebrew and Samaritan chronologies. The former fixes it in the\nyear 101 after the flood, which Mr. Faber thinks encumbered with\ninsuperable difficulties. This writer then goes on to show, that the\nchronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch reconciles every date, and\nsurmounts every difficulty. It represents Shem as dying nearly a century\nand a half before the death of Peleg, instead of more than that number\nof years afterward, and almost four centuries and a half before the\ndeath of Abraham; whom, in accordance with the history, it makes to\nsurvive his father Terah precisely a hundred years. It removes the\ndifficulties with which the Hebrew chronology invests the whole history,\nby giving time, while it allows the dispersion to have taken place in\nthe latter part of Peleg\u2019s life, for the thirteen sons of his younger\nbrother Joktan to have become heads of families; for Noah and his sons\nto have died, as it is proved they must have done, prior to the\nemigration from Armenia; for Nimrod, instead of being a boy, to have\nbeen of an age suitable to his exploits, and to have acquired the\nsovereign command, not, in the face of all probability, while the four\ngreat patriarchs were living, but after their decease; and for the\nfamilies of mankind to have multiplied sufficiently to undertake the\nstupendous work of the tower. It explains also the silence respecting\nShem in the history of Abraham, by making the former die in Armenia four\nhundred and forty years before the latter was born, instead of surviving\nhim thirty-five years; and, lastly, it makes sacred history accord with\nprofane; the Babylonic history of Berosus, and the old records consulted\nby Epiphanius, both placing the death of Noah and his sons before the\nemigration from Armenia.\n\nThe sum of the whole is as follows: All the descendants of Noah remained\nin Armenia in peaceable subjection to the patriarchal religion and\ngovernment during the lifetime of the four royal patriarchs, or till\nabout the beginning of the sixth century after the flood; when,\ngradually falling off from the pure worship of God, and from their\nallegiance to the respective heads of families, and seduced by the\nschemes of the ambitious Nimrod, and farther actuated by a restless\ndisposition, or a desire for a more fertile country, they migrated in a\nbody southwards, till they reached the plains of Shinar, probably about\nsixty years after the death of Shem. Here, under the command of their\nnew leader, and his dominant military and sacerdotal Cuthites, by whom\nthe original scheme of idolatry, the groundwork of which was probably\nlaid in Armenia, was now perfected; and, with the express view to\ncounteract the designs of the Almighty in their dispersion into\ndifferent countries, they began to build the city and tower, and set up\na banner which should serve as a mark of national union, and concentrate\nthem in one unbroken empire; when they were defeated and dispersed by\nthe miraculous confusion of tongues. All this probably occupied the\nfarther space of twenty or twenty-one years; making eighty-one from the\ndeath of Shem, and five hundred and eighty-three after the flood. All of\nwhich also will come within the life of Peleg, who, according to the\nSamaritan Pentateuch, died in the year 640. The tower of Belus in\nBabylon, mentioned by Herodotus, was probably either the original tower\nof Babel repaired, or it was constructed upon its massive foundations.\nThe remains of this tower are still to be seen, and are thus described\nby Captain Mignan, in his Travels in Chaldea:--\n\n\u201cAt day light I departed for the ruins, with a mind absorbed by the\nobjects which I had seen yesterday. An hour\u2019s walk, indulged in intense\nreflection, brought me to the grandest and most gigantic northern mass,\non the eastern bank of the Euphrates, and distant about four miles and a\nhalf from the eastern suburb of Hillah. It is called by the natives, _El\nMujellibah_, \u2018the overturned;\u2019 also _Haroot_ and _Maroot_, from a\ntradition handed down, with little deviation, from time immemorial, that\nnear the foot of the ruin there is a well, invisible to mortals, in\nwhich those rebellious angels were condemned by God to be hung with\ntheir heels upward, until the day of judgment, as a punishment for their\nwickedness. This solid mound, which I consider, from its situation and\nmagnitude, to be the remains of the Tower of Babel, (an opinion likewise\nadopted by that venerable and highly distinguished geographer, Major\nRennell,) is a vast oblong square, composed of kiln-burnt and sun-dried\nbricks, rising irregularly to the height of one hundred and thirty-nine\nfeet, at the south-west; whence it slopes toward the north-east to a\ndepth of one hundred and ten feet. Its sides face the four cardinal\npoints. I measured them carefully, and the following is the full extent\nof each face: that to the north, along the visible face, is two hundred\nand seventy-four yards; to the south, two hundred and fifty-six yards;\nto the east, two hundred and twenty-six yards; and to the west, two\nhundred and forty yards. The summit is an uneven flat, strewed with\nbroken and unbroken bricks, the perfect ones measuring thirteen inches\nsquare, by three thick. Many exhibited the arrow-headed character, which\nappeared remarkably fresh. Pottery, bitumen, vitrified and petrified\nbrick, shells, and glass, were all equally abundant. The principal\nmaterials composing this ruin are, doubtless, mud bricks baked in the\nsun, and mixed up with straw. It is not difficult to trace brick work\nalong each front, particularly at the south-west angle, which is faced\nby a wall, composed partly of kiln-burnt brick, that in shape exactly\nresembles a watch tower or small turret. On its summit there are still\nconsiderable traces of erect building; at the western end is a circular\nmass of sold brick work, sloping toward the top, and rising from a\nconfused heap of rubbish. The chief material forming this fabric\nappeared similar to that composing the ruin called Akercouff, a mixture\nof chopped straw, with slime used as cement; and regular layers of\nunbroken reeds between the horizontal courses of the bricks. The base is\ngreatly injured by time and the elements; particularly to the\nsouth-east, where it is cloven into a deep furrow from top to bottom.\nThe sides of the ruin exhibit hollows worn partly by the weather, but\nmore generally formed by the Arabs, who are incessantly digging for\nbricks, and hunting for antiquities.\u201d\n\nBABYLON, 2 Kings xxiv, 1. The capital of Chaldea, built by Nimrod, Gen.\nx, 10. It was under Nebuchadnezzar that Babylon, then become the seat of\nuniversal empire, is supposed to have acquired that extent and\nmagnificence, and that those stupendous works were completed which\nrendered it the wonder of the world and of posterity: and accordingly,\nthis prince, then the most potent on the earth, arrogated to himself the\nwhole glory of its erection; and in the pride of his heart exclaimed,\n\u201cIs not this great Babylon that I have built?\u201d The city at this period\nstood on both sides of the river, which intersected it in the middle. It\nwas, according to the least computation, that of Diodorus Siculus, 45\nmiles in circumference; and according to Herodotus, the older author of\nthe two, 60 miles. Its shape was that of a square, traversed each way by\n25 principal streets; which of course intersected each other, dividing\nthe city into 626 squares. These streets were terminated at each end by\ngates of brass, of prodigious size and strength, with a smaller one\nopening toward the river. The walls, from the most moderate accounts,\nwere 75 feet in height and 32 in breadth; while Herodotus makes them 300\nin height and 75 in breadth: which last measurement, incredible as it\nmay seem, is worthy of credit, as Herodotus is much the oldest author\nwho describes them, and who gives their original height; whereas, those\nwho follow him in their accounts of these stupendous walls, describe\nthem as they were after they had been taken down to the less elevation\nby Darius Hystaspes. They were built of brick, cemented with bitumen\ninstead of mortar; and were encompassed by a broad and deep ditch, lined\nwith the same materials, as were also the banks of the river in its\ncourse through the city: the inhabitants descending to the water by\nsteps through the smaller brazen gates before mentioned. The houses were\nthree or four stories high, separated from each other by small courts or\ngardens, with open spaces and even fields interspersed over the immense\narea enclosed within the walls. Over the river was a bridge, connecting\nthe two halves of the city, which stood, the one on its eastern, and the\nother on its western, bank; the river running nearly north and south.\nThe bridge was 5 furlongs in length, and 30 feet in breadth, and had a\npalace at each end, with, it is said, a subterraneous passage beneath\nthe river, from one to the other: the work of Semiramis. Within the city\nwas the temple of Belus, or Jupiter, which Herodotus describes as a\nsquare of two stadia, or a quarter of a mile: in the midst of which\narose the celebrated tower, to which both the same writer, and Strabo,\ngive an elevation of one stadium, or 660 feet; and the same measure at\nits base; the whole being divided into eight separate towers, one above\nanother, of decreasing dimensions to the summit; where stood a chapel,\ncontaining a couch, table, and other things of gold. Here the principal\ndevotions were performed; and over this, on the highest platform of all,\nwas the observatory, by the help of which the Babylonians arrived to\nsuch perfection in astronomy, that Calisthenes the philosopher, who\naccompanied Alexander to Babylon, found astronomical observations for\n1903 years backwards from that time; which reach as high as the 115th\nyear after the flood. On either side of the river, according to\nDiodorus, adjoining to the bridge, was a palace; that on the western\nbank being by much the larger. This palace was eight miles in\ncircumference, and strongly fortified with three walls one within\nanother. Within it were the celebrated pensile or hanging gardens,\nenclosed in a square of 400 feet. These gardens were raised on terraces,\nsupported by arches, or rather by piers, laid over with broad flat\nstones; the arch appearing to be unknown to the Babylonians: which\ncourses of piers rose above one another, till they reached the level of\nthe top of the city walls. On each terrace or platform, a deep layer of\nmould was laid, in which flowers, shrubs and trees were planted; some of\nwhich are said to have reached the height of 50 feet. On the highest\nlevel was a reservoir, with an engine to draw water up from the river by\nwhich the whole was watered. This novel and astonishing structure, the\nwork of a monarch who knew not how to create food for his own pampered\nfancy, or labour for his debased subjects or unhappy captives, was\nundertaken to please his wife Amyitis; that she might see an imitation\nof the hills and woods of her native country, Media.\n\nYet, while in the plenitude of its power, and, according to the most\naccurate chronologers, 160 years before the foot of an enemy had entered\nit, the voice of an enemy had entered it, the voice of prophecy\npronounced the doom of the mighty and unconquered Babylon. A succession\nof ages brought it gradually to the dust; and the gradation of its fall\nis marked till it sinks at last into utter desolation. At a time when\nnothing but magnificence was around this city, emphatically called the\ngreat, fallen Babylon was delineated by the pencil of inspiration\nexactly as every traveller now describes its ruins.\n\nThe immense fertility of Chaldea, which retained also the name of\nBabylonia till after the Christian \u00e6ra, corresponded with the greatness\nof Babylon. It was the most fertile region of the whole east. Babylonia\nwas one vast plain, adorned and enriched by the Euphrates and the\nTigris, from which, and from the numerous canals that intersected the\ncountry from the one river to the other, water was distributed over the\nfields by manual labour and by hydraulic machines, giving rise, in that\nwarm climate and rich exhaustless soil, to an exuberance of produce\nwithout a known parallel, over so extensive a region, either in ancient\nor modern times. Herodotus states, that he knew not how to speak of its\nwonderful fertility, which none but eye witnesses would credit; and,\nthough writing in the language of Greece, itself a fertile country, he\nexpresses his own consciousness that his description of what he actually\nsaw would appear to be improbable, and to exceed belief. Such was the\n\u201cChaldees\u2019 excellency,\u201d that it departed not on the first conquest, nor\non the final extinction of its capital, but one metropolis of Assyria\narose after another in the land of Chaldea, when Babylon had ceased to\nbe \u201cthe glory of kingdoms.\u201d\n\n2. Manifold are the prophecies respecting Babylon and the land of the\nChaldeans; and the long lapse of ages has served to confirm their\nfulfilment in every particular, and to render it at last complete. The\njudgments of Heaven are not casual, but sure; they are not arbitrary,\nbut righteous. And they were denounced against the Babylonians, and the\ninhabitants of Chaldea, expressly because of their idolatry, tyranny,\noppression, pride, covetousness, drunkenness, falsehood, and other\nwickedness. The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amos did see:\n\u201cThe noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people: a\ntumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord\nof Hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country,\nfrom the end of heaven, even the Lord and the weapons of his\nindignation, to destroy the whole land. Behold, the day of the Lord\ncometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land\ndesolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. Babylon,\nthe glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees\u2019 excellency, shall be\nas when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited,\nneither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither\nshall the Arabian pitch tent there: neither shall the shepherds make\ntheir fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there: and\ntheir houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell\nthere, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands\nshall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant\npalaces.\u201d \u201cThou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon,\nand say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! Thy pomp\nis brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is\nspread under thee, and the worms cover thee. Thou shalt be brought down\nto hell, to the sides of the pit. Thou art cast out of the grave like an\nabominable branch.--I will cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant,\nthe son, and nephew, saith the Lord. I will also make it a possession\nfor the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom\nof destruction, saith the Lord of Hosts.\u201d \u201cBabylon is fallen, is fallen;\nand all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.\u201d\n\u201cThus saith the Lord, that saith unto the deep, Be dry; and I will dry\nup thy rivers: that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform\nall my pleasure,--and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before\nhim the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.\u201d \u201cBel boweth\ndown,\u201d &c. \u201cCome down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of\nBabylon: sit on the ground, there is no throne, O daughter of the\nChaldeans. Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of\nthe Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called the lady of kingdoms.\u201d\n\nMany other prophecies against Babylon, and the whole land of Chaldea,\nare found in the Old Testament; and though the limits of this article\nwill only allow a reference to be made to the exact fulfilment of a few,\nthere is not one of the great number of predictions on record, the\naccomplishment of which has not been remarked by numerous writers, and\nmore especially by those who have visited the spot. For, though for many\ncenturies the site of Babylon was unknown, or the ruins of other\nChaldean cities mistaken for its remains, its true situation and present\ncondition have been, within a few years, satisfactorily ascertained, and\naccurately described, by several most intelligent and enterprising\ntravellers.\n\nWhen in the plenitude of its greatness, splendour and strength, Babylon\nfirst yielded to the arms of Cyrus, whose name, and the man\u0153uvre by\nwhich the city was taken, were mentioned by Isaiah nearly two hundred\nyears before the event; which was also predicted by Jeremiah: \u201cGo up, O\nElam, (or Persia,) besiege, O Media. The Lord hath raised up the spirit\nof the kings of the Medes, for his device is against Babylon, to destroy\nit.\u201d The kings of Persia and Media, prompted by a common interest,\nfreely entered into a league against Babylon, and with one accord\nentrusted the command of their united armies to Cyrus, the relative and\neventually the successor of them both.--But the taking of Babylon was\nnot reserved for these kingdoms alone: other nations had to be \u201cprepared\nagainst her.\u201d \u201cSet up a standard in the land; blow the trumpet among the\nnations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the\nkingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Aschenaz: Lo, I will raise and cause to\ncome up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north\ncountry,\u201d &c. Cyrus subdued the Armenians, who had revolted against\nMedia, spared their king, bound them over anew to their allegiance, by\nkindness rather than by force, and incorporated their army with his\nown.--\u201cThe mighty men of Babylon have foreborne to fight. They have\nremained in their holds; their might hath failed, they became as women.\u201d\nSo dispirited became its people, that Babylon, which had made the world\nto tremble, was long besieged, without making any effort to drive off\nthe enemy. But, possessed of provisions for twenty years, which in their\ntimid caution they had plentifully stored, they derided Cyrus from their\nimpregnable walls, within which they remained. Their profligacy, their\nwickedness and false confidence were unabated; they continued to live\ncarelessly in pleasures: and Babylon the great, unlike to many a small\nfortress and unwalled town, made not one struggle to regain its freedom\nor to be rid of the foe.--Much time having been lost, and no progress\nbeing made in the siege, the anxiety of Cyrus was strongly excited, and\nhe was reduced to great perplexity, when at last it was suggested and\nimmediately determined to divert the course of the Euphrates. And while\nthe unconscious and reckless citizens were engaged in dancing and\nmerriment, the river was suddenly turned into the lake, the trench, and\nthe canals; and the Persians, both foot and horse, so soon as the\nsubsiding of the water permitted, entered by its channel, and were\nfollowed by the allies in array, along the dry part of the river. \u201cI\nwill dry up thy sea, and make thy springs dry. That saith to the deep,\nBe dry, I will dry up thy rivers.\u201d--One detachment was placed where the\nriver first enters the city, and another where it leaves it. And \u201cone\npost did run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show\nthe king of Babylon that his city is taken at the end, and that the\npassages are shut.\u201d \u201cThey were taken,\u201d says Herodotus, \u201cby _surprise_;\nand such is the extent of the city, that, as the inhabitants themselves\naffirm, they who lived in the extremities were made prisoners before any\nalarm was communicated to the centre of the place,\u201d where the palace\nstood. Thus a \u201csnare was laid for Babylon, it was taken, and it was not\naware; it was found and also caught; for it had sinned against the Lord.\nHow is the praise of the whole earth surprised!\u201d--\u201cIn their heat I will\nmake their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice\nand sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord. I will bring\nthem down like lambs to the slaughter,\u201d &c. \u201cI will make drunken her\nprinces and her wise men, her captains and her rulers, and her mighty\nmen, and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep,\u201d &c. Cyrus, as the night\ndrew on, stimulated his assembled troops to enter the city, because in\nthat night of general revel within the walls, many of them were asleep,\nmany drunk, and confusion universally prevailed. On passing, without\nobstruction or hinderance, into the city, the Persians, slaying some,\nputting others to flight, and joining with the revellers, as if\nslaughter had been merriment, hastened by the shortest way to the\npalace, and reached it ere yet a messenger had told the king that his\ncity was taken. The gates of the palace, which was strongly fortified,\nwere shut. The guards stationed before them, were _drinking_ beside a\nblazing light, when the Persians rushed impetuously upon them. A louder\nand altered clamour, no longer joyous, caught the ear of the inmates of\nthe palace, and the bright light showed them the work of destruction,\nwithout revealing its cause. And not aware of the presence of an enemy\nin the midst of Babylon, the king himself, (who had been roused from his\nrevelry by the hand writing on the wall,) excited by the warlike tumult\nat the gates, commanded those within to examine from whence it arose;\nand according to the same word, by which \u201cthe gates\u201d (leading from the\nriver to the city) \u201cwere not shut, the loins of kings were loosed to\nopen before Cyrus the two-leaved gates\u201d of the palace. The eager\nPersians sprang in. \u201cThe king of Babylon heard the report of them;\nanguish took hold of him;\u201d he and all who were about him perished; God\nhad \u201cnumbered\u201d his kingdom and finished it; it was \u201cdivided,\u201d and given\nto the Medes and Persians; the lives of the Babylonian princes, and\nlords, and rulers, and captains, closed with that night\u2019s festival; the\ndrunken slept \u201ca perpetual sleep, and did not wake.\u201d--\u201cI will fill thee\nwith men as with caterpillars.\u201d Not only did the Persian army enter with\nease as caterpillars, together with all the nations that had come up\nagainst Babylon, but they seemed also as numerous. Cyrus, after the\ncapture of the city, made a great display of his cavalry in the presence\nof the Babylonians, and in the midst of Babylon. Four thousand guards\nstood before the palace gates, and two thousand on each side. These\nadvanced as Cyrus approached; two thousand spearmen followed them. These\nwere succeeded by four square masses of Persian cavalry, each consisting\nof ten thousand men: and to these again were added, in their order, the\nMedian, Armenian, Hyrcanian, Caducian, and Sacian horsemen,--all, as\nbefore, \u201criding upon horses, every man in array,\u201d--with lines of\nchariots, four abreast, concluding the train of the numerous hosts.\nCyrus afterward reviewed, at Babylon, the whole of his army, consisting\nof one hundred and twenty thousand horse, two thousand chariots, and six\nhundred thousand foot. Babylon, which was taken when not aware, and\nwithin whose walls no enemy, except a captive, had been ever seen, was\nthus \u201cfilled with men as with caterpillars,\u201d as if there had not been a\nwall around it. The Scriptures do not relate the manner in which Babylon\nwas taken, nor do they ever allude to the exact fulfilment of the\nprophecies. But there is, in every particular, a strict coincidence\nbetween the predictions of the prophets and the historical narratives,\nboth of Herodotus and Xenophon.\n\n3. Every step in the progress of the decline of Babylon was the\naccomplishment of a prophecy. Conquered, for the first time, by Cyrus,\nit was afterward reduced from an imperial to a tributary city. \u201cCome\ndown and sit in the dust, O daughter of Babylon: sit on the ground,\nthere is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans.\u201d After the Babylonians\nrebelled against Darius, the walls were reduced in height, and all the\ngates destroyed. \u201cThe wall of Babylon shall fall, her walls are thrown\ndown.\u201d--Xerxes, after his ignominious retreat from Greece, rifled the\ntemples of Babylon, the golden images alone of which were estimated at\n20,000,000_l_, beside treasures of vast amount. \u201cI will punish Bel in\nBabylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he has\nswallowed up; I will do judgment upon the graven images of\nBabylon.\u201d--Alexander the Great attempted to restore it to its former\nglory, and designed to make it the metropolis of a universal empire. But\nwhile the building of the temple of Belus, and the reparation of the\nembankments of the Euphrates, were actually carrying on, the conqueror\nof the world died, at the commencement of this his last undertaking, in\nthe height of his power, and in the flower of his age. \u201cTake balm for\nher pain, if so be that she may be healed. We would have healed Babylon,\nbut she is not healed.\u201d The building of the neighbouring city of\nSeleucia was the chief cause of the decline of Babylon, and drained it\nof a great part of its population. And at a later period, or about 130\nyears before the birth of Christ, Humerus, a Parthian governor, who was\nnoted as excelling all tyrants in cruelty, exercised great severities on\nthe Babylonians; and having burned the forum and some of the temples,\nand destroyed the fairest parts of the city, reduced many of the\ninhabitants to slavery on the slightest pretexts, and caused them,\ntogether with all their households, to be sent into Media. \u201cThey shall\nremove, they shall depart, both man and beast.\u201d The \u201cgolden city\u201d thus\ngradually verged, for centuries, toward poverty and desolation.\nNotwithstanding that Cyrus resided chiefly at Babylon, and sought to\nreform the government, and remodel the manners of the Babylonians, the\nsucceeding kings of Persia preferred, as the seat of empire, Susa,\nPersepolis, or Ecbatana, situated in their own country: and in like\nmanner the successors of Alexander did not attempt to complete his\npurpose of restoring Babylon to its preeminence and glory; but, after\nthe subdivision of his mighty empire, the very kings of Assyria, during\ntheir temporary residence even in Chaldea, deserted Babylon, and dwelt\nin Seleucia. And thus the foreign inhabitants, first Persians and\nafterward Greeks, imitating their sovereigns by deserting Babylon, acted\nas if they verily had said, \u201cForsake her, and let us go every man unto\nhis own country; for her judgment is reached unto heaven, and is lifted\nup even to the skies.\u201d\n\n4. But kindred judgments, the issue of common crimes, rested on the land\nof Chaldea, as well as on its doomed metropolis. \u201cThey come from a far\ncountry, from the end of the earth, to destroy the whole land. Many\nnations and great kings shall serve themselves of thee also,\u201d &c. The\nPersians, the Macedonians, the Parthians, the Romans, the Saracens, and\nthe Turks, are the chief of the many nations who have unscrupulously and\nunsparingly \u201cserved themselves\u201d of the land of the Chaldeans: and Cyrus\nand Darius, kings of Persia; Alexander the Great; and Seleucus, king of\nAssyria; Demetrius and Antiochus the Great; Tragan, Severus, Julian, and\nHeraclius, emperors of Rome; the victorious Omar, the successor of\nMohammed; Holagou, and Tamerlane,--are \u201cgreat kings\u201d who successively\nsubdued or desolated Chaldea, or exacted from it tribute to such an\nextent, as scarcely any other country ever paid to a single conqueror.\nAnd though the names of some of these nations were unknown to the\nBabylonians, and unheard of in the world at the time of the prophecy,\nmost of these \u201cmany nations and great kings\u201d need now but to be named,\nto show that, in local relation to Chaldea, \u201cthey came from the utmost\nborder, from the coasts of the earth.\u201d--\u201cI will punish the land of the\nChaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations; cut off the sower\nfrom Babylon, and him that handleth the sickle in the time of harvest. A\ndrought is on her waters, and they shall be dried up. Behold the\nhinder-most of the nations, a dry land and a desert.\u201d The land of the\nChaldeans was indeed made--perpetual, or long continued, desolation.\nRavaged and spoiled for ages, the Chaldees\u2019 excellency finally\ndisappeared, and the land became desolate, as still it remains.\nRauwolff, who passed through it in 1574, describes the country as bare,\nand \u201cso dry and barren that it cannot be tilled.\u201d And the most recent\ntravellers all concur in describing it in similar terms. On the one\nside, near to the site of Opis, \u201cthe country all around,\u201d says Mr.\nBuckingham, \u201cappears to be one wide desert, of sandy and barren soil,\nthinly scattered over with brushwood and tufts of reedy grass.\u201d On the\nother, between Bussorah and Bagdad, \u201cimmediately on either bank of the\nTigris,\u201d observes Mignan, \u201cis the _untrodden desert_. The absence of all\ncultivation, the sterile, arid, and wild character of the whole scene,\nformed a contrast to the rich and delightful accounts delineated in\nScripture. The natives, in travelling over these pathless deserts, are\ncompelled to explore their way by the stars.\u201d \u201cThe whole country between\nBagdad and Hillah is a perfectly flat and (with the exception of a few\nspots as you approach the latter place) _uncultivated waste_. That it\nwas at some former period in a far different state, is evident from the\nnumber of canals by which it is traversed, now _dry_ and neglected; and\nthe quantity of heaps of earth covered with fragments of brick and\nbroken tiles, which are seen in every direction, the indisputable traces\nof former population. At present the only inhabitants of the tract are\nthe Sobeide Arabs. Around, as far as the eye can reach is a _trackless\ndesert_.\u201d--\u201cHer cities are desolations.\u201d The course of the Tigris\nthrough Babylonia, instead of being adorned with cities, is marked with\nthe sites of \u201cancient ruins.\u201d Sitace, Sabata, Narisa, Fuchera, Sendia,\n\u201cno longer exist.\u201d A succession of longitudinal mounds, crossed at right\nangles by others, mark the supposed site of Artemita, or Destagered. Its\nonce luxuriant gardens are covered with grass; and a higher mound\ndistinguishes \u201cthe royal residence\u201d from the ancient streets. \u201cExtensive\nridges and mountains, (near to Houmania,) varying in height and extent,\nare seen branching in every direction.\u201d A wall, with sixteen bastions,\nis the only memorial of Apollonia. The once magnificent Seleucia is now\na scene of desolation. There is not a single entire edifice, but the\ncountry is strewed for miles with fragments of decayed buildings. \u201cAs\nfar,\u201d says Major Keppel, \u201cas the eye could reach, the horizon presented\na broken line of mounds; the whole of this place was a desert flat.\u201d On\nthe opposite bank of the Tigris, where Ctesiphon its rival stood, beside\nfragments of walls and broken masses of brick work, and remains of vast\nstructures encumbered with heaps of earth, there is one magnificent\nmonument of antiquity \u201cin a remarkably perfect state of preservation,\u201d\n\u201ca large and noble pile of building, the front of which presents to view\na wall three hundred feet in length, adorned with four rows of arched\nrecesses, with a central arch, in span eighty-six feet, and above a\nhundred feet high, supported by walls sixteen feet thick, and leading to\na hall which extends to the depth of a hundred and fifty-six feet,\u201d the\nwidth of the building. A great part of the back wall, and of the roof,\nis broken down; but that which remains \u201cstill appears much larger than\nWestminster Abbey.\u201d It is supposed to have been the lofty palace of\nChosroes; but there desolation now reigns. \u201cOn the site of Ctesiphon,\u201d\nsays Mignan, \u201cthe smallest insect under heaven would not find a single\nblade of grass wherein to hide itself, nor one drop of water to allay\nits thirst.\u201d In the rear of the palace, and attached to it, are mounds\ntwo miles in circumference, indicating the utter desolation of\nbuildings, formed to minister to luxury.\n\n5. But let us come to the fulfilment of these wonderful prophecies in\nthe present condition of Babylon itself, as described by those who have\nmost recently visited it.\n\n\u201cBabylon shall become heaps.\u201d Babylon the glory of kingdoms is now the\ngreatest of ruins. \u201cImmense tumuli of temples, palaces, and habitations\nof every description,\u201d are every where seen, and form \u201clong and varied\nlines of ruins,\u201d which, in some places, says Sir R. K. Porter, \u201crather\nresemble natural hills than _mounds_ which cover the remains of great\nand splendid edifices.\u201d These buildings, which were once the labour of\nslaves and the pride of kings, are now misshapen heaps of rubbish. \u201cThe\nwhole face of the country,\u201d observes Rich, \u201cis covered with vestiges of\nbuilding, in some places consisting of brick walls surprisingly fresh,\nin others, merely a _vast succession of mounds_ of rubbish, of such\nindeterminate figures, variety, and extent, as to involve the person who\nshould have formed any theory in inextricable confusion.\u201d--\u201cLet nothing\nof her be left.\u201d \u201cVast heaps constitute _all that now remains_ of\nancient Babylon,\u201d says Rich. All its grandeur is departed; all its\ntreasures have been spoiled; all its excellence has utterly vanished;\nthe very heaps are searched for bricks, when nothing else can be found;\neven these are _not left_, wherever they can be taken away; and Babylon\nhas for ages been \u201ca quarry above ground,\u201d ready to the hand of every\nsuccessive despoiler. Without the most remote allusion to this prophecy,\nCaptain Mignan describes a mound attached to the palace, ninety yards in\nbreadth by half that height, the whole of which is deeply furrowed, in\nthe same manner as the generality of the mounds. \u201cThe ground is\nextremely soft, and tiresome to walk over, and appears _completely\nexhausted_ of all its building materials; _nothing now is left_, save\none towering hill, the earth of which is mixed with _fragments_ of\nbroken brick, red varnished pottery, tile, bitumen, mortar, glass,\nshells, and pieces of mother of pearl,\u201d--worthless fragments, of no\nvalue to the poorest. \u201cFrom thence shall she be taken, let nothing of\nher be left.\u201d While the workmen \u201ccast her up as heaps\u201d while excavating\nfor bricks, that they may \u201ctake\u201d them \u201cfrom thence,\u201d and that \u201cnothing\nmay be left;\u201d they labour more than trebly in the fulfilment of\nprophecy: for the numerous and deep excavations form pools of water, on\nthe over-flowing of the Euphrates, and, annually filled, they are not\ndried up throughout the year. \u201cDeep cavities are also formed by the\nArabs, when digging for hidden treasure.\u201d Thus \u201cthe ground,\u201d says\nBuckingham, \u201cis sometimes covered with pools of water in the hollows.\u201d\n\n\u201cSit in the dust, sit on the ground, O daughter of the Chaldeans.\u201d The\nsurface of the mounds which form all that remains of Babylon, consists\nof decomposed buildings, reduced to dust; and over all the ancient\nstreets and habitations, there is literally nothing but the dust of the\nground on which to sit.--\u201cThy nakedness shall be uncovered.\u201d \u201cOur path,\u201d\nsays Captain Mignan, \u201clay through the great mass of ruined heaps on the\nsite of \u2018shrunken Babylon;\u2019 and I am perfectly incapable of conveying an\nadequate idea of the dreary, lonely nakedness that appeared before\nme.\u201d--\u201cSit thou silent, and get thee into darkness.\u201d \u201cThere reigns\nthroughout the ruins,\u201d says Sir R. K. Porter, \u201ca silence profound as the\ngrave.\u201d \u201cBabylon is now a silent scene, a sublime solitude.\u201d--\u201cIt shall\nnever be inhabited, nor dwelt in from generation to generation.\u201d From\nRauwolff\u2019s testimony it appears that, in the sixteenth century, \u201cthere\nwas not a house to be seen.\u201d And now \u201cthe eye wanders over a barren\ndesert, in which the ruins are nearly the only indication that it had\never been inhabited.\u201d \u201cIt is impossible,\u201d adds Major Keppel, \u201cto behold\nthis scene and not to be reminded how exactly the predictions of Isaiah\nand Jeremiah have been fulfilled, even in the appearance Babylon was\ndoomed to present, that \u2018she should never be inhabited;\u2019 that \u2018the\nArabian should not pitch his tent there;\u2019 that she should \u2018become\nheaps;\u2019 that her cities should be \u2018a desolation, a dry land, and a\nwilderness.\u2019\u201d \u201cBabylon is spurned alike by the heel of the Ottomans, the\nIsraelites, and the sons of Ishmael.\u201d It is \u201ca tenantless and desolate\nmetropolis,\u201d remarks Mignan. \u201cIt shall not be inhabited, but be wholly\ndesolate. Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the\nshepherds make their folds there.\u201d It was prophesied of Ammon that it\nshould be a stable for camels and a couching place for flocks; and of\nPhilistia, that it should be cottages for shepherds, and a pasture of\nflocks. But Babylon was to be visited with a far greater desolation, and\nto become unfit or unsuited even for such a purpose; and that neither a\ntent would be pitched there, even by an Arab, nor a fold made by a\nshepherd, implies the last degree of solitude and desolation. \u201cIt is\ncommon in these parts for shepherds to make use of ruined edifices to\nshelter their flocks in.\u201d But Babylon is an exception. Instead of taking\nthe bricks from thence, the shepherd might very readily erect a defence\nfrom wild beasts, and make a fold for his flock amidst the heaps of\nBabylon; and the Arab who fearlessly traverses it by day, might pitch\nhis tent by night. But neither the one nor the other could now be\npersuaded to remain a single night among the ruins. The superstitious\ndread of evil spirits, far more than the natural terror of the wild\nbeasts, effectually prevents them. Captain Mignan was accompanied by six\nArabs, completely armed; but he \u201ccould not induce them to remain toward\nnight, from the apprehension of evil spirits. It is impossible to\neradicate this idea from the minds of this people, who are very deeply\nimbued with superstition.\u201d\n\n\u201cWild beasts of the deserts shall lie there, and their houses shall be\nfull of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs\n(goats) shall dance there,\u201d &c. \u201cThere are many dens of wild beasts in\nvarious parts. And while the lower excavations are often pools of water,\nin most of the cavities are numbers of bats and owls.\u201d The king of the\nforest now ranges over the site of that Babylon which Nebuchadnezzar\nbuilt for his own glory. And the temple of Belus, the greatest work of\nman, is now like unto a natural den of lions. Two or three majestic\nlions were seen upon its heights by Sir Robert Ker Porter, as he was\napproaching it; and \u201cthe broad prints of their feet were left plain in\nthe clayey soil.\u201d Major Keppel saw there a similar foot-print of a lion.\nIt is also the unmolested retreat of jackalls, hyenas, and other noxious\nanimals. Wild beasts are numerous at the Mujelib\u00e9, as well as on Birs\nNimrood. \u201cThe mound,\u201d says Kinneir, \u201cwas full of large holes: we entered\nsome of them, and found them strewed with the carcasses and skeletons of\nanimals recently killed. The ordure of wild beasts was so strong, that\nprudence got the better of curiosity; for we had no doubt as to the\nsavage nature of the inhabitants. Our guides, indeed, told us, that all\nthe ruins abounded in lions, and other wild beasts: so literally has the\ndivine prediction been fulfilled, that wild beasts of the deserts should\nlie there, and their houses be full of doleful creatures; that the wild\nbeasts of the islands should cry in their desolate houses.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe sea is come upon Babylon. She is covered with the multitude of the\nwaves thereof.\u201d The traces of the western bank of the Euphrates are now\nno longer discernible. The river overflows unrestrained; and the very\nruins, with \u201cevery appearance of the embankment,\u201d have been swept away.\n\u201cThe ground there is low and marshy, and presents not the slightest\nvestige of former buildings, of any description whatever.\u201d \u201cMorasses and\nponds,\u201d says Porter, \u201ctracked the ground in various parts. For a long\ntime after the general subsiding of the Euphrates, great part of this\nplain is little better than a swamp,\u201d &c. \u201cThe ruins of Babylon are then\ninundated, so as to render many parts of them inaccessible, by\nconverting the valleys among them into morasses.\u201d But while Babylon is\nthus \u201ccovered with the multitude of waves, and the waters come upon it;\u201d\nyet, in striking contrast and seeming contradiction to such a feature of\ndesolation, (like the formation of \u201cpools of water,\u201d from the \u201ccasting\nup of heaps,\u201d) are the elevated sunburnt ruins, which the waters do not\noverflow, and the \u201cdry waste\u201d and \u201cparched and burning plain,\u201d on which\nthe heaps of Babylon lie, equally prove that it is \u201ca desert, a dry\nland, and a wilderness.\u201d One part, even on the western side of the\nriver, is \u201clow and marshy, and another,\u201d says Mignan, \u201can arid desert.\u201d\n\nMany other striking particulars might be collected; and we may conclude\nin the words of Mr. Keith, from whose work on the prophecies several of\nthe above particulars have been extracted:--\u201cIs it possible that there\ncan be any attestation of the truth of prophecy, if it be not witnessed\nhere? Is there any spot on earth which has undergone a more complete\ntransformation? \u2018The records of the human race,\u2019 it has been said with\ntruth, \u2018do not present a contrast more striking than that between the\nprimeval magnificence of Babylon and its long desolation.\u2019 Its ruins\nhave of late been carefully and scrupulously examined by different\nnatives of Britain, of unimpeached veracity; and the result of every\nresearch is a more striking demonstration of the literal accomplishment\nof every prediction. How few spots are there on earth of which we have\nso clear and faithful a picture as prophecy gave to fallen Babylon at a\ntime when no spot on earth resembled it less than its present desolate\nsolitary site! or could any prophecies respecting any single place have\nbeen more precise, or wonderful, or numerous, or true, or more gradually\naccomplished throughout many generations? And when they look at what\nBabylon was, and what it is, and perceive the minute realization of them\nall, may not nations learn wisdom, may not tyrants tremble, and may not\nskeptics think?\u201d\n\nThe reasons why prophecies so numerous and particular were recorded\nconcerning Babylon, appear to have been, 1. That Babylon was the great\noppressor of the Jews. 2. That it was the type of all the powerful\npersecuting enemies of the church of God, especially of Rome; and in its\nfate they may read their own. 3. That the accomplishment of prophecy in\nthe destruction of so eminent an empire might give a solemn testimony to\nthe truth of the Scriptures to the whole earth, and to all ages.\n\nBACKSLIDING, a falling off, or defection in matters of religion; an\napostasy, Acts xxi, 21; 2 Thess. ii, 3; 1 Tim. iv, 1. This may be either\npartial or complete: partial, when it is in the heart, as Prov. xiv, 14;\ncomplete, as that described in Heb. vi, 4, &c; x, 6, &c. On the latter\npassage Chrysostom observes, \u201cWhen a house has a strong foundation,\nsuppose an arch fall, some of the beams break, or a wall decline, while\nthe foundation is good, these breaches may be repaired; so in religion,\nwhilst a person maintains the true doctrines, and remains on the firm\nrock, though he fall, true repentance may restore him to the favour and\nimage of God: but as in a house, when the foundation is bad, nothing can\nsave the building from ruin; so when heretical doctrines are admitted\nfor a foundation, nothing can save the professor from destruction.\u201d It\nis important in interpreting these passages to keep it steadfastly in\nmind, that the apostasy they speak of is not only _moral_ but\n_doctrinal_.\n\nBADGER, \u05ea\u05d7\u05e9. This word in a plural form occurs, Exod. xxv, 5; xxvi, 14;\nxxxv, 7, 23; xxxvi, 19; xxxix, 34; Num. iv, 6, 8, 10\u201312, 14, 25; Ezek.\nxvi, 10; and is joined with \u05e2\u05e8\u05ea, skins used for the covering of the\ntabernacle in the wilderness. The Jewish interpreters are agreed as to\nits being some animal. Jarchi says it was a beast of many colours, which\nno more exists. Kimchi holds the same opinion. Aben Ezra thinks it some\nanimal of the bovine kind, of whose skins shoes are made; alluding to\nEzek. xvi, 10. Most modern interpreters have taken it to be the badger,\nand among these our English translators; but, in the first place, the\nbadger is not an inhabitant of Arabia; and there is nothing in its skin\npeculiarly proper either for covering a tabernacle or making shoes.\nHas\u00e6us, Michaelis, and others, have laboured to prove that it is the\nmermaid, or _homo marinus_, the _trichekus_ of Linn\u00e6us. Faber, Dathe,\nand Rosenmuller, think that it is the seal, or sea calf, _vitulus\nmarinus_, the skin of which is both strong and pliable, and was\naccounted by the ancients as a most proper outer covering for tents, and\nwas also made into shoes, as Rau has clearly shown. Niebuhr says, \u201cA\nmerchant of Abushahr called _dahash_ that fish which the captains in\nEnglish vessels call porpoise, and the Germans, sea hog. In my voyage\nfrom Maskat to Abushahr, I saw a prodigious quantity together near Ras\nMussendom, that were all going the same way, and seemed to swim with\ngreat vehemence.\u201d Bochart thinks that not an _animal_, but a _colour_,\nwas intended, Exodus xxv, 5; so that the covering of the tabernacle was\nto be azure, or sky blue.\n\nBAG, a purse or pouch, Deut. xxv, 13; 1 Sam. xvii, 40; Luke xii, 33; Job\nxiv, 17. The money collected in the treasuries of eastern princes was\nreckoned up in certain equal sums, put into bags and sealed. These are,\nin some parts of the Levant, called _purses_, where they estimate great\nexpenses by so many purses. The money collected in the temple in the\ntime of Joash, for its reparation, seems, in like manner, to have been\ntold up in bags of equal value; and these were probably delivered sealed\nto those who paid the workmen, 2 Kings xii, 10. In the east, in the\npresent day, a bag of money passes, for some time at least, currently\nfrom hand to hand, under the authority of a banker\u2019s seal, without any\nexamination of its contents. See Tobit ix, 5; xi, 16.\n\nBAKING BREAD. Abraham directed Sarah to bake cakes upon the hearth, for\nthe use of the strangers who had visited him, Genesis xviii, 6. Elijah\nrequests the same of the widow of Zarephath, 1 Kings xvii, 13. Amnon the\nson of David requests Tamar his sister to come and make cakes in his\nsight, that he might eat at her hand, 2 Sam. xiii, 6. These and other\nallusions to the preparation of bread will be explained by referring to\neastern customs. Rauwolff observes that travellers frequently bake bread\nin the deserts of Arabia, on the ground heated for that purpose by fire,\ncovering their cakes of bread with ashes and coals, and turning them\nseveral times till they are enough. The eastern bread is made in small\nthin cakes, and is generally eaten new. Sometimes it was however made to\nkeep several days, as the shew bread; and a sort of rusks, or bread for\ntravelling, Joshua ix, 12. The eastern ladies of rank often prepare\ncakes, pastry, &c, in their own apartments.\n\nBALAAM, a prophet of the city of Pethor, or Bosor, upon the Euphrates,\nwhose intercourse with Balak, king of the Moabites, who sent for him to\ncurse the Israelites, is recorded at large by Moses, Num. xxii-xxiv. It\nhas been a subject of controversy, whether Balaam was a true prophet or\na mere diviner, magician, or fortune teller. Origen says that his whole\npower consisted in magic and cursing. Theodoret is of opinion that\nBalaam did not consult the Lord, but that he was supernaturally\ninspired, and constrained to speak against his own inclination. Cyril\nsays that he was a magician, an idolater, and a false prophet, who spoke\ntruth against his will; and St. Ambrose compares him to Caiaphas, who\nprophesied without being aware of the import of what he said. Jerom\nseems to have adopted the opinion of the Hebrews; which was, that Balaam\nknew the true God, erected altars to him, and that he was a true\nprophet, though corrupted by avarice, Num. xxii, 18. St. Austin and\nother commentators have inclined to this opinion. Dr. Jortin supposes\nthat Balaam was a worshipper of the true God, and a priest and prophet\nof great reputation; and that he was sent for by Balak from a notion\nwhich generally prevailed, that priests and prophets could sometimes, by\nprayers and sacrifices duly and skilfully applied, obtain favours from\nGod, and that their imprecations were efficacious. He conceives that the\nprophet had been accustomed to revelations, and that he used to receive\nthem in visions, or in dreams of the night. It cannot be denied that the\nScripture expressly calls him a prophet, 2 Pet. ii, 15, and therefore\nthose are probably right who think that he had once been a good man and\na true prophet, till, loving the wages of unrighteousness, and\nprostituting the honour of his office to covetousness, he apostatized\nfrom God, and, betaking himself to idolatrous practices, fell under the\ndelusion of the devil, of whom he learned all his magical enchantments;\nthough at this juncture, when the preservation of his people was\nconcerned, it might be consistent with God\u2019s wisdom to appear to him and\noverrule his mind by the impulse of real revelations. As to what passed\nbetween him and his ass, when that animal was miraculously enabled to\nspeak to its master, commentators are divided in their opinions; whether\nit really and literally happened as Moses relates it, or whether it be\nan allegory only, or was the mere imagination or vision of Balaam. But\nSt. Peter evidently mentions it as a fact literally and certainly\noccurring: \u201cthe dumb ass, speaking with man\u2019s voice, when she forbade\nthe madness of the prophet,\u201d 2 Pet. ii, 16. This, it is true, has\nfrequently been made the subject of profane banter by those whose\nskepticism leads them to scoff at all prodigies. But how absurd is it to\nsubject a miraculous event to the ordinary rules of reasoning! \u201cSay what\nyou will of the formation of the tongue and jaws being unfit for\nspeaking,\u201d says Bishop Newton, \u201cyet an adequate cause is assigned for\nthis wonderful event; for it is expressly said that \u2018the Lord opened the\nmouth of the ass;\u2019 and who that believes a God, can doubt his power to\ndo this and much more? The miracle was by no means needless or\nsuperfluous; it was well adapted to convince Balaam that the mouth and\ntongue were under God\u2019s direction, and that the same divine power which\ncaused the dumb ass to speak contrary to its nature, could, in like\nmanner, make him utter blessings contrary to his inclination. And,\naccordingly, he was overruled to bless the people, though he came\nprepared and disposed to curse them; which was the greater miracle of\nthe two; for the ass was merely passive, but Balaam resisted the good\nmotions of God.\u201d The prophecy which Balaam delivered concerning Israel\non this remarkable occasion, and which is contained in Numbers xxiv,\n5\u20139, has been greatly admired by critics. Bishop Lowth, in particular,\nremarks that he knows nothing in the whole scope of the Hebrew poetry\nmore exquisite or perfect. \u201cIt abounds,\u201d says he, \u201cin splendid imagery,\ncopied immediately from the tablet of nature; and is chiefly conspicuous\nfor the glowing elegance of the style, and the form and diversity of the\nfigures.\u201d\n\nAfter his predictions, Balaam returned into his own country; but before\nhe left the land of Moab, as if vexed with his own disappointment in\nmissing the promised reward, and with a purpose of revenging himself on\nthe Israelites, as the cause of it, he instructed the Moabites and\nMidianites in a wicked scheme, which was to send their daughters into\nthe camp of the Israelites, in order to draw them first into lewdness,\nand then into idolatry, the certain means of depriving them of the help\nof that God who protected them. This artifice succeeded; for as the\nIsraelites lay encamped at Shittim, many of them were deluded by these\nstrange women, not only to commit whoredom with them, but to assist at\ntheir sacrifices, and worship their god Baal-Peor, Num. xxv, 1\u20133; xxxi,\n16; Mic. vi, 5; 2 Pet. ii, 15; Jude 11; Rev. ii, 14; Deut. xxiii, 4, 5;\nJoshua xxiv, 9, 10; Neh. xiii, 2. God commanded Moses to avenge this\ncrime. He therefore declared war against the Midianites, killed five of\ntheir princes, and a great number of other persons without distinction\nof age or sex, among whom was Balaam himself.\n\nMoses says that Balaam consulted the Lord, and calls the Lord his God:\n\u201cI cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord _my_ God,\u201d Num. xxii,\n18. The reason why Balaam calls Jehovah, \u201c_my_ God\u201d may be, because he\nwas of the posterity of Shem, who maintained the worship of Jehovah, not\nonly in his own person, but among his descendants; so that while the\nposterity of Ham fell into idolatry, and the posterity of Japhet were\nsettled at a distance in Europe, the Shemites generally, though not\nuniversally, retained the worship of God.\n\nBALDNESS is a natural effect of old age, in which period of life the\nhair of the head, wanting nourishment, falls off, and leaves the head\nnaked. Artificial baldness was used as a token of mourning; it is\nthreatened to the voluptuous daughters of Israel, instead of well set\nhair, Isaiah iii, 24. See Mic. i, 16; and instances of it occur, Isaiah\nxv, 2; Jer. xlvii, 5. See Ezek, vii, 18; Amos viii, 10.\n\nThe insult offered to Elisha by the young people of Bethel, improperly\nrendered \u201clittle children,\u201d who cried out after him, \u201cGo up, thou bald\nhead,\u201d may here be noticed. The town of Bethel was one of the principal\nnurseries of Ahab\u2019s idolatry, and the contempt was offered to Elisha in\nhis public character as a prophet of the Lord. If in the expression, \u201cGo\nup,\u201d there was also a reference to the translation of Elijah, as turning\nit into jest, this was another aggravation of the sin, to which these\nyoung people were probably instigated by their parents. The malediction\nlaid upon them by the prophet was not an act of private resentment, but\nevidently proceeded from prophetic impulse.\n\nBALM, \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11; Jer. viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li, 8;\nEzek. xxvii, 17. Balm, or balsam, is used with us as a common name for\nmany of those oily resinous substances, which flow spontaneously or by\nincision, from certain trees or plants, and are of considerable use in\nmedicine and surgery. It serves therefore very properly to express the\nHebrew word \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9, which the LXX have rendered \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, and the ancients\nhave interpreted _resin_ indiscriminately.\n\nBALSAM TREE, \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05df; in Arabic, _abusch\u00e2m_, that is, \u201cfather of\nscent,\u201d sweet-scented. According to Mr. Bruce, the _balessan_, _balsam_,\nor _balm_, is an evergreen shrub, or tree, which grows to about fourteen\nfeet high, spontaneously and without culture in its native country,\nAzab, and all along the coast to Babelmandel. There were three kinds of\nbalsam extracted from this tree. The first was called _opobalsamum_, and\nwas most highly esteemed. It was that which flowed spontaneously, or by\nmeans of incision, from the trunk or branches of the tree in summer\ntime. The second was _carpobalsamum_, made by expressing the fruit when\nin maturity. The third, and least esteemed of all, was _hylobalsamum_,\nmade by a decoction of the buds and small young twigs. The great value\nset upon this drug in the east is traced to the earliest ages. The\nIshmaelites, or Arabian carriers and merchants, trafficking with the\nArabian commodities into Egypt, brought with them \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9 as a part of their\ncargo, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11. Josephus, in the history of the\nantiquities of his country, says that a tree of this balsam was brought\nto Jerusalem by the queen of Saba, and given among other presents to\nSolomon, who, as we know from Scripture, was very studious of all sorts\nof plants, and skilful in the description and distinction of them. And\nhere, indeed, it seems to have been cultivated and to have thriven; so\nthat the place of its origin, through length of time, combined with\nother reasons, came to be forgotten. Notwithstanding the positive\nauthority of Josephus, and the great probability that attends it, we\ncannot put it in competition with what we have been told in Scripture,\nas we have just now seen that the place where it grew, and was sold to\nmerchants, was Gilead in Judea, more than 1730 years before Christ, or\n1000 before the queen of Saba; so that in reading the verse, nothing can\nbe plainer than that it had been transplanted into Judea, flourished,\nand had become an article of commerce in Gilead, long before the period\nhe mentions. \u201cA company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their\ncamels, bearing spicery and balm, and myrrh, going to carry it down to\nEgypt,\u201d Gen. xxxvii, 25. Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Strabo,\nDiodorus Siculus, Tacitus, Justin, Solinus, and Serapion, speaking of\nits costliness and medicinal virtues, all say that this balsam came from\nJudea. The words of Pliny are, \u201cBut to all other odours whatever, the\nbalsam is preferred, produced in no other part but the land of Judea,\nand even there in two gardens only; both of them belonging to the king,\none no more than twenty acres, the other still smaller.\u201d The whole\nvalley of Jericho was once esteemed the most fruitful in Judea; and the\nobstinacy with which the Jews fought here to prevent the balsam trees\nfrom falling into the possession of the Romans, attests the importance\nwhich was attached to them. This tree Pliny describes as peculiar to the\nvale of Jericho, and as \u201cmore like a vine than a myrtle.\u201d It was\nesteemed so precious a rarity, that both Pompey and Titus carried a\nspecimen to Rome in triumph; and the balsam, owing to its scarcity, sold\nfor double its weight in silver, till its high price led to the practice\nof adulteration. Justin makes it the chief source of the national\nwealth. He describes the country in which it grew, as a valley like a\ngarden, environed with continual hills, and, as it were, enclosed with a\nwall. \u201cThe space of the valley contains 200,000 acres, and is called\nJericho. In that valley, there is wood as admirable for its fruitfulness\nas for its delight, for it is intermingled with palm trees and\nopobalsamum. The trees of the opobalsamum have a resemblance to fir\ntrees; but they are lower, and are planted and husbanded after the\nmanner of vines. On a set season of the year they sweat balsam. The\ndarkness of the place is beside as wonderful as the fruitfulness of it;\nfor although the sun shines no where hotter in the world, there is\nnaturally a moderate and perpetual gloominess of the air.\u201d According to\nMr. Buckingham, this description is most accurate. \u201cBoth the heat and\nthe gloominess,\u201d he says, \u201cwere observed by us, though darkness would be\nan improper term to apply to this gloom.\u201d\n\nBANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, a controversy that arose with Dr. Hoadly, bishop\nof Bangor. That prelate, in a sermon preached before George I, asserted\nthat Christ was supreme in his own kingdom; that he had not delegated\nhis power, like temporal lawgivers during their absence, to any persons\nas his vicegerents or deputies; and that the church of England, as all\nother national churches, was merely a civil or human institution,\nestablished for the purpose of diffusing and perpetuating the knowledge\nand belief of Christianity. On the meeting of the convocation, a\ncommittee was appointed to examine this publication. A heavy censure was\npassed against it, as tending to subvert all government and discipline\nin the church of Christ, to reduce his kingdom to a state of anarchy and\nconfusion, and to impugn and impeach the royal supremacy in matters\necclesiastical, and the authority of the legislature to enforce\nobedience in matters of religion, by severe sanction. To these\nproceedings a sudden stop was put by proroguing the convocation; but the\ncontroversy which had been commenced was continued for several years.\n\nBANNER, an ensign, or standard, used by armies or caravans on their\njourneys in the eastern countries. The original \u05d3\u05d2\u05dc, is rendered by\nlexicographers and translators under this word, as a noun, in which form\nit often occurs, _a standard_, _banner_; as a verb, once, _to set up a\nbanner_; Psalm xx, 5; as a participle pahul, _vexillatus_, one\ndistinguished by a banner, the chief; as a participle niphal, bannered,\nor with banners. The meaning of the root is illustrated by the very\ningenious and sensible author of \u201cObservations on Divers Passages of\nScripture,\u201d who shows, from Pitts and Pococke, that, \u201cas in Arabia and\nthe neighbouring countries, on account of the intense heat of the sun by\nday, people generally choose to travel in the night; so, to prevent\nconfusion in their large caravans, particularly in the annual one to\nMecca, each company, of which the caravan consists, has its distinct\nportable beacon, which is carried on the top of a pole, and consists of\nseveral lights, which are somewhat like iron stoves, into which they put\nshort dry wood, with which some of the camels are loaded. Every company\nhas one of these poles belonging to it; some of which have ten, some\ntwelve, of these lights on their tops, more or less; and they are\nlikewise of different figures, as well as numbers; one, perhaps, in an\noval shape; another, triangular, or in the form of an M, or N, &c, so\nthat by these every one knows his respective company. They are carried\nin the front, and set up in the place where the caravan is to pitch,\nbefore that comes up, at some distance from one another. As travelling\nthen in the night must be, generally speaking, more agreeable to a great\nmultitude in that desert, we may believe a compassionate God, for the\nmost part, directed Israel to move in the night. And in consequence,\nmust we not rather suppose the standards of the tribes were movable\nbeacons, like those of the Mecca pilgrims, than flags or any thing of\nthat kind?\u201d This ingenious author seems, however, to forget, 1. That the\npillar of fire was with the Israelites to direct their marches. 2. That\nthe Israelites were not a mere caravan, but an army; and, as such, for\norder, required standards as well by day as by night. See ARMIES.\n\nBANQUET. The hospitality of the present day in the east exactly\nresembles that of the remotest antiquity. The parable of the \u201cgreat\nsupper\u201d is in those countries literally realized. And such was the\nhospitality of ancient Greece and Rome. When a person provided an\nentertainment for his friends or neighbours, he sent round a number of\nservants to invite the guests; these were called _vocatores_ by the\nRomans, and \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 by the Greeks. The day when the entertainment is to\nbe given is fixed some considerable time before; and in the evening of\nthe day appointed, a messenger comes to bid the guests to the feast. The\ncustom is thus introduced in Luke: \u201cA certain man made a great supper,\nand bade many; and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that\nwere bidden, Come, for all things are now ready.\u201d They were not now\nasked for the first time; but had already accepted the invitation, when\nthe day was appointed, and were therefore already pledged to attend at\nthe hour when they might be summoned. They were not taken unprepared,\nand could not in consistency and decency plead any prior engagement.\nThey could not now refuse, without violating their word, and insulting\nthe master of the feast, and, therefore, justly subjected themselves to\npunishment. The terms of the parable exactly accord with established\ncustom. The Jews did not always follow the same method; sometimes they\nsent a number of servants different ways among the friends they meant to\ninvite; and at other times, a single male domestic.\n\nThe Persians send a deputation to meet their guests: this deputation are\ncalled openers of the way; and the more distinguished the persons sent,\nand the greater the distance to which they go, so much greater is the\nhonour. So it is proclaimed, \u201cGo forth and behold king Solomon, with the\ncrown wherewith his mother crowned him.\u201d \u201cThe bridegroom cometh, go ye\nforth to meet him.\u201d The names of the persons to be invited were\ninscribed upon tablets, and the gate was set open to receive those who\nhad obtained them; but to prevent any getting in that had no ticket,\nonly one leaf of the door was left open; and that was strictly guarded\nby the servants of the family. Those who were admitted had to go along a\nnarrow passage to the room; and after all who had received tickets of\nadmission were assembled, the master of the house rose and shut to the\ndoor; and then the entertainment began. The first ceremony, after the\nguests arrived at the house of entertainment, was the salutation\nperformed by the master of the house, or one appointed in his place.\nAmong the Greeks, this was sometimes done by embracing with arms around;\nbut the most common salutation was by the conjunction of their right\nhands, the right hand being reckoned a pledge of fidelity and\nfriendship. Sometimes they kissed the lips, hands, knees, or feet, as\nthe person deserved more or less respect. The Jews welcomed a stranger\nto their house in the same way; for our Lord complains to Simon, that he\nhad given him no kiss, had welcomed him to his table with none of the\naccustomed tokens of respect.\n\nThe custom of reclining was introduced from the nations of the east, and\nparticularly from Persia, where it seems to have been adopted at a very\nremote period. The Old Testament Scriptures allude to both customs; but\nthey furnish undeniable proofs of the antiquity of sitting. As this is\nundoubtedly the most natural and dignified posture, so it seems to have\nbeen universally adopted by the first generations of men; and it was not\ntill after the lapse of many ages, and when degenerate man had lost much\nof the firmness of his primitive character, that he began to recline.\n\nThe tables were constructed of three different parts or separate tables,\nmaking but one in the whole. One was placed at the upper end crossways,\nand the two others joined to its ends, one on each side, so as to leave\nan open space between, by which the attendants could readily wait at all\nthe three. Round these tables were placed beds or couches, one to each\ntable; each of these beds was called _clinium_; and three of these being\nunited, to surround the three tables, made the _triclinium_. At the end\nof each _clinium_ was a footstool, for the convenience of mounting up to\nit. These beds were formed of mattresses, and supported on frames of\nwood, often highly ornamented; the mattresses were covered with cloth or\ntapestry, according to the quality of the entertainer. At the splendid\nfeast which Ahasuerus made for the nobles of his kingdom, beds of silver\nand gold were placed round the tables; according to a custom in the east\nof naming a thing from its principal ornament, these must have been\ncouches profusely ornamented with the precious metals. Each guest\ninclined the superior part of his body upon his left arm, the lower part\nbeing stretched out at length, or a little bent; his head was raised up,\nand his back sometimes supported with pillows. In conversation, those\nwho spoke raised themselves almost upright, supported by cushions. When\nthey ate, they raised themselves on their elbow, and made use of the\nright hand; which is the reason our Lord mentions the hand of Judas in\nthe singular number: \u201cHe that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the\nsame shall betray me,\u201d Matt. xxvi, 23. See ACCUBATION.\n\nWhen a Persian comes into an assembly, and has saluted the house, he\nthen measures with his eye the place to which his degree of rank\nentitles him; he straightway wedges himself into the line of guests,\nwithout offering any apology for the general disturbance which he\nproduces. It often happens that persons take a higher seat than that to\nwhich they are entitled. The Persian scribes are remarkable for their\narrogance in this respect, in which they seem to bear a striking\nresemblance to the Jews of the same profession in the days of our Lord.\nThe master of the entertainment has, however, the privilege of placing\nany one as high in the rank of the assembly as he may choose. And Mr.\nMorier saw an instance of it at a public entertainment to which he was\ninvited. When the assembly was nearly full, the governor of Kashan, a\nman of humble mien, although of considerable rank, came in and seated\nhimself at the lowest place; when the master of the house, after\nnumerous expressions of welcome, pointed with his hand to an upper seat\nin the assembly, to which he desired him to move, and which he\naccordingly did. These circumstances furnish a beautiful and striking\nillustration of the parable which our Lord uttered, when he saw how\nthose that were invited chose the highest places.\n\nBefore the Greeks went to an entertainment, they washed and anointed\nthemselves; for it was thought very indecent to appear on such an\noccasion, defiled with sweat and dust; but they who came off a journey\nwere washed, and clothed with suitable apparel, in the house of the\nentertainer, before they were admitted to the feast. When Telemachus and\nPisistratus arrived at the palace of Menelaus, in the course of their\nwanderings, they were immediately supplied with water to wash, and with\noil to anoint, themselves, before they took their seats by the side of\nthe king. The oil used on such occasions, in the palaces of nobles and\nprinces, was perfumed with roses and other odoriferous herbs. They also\nwashed their hands before they sat down to meat. To these customary\nmarks of respect, to which a traveller, or one who had no house of his\nown, was entitled, our Lord alludes in his defence of Mary: \u201cAnd he\nturned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I\nentered into thine house; thou gavest me no water for my feet, but she\nhath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her\nhead. Thou gavest me no kiss; but this woman, since the time I came in,\nhath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint;\nbut this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment,\u201d Luke vii, 44. Homer\nmentions it as a custom quite common in those days, for daughters to\nwash and afterward to anoint the feet of their parents. Our Saviour was\nin the circumstances of a traveller; he had no home to wash and anoint\nhimself in, before he went to Simon\u2019s house; and, therefore, had a right\nto complain that his entertainer had failed in the respect that was due\nto him as a stranger, at a distance from the usual place of his\nresidence. The Jews regularly washed their hands and their feet before\ndinner; they considered this ceremony as essential, which discovers the\nreason of their astonishment, when they observed the disciples of Christ\nsit down at table without having observed this ceremony: \u201cWhy do thy\ndisciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not\ntheir hands when they eat bread,\u201d Matt. xv, 2. After meals they wash\nthem again; for, says the evangelist, \u201cthe Pharisees and all the Jews,\nexcept they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the\nelders,\u201d Mark vii, 3, 4. When they washed their hands themselves, they\nplunged them into the water up to the wrists; but when others performed\nthis office for them, it was done by pouring it upon their hands. The\nsame custom prevailed in Greece, for Homer says, the attendants poured\nwater on the hands of their chiefs. This was a part of the service which\nElisha performed for his master Elijah; and in every instance under the\nlaw where water was applied to the body by another, it was done, not by\nplunging, but by pouring or sprinkling. To wash the feet was a mean and\nservile office, and, therefore, generally performed by the female\nservants of the family. It was occasionally performed, however, by\nfemales of the highest rank; for the daughter of Cleobulus, one of the\nGrecian sages, and king of Lindus, a city on the south-east part of\nRhodes, was not ashamed to wash the feet of her father\u2019s guests. And it\nwas customary for them to kiss the feet of those to whom they thought a\nmore than common respect was due; for the daughter of Philocleon, in\nAristophanes, washed her father, anointed his feet, and, stooping down,\nkissed them. The towel which was used to wipe the feet after washing,\nwas considered through all the east as a badge of servitude. Suetonius\nmentions it as a sure mark of the intolerable pride of Caligula, the\nRoman emperor, that when at supper he suffered senators of the highest\nrank, sometimes to stand by his couch, sometimes at his feet, girt with\na towel. Hence it appears that this honour was a token of humiliation,\nwhich was not, however, absolutely degrading and inconsistent with all\nregard to rank. Yet our blessed Redeemer did not refuse to give his\ndisciples, and Judas Iscariot himself, that proof of his love and\nhumility.\n\nThe entertainment was conducted by a _symposiarch_, or governor of the\nfeast. He was, says Plutarch, one chosen among the guests, the most\npleasant and diverting in the company, that would not get drunk, and yet\nwould drink freely; he was to rule over the rest, to forbid any\ndisorder, but to encourage their mirth. He observed the temper of the\nguests, and how the wine worked upon them; how every one could bear his\nwine, and to endeavour accordingly to keep them all in harmony, and in\nan even composure, that there might be no disquiet nor disturbance. To\ndo this effectually, he first proclaimed liberty to every one to drink\nwhat he thought proper, and then observing who among them was most ready\nto be disordered, mixed more water with his wine, to keep him equally\nsober with the rest of the company; so that this officer took care that\nnone should be forced to drink, and that none, though left to their own\nchoice, should get intoxicated. Such, we have reason to believe, was the\ngovernor of the feast at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, which our Lord\nhonoured with his presence. The term \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 literally signifies\nthe governor of a place furnished with three beds; and he acted as one\nhaving authority; for he tasted the wine before he distributed it to the\ncompany, which, it is universally admitted, was one of the duties of a\nsymposiarch. Neither the name nor the act accords with the character and\nsituation of a guest; he must, therefore, have been the symposiarch, or\ngovernor of the feast. The existence of such an officer among the Jews\nis placed beyond a doubt, by a passage in the apocryphal book of\nEcclesiasticus, where his office is thus described: \u201cIf thou be made the\nmaster of a feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the\nrest; take diligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast\ndone all thine office, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with\nthem, and receive a crown for the well-ordering of the feast,\u201d\nEcclesiasticus xxxii, 1. See ARCHITRICLINUS.\n\nBAPTISM, from the Greek word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, is a rite or ceremony by which\npersons are initiated into the profession of the Christian religion; or,\nit is the appointed mode by which a person assumes the profession of\nChristianity, or is admitted to a participation of the privileges\nbelonging to the disciples of Christ. It was by this mode that those who\nbelieved the Gospel were to be separated from unbelievers, and joined to\nthe visible Christian church; and the rite accompanying it, or washing\nwith water, was probably intended to represent the washing away, or\nrenouncing, the impurities of some former state, viz. the sins that had\nbeen committed, and the vicious habits that had been contracted; and to\nthis purpose it may be observed, that the profession of repentance\nalways accompanied, or was understood to accompany, the profession of\nfaith in Christ. That our Lord instituted such an ordinance as baptism,\nis plain from the commission given to the Apostles after his\nresurrection, and recorded in Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. To this rite there\nis also an allusion in Mark xvi, 16; John iii, 5; Acts ii, 41; viii, 12,\n36\u201338; xxii, 16. The design of this institution, which was to express\nfaith in Christ on the part of those who were baptized, and to declare\ntheir resolution of openly professing his religion, and cultivating real\nand universal holiness, appears from Rom. vi, 3, 4; 1 Peter iii, 21;\nEphes. v, 26; and Titus iii, 5. We find no account of baptism as a\ndistinct religious rite, before the mission of John, the forerunner of\nChrist, who was called the \u201cBaptist,\u201d on account of his being commanded\nby God to baptize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to\nrepent. Washing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites, and,\nindeed, was required after contracting any kind of uncleanness. Also,\nsoon after the time of our Saviour, we find it to have been the custom\nof the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their\nproselytes. As their writers treat largely of the reasons for this rite,\nand give no hint of its being a novel institution, it is probable that\nthis had always been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, whose\naccount of the rite of circumcision, and of the manner of performing it,\nis by no means circumstantial. Or, baptism, after circumcision, might\nhave come into use gradually from the natural propriety of the thing,\nand its easy conformity to other Jewish customs. For if no Jew could\napproach the tabernacle, or temple, after the most trifling uncleanness,\nwithout washing, much less would it be thought proper to admit a\nproselyte from a state so impure and unclean as Heathenism was conceived\nto be, without the same mode of purification. The antiquity of this\npractice of proselyte baptism among the Jews, has been a subject of\nconsiderable debate among divines. It is strenuously maintained by\nLightfoot. Dr. John Owen considers the opinion, that Christian baptism\ncame from the Jews, as destitute of all probability. On the other hand,\nMr. Wall has made it highly probable, to say the least, from many\ntestimonies of the Jewish writers, who without one dissenting voice\nallow the fact, that the practice of Jewish baptism obtained before and\nat, as well as after, our Saviour\u2019s time. There is also a strong\nintimation, even in the Gospel itself, of such a known practice among\nthe Jews in the time of John the Baptist, John i, 25. The testimonies of\nthe Jewish writers are of the greater weight, because the practice,\nreported by them to have been of so ancient a date, did still remain\namong them; for if it had not been of that antiquity to which it\npretends, viz. before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would\never have become a custom among the Jews afterward. Would they begin to\nproselyte persons to their religion by baptism in imitation of the\ndisciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held accursed? And yet if this\nproselyte baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time of Christ, it\nmust have been a mere innovation in imitation of Christians, which is\nnot very likely. This ceremony is performed by immersion in the oriental\nchurches. The practice of the western churches is, to sprinkle the water\non the head or face of the person to be baptized, except in the church\nof Milan, in whose ritual it is ordered, that the head of the infant be\nplunged three times into the water; the minister at the same time\npronouncing the words, \u201c_I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the\nSon, and the Holy Ghost_;\u201d importing that by this ceremony the person\nbaptized is received among the professors of that religion which God,\nthe Father of all, revealed to mankind by the ministry of his Son, and\nconfirmed by the miracles of his Spirit.\n\n2. It is observable that the baptismal form, above cited from St.\nMatthew, never occurs in the same words, either in the book of the Acts,\nor in any of the Epistles. But though the form in St. Matthew never\nappears elsewhere, the thing intended thereby is always implied. There\nare many ceremonies delivered by ecclesiastical writers, as used in\nbaptism, which were introduced after the age of Justin Martyr, but which\nare now disused; as the giving milk and honey to the baptized, in the\neast; wine and milk, in the west, &c. They also added unction and the\nimposition of hands. Tertullian is the first who mentions the signing\nwith the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in\npublic worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing\nwithout it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till\nthe latter end of the fourth or fifth century; at which time great\nvirtue was ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the\nfourth century, says the devil cannot approach those who have the\nheavenly mark of the cross upon them as an impregnable fortress to\ndefend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. After the\ncouncil of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism\nand adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be\nbaptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted\ncandles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest\ntouched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spat upon his\nface. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the\nSunday following. They had also various other ceremonies; some of which\nare now abolished, though others of them remain in the church of Rome to\nthis day.\n\n3. The Quakers assert, that water baptism was never intended to continue\nin the church of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices made\nsuch an external ceremony necessary. They argue from Eph. iv, 5, in\nwhich _one_ baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians, that this\nmust be a baptism of the Spirit. But from comparing the texts that\nrelate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism\nwas instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this\nexplication. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and\nnot confined to the Jews, appears from Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, compared\nwith Acts x, 47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede\nwater baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those\nthat were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been\nthat of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called\nbaptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which may be drawn\nfrom 1 Cor. i, 17, it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses,\nand all the numerous texts, in which, in epistles written long after\nthis, the Apostle speaks of _all_ Christians as baptized; and argues\nfrom the obligation of baptism, in such a manner as we can never imagine\nhe would have done, if he had apprehended it to have been the will of\nGod that it should be discontinued in the church. Compare Rom. vi, 3,\n&c; Col. ii, 12; Gal. iii, 27.\n\n4. Baptism, in early times, was only administered at Easter and\nWhitsuntide, except in cases of necessity. Adult persons were prepared\nfor baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to\nanswer for them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or godfathers, were first\ninstituted in the second century, though they were afterward admitted\nalso in the baptism of infants. This, according to M. Daill\u00e9, was not\ndone till the fourth century. Wall refers the origin of sponsors, or\ngodfathers, on the authority of Tertullian, to the commencement of the\nsecond century; who were used in the baptism of infants that could not\nanswer for themselves. The catechumens were not forward in coming to\nbaptism. St. Ambrose was not baptized before he was elected bishop of\nMilan; and some of the fathers not till the time of their death. Some\ndeferred it out of a tender conscience; and others out of too much\nattachment to the world; it being the prevailing opinion of the\nprimitive times, that baptism, whenever conferred, washed away all\nantecedent stains and sins. Accordingly they deferred this sanctifying\nrite as long as possible, even till they apprehended they were at the\npoint of death. Cases of this kind occur at the beginning of the third\ncentury. Constantine the Great was not baptized till he was at the last\ngasp, and in this he was followed by his son Constantius; and two of his\nother sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were\nbaptized. As to the necessity of baptism, we may observe, however, that,\nthough some seem to have laid too great stress upon it, as if it were\nindispensably necessary in order to salvation; it must be allowed, that\nfor any person to omit baptism, when he acknowledges it to be an\ninstitution of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that he should\nsubmit to it, is an act of disobedience to his authority, which is\ninconsistent with true faith.\n\n5. The word _baptism_ is frequently taken for _sufferings_, Mark x, 38;\nLuke xii, 50; Matt. xx, 22, 23. Of expressions like these we find some\ntraces in the Old Testament also, where waters often denote\ntribulations, Psalm lxix, 1, 15; cxxiv, 4, 5; and where to be swallowed\nup by the waters, and to pass through the great waters, signify to be\noverwhelmed with miseries and calamities.\n\n6. St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the resurrection of the dead, among\nseveral other reasons in support of the doctrine, says, \u201cIf the dead\nrise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?\u201d 1\nCor. xv, 29. Of this phrase various interpretations have been given;\nthree of which only shall be here mentioned. \u201cIt means,\u201d say some,\n\u201c\u2018baptized in the room of the dead just fallen in the cause of Christ,\nand who are thus supported by a sucession of new converts, immediately\noffering themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers who\nadvance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been\nslain in their sight.\u2019\u201d Others think it signifies, \u201cIn hope of blessings\nto be received after they are numbered with the dead.\u201d Dr. Macknight\nsupplies the words, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03db\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and reads the clause, \u201cWho are\nbaptized for the resurrection of the dead;\u201d or in consequence of their\nbelieving in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; on account of\nwhich faith, and their profession of it, they are exposed to great\nsufferings, for which they can have no recompense, if there be no\nresurrection of the dead, nor any future life at all.\n\n7. As to the subjects of baptism, the anti-p\u00e6dobaptists hold that\nbelieving adults only are proper subjects, because the commission of\nChrist to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such\nonly as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants,\nwho cannot be thus taught, ought to be excluded. \u201cIt does not appear,\u201d\nsay they, \u201cthat the Apostles, in executing the commission of Christ,\never baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian\nfaith, and professed their belief of it.\u201d They contend that infants can\nreceive no benefit from baptism, and are not capable of faith and\nrepentance, which are to be considered as prerequisites.\n\n8. As to the mode, they observe that the meaning of the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\nsignifies to _immerse_ or _dip_, and that only; that John baptized in\nJordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus\ncame up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into\nthe water; that the terms, _washing_, _purifying_, _burying in baptism_,\nso often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode; that\nimmersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first\nChristians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty,\nand the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear\nfrom Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need\nof but little argument for their support. Farther, they also insist that\nall positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration\nof the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from\npreviously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of\nChrist respecting baptism ought to be our rule.\n\n9. The P\u00e6dobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the\nsubjects of baptism, they believe that qualified adults, who have not\nbeen baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but then they\nthink, also, that infants ought not to be excluded. They believe that,\nas the Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii, 7;\nHeb. viii, 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that\nas baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation of this covenant,\ninfants have as great a right to it as the children of the Israelites\nhad to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii, 39; Rom. iv, 11.\nFarther, if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive\ncommand for it, for the same reason they say that women should not come\nto the Lord\u2019s Supper; nor ought we to keep holy the first day of the\nweek; neither of these being expressly commanded. If baptizing infants\nhad been a human invention, they also ask, how such a practice could\nhave been so universal in the first three hundred years of the church,\nand yet no record have remained when it was introduced, nor any dispute\nor controversy about it have taken place? Some reduce the matter to a\nnarrower compass; urging, (1.) That God constituted in his church the\nmembership of infants, and admitted them to that privilege by a\nreligious ordinance, Gen. xvii; Gal. iii, 14, 17. (2.) That this right\nof infants to church membership was never taken away: and this being the\ncase, they argue, that infants must be received, because God has\nappointed it; and, since they must be received, it must be either with\nbaptism or without it; but none must be received without baptism;\ntherefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear\nthat, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same\nrelation to God and his church in which they were originally placed\nunder former dispensations. That infants are to be received into the\nchurch, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following\npassages of Scripture: Gen. xvii; Isa. xliv, 3; Matt. xix, 13; Luke ix,\n47, 48; Acts ii, 38, 39; Rom. xi, 17, 21; 1 Cor. vii, 14.\n\n10. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ\nand his Apostles baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that they were\nexcluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is\ndifficult to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not\nto be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would\nhave us \u201creceive\u201d them, how can we keep them out of the visible church?\nBeside, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect\nthat they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were\nbaptized, it is also probable there were children among them. From the\nyear 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of seven hundred\nand fifty years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize\ninfants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have\nbeen scarcely any one who advised the delay of infant baptism. Iren\u00e6us,\nwho lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp,\nwho was John\u2019s disciple, declares expressly, that the church learned\nfrom the Apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century,\naffirms, that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ\nand his Apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers, held about the\nyear 254, no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that\nchildren might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote\nabout 274 years from the Apostles, declares that the baptism of infants\nhad been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by the church down to\nthat time. \u201cThe catholic church every where declares,\u201d says Chrysostom,\nin the fifth century, \u201cthat infants should be baptized;\u201d and Augustine\naffirmed, that he never heard or read of any Christian, catholic or\nsectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They\nfarther believe that there needed no mention in the New Testament of\nreceiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed and\nnever repealed. So far from confining baptism to adults, it must be\nremembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New\nTestament, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized\nin adult years. The objection that infants are not proper subjects for\nbaptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, falls with as\nmuch weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism;\nsince they are as capable or are as fit subjects for the one as the\nother. Finally, it is generally acknowledged, that if infants die, (and\na great part of the human race die in their infancy,) they are saved: if\nthis be the case then why refuse them the sign of union with Christ, if\nthey be capable of enjoying the thing signified?\n\n11. As to the mode, the P\u00e6dobaptists deny that the term \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, which\nis a derivative of \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, and, consequently, must be something less in\nits signification, is invariably used in the New Testament to express\nplunging. It is denied, therefore, that dipping is its only meaning;\nthat Christ absolutely enjoined immersion; and that it is his positive\nwill that no other mode should be used. As the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 is used to\nexpress the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling,\npouring, &c, Heb. ix, 10, for the custom of washing before meals, and\nthe washing of household furniture, pots, &c, it is evident from hence\nthat it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by\nimmersion or effusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing; or the\napplication of water in some form or other. It no where signifies _to\ndip_, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing;\nand the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute;\njust as in the Lord\u2019s Supper, the time of day, the number and posture of\nthe communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are\ncircumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in\nbaptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the\nSpirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the\nScriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of\ndivine influences, Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16\u201322; John\ni, 33; Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; viii, 12, 17; xi, 15, 16. The term\n_sprinkling_, also, is made use of in reference to the act of\npurification, Isa. lii, 15; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; Heb. ix, 13, 14; and\ntherefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But, it is\nobserved, that John baptized \u201c_in_ Jordan:\u201d to this it is replied, To\ninfer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle,\nwould, in many instances, be false and absurd. The same Greek\npreposition, \u1f10\u03bd, is used when it is said they should be \u201cbaptized with\nfire;\u201d but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The\nApostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not, \u1f10\u03bd, \u201cby water only;\u201d\nbut, \u1f10\u03bd, \u201cby water and blood.\u201d There the same word, \u1f10\u03bd, is translated\n_by_; and with justice and propriety; for we know no good sense in which\nwe could say he came _in_ water. It has been remarked that \u1f10\u03bd is, more\nthan a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered _at_; and in a\nhundred and fifty others it is translated _with_. If it be rendered so\nhere, John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no\nproof that he plunged his disciples in it.\n\nJesus, it is said, came up _out of_ the water; but this is no proof that\nhe was immersed, as the Greek term, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78, often signifies _from_: for\ninstance, \u201cWho hath warned you to flee _from_,\u201d not _out of_, \u201cthe wrath\nto come?\u201d with many others that might be mentioned. Again: it is urged\nthat Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is\nanswered, that here also is no proof of immersion: for, if the\nexpression of their going down _into_ the water necessarily includes\ndipping, then Philip was dipped, as well as the eunuch. The preposition\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, translated _into_, often signifies no more than _to_, or _unto_:\nsee Matt. xv, 24; Rom. x, 10; Acts xxviii, 14; Matt. iii, 11; xvii, 27:\nso that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was\none person of all the baptized, who went into the water ankle deep. As\nto the Apostle\u2019s expression, \u201cburied with him in baptism,\u201d that has no\nforce in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a\ncustom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has\nany such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is\nhere alluded to. As Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly\nlife, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we\nmay live a new life of faith and love.\n\nTo conclude: it is urged, against the mode of immersion, that, as it\ncarries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the\nGospel dispensation; as it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance;\nas it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject\nunfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed\nutterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body\nwould, in all probability, be instant death; as in other situations it\nwould be impracticable, for want of water; it cannot be considered as\nnecessary to the ordinance of baptism, and there is the strongest\nimprobability that it was ever practised in the times of the New\nTestament, or in the earliest periods of the Christian church.\n\nBAPTISTS, or ANTIP\u00c6DOBAPTISTS, so called from their rejecting the\nbaptism of infants. The Baptists in England form one of \u201cthe three\ndenominations of Protestant Dissenters.\u201d The constitution of their\nchurches, and their modes of worship, are congregational, or\nindependent. They bore a considerable share in the sufferings of the\nseventeenth and preceding centuries: for there were many among the\nLollards and Wickliffites who disapproved of infant baptism. There were\nalso many of this faith among the Protestants and Reformers abroad. In\nHolland, Germany, and the north, they went by the names of Anabaptists\nand Mennonites; and in Piedmont and the south, they were found among the\nAlbigenses and Waldenses. The Baptists subsist chiefly under two\ndenominations,--the Particular or Calvinistical, and the General or\nArminian. The former is by far the most numerous. Some of both\ndenominations, General and Particular, allow of free or mixed communion;\nadmitting to the Lord\u2019s table pious persons who have not been immersed,\nwhile others consider that as an essential requisite to communion. These\nare sometimes called Strict Baptists. Other societies of this\ndenomination observe the seventh day of the week as their Sabbath,\napprehending the original law of the Sabbath to remain in force,\nunaltered and unrepealed. These are called Seventh-day Baptists. A\nconsiderable number of the General Baptists have gone into Unitarianism;\nin consequence of which, those who maintained the doctrines of the\nTrinity and atonement, in the latter part of the eighteenth century,\nformed themselves into what is called \u201cThe New Connection,\u201d or\nAssociation. These preserve a friendly correspondence with their other\nbrethren in things which concern the general interests of the\ndenomination, but hold no religious communion with them. Some\ncongregations of General Baptists admit three distinct orders of church\nofficers: messengers or ministers, elders, and deacons. The Baptists in\nAmerica, and in the East and West Indies, are chiefly Calvinists; but\nmost of them admit of free communion. The Scottish Baptists form a\ndistinct denomination, and are distinguished by several peculiarities of\nchurch government. \u201cNo trace can be found of a Baptist church in\nScotland,\u201d says Mr. Jones, \u201cexcepting one which appears to have been\nformed out of Cromwell\u2019s army, previous to 1765, when a church was\nsettled at Edinburgh, under the pastoral care of Mr. Carmichael and Mr.\nArchibald M\u2019Lean. Others have since been formed at Dundee, Glasgow, and\nin most of the principal towns of Scotland:\u201d also at London, and in\nvarious parts of England. They think that the order of public worship,\nwhich uniformly obtained in the Apostolic churches, is clearly set forth\nin Acts ii, 42\u201347; and therefore they endeavour to follow it out to the\nutmost of their power. They require a plurality of elders in every\nchurch, administer the Lord\u2019s Supper, and make contributions for the\npoor every first day of the week. The prayers and exhortations of the\nbrethren form a part of their church order, under the direction and\ncontrol of the elders, to whom it exclusively belongs to preside in\nconducting the worship, to rule in cases of discipline, and to labour in\nthe word and doctrine, in distinction from the brethren exhorting one\nanother. The elders are all laymen, generally chosen from among the\nbrethren; but, when circumstances require, are supported by their\ncontributions. They approve also of persons who are properly qualified\nfor it, being appointed by the church to preach the Gospel and baptize,\nthough not vested with any pastoral charge. The discipline and\ngovernment of the Scottish Baptists are strictly congregational.\n\nBARACHIAS, the father of Zacharias, mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35, as slain\nbetween the temple and the altar. There is a great diversity of opinions\nconcerning the person of this Zacharias, the son of Barachias. Some\nthink him to be Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada, who was killed by the\norders of Joash, between the temple and the altar, 2 Chron. xxiv, 21.\nCampbell thinks, with Father Simon, that Jehoiada had two names,\nBarachias and Jehoiada. See ZACHARIAS.\n\nBARAK, son of Abinoam, chosen by God to deliver the Hebrews from that\nbondage under which they were held by Jabin, king of the Canaanites,\nJudges iv, 4, 5, &c. He refused to obey the Lord\u2019s commands, signified\nto him by Deborah, the prophetess, unless she consented to go with him.\nDeborah accompanied Barak toward Kedesh of Naphtali; and, having\nassembled ten thousand men, they advanced to mount Tabor. Sisera, being\ninformed of this movement, marched with nine hundred chariots of war,\nand encamped near the river Kishon. Barak rapidly descended from mount\nTabor, and the Lord having spread terror through Sisera\u2019s army Barak\neasily obtained a complete victory. Sisera was killed by Jael. Barak and\nDeborah composed a hymn of thanksgiving; and the land had peace forty\nyears from A. M. 2719 to 2759, B. C. 1245.\n\nBARBARIAN. The word \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5 (rendered _barbarian_; LXX, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,) in the\nHebrew sense of it, signifies _a stranger_; one who knows neither the\nholy language nor the law. According to the notions of the Greeks, all\nnations who were not Greeks, or not governed by laws like the Greeks,\nwere barbarians. The Persians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabians, Gauls,\nGermans, and even the Romans, were, in their phraseology, barbarians,\nhowever learned or polite they might be in themselves. St. Paul\ncomprehends all mankind under the names of Greeks and barbarians: \u201cI am\na debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians; to the wise and to\nthe unwise,\u201d Rom. i, 14. St. Luke calls the inhabitants of the island of\nMalta barbarians, Acts xxviii, 2, 4. St. Paul, writing to the\nColossians, uses the terms _barbarian_ and _Scythian_ almost in the same\nsignification. In 1 Cor. xiv, 11, he says, that if he who speaks a\nforeign language in an assembly be not understood by those to whom he\ndiscourses, with respect to them he is a barbarian; and, reciprocally,\nif he understand not those who speak to him, they are to him barbarians.\nBarbarian, therefore, is used for every stranger or foreigner who does\nnot speak our native language, and includes no implication whatever of\nsavage nature or manners in those respecting whom it is used. It is most\nprobably derived from _berbir_, \u201ca shepherd;\u201d whence _Barbary_, the\ncountry of wandering shepherds; _Bedouins_, _Sceni_, _Scythei_, as if,\nwanderers in tents; therefore barbarians.\n\nBAR-JESUS, or, according to some copies, BAR-JEU, was a Jewish magician\nin the island of Crete, Acts xiii, 6. St. Luke calls him Elymas. He was\nwith the pro-consul Sergius Paulus, who, sending for Paul and Barnabas,\ndesired to hear the word of God. Bar-Jesus endeavouring to hinder the\npro-consul from embracing Christianity, Paul, filled with the Holy\nGhost, \u201cset his eyes upon him, and said, O full of all subtilty and\nmischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt\nthou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Behold, the hand\nof the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun\nfor a season;\u201d which took place immediately. The pro-consul, who saw\nthis miracle, was converted. Origen and Chrysostom think that Elymas, or\nBar-Jesus, was converted likewise; and that St. Paul speedily restored\nhis sight.\n\nBARLEY, \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4, Exod. ix, 31; Lev. xxvii, 16, &c;; a well-known kind of\ngrain. It derives its Hebrew name from the long hairy beard which grows\nupon the ear. Pliny, on the testimony of Menander, says that barley was\nthe most ancient aliment of mankind. In Palestine the barley was sown\nabout October, and reaped in the end of March, just after the passover.\nIn Egypt the barley harvest was later; for when the hail fell there,\nExodus ix, 31, a few days before the passover, the flax and barley were\nbruised and destroyed: for the flax was at its full growth, and the\nbarley began to form its green ears; but the wheat, and more backward\ngrain, were not damaged, because they were only in the blade, and the\nhail bruised the young shoots which produce the ears.\n\nThe rabbins sometimes called barley the food of beasts, because in\nreality they fed their cattle with it, 1 Kings iv, 28; and from Homer\nand other ancient writers we learn, that barley was given to horses. The\nHebrews, however, frequently used barley bread, as we find by several\npassages of Scripture: for example, David\u2019s friends brought to him in\nhis flight wheat, barley, flour, &c, 2 Sam. xvii, 28. Solomon sent\nwheat, barley, oil, and wine, to the labourers King Hiram had furnished\nhim, 2 Chron. ii, 15. Elijah had a present made him, of twenty barley\nloaves, and corn in the husk, 2 Kings iv, 22. And, by miraculously\nincreasing the five barley loaves, Christ fed a multitude of about five\nthousand, John vi, 8\u201310. The jealousy-offering, in the Levitical\ninstitution, was to be barley meal, Num. v, 15. The common mincha, or\noffering, was of fine wheat flour, Lev. ii, 1; but this was of barley, a\nmeaner grain, probably to denote the vile condition of the person in\nwhose behalf it was offered. For which reason, also, there was no oil or\nfrankincense permitted to be offered with it. Sometimes barley is put\nfor a low, contemptible reward or price. So the false prophets are\ncharged with seducing the people for handfuls of barley, and morsels of\nbread, Ezek. xiii, 19. Hosea bought his emblematic bride for fifteen\npieces of silver, and a homer and a half of barley, Hosea iii, 2.\n\nBARNABAS, a disciple of Jesus Christ, and companion of St. Paul in his\nlabours. He was a Levite, born in the isle of Cyprus. His proper name\nwas Joses, to which the Apostles added Barnabas, signifying _the son of\nconsolation_. He is generally considered one of the seventy disciples,\nchosen by our Saviour. He was brought up with Paul at the feet of\nGamaliel. When that Apostle came to Jerusalem, three years after his\nconversion, Barnabas introduced him to the other Apostles, Acts ix, 26,\n27, about A. D. 37. Five years afterward, the church at Jerusalem, being\ninformed of the progress of the Gospel at Antioch, sent Barnabas\nthither, who beheld with great joy the wonders of the grace of God, Acts\nxi, 22, 24. He exhorted the faithful to perseverance. Some time\nafterward, he went to Tarsus, to seek Paul, and bring him to Antioch,\nwhere they jointly laboured two years, and converted great numbers; and\nhere the disciples were first called Christians. They left Antioch A. D.\n44, to convey alms from this church to that at Jerusalem. At their\nreturn they brought John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. While they were\nat Antioch, the Holy Ghost directed that they should be separated for\nthose labours among the Gentiles to which he had appointed them. They\ndeparted into Cyprus, where they converted Sergius Paulus, the\npro-consul. They preached at Perga in Pamphylia without much success, by\nreason of the obstinacy and malice of the Jews; but being come to\nIconium, they made many converts. Here the Jews stirred up a sedition,\nand obliged them to retire to Derbe and Lystra, in Lycaonia, where St.\nPaul curing one \u00c6neas, who had been lame from his birth, the people of\nLystra regarded them as gods; calling Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul,\nMercury; and would have sacrificed to them, which the two Apostles with\ngreat difficulty hindered: nevertheless, soon afterward, they were\npersecuted in this very city. Having revisited the cities through which\nthey had passed, and where they had preached the Gospel, they returned\nto Antioch in Syria.\n\nIn A. D. 51, Barnabas was sent with Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem, on\noccasion of disputes concerning the observance of legal rites, to which\nthe Jews wished to subject the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas were present\nin the council at Jerusalem, and returned immediately to Antioch. Peter,\narriving there soon afterward, was led to countenance, in some degree,\nby his conduct, the observance of the Mosaic distinctions. Barnabas,\ntoo, (who, being by descent a Levite, might retain some former notions,)\nused the like dissimulation: but Paul reproved Peter and Barnabas with\ngreat freedom. Paul afterward determining to visit the churches in the\nisle of Cyprus, and in Asia Minor, Barnabas desired that John Mark might\naccompany them: but Paul objected, because Mark had left them on the\nfirst journey. Hereupon the two Apostles separated: Paul went toward\nAsia; and Barnabas, with Mark, to Cyprus. This is all we know certainly\nconcerning Barnabas.\n\nThere is extant among the writings of the fathers an epistle which is\nattributed to Barnabas; though, being without an inscription, it is not\nknown to whom it professes to have been addressed. It was first\npublished by Archbishop Usher, in Greek and Latin, and translated by\nArchbishop Wake, in his \u201cGenuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers,\u201d\nand has often been reprinted. That it is not the production of Barnabas,\nthe companion of Paul, may be safely concluded from internal evidence;\nthough it may have been written by some other person of the same name.\nThere is also a tract which goes by the name of, \u201cThe Gospel of\nBarnabas,\u201d still extant; from which Dr. White, at the end of his Bampton\nLectures, has given extracts sufficiently copious to satisfy any\nimpartial mind that it is spurious.\n\nBARRENNESS. This was looked upon as reproachful among the Greeks and\nRomans, but more particularly so among the Jews; which may be accounted\nfor by the constant expectation of Messiah, and the hope that every\nwoman had, that she might be the mother of the promised seed. This\nconstant hope of the speedy coming of the great \u201cSeed of the woman\u201d\nserves also to account for many circumstances in the Old Testament\nhistory. \u201cCouple it,\u201d says the Rev. J. J. Blunt, \u201cwith this\nconsideration, and I see the scheme of revelation, like the physical\nscheme, proceeding with beautiful uniformity: a unity of plan\n\u2018connecting,\u2019 as it has been well said by Paley, \u2018the chicken roosting\nupon its perch with the spheres revolving in the firmament;\u2019 and a unity\nof plan connecting in like manner the meanest accidents of a household\nwith the most illustrious visions of a prophet. Abstracted from this\nconsideration, I see in the history of Moses details of actions, some\ntrifling, some even offensive, pursued at a length (when compared with\nthe whole) singularly disproportionate; while things which the angels\nwould desire to look into are passed over and forgotten. But this\nprinciple once admitted, all is consecrated; all assumes a new aspect;\ntrifles, that seem at first not bigger than a man\u2019s hand, occupy the\nheavens; and wherefore Sarah laughed, for instance, at the prospect of a\nson, and wherefore that laugh was rendered immortal in his name; and\nwherefore the sacred historian dwells on a matter so trivial, whilst the\nworld and its vast concerns were lying at his feet, I can fully\nunderstand. For then I see the hand of God shaping every thing to his\nown ends, and in an event thus casual, thus easy, thus unimportant,\ntelling forth his mighty design of salvation to the world, and working\nit up into the web of his noble prospective counsels, Gen. xxi, 6. I see\nthat nothing is great or little before Him who can bend to his purposes\nwhatever he willeth, and convert the light-hearted and thoughtless\nmockery of an aged woman into an instrument of his glory, effectual as\nthe tongue of the seer which he touched with living coals from the\naltar. Bearing this master-key in my hand, I can interpret the scenes of\ndomestic mirth, of domestic stratagem, or of domestic wickedness, with\nwhich the history of Moses abounds. The Seed of the woman, that was to\nbruise the serpent\u2019s head, Gen. iii, 15, however indistinctly\nunderstood, (and probably it was understood very indistinctly,) was the\none thing longed for in the families of old; was \u2018the desire of all\nnations,\u2019 as the Prophet Haggai expressly calls it, Hag. ii, 7; and,\nprovided they could accomplish this desire, they (like others, when\nurged by an overpowering motive) were often reckless of the means, and\nrushed upon deeds which they could not defend. Then did the wife forget\nher jealousy, and provoke, instead of resenting, the faithlessness of\nher husband, Gen. xvi, 2; xxx, 3, 9; then did the mother forget a\nparent\u2019s part, and teach her own child treachery and deceit, Gen. xxv,\n23; xxvii, 13; then did daughters turn the instincts of nature backward,\nand deliberately work their own and their father\u2019s shame, Gen. xix, 31;\nthen did the daughter-in-law veil her face, and court the incestuous\nbed, Gen. xxxviii, 14; and to be childless, was to be a by-word, Gen.\nxvi, 5; xxx, 1; and to refuse to raise up seed to a brother, was to be\nspit upon, Gen. xxxviii, 26; Deut. xxv, 9; and the prospect of the\npromise, like the fulfilment of it, did not send peace into families,\nbut a sword; and three were set against two, and two against three, Gen.\nxxvii, 41; and the elder, who would be promoted unto honour, was set\nagainst the younger, whom God would promote, Gen. iv, 5; xxvii, 41; and\nnational differences were engendered by it, as individuals grew into\nnations, Gen. xix, 37; xxvi, 35; and even the foulest of idolatries may\nbe traced, perhaps, to this hallowed source; for the corruption of the\nbest is the worst corruption of all, Num. xxv, 1, 2, 3. It is upon this\nprinciple of interpretation, and I know not upon what other so well,\nthat we may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who have made\nthose parts of the Mosaic history a stumbling-block to many, which, if\nrightly understood, are the very testimony of the covenant; and a\nprinciple which is thus extensive in its application and successful in\nits results; which explains so much that is difficult, and answers so\nmuch that is objected against, has, from this circumstance alone, strong\npresumption in its favour, strong claims upon our sober regard.\u201d\n\nBARSABAS. Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus, was one of the first\ndisciples of Jesus Christ, and probably one of the seventy. When St.\nPeter proposed to the disciples to fill up the place of Judas the\ntraitor, by choosing another Apostle, Acts i, 21, Barsabas was nominated\nalong with Matthias; but the lot fell on Matthias, who was therefore\nnumbered with the eleven Apostles. We know nothing farther of the life\nof this Barsabas.\n\n2. BARSABAS was also the surname of Judas, one of the principal\ndisciples mentioned, Acts xv, 22, &c. Barsabas and some others were sent\nby the Apostles, with Paul and Barnabas, to Antioch, and carried a\nletter with them from the Apostles, signifying what the council at\nJerusalem had decreed. After the reading of the letter to the brethren,\nwhich was received with joy, Barsabas and Silas continued here some time\nlonger, instructing and confirming the brethren; after which Silas and\nBarsabas returned to Jerusalem. This is all we know of Barsabas Judas.\n\nBARTHOLOMEW, one of the twelve Apostles, Matt. x, 3, is supposed to be\nthe same person who is called Nathanael, one of the first of Christ\u2019s\ndisciples. This opinion is founded on the circumstance, that as the\nevangelist John never mentions Bartholomew in the number of the\nApostles, so the other evangelists never mention Nathanael. And as in\nJohn i, 45, Philip and Nathanael are mentioned together as coming to\nJesus, so in the other evangelists Philip and Bartholomew are constantly\nassociated together. The supposition also acquires additional\nprobability from considering, that Nathanael is particularly mentioned\namong the Apostles to whom Christ appeared at the sea of Tiberias, after\nhis resurrection; Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael, of Cana in\nGalilee; the sons of Zebedee, namely, James and John; with two other of\nhis disciples, probably Andrew and Philip, John xxi, 2. It is an early\ntradition, that Bartholomew propagated the faith as far as India, and\nalso in the more northern and western parts of Asia, and that he finally\nsuffered martyrdom. But all the particulars respecting the life and\nlabours of the Apostles, not mentioned in the New Testament, are\nexceedingly uncertain.\n\nBARUCH, the son of Neriah, and grandson of Maaseiah, was of illustrious\nbirth, and of the tribe of Judah. He had a brother of the name of\nSeraiah, who occupied an important station in the court of King\nZedekiah; but he himself adhered to the person of the Prophet Jeremiah,\nand was his most steady friend, though his attachment to him drew on\nhimself several persecutions and much ill treatment. He appears to have\nacted as his secretary during a great part of his life, and never left\nhim till they were parted by death. In the reign of Jehoiakim, king of\nJudah, A. M. 3398, Jeremiah having been thrown into prison, the Lord\ncommanded him to commit to writing all the prophecies that he had\ndelivered until that time. He accordingly sent for Baruch, and dictated\nthem to him by word of mouth. Some time afterward he instructed the\nlatter to go and read them to the people, who were then assembled in the\ntemple; on which Michaiah, who happened to be present, and heard them,\ninstantly gave notice of them to the king\u2019s counsellors. The latter\nimmediately sent for Baruch, and commanded him to repeat to them what he\nhad been reading to the people in the temple; which he accordingly did,\nto their great astonishment: and, finding that they contained some very\nunwelcome tidings respecting the fate of the kingdom, they inquired how\nhe came into possession of them; intimating that their duty to the king\nrequired that they should make him acquainted therewith. Baruch was at\nthe same time advised to consult his own safety, and to let no man know\nwhere he was to be found; after which they took from him the roll of his\nprophecies, and deposited it in the chamber of Elishama, the scribe.\nThey next waited on the king, and told him what had passed. The latter\nsent Jehudi to fetch the book; which being brought, Jehoiakim commanded\nit to be read in his presence, and in the presence of his nobles who\nsurrounded him. But Jehudi had not proceeded far before the king took\nthe book, cut it with his secretary\u2019s penknife, and threw it into the\nfire, where it was consumed before their faces. He at the same time gave\norders to have both Baruch and Jeremiah seized; but the hand of\nProvidence concealed them from his fury.\n\nJeremiah was instructed a second time to commit his prophecies to\nwriting; and Baruch wrote them as before, with the addition of several\nothers which were not contained in the former book. In the fourth year\nof the reign of Zedekiah, Baruch went to Babylon, carrying with him a\nlong letter from Jeremiah, in which the Prophet foretold the judgments\nthat should come upon Babylon, and promised the Jews, who were then\ncaptives in that country, that they should again be restored to their\nown land. The latter were exceedingly affected at hearing Jeremiah\u2019s\nletter read to them, and returned an answer to their brethren at\nJerusalem. After his return to Jerusalem, Baruch continued his constant\nattendance on Jeremiah; and when Jerusalem was besieged by\nNebuchadnezzar, and Jeremiah thrown into prison, Baruch also was\nconfined with him: but when the city had surrendered, Nebuzaraddan\nshowed him much kindness, granted him his liberty, and permitted him to\ngo with Jeremiah wherever he chose.\n\nThe remnant of the people who had been left in Judea under the care of\nGedaliah, having adopted the resolution of going into Egypt, and finding\nthat Jeremiah opposed their taking that journey, threw the blame upon\nBaruch; insinuating that the latter had influenced the Prophet to\ndeclare against it. They were, however, both of them at last compelled\nto follow the people into Egypt, where Jeremiah soon afterward died; on\nwhich Baruch retired to Babylon, where the rabbins say he also died in\nthe twelfth year of the captivity, Jer. xxxvi; xliii. The book of Baruch\nis justly placed among the apocryphal writings. Grotius thinks it a\nfiction written by some Hellenistic Jew; and St. Jerome gives as the\nreason why he did not write a commentary upon it, that the Jews\nthemselves did not deem it canonical.\n\nBASHAN, or BASAN, one of the most fertile cantons of Canaan, which was\nbounded on the west by the river Jordan, on the east by the mountains of\nGilead, on the south by the brook of Jabbok, and on the north by the\nland of Geshur. The whole kingdom took its name from the hill of Bashan,\nwhich is situated in the middle of it, and by the Greeks is called\nBatan\u00e6a. It had no less than sixty walled towns in it, beside villages.\nIt afforded an excellent breed of cattle, and stately oaks, and was, in\nshort, a plentiful and populous country. Og, king of the Amorites,\npossessed this country when Moses made the conquest thereof. In the\ndivision of the Holy Land, it was assigned to the half tribe of\nManasseh. Of the present state of this portion of the ancient\npossessions of the Israelites, Mr. Buckingham, in his Travels, gives the\nfollowing account: \u201cWe ascended the steep on the north side of the\nZerkah, or Jabbok; and, on reaching the summit, came again on a\nbeautiful plain, of an elevated level, and still covered with a very\nrich soil. We had now quitted the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites,\nand entered into that of Og, the king of Bashan, both of them well known\nto all the readers of the early Scriptures. We had quitted too, the\ndistricts apportioned to the tribes of Reuben and of Gad, and entered\nthat part which was allotted to the half tribe of Manasseh, beyond\nJordan eastward, leaving the land of the children of Ammon on our right,\nor to the east of the Jabbok, which, according to the authority before\nquoted, divided Ammon, or Philadelphia, from Gerasa. The mountains here\nare called the land of Gilead in the Scriptures, and in Josephus; and,\naccording to the Roman division, this was the country of the Decapolis,\nso often spoken of in the New Testament, or the province of Gaulonitis,\nfrom the city of Gaulon, its early capital. We continued our way over\nthis elevated tract, continuing to behold, with surprise and admiration,\na beautiful country on all sides of us: its plains covered with a\nfertile soil, its hills clothed with forests; at every new turn\npresenting the most magnificent landscapes that could be imagined. Among\nthe trees, the oak was frequently seen; and we know that this territory\nproduced them of old. In enumerating the sources from which the supplies\nof Tyre were drawn in the time of her great wealth and naval splendour,\nthe Prophet says, \u2018Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars,\u2019\nEzek. xxvii, 6. Some learned commentators indeed, believing that no oaks\ngrew in these supposed desert regions, have translated the word by\n\u2018alders,\u2019 to prevent the appearance of inaccuracy in the inspired\nwriter. The expression of \u2018the fat bulls of Bashan,\u2019 which occurs more\nthan once in the Scriptures, seemed to us equally inconsistent, as\napplied to the beasts of a country generally thought to be a desert, in\ncommon with the whole tract which is laid down in our modern maps as\nsuch between the Jordan and the Euphrates; but we could now fully\ncomprehend, not only that the bulls of this luxuriant country might be\nproverbially fat, but that its possessors, too, might be a race renowned\nfor strength and comeliness of person. The general face of this region\nimproved as we advanced farther in it; and every new direction of our\npath opened upon us views which surprised and charmed us by their\ngrandeur and their beauty. Lofty mountains gave an outline of the most\nmagnificent character; flowing beds of secondary hills softened the\nromantic wildness of the picture; gentle slopes, clothed with wood, gave\na rich variety of tints, hardly to be imitated by the pencil; deep\nvalleys, filled with murmuring streams and verdant meadows, offered all\nthe luxuriance of cultivation; and herds and flocks gave life and\nanimation to scenes as grand, as beautiful, and as highly picturesque as\nthe genius or taste of a Claude could either invent or desire.\u201d\n\nBASILIDEANS, the followers of Basilides of Alexandria, a gnostic leader\nof the early part of the second century. See GNOSTICS.\n\nBASTARD, one born out of wedlock. A bastard among the Greeks was\ndespised, and exposed to public scorn, on account of his spurious\norigin. In Persia the son of a concubine is never placed on a footing\nwith the legitimate offspring; any attempt made by parental fondness to\ndo so would be resented by the relations of the legitimate wife, and\noutrage the feelings of a whole tribe. The Jewish father bestowed as\nlittle attention on the education of his natural children as the Greek:\nhe seems to have resigned them, in a great measure, to their own\ninclinations; he neither checked their passions, nor corrected their\nfaults, nor stored their minds with useful knowledge. This is evidently\nimplied in these words of the Apostle: \u201cIf ye endure chastening, God\ndealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father\nchasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are\npartakers, then are ye bastards and not sons,\u201d Heb. xii, 7, 8. To\nrestrain the licentious desires of the heart, Jehovah by an express law\nfixed a stigma upon the bastard, which was not to be removed till the\ntenth generation; and to show that the precept was on no account to be\nviolated, or suffered to fall into disuse, it is emphatically repeated,\n\u201cA bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to\nhis tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the\nLord,\u201d Deut. xxiii, 2.\n\nBASTINADO, the punishment of beating with sticks. It is also called\n_tympanum_, [a drum,] because the patient was beaten like a drum.\nUpwards of a hundred blows were often inflicted, and sometimes the\nbeating was unto death. St. Paul, Heb. xi, 35, says that some of the\nsaints were _tortured_, \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, suffered the tympanum, that is, were\nstretched on an instrument of torture, and beaten to death.\n\nBAT, \u05e2\u05d8\u05dc\u05e3, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Isaiah ii, 20; Baruch vi, 22. The\nJewish legislator, having enumerated the animals legally unclean, as\nwell beasts as birds, closes his catalogue with a creature whose\nequivocal properties seem to exclude it from both those classes: it is\ntoo much a bird to be properly a mouse, and too much a mouse to be\nproperly a bird. The bat is therefore well described in Deut. xiv, 18,\n19, as the passage should be read, \u201cMoreover the _othelaph_, and _every\ncreeping thing that flieth_, is unclean to you: they shall not be\neaten.\u201d This character is very descriptive, and places this creature at\nthe head of a class of which he is a clear and well-known instance. It\nhas feet or claws growing out of its pinions, and contradicts the\ngeneral order of nature, by creeping with the instruments of its flight.\nThe Hebrew name of the bat is from \u05e2\u05d8\u05dc _darkness_, and \u05e2\u05de _to fly_, as\nif it described \u201cthe flier in darkness.\u201d So the Greeks called the\ncreature \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2, from \u03bd\u1f7a\u03be, _night_; and the Latins, _vespertilio_,\nfrom _vesper_, \u201cevening.\u201d It is prophesied, Isaiah ii, 20, \u201cIn that day\nshall they cast away their idols to the moles and to the bats;\u201d that is,\nthey shall carry them into the dark caverns, old ruins, or desolate\nplaces, to which they shall fly for refuge, and so shall give them up,\nand relinquish them to the filthy animals that frequent such places, and\nhave taken possession of them as their proper habitation.\n\nBATH, a measure of capacity for things liquid, being the same with the\nephah, Ezek. xlv, 11, and containing ten homers, or seven gallons and\nfour pints.\n\nBATH-KOL, \u05d1\u05d7\u05be\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc, _daughter of the voice_. By this name the Jewish\nwriters distinguish what they called a revelation from God, after verbal\nprophecy had ceased in Israel; that is, after the prophets Haggai,\nZechariah, and Malachi. The generality of their traditions and customs\nare founded on this Bath-Kol. They pretend that God revealed them to\ntheir elders, not by prophecy, but by the _daughter of the voice_. The\nBath-Kol, as Dr. Prideaux shows, was a fantastical way of divination,\ninvented by the Jews, like the _Sortes Virgilian\u00e6_ [divination by the\nworks of Virgil] among the Heathen. For, as with them, the words first\nopened upon in the works of that poet, was the oracle whereby they\nprognosticated those future events which they desired to be informed of;\nso with the Jews when they appealed to Bath-Kol, the next words which\nthey should hear drop from any one\u2019s mouth were taken as the desired\noracle. With some it is probable that Bath-Kol, _the daughter of the\nvoice_, was only an elegant personification of _tradition_. Others,\nhowever, more bold, said that it was a voice from heaven, sometimes\nattended by a clap of thunder.\n\nBATTLE. See ARMIES.\n\nBAXTERIANISM, a modification of the Calvinistic doctrine of election\nadvocated by the celebrated Baxter in his treatise of \u201cUniversal\nRedemption,\u201d and in his \u201c_Methodus Theologi\u00e6_.\u201d The real author of the\nscheme, at least in a systematized form, was Camero, who taught divinity\nat Saumur, and it was unfolded and defended by his disciple Amyraldus,\nwhom Curcell\u00e6us refuted. Baxter says, in his preface to his \u201cSaint\u2019s\nRest,\u201d \u201cThe middle way which Camero, Crocius, Martinius, Amyraldus,\nDavenant, with all the divines of Britain and Bremen in the synod of\nDort, go, I think is nearest the truth of any that I know who have\nwritten on these points.\u201d Baxter first differs from the majority of\nCalvinists, though not from all, in his statement of the doctrine of\nsatisfaction:--\n\n\u201cChrist\u2019s sufferings were not a _fulfilling_ of the _law\u2019s threatening_;\n(though he bore its _curse materially_;) but a satisfaction for our _not\nfulfilling_ the _precept_, and to prevent _God\u2019s fulfilling_ the\n_threatening_ on us. Christ paid not, therefore, the _idem_, but the\n_tantundem_, or _\u00e6quivalens_; not the _very debt_ which we owed and the\nlaw required, but the _value_: (else it were not _strictly\nsatisfaction_, which is _redditio \u00e6quivalentis_: [the rendering of an\nequivalent:]) and (it being improperly called the _paying of a debt_,\nbut properly _a suffering for the guilty_) the _idem_ is nothing but\n_supplicium delinquentis_. [The punishment of the guilty individual.] In\n_criminals_, _dum alius solvet simul aliud solvitur_. [When another\nsuffers, it is another thing also that is suffered.] The law knoweth no\n_vicarius p\u0153n\u00e6_; [substitute in punishment;] though the _law maker_\nmay admit it, as he is _above law_; else there were no place for\n_pardon_, if the _proper debt_ be paid and the _law not relaxed_, but\n_fulfilled_. Christ did neither _obey_ nor _suffer_ in any man\u2019s\n_stead_, by a _strict, proper representation_ of his _person_ in point\nof law; so as that the _law_ should take it, as done or suffered by the\n_party himself_. But only as a _third person_, as a _mediator_, he\nvoluntarily bore what else the sinner should have borne. To assert the\ncontrary (especially as to particular persons considered in actual sin)\nis to overthrow all Scripture theology, and to introduce all\nAntinomianism; to overthrow all possibility of pardon, and assert\njustification before we sinned or were born, and to make _ourselves_ to\nhave satisfied God. Therefore, we must not say that _Christ died nostro\nloco_, [in our stead,] so as to _personate us_, or _represent our\npersons_ in _law sense_; but only to bear what else we must have borne.\u201d\n\nThis system explicitly asserts, that Christ made a satisfaction by his\ndeath equally for the sins of every man; and thus Baxter essentially\ndiffers both from the higher Calvinists, and, also, from the\nSublapsarians, who, though they may allow that the reprobate derive some\nbenefits from Christ\u2019s death, so that there is a vague sense in which he\nmay be said to have died for all men, yet they, of course, deny to such\nthe benefit of Christ\u2019s satisfaction or atonement which Baxter contends\nfor:--\n\n\u201cNeither the law, whose curse Christ bore, nor God, as the legislator to\nbe satisfied, did distinguish between men as elect and reprobate, or as\nbelievers and unbelievers, _de presenti vel de futuro_; [with regard to\nthe present or the future;] and to impose upon Christ, or require from\nhim satisfaction for the sins of one sort more than of another, but for\nmankind in general. God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, now dealeth\nwith no man upon the mere rigorous terms of the first law; (_obey\nperfectly and live, else thou shalt die_;) but giveth to all much mercy,\nwhich, according to the tenor of that violated law, they could not\nreceive, and calleth them to repentance, in order to their receiving\nfarther mercy offered them. And accordingly he will not judge any at\nlast according to the mere law of works, but as they have obeyed or not\nobeyed his conditions or terms of grace. It was not the _sins_ of the\n_elect only_, but of all _mankind fallen_, which lay upon Christ\nsatisfying. And to assert the contrary, injuriously diminisheth the\nhonour of his sufferings; and hath other desperate ill consequences.\u201d\n\nThe benefits derived to all men _equally_, from the satisfaction of\nChrist, he thus states:--\n\n\u201cAll mankind, _immediately_ upon Christ\u2019s satisfaction, are redeemed and\ndelivered from that legal necessity of perishing which they were under,\n(not by remitting sin or punishment directly to them, but by giving up\nGod\u2019s _jus puniendi_ [right of punishing] into the hands of the\nRedeemer; nor by giving any right directly to them, but _per meram\nresultantiam_ [by mere consequence] this happy change is made for them\nin their relation, upon the said remitting of God\u2019s right and advantage\nof justice against them,) and they are given up to the Redeemer as their\nowner and ruler, to be dealt with upon terms of mercy which have a\ntendency to their recovery. God the Father and Christ the Mediator hath\nfreely, without any prerequisite condition on man\u2019s part, enacted a law\nof grace of universal extent, in regard of its tenor, by which he\ngiveth, as a deed or gift, Christ himself, with all his following\nbenefits which he bestoweth; (as benefactor and legislator;) and this to\nall alike, without excluding any; upon condition they believe and accept\nthe offer. By this law, testament, or covenant, _all men are\nconditionally_ pardoned, justified, and reconciled to God already, and\nno man absolutely; nor doth it make a difference, nor take notice of\nany, till men\u2019s performance or non-performance of the condition makes a\ndifference. In the new law Christ hath truly _given himself_ with a\n_conditional pardon_, _justification_, and _conditional right to\nsalvation_, to all men in the _world, without exception_.\u201d\n\nBut the peculiarity of Baxter\u2019s scheme will be seen from the following\nfarther extracts:--\n\n\u201cThough Christ _died equally for all men_, in the aforesaid _law sense_,\nas he satisfied the offended legislator, and as giving himself to _all\nalike_ in the _conditional covenant_; yet he _never properly intended or\npurposed the actual justifying and saving of all_, nor of any but those\nthat come to be justified and saved; he did not, therefore, die for all,\nnor for any that perish, with a decree or resolution to save them, _much\nless did he die for all alike, as to this intent_. Christ hath given\n_faith_ to none by his law or testament, though he hath revealed, that\nto some he will, as benefactor and _Dominus Absolutus_, [absolute Lord,]\ngive that grace which shall infallibly produce it; and God hath given\nsome to Christ that he might prevail with them accordingly; yet this is\nno giving _it to the person_, nor hath he in himself ever the more title\nto it, nor can any lay claim to it as their due. It belongeth not to\nChrist as _satisfier_, nor yet as _legislator_, to make wicked refusers\nto become willing, and receive him and the benefits which he offers;\ntherefore he may do all for them that is fore-expressed, though he cure\nnot their unbelief. Faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, (and so is\nall the good which we do enjoy,) but not _directly_, as it is\n_satisfaction_ to _justice_; but only _remotely_, as it proceedeth from\nthat _jus dominii_ [right of dominion] which Christ has received to send\nthe Spirit in what measure and TO WHOM HE WILL, and to succeed it\naccordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the farther\nends of his death in the certain gathering and saving of THE ELECT.\u201d\n\nThus the whole theory amounts to this, that, although a _conditional\nsalvation_ has been purchased by Christ for all men, and is offered to\nthem, and all legal difficulties are removed out of the way of their\npardon as sinners by the atonement, yet Christ hath not purchased for\nany man the gift of FAITH, _or the power of performing the condition of\nsalvation required_; but gives this to some, and does not give it to\nothers, by virtue of that _absolute dominion_ over men which he has\npurchased for himself, so that, as the Calvinists refer the decree of\nelection to the sovereignty of the _Father_, Baxter refers it to the\nsovereignty of the _Son_; one makes the decree of reprobation to issue\nfrom the Creator and Judge, the other, from the Redeemer himself.\n\nIf, however, any one expects to find something in the form of system in\nBaxter\u2019s opinions on the five disputed points, he will be much\ndisappointed. The parties to whom he refers as the authors of this\nsupposed \u201cmiddle way,\u201d differ as much among themselves as Baxter\noccasionally does from himself. Bishop Davenant and Dr. S. Ward differed\nfrom Amyraut, Martinius, and others of that school, on the topic of\n_baptismal regeneration_; and, as the subjects of baptism, according to\nthe sentiments of the two former, are invested with invisible grace, and\nare regenerated in virtue of the ordinance when canonically performed,\nsuch divines far more easily disposed of their baptized converts in the\nranks of strict predestination, than the others could who did not hold\nthose sentiments. But they exhibited much ingenuity in not suffering it\nto \u201cintrench upon the question of perseverance.\u201d Their friend Bishop\nBedell, however, maintained, that \u201creprobates coming to years of\ndiscretion, after baptism, shall be condemned for original sin; for\ntheir absolution and washing in baptism was but conditional and\nexpectative; which doth truly interest them in all the promises of God,\nbut under the condition of repenting, believing and obeying, which they\nnever perform, and therefore never attain the promise.\u201d Bishop Overal\nhas also been claimed as a patron of this diversified \u201cmiddle system;\u201d\nbut it will be evident to every one who peruses his productions, that\nhis chief endeavour was to display the doctrines of the English church\nas identical with those of St. Augustine, yet basing them upon _the\nantecedent will of God_ and _conditional decrees_. After all the refined\ndistinctions which Baxter employed to render the theory of _common_ and\n_special_ grace plausible and popular, the real meaning of the inventors\nwas frequently elicited when such a question as this was asked, \u201cHave\nany men in the world grace sufficient to repent and believe savingly who\ndo not?\u201d After asserting that he knows nothing about the matter, the\nreply of Baxter is, \u201cIf we may conjecture upon probabilities, it seemeth\nmost likely that there is such a sufficient grace, or power, to repent\nand believe savingly, in some that use it not, but perish.\u201d \u201cThis,\u201d says\none of Baxter\u2019s apologists, \u201cseems to me very inexplicable!\u201d and in the\nsame light it will be viewed by all who recollect that this \u201csufficient\ngrace or power\u201d is that \u201cportion of special grace which never fails to\naccomplish its design,--the salvation of the individual on whom it is\nbestowed!\u201d Baxter\u2019s celebrated \u201cAphorisms of Justification,\u201d published\nin 1649, afforded employment to himself and his theological critics till\nnear the close of his life; and in the many modifications, concessions,\nand alterations which were extorted from him by men of different\nreligious tenets, he sometimes incautiously proved himself to be more\nCalvinistic than Calvin, and at others more Arminian than Arminius. The\nfollowing observations, from \u201cORME\u2019S _Life of Baxter_,\u201d are on the whole\njust and instructive:--\n\n\u201cThus did Baxter, at a very early period of his life, launch into the\nocean of controversy, on some of the most interesting subjects that can\nengage the human mind. The manner in which he began to treat them was\nlittle favourable to arriving at correct and satisfactory conclusions.\nPossessed of a mind uncommonly penetrating, he yet seems not to have had\nthe faculty of compressing within narrow limits his own views, or the\naccounts he was disposed to give of the views of others. All this arose,\nnot from any indisposition to be explicit, but from the peculiar\ncharacter of his mind. He is perpetually distinguishing things into\nphysical and moral, real and nominal, material and formal. However\nimportant these distinctions are, they often render his writings\ntiresome to the reader, and his reasonings more frequently perplexing\nthan satisfactory. Baxter is generally understood to have pursued a\nmiddle course between Calvinism and Arminianism. That he tried to hold\nand adjust the balance between the two parties, and that he was most\nanxious to reconcile them, are very certain. But it seems scarcely less\nevident, that he was much more a Calvinist than he was an Arminian.\nWhile this seems to me very apparent, it must be acknowledged, that if\ncertain views which have often been given of Calvinism are necessary to\nconstitute a Calvinist, Richard Baxter was no believer in that creed.\n\n\u201cWhile satisfied that among Baxter\u2019s sentiments, no important or vital\nerror will be found, yet in the style and method in which he too\ngenerally advocated or defended them, there is much to censure. The\nwrangling and disputatious manner in which he presented many of his\nviews, was calculated to gender an unsanctified state of mind in persons\nwho either abetted or opposed his sentiments. His scholastic and\nmetaphysical style of arguing is unbefitting the simplicity of the\nGospel, and cannot fail to injure it wherever such is employed. It not\nonly savours too much of the spirit of the schools, and the philosophy\nof this world; but places the truths of revelation on a level with the\nrudiments of human science. I am not sure whether certain effects which\nbegan early in the last century to appear among the Presbyterian part of\nthe Nonconformists, may not be traced, in some degree, to the\nspeculative and argumentative writings of Baxter. His influence over\nthis class of his brethren was evidently very great. He contributed more\nthan any other man to mitigate the harsh and forbidding aspect which the\nPresbyterians presented during the civil wars and the commonwealth. This\nwas well, but he did not stop here. He was inimical to all the existing\nsystems of doctrine and discipline then contended for, or ever before\nknown in the world; while he did not present any precisely defined\nsystem as his own. He opposed Calvinism; he opposed Arminianism; he\nwould not allow himself to be considered an Episcopalian, in the\nordinary acceptation of the word; he denied that he was a Presbyterian,\nand scorned to be thought an Independent. He held something in common\nwith them all, and yet he was somewhat different from all. He contended\nfor a system more general, and more liberal, than was then approved;\nand, as we have stated, wished to place a variety of theological truths\non grounds belonging rather to philosophy or metaphysics, than to\nrevelation.\n\n\u201cOn himself, this species of latitudinarianism produced little injurious\neffect, but I fear it had a baneful influence on others. The rejection\nof all human authority and influence in religion, requires to be\nbalanced by a very strong sense of the divine authority, to prevent its\ngenerating a state of mind more characterized by pride of intellect, and\nindependence of spirit, than by the humility and diffidence which are\nessential features in the Christian character. It is a singular fact,\nthat the Presbyterians, though at first more rigid in their doctrinal\nviews, and more exclusive in their spirit and system of church\ngovernment, than the Independents, became before the death of Baxter the\nmore liberal party. High views began to be ascribed by them to their now\nmoderate brethren; and, to avoid the charge of Antinomianism, which\nBaxter was too ready to prefer against such as differed from some of his\nviews, the Presbyterians seem gradually to have sunk into a state of\nlow, moderate orthodoxy, in which there was little of the warmth or\nvitality of evangelical religion.\n\n\u201cIn farther illustration of the influence now adverted to, it must be\nremarked, that the first stage in that process of deterioration which\ntook place among the Presbyterian Dissenters, was generally\ncharacterized by the term Baxterianism; a word to which it is difficult\nto attach a definite meaning. It denotes no separate sect or party, but\nrather a system of opinions on doctrinal points, verging toward\nArminianism, and which ultimately passed to Arianism and Socinianism.\nEven during Baxter\u2019s own life, while the Presbyterians taxed the\nIndependents with Antinomianism, the latter retorted the charge of\nSocinianism, or at least of a tendency toward it, in some of the\nopinions maintained both by Baxter and others of that party. To whatever\ncause it is to be attributed, it is a melancholy fact, that the\ndeclension which began even at this early period in the Presbyterian\nbody, went on slowly, but surely, till, from the most fervid orthodoxy,\nit finally arrived at the frigid zone of Unitarianism.\n\n\u201cI wish not to be understood as stating that Baxter either held any\nopinions of this description, or was conscious of a tendency in his\nsentiments toward such a fearful consummation; but, that there was an\ninjurious tendency in his manner of discussing certain important\nsubjects. It was subtle, and full of logomachy; it tended to unsettle,\nrather than to fix and determine; it gendered strife, rather than godly\nedifying. It is not possible to study such books as his \u2018_Methodus_,\u2019\nand his \u2018Catholic Theology,\u2019 without experiencing that we are brought\ninto a different region from Apostolic Christianity; a region of fierce\ndebate and altercation about words, and names, and opinions; in which\nall that can be said for error is largely dwelt upon, as well as what\ncan be said for truth. The ambiguities of language, the diversities of\nsects, the uncertainties of human perception and argument are urged,\ntill the force of revealed truth is considerably weakened, and\nconfidence in our own judgment of its meaning greatly impaired.\nErroneous language is maintained to be capable of sound meaning, and the\nmost Scriptural phrases to be susceptible of unscriptural\ninterpretation, till truth and error almost change places, and the mind\nis bewildered, confounded, and paralyzed. Into this mode of discussing\nsuch subjects, was this most excellent man led, partly by the natural\nconstitution of his mind, which has often been adverted to; partly by\nhis ardent desire of putting an end to the divisions of the Christian\nworld, and producing universal concord and harmony. He failed where\nsuccess was impossible, however plausible might have been the means\nwhich he employed. He understood the causes of difference and contention\nbetter than their remedies; hence the measures which he used frequently\naggravated instead of curing the disease. While a portion of evil,\nhowever, probably resulted from Baxter\u2019s mode of conducting controversy,\nand no great light was thrown by him on some of the dark and difficult\nsubjects which he so keenly discussed, I have no doubt he contributed\nconsiderably to produce a more moderate spirit toward each other,\nbetween Calvinists and Arminians, than had long prevailed. Though he\nsatisfied neither party, he must have convinced both, that great\ndifficulties exist on the subjects in debate, if pursued beyond a\ncertain length; that allowance ought to be made by each, for the\nweakness or prejudices of the other; and that genuine religion is\ncompatible with some diversity of opinion respecting one or all of the\nfive points.\u201d A similar effect as that which Mr. Orme ascribes to\nBaxter\u2019s writings on the English Presbyterians, followed also, on the\ncontinent among the reformed churches. It was the same middle system\nwith its philosophical subtleties, which Camero and Amyraut taught\nabroad, and which produced in them those effects that have been falsely\nascribed, both in England and abroad, to Arminianism. See AMYRAUT and\nCAMERON.\n\nBAY-TREE. \u05d0\u05d6\u05e8\u05d7. It is mentioned only in Psalm xxxvii, 35, 36: \u201cI have\nseen the ungodly in great power, and flourishing like a green bay-tree.\nYet he passed away, and lo, he was not. Yea, I sought him, but he could\nnot be found.\u201d Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, Jerom, and some others say\nthat the original may mean only _a native tree_; a tree growing in its\nnative soil, not having suffered by transplantation. Such a tree spreads\nitself luxuriantly. The Septuagint and Vulgate render it _cedars_; but\nthe high Dutch of Luther\u2019s Bible, the old Saxon, the French, the\nSpanish, the Italian of Diodati, and the version of Ainsworth, make it\nthe laurel.\n\nBDELLIUM, \u05d1\u05d3\u05dc\u05d4, occurs Gen. ii, 12, and Num. xi, 7. Interpreters seem at\na loss to know what to do with this word, and have rendered it\nvariously. Many suppose it a mineral production. The Septuagint\ntranslates in the first place, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1, _a carbuncle_, and in the\nsecond, \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03db\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, _a crystal_. The rabbins are followed by Reland in\ncalling it a crystal; but some, instead of _bedolah_, read _berolah_,\nchanging the \u05d1 into \u05e8, which are not always easily distinguished, and\nare often mistaken by transcribers; and so render it the _beryl_, which,\nsay they, is the prime kind of crystal. The _bedoleh_, in Genesis, is\nundoubtedly some precious stone; and its colour, mentioned in Numbers,\nwhere the manna is spoken of as of the colour of _bdellium_, is\nexplained by a reference to Exod. xvi, 14, 31, where it is likened to\nhoar frost, which being like little fragments of ice, may confirm the\nopinion that the bdellium is the beryl, perhaps that pellucid kind,\ncalled by Dr. Hill the _ellipomocrostyla_, or beryl crystal.\n\nBEAN, \u05e4\u05d5\u05dc, occurs 2 Sam. xvii, 28, and Ezek. iv, 9. A common legume.\nThose most usually cultivated in Syria are the white horse-bean, _faba\nrotunda oblonga_, and the kidney-bean, _phaseolis minimus, fructu viridi\novato_, called by the natives _masch_. The Arabic _ban_, the name of the\ncoffee berry, corresponds with our bean, and is probably its etymon.\n\nBEAR. That bears were common in Palestine appears from several passages\nof the Old Testament. Their strength, rapacity, and fierceness, furnish\nmany expressive metaphors to the Hebrew poets. The Hebrew name of this\nanimal is taken from his _growling_; so Varro deduces his Latin name\n_ursus_ by an onomatop\u00e6ia from the noise which he makes: \u201c_ursi Lucana\norigo, vel unde illi, nostri ab ipsius voce_:\u201d [the origin of the term\n_ursus_ (bear) is Lucanian, (whence also the bears themselves,) from the\nnoise made by the animal.] David had to defend his flock against bears\nas well as lions, 1 Sam. xvii, 34. And Dr. Shaw gives us to understand\nthat these rugged animals are not peculiar to the bleak regions of the\nnorth, being found in Barbary; and Thevenot informs us that they inhabit\nthe wilderness adjoining the Holy Land, and that he saw one near the\nnorthern extremities of the Red Sea. The ferocity of the bear,\nespecially when hungry or robbed of its whelps, has been mentioned by\nmany authors. The Scripture alludes in three places to this furious\ndisposition. The first is, 2 Sam. xvii, 8, \u201cThey be mighty men, and they\nbe chafed in their minds as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field.\u201d\nThe second, Prov. xvii, 12, \u201cLet a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man\nrather than a fool in his folly.\u201d And the third, Hosea xiii, 8, \u201cI will\nmeet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the\ncaul of their heart.\u201d\n\nBEARD. The Hebrews wore their beards, but had, doubtless, in common with\nother Asiatic nations, several fashions in this, as in all other parts\nof dress. Moses forbids them, Lev. xix, 27, \u201cto cut off entirely the\nangle, or extremity of their beard;\u201d that is, to avoid the manner of the\nEgyptians, who left only a little tuft of beard at the extremity of\ntheir chins. The Jews, in some places, at this day suffer a little\nfillet of hair to grow from below the ears to the chin: where, as well\nas upon their lower lips, their beards are long. When they mourned, they\nentirely shaved the hair of their heads and beards, and neglected to\ntrim their beards, to regulate them into neat order, or to remove what\ngrew on their upper lips and cheeks, Jer. xli, 5; xlviii, 37. In times\nof grief and affliction, they plucked away the hair of their heads and\nbeards, a mode of expression common to other nations under great\ncalamities. The king of the Ammonites, designing to insult David in the\nperson of his ambassadors, cut away half of their beards, and half of\ntheir clothes; that is, he cut off all their beard on one side of their\nfaces, 2 Sam. x, 4, 5; 1 Chron. xix, 5. To avoid ridicule, David did not\nwish them to appear at his court till their beards were grown again.\nWhen a leper was cured of his leprosy, he washed himself in a bath, and\nshaved off all the hair of his body; after which, he returned into the\ncamp, or city; seven days afterward, he washed himself and his clothes\nagain, shaved off all his hair, and offered the sacrifices appointed for\nhis purification, Lev. xiv, 9. The Levites, at their consecration, were\npurified by bathing, and washing their bodies and clothes; after which,\nthey shaved off all the hair of their bodies, and then offered the\nsacrifices appointed for their consecration, Num. viii, 7.\n\nNothing has been more fluctuating in the different ages of the world and\ncountries than the fashion of wearing the beard. Some have cultivated\none part and some another; some have endeavoured to extirpate it\nentirely, while others have almost idolized it; the revolutions of\ncountries have scarcely been more famous than the revolutions of beards.\nIt is a great mark of infamy among the Arabs to cut off the beard. Many\npeople would prefer death to this kind of treatment. As they would think\nit a grievous punishment to lose it, they carry things so far as to beg\nfor the sake of it: \u201cBy your beard, by the life of your beard, God\npreserve your blessed beard.\u201d When they would express their value for\nany thing, they say, \u201cIt is worth more than a man\u2019s beard.\u201d And hence we\nmay easily learn the magnitude of the offence of the Ammonites in their\ntreatment of David\u2019s ambassadors, as above mentioned; and also the force\nof the emblem used Ezek. v, 1\u20135, where the inhabitants of Jerusalem are\ncompared to the hair of his head and beard. Though they had been dear to\nGod as the hair of an eastern beard to its owner, they should be taken\naway and consumed, one part by pestilence and famine, another by the\nsword, another by the calamities incident on exile.\n\nBEASTS. When this word is used in opposition to man, as Psalm xxxvi, 5,\nany brute creature is signified; when to creeping things, as Lev. xi, 2,\n7; xxix, 30, four-footed animals, from the size of the hare and upward,\nare intended; and when to wild creatures, as Gen. i, 25, cattle, or tame\nanimals, are spoken of. In Isaiah xiii, 21, several wild animals are\nmentioned as dwelling among the ruins of Babylon: \u201cWild beasts of the\ndesert,\u201d \u05e6\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, those of the dry wilderness, as the root of the word\nimplies, \u201cshall dwell there. Their houses shall be full of doleful\ncreatures,\u201d \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd, _marsh animals_. \u201cOwls shall dwell there,\u201d ostriches,\n\u201cand satyrs,\u201d \u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, _shaggy ones_, \u201cshall dance there. And the wild\nbeasts of the islands,\u201d \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, _oases of the desert_, \u201cshall cry in their\ndesolate houses, and dragons,\u201d \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, _crocodiles_, or amphibious\nanimals, \u201cshall be in their desolate places.\u201d St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv, 32,\nspeaks of fighting with beasts, &c: by which he does not mean his having\nbeen exposed in the amphitheatre to fight as a gladiator, as some have\nconjectured, but that he had to contend at Ephesus with the fierce\nuproar of Demetrius and his associates. Ignatius uses the same figure in\nhis Epistle to the Romans: \u201cFrom Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild\nbeasts, both by sea and land, both night and day, being bound to ten\nleopards;\u201d that is, to a band of soldiers. So Lucian, in like manner,\nsays, \u201cFor I am not to fight with ordinary wild beasts, but with men,\ninsolent and hard to be convinced.\u201d In Rev. iv, v, vi, mention is made\nof four beasts, or rather, as the word \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 signifies, _living\ncreatures_, as in Ezek. i; and so the word might have been less harshly\ntranslated. Wild beasts are used in Scripture as emblems of tyrannical\nand persecuting powers. The most illustrious conquerors of antiquity\nalso have not a more honourable emblem.\n\nBED. Mattresses, or thick cotton quilts folded, were used for sleeping\nupon. These were laid upon the duan, or divan, a part of the room\nelevated above the level of the rest, covered with a carpet in winter,\nand a fine mat in summer. (See _Accubation_ and _Banquets_.) A divan\ncushion serves for a pillow and bolster. They do not keep their beds\nmade; the mattresses are rolled up, carried away, and placed in a\ncupboard till they are wanted at night. And hence the propriety of our\nLord\u2019s address to the paralytic, \u201cArise, take up thy bed,\u201d or mattress,\n\u201cand walk,\u201d Matt. ix, 6. The duan on which these mattresses are placed,\nis at the end of the chamber, and has an ascent of several steps. Hence\nHezekiah is said to turn his face to the wall when he prayed, that is,\nfrom his attendants. In the day the duan was used as a seat, and the\nplace of honour was the corner, Amos iii, 12.\n\nBEELZEBUB, Matt. x, 25. See BAALZEBUB.\n\nBEERSHEBA, or the well of the oath; so named from a well which Abraham\ndug in this place, and the covenant which he here made with Abimelech,\nking of Gerar, Gen. xx, 31. Here also he planted a grove, as it would\nappear, for the purpose of retirement for religious worship. In process\nof time, a considerable town was built on the same spot, which retained\nthe same name. Beersheba was given by Joshua to the tribe of Judah, and\nafterward transferred to Simeon, Joshua xv, 28. It was situated twenty\nmiles south of Hebron, in the extreme south of the land of Israel, as\nDan was on the north. The two places are frequently thus mentioned in\nScripture, as \u201cfrom Dan to Beersheba,\u201d to denote the whole length of the\ncountry.\n\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 BEE, \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, occurs Deut. i, 44; Judges xiv, 8; Psalm cviii, 12;\nIsa. vii, 18. A well known, small, industrious insect; whose form,\npropagation, economy, and singular instinct and ingenuity, have\nattracted the attention of the most inquisitive and laborious inquirers\ninto nature. Bees were very numerous in the east. _Serid, or Seriad_,\nmeans \u201cthe land of the hive;\u201d and Canaan was celebrated as \u201ca land\nflowing with milk and honey.\u201d The wild bees formed their comb in the\ncrevices of the rocks, and in the hollows of decayed trees. The passage\nin Isa. vii, 8, which mentions the \u201chissing for the bee,\u201d is supposed to\ninvolve an allusion to the practice of calling out the bees from their\nhives, by a hissing or whistling sound, to their labour in the fields,\nand summoning them again to return when the heavens begin to lower, or\nthe shadows of evening to fall. In this manner Jehovah threatens to\nrouse the enemies of Judah, and lead them to the prey. However widely\nscattered, or far remote from the scene of action, they should hear his\nvoice, and with as much promptitude as the bee that has been taught to\nrecognise the signal of its owner and obey his call, they should\nassemble their forces; and although weak and insignificant as a swarm of\nbees, in the estimation of a proud and infatuated people, they should\ncome, with irresistible might, and take possession of the rich and\nbeautiful region which had been abandoned by its terrified inhabitants.\n\nThe bee is represented by the ancients as a vexatious and even a\nformidable enemy; and the experience of every person who turns his\nattention to the temper and habits of this insect attests the truth of\ntheir assertion. The allusion, therefore, of Moses to their fierce\nhostility, Deut. i, 44, is both just and beautiful: \u201cThe Amorites, which\ndwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you as bees do,\nand destroyed you in Seir even unto Hormah.\u201d The Amorites, it appears,\nwere the most bitter adversaries to Israel of all the nations of Canaan.\nLike bees that are easily irritated, that attack with great fury and\nincreasing numbers the person that dares to molest their hive, and\npersecute him in his flight to a considerable distance, the incensed\nAmorites had collected their hostile bands, and chased the Israelites\nfrom their territory. The Psalmist also complains that his enemies\ncompassed him about like bees; fiercely attacking him on every side.\nFrom these allusions it would however appear, that the bees of the east\nwere of a more quarrelsome temper than ours, which exist chiefly in a\ndomesticated state.\n\nBEETLE. \u05d7\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc. It occurs only Lev. xi, 22. A species of locust is thought\nto be there spoken of. The word still remains in the Arabic, and is\nderived from an original, alluding to the vast number of their swarms.\nGolius explains it of the locust without wings. The Egyptians paid a\nsuperstitious worship to the beetle. Mr. Molyneaux, in the\n\u201cPhilosophical Transactions,\u201d says, \u201cIt is more than probable that this\ndestructive beetle we are speaking of was that very kind of scarab\u00e6us,\nwhich the idolatrous Egyptians of old had in such high veneration as to\npay divine worship unto it, and so frequently engrave its image upon\ntheir obelisks, &c, as we see at this day. For nothing can be supposed\nmore natural than to imagine a nation, addicted to polytheism, as the\nEgyptians were, in a country frequently suffering great mischief and\nscarcity from swarms of devouring insects, should, from a strange sense\nand fear of evil to come, (the common principle of superstition and\nidolatry,) give sacred worship to the visible authors of these their\nsufferings, in hopes to render them more propitious for the future. See\nFLY and LOCUST.\n\nBEHEMOTH. \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea. This term has greatly tried the ingenuity of the\ncritics. By some, among whom are Bythner and Reiske, it is regarded in\nJob xl, 16, as a plural noun for beasts in general: the peculiar name of\nthe animal immediately described not being mentioned, as unnecessary, on\naccount of the description itself being so easily applied at the time.\nIn this sense it is translated in various passages in the Psalms. Thus,\nl, 10, in which it is usually rendered cattle, as the plural of \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05ea it\nmeans unquestionably a _beast_ or _brute_, in the general signification\nof these words: \u201cFor every beast of the field is mine, and the cattle,\u201d\n_behemoth_, \u201cupon a thousand hills.\u201d So again, Isa. lxxiii, 22: \u201cSo\nfoolish was I, and ignorant; I was as a beast,\u201d _behemoth_, \u201cbefore\nthee.\u201d It is also used in the same sense in chap. xxxv, 11, of the book\nof Job: \u201cWho teacheth us more than the beasts,\u201d _behemoth_, \u201cof the\nearth.\u201d The greater number of critics, however, have understood the word\nbehemoth, in the singular number, as the peculiar name of the quadruped\ndescribed, Job xl, of whatever kind or nature it may be; although they\nhave materially differed upon this last point, some regarding it as the\nhippopotamus, or river horse, and others as the elephant. The evidence\nin favour of the hippopotamus appears, however, to predominate. The\nhippopotamus is nearly as large as the rhinoceros. The male has been\nfound seventeen feet in length, fifteen in circumference, and seven in\nheight. The head is enormously large, and the jaws extend upwards two\nfeet, and are armed with four cutting teeth, each of which is twelve\ninches in length. The body is of a lightish colour, thinly covered with\nhair. The legs are three feet long. Though amphibious, the hoofs, which\nare quadrifid, are not connected by membranes. The hide is so thick and\ntough as to resist the edge of a sword or sabre. Although an inhabitant\nof the waters, the hippopotamus is well known to breathe air like land\nanimals. On land, indeed, he finds the chief part of his food. It has\nbeen pretended that he devours vast quantities of fish; but it appears\nwith the fullest evidence, both from the relations of many travellers,\nand from the structure of the stomach, in specimens that have been\ndissected, that he is nourished solely, or almost solely, on vegetable\nfood. Though he feeds upon aquatic plants, yet he very often leaves the\nwaters, and commits wide devastations through all the cultivated fields\nadjacent to the river. Unless when accidentally provoked, or wounded, he\nis never offensive; but when he is assaulted or hurt, his fury against\nthe assailants is terrible. He will attack a boat, break it in pieces\nwith his teeth; or, where the river is not too deep, he will raise it on\nhis back and overset it. If he be irritated when on shore, he will\nimmediately betake himself to the water; and there, in his native\nelement, shows all his strength and resolution.\n\nBEHMENISTS, a name given to those mystics who adopted the explication of\nthe mysteries of nature and grace, as given by Jacob Behmen. This writer\nwas born in the year 1575, at Old Siedenburg, near Gorlitz, in Upper\nLusatia. He was a shoemaker by trade, and is described as having been\nthoughtful and religious from his youth up, taking peculiar pleasure in\nfrequenting the public worship. At length, seriously considering within\nhimself that speech of our Saviour, \u201cYour heavenly Father will give the\nHoly Spirit to them that ask him,\u201d he was thereby awakened to desire\nthat promised Comforter; and, continuing in that earnestness, he was at\nlast, to use his own expression, \u201csurrounded with a divine light for\nseven days, and stood in the highest contemplation and kingdom of joys!\u201d\nAfter this, about the year 1600, he was again surrounded with a divine\nlight and replenished with the heavenly knowledge; insomuch as, going\nabroad into the fields, and viewing the herbs and grass, by his inward\nlight, he saw into their essences, uses, and properties, which were\ndiscovered to him by their lineaments, figures, and signatures. In the\nyear 1610, he had a third special illumination, wherein still farther\nmysteries were revealed to him; but it was not till the year 1612 that\nBehmen committed these revelations to writing. His first treatise is\nentitled, \u201cAurora,\u201d which was seized by the senate of Gorlitz before it\nwas completed. His next production is called, \u201cThe Three Principles,\u201d by\nwhich he means the dark world, or hell; the light world, or heaven; and\nthe external, or visible world, which we inhabit. In this work he more\nfully illustrates the subjects treated of in the former, and supplies\nwhat is wanting in that work, showing, 1. How all things came from a\nworking will of the holy, triune, incomprehensible God, manifesting\nhimself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, through an outward,\nperceptible, working, triune power of fire, light, and spirit, in the\nkingdom of heaven. 2. How and what angels and men were in their\ncreation; that they are in and from God, his real offspring; that their\nlife begun in and from this divine fire, which is the Father of Light,\ngenerating a birth of light in their souls; from both which proceeds the\nHoly Spirit, or breath of divine love, in the triune creature, as it\ndoes in the triune Creator. 3. How some angels, and all men, are fallen\nfrom God, and their first state of a divine triune life in him; what\nthey are in their fallen state, and the difference between the fall of\nangels and that of man. 4. How the earth, stars, and elements were\ncreated in consequence of the fall of angels. 5. Whence there is good\nand evil in all this temporal world; and what is meant by the curse that\ndwells in it. 6. Of the kingdom of Christ, how it is set in opposition\nto the kingdom of hell. 7. How man, through faith in Christ, is able to\novercome the kingdom of hell, and thereby obtain eternal salvation. 8.\nHow and why sin and misery shall only reign for a time, until God shall,\nin a supernatural way, make fallen man rise to the glory of angels, and\nthis material system shake off its curse, and enter into an everlasting\nunion with that heaven from whence it fell.\n\nThe next year, Behmen produced his \u201cThree-fold Life of Man,\u201d according\nto the three principles above mentioned. In this work he treats more\nlargely of the state of man in this world: that he has, 1. That immortal\nspark of life, which is common to angels and devils. 2. That divine life\nof the light and Spirit of God, which makes the essential difference\nbetween an angel and a devil; and, 3. The life of this external and\nvisible world. The first and last are common to all men; but the second\nonly to a true Christian, or child of God. Behmen wrote several other\ntreatises; but these are the basis of all his other writings. His\nconceptions are often clothed under allegorical symbols; and, in his\nlater works, he frequently adopted chemical and Latin phrases, which he\nborrowed from conversation with learned men. But as to the matter\ncontained in his writings, he disclaims having borrowed it either from\nmen or books. He died in the year 1624; and his last words were, \u201cNow I\ngo hence into paradise!\u201d Behmen\u2019s principles were adopted by Mr. Law,\nwho clothed them in a more modern dress, and in a style less obscure.\nThe essential obscurity of the subjects indeed he could not remedy. If\nthey were understood by the author himself, he is probably the only one\nwho ever made that attainment.\n\nBEL, or BELUS, a name by which many Heathens, and particularly the\nBabylonians, called their chief idol. But whether under this appellation\nthey worshipped Nimrod, their first Baal, or lord, or Pul, king of\nAssyria, or some other monarch, or the sun, or all in one, is uncertain.\nIt is, however, probable, that Bel is the same as the Phenician Baal,\nand that the worship of the same deity passed over to the Carthagenians,\nwho were a colony of Phenicians. Hence the names Hannibal, Asdrubal, &c,\ncompounded with Bel or Baal, according to the custom of the east, where\ngreat men added the names of the gods to their own. Bel had a temple\nerected to him in the city of Babylon, on the very uppermost range of\nthe famous tower of Babel, wherein were many statues of this pretended\ndeity; and one, among the rest, of massy gold, forty feet high. The\nwhole furniture of this magnificent temple was of the same metal, and\nvalued at eight hundred talents of gold. This temple, with its riches,\nwas in being till the time of Xerxes, who, returning from his\nunfortunate expedition into Greece, demolished it, and carried off the\nimmense wealth which it contained. It was, probably, the statue of this\ngod which Nebuchadnezzar, being returned to Babylon after the end of the\nJewish war, set up and dedicated in the plain of Dura; the story of\nwhich is related at large, Dan. iii. See BABEL.\n\nBEL AND THE DRAGON, an apocryphal and uncanonical book. It was always\nrejected by the Jewish church, and is extant neither in the Hebrew, nor\nin the Chaldee languages; nor is there any proof that it ever was so,\nalthough the council of Trent allowed it to be part of the canonical\nbook of Daniel, in which it stands in the Latin Vulgate. There are two\nGreek texts of this fragment, that of the Septuagint, and that found in\nTheodotion\u2019s Greek version of Daniel. The Latin and Arabic versions are\nfrom the text of Theodotion. Daniel probably, by detecting the mercenary\ncontrivances of the idolatrous priests of Babylon, and by opening the\neyes of the people to the follies of superstition, might furnish some\nfoundation for the story; but the whole is evidently charged with\nfiction, though introduced with a pious intent. St. Jerom gives it no\nbetter title than, \u201cThe fable of Bel and the Dragon.\u201d Selden thinks that\nthis history ought rather to be considered as a poem or fiction, than a\ntrue account: as to the dragon, he observes, that serpents, _dracones_,\nmade a part of the hidden mysteries of the Pagan religion, as appears\nfrom Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus, Justin Martyr, and others.\nSee SERPENT.\n\nBELIAL. The phrase, \u201csons of Belial,\u201d signifies _wicked, worthless men_.\nIt was given to the inhabitants of Gibeah, who abused the Levite\u2019s wife,\nJudges xix, 22; and to Hophni and Phineas, the wicked and profane sons\nof Eli, 1 Samuel ii, 12. In later times the name Belial denoted the\ndevil: \u201cWhat concord hath Christ with Belial?\u201d 2 Cor. vi, 15; for as the\nword literally imports \u201cone who will do no one good,\u201d the positive sense\nof a doer of evil was applied to Satan, who is the author of evil, and,\neminently, \u201cthe Evil One.\u201d\n\nBELLS. Moses ordered that the lower part of the blue robe, which the\nhigh priest wore in religious ceremonies, should be adorned with\npomegranates and bells, intermixed alternately, at equal distances. The\npomegranates were of wool, and in colour, blue purple, and crimson; the\nbells were of gold. Moses adds, \u201cAnd it shall be upon Aaron to minister;\nand his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before\nthe Lord, and when he cometh out; that he die not.\u201d Some of the Hebrews\nbelieve that these little bells are round; others, that they were such\nas were commonly in use. The ancient kings of Persia are said to have\nhad the hem of their robes adorned like that of the Jewish high priest,\nwith pomegranates and golden bells. The Arabian ladies, who are about\nthe king\u2019s person, have little gold bells fastened to their legs, their\nneck, and elbows, which, when they dance, make a very agreeable harmony.\nThe Arabian women of rank, generally, wear on their legs large hollow\ngold rings, containing small flints, that sound like little bells when\nthey walk; or they are large circles, with little rings hung all round,\nwhich produce the same effect. These, when they walk, give notice that\nthe mistress of the house is passing, that so the servants of the family\nmay behave themselves respectfully, and strangers may retire, to avoid\nseeing the person who advances. It was, in all probability, with some\nsuch design of giving notice that the high priest was passing, that he\nalso wore little bells at the hem of his robe. Their sound intimated\nalso when he was about to enter the sanctuary, and served to keep up the\nattention of the people. A reverential respect for the Divine Inhabitant\nwas also indicated. The palace of kings was not to be entered without\ndue notice, by striking some sonorous body, much less the sanctuary of\nGod; and the high priest did, by the sound of his bells at the bottom of\nhis robe, ask leave to enter. \u201cAnd his sound shall be heard when he\ngoeth into the holy place before the Lord, and when he cometh out; that\nhe die not.\u201d\n\nBells were a part of the martial furniture of horses employed in war.\nThe Jewish warrior adorned his charger with these ornaments; and the\nprophet foretels that these in future times should be consecrated to the\nservice of God: \u201cIn that day shall there be upon the bells of the\nhorses, Holiness unto the Lord.\u201d Chardin observes that something like\nthis is seen in several places of the east; in Persia, and in Turkey,\nthe reins of their bridles are of silk, of the thickness of a finger, on\nwhich are wrought the name of God, or other inscriptions. A horse which\nhad not been trained was by the Greeks called, \u201cone that had never heard\nthe noise of bells.\u201d\n\nBELLY is used in Scripture for gluttony, Titus i, 12; Philip iii, 16;\nRom. xvi, 18. For the heart, or the secrets of the mind, Prov. xx, 27,\n30; xxii, 18. The \u201cbelly of hell\u201d signifies the grave, or some imminent\ndanger, or deep distress, Jonah ii, 2; Ecclus. ii, 5.\n\nBELSHAZZAR, the last king of Babylon, and, according to Hales and\nothers, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. v, 18. During the period\nthat the Jews were in captivity at Babylon, a variety of singular events\nconcurred to prove that the sins which brought desolation on their\ncountry, and subjected them for a period of seventy years to the\nBabylonish yoke, had not dissolved that covenant relation which, as the\nGod of Abraham, Jehovah had entered into with them; and that any act of\nindignity perpetrated against an afflicted people, or any insult cast\nupon the service of their temple, would be regarded as an affront to the\nMajesty of heaven, and not suffered to pass with impunity, though the\nperpetrators were the princes and potentates of the earth. Belshazzar\nwas a remarkable instance of this. He had an opportunity of seeing, in\nthe case of his ancestor, how hateful pride is, even in royalty itself;\nhow instantly God can blast the dignity of the brightest crown, and\nreduce him that wears it to a level with the beasts of the field; and\nconsequently how much the prosperity of kings and the stability of their\nthrones depend upon acknowledging that \u201cthe Most High ruleth in the\nkingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.\u201d But all these\nawful lessons were lost upon Belshazzar.\n\nThe only circumstances of his reign, recorded, are the visions of the\nProphet Daniel, in the first and third years, Dan. vii, 1; viii, 1; and\nhis sacrilegious feast and violent death, Dan. v, 1\u201330. Isaiah, who\nrepresents the Babylonian dynasty as \u201cthe scourge of Palestine,\u201d styles\nNebuchadnezzar \u201ca serpent,\u201d Evil Merodach \u201ca cockatrice,\u201d and Belshazzar\n\u201ca fiery flying serpent,\u201d the worst of all, Isaiah xiv, 4\u201329. And\nXenophon confirms this prophetic character by two atrocious instances of\ncruelty and barbarity, exercised by Belshazzar upon some of his chief\nand most deserving nobles. He slew the only son of Gobryas, in a\ntransport of rage, because at a hunting match he hit with his spear a\nbear, and afterward a lion, when the king had missed both; and in a fit\nof jealousy, he brutally castrated Gadatus, because one of his\nconcubines had commended him as a handsome man. His last and most\nheinous offence was the profanation of the sacred vessels belonging to\nthe temple of Jerusalem, which his wise grandfather, and even his\nfoolish father Evil Merodach, had respected. Having made a great feast\nfor a thousand of his lords, he ordered those vessels to be brought\nduring the banquet, that he, his princes, his wives, and his concubines,\nmight drink out of them, which they did; and to aggravate sacrilege by\napostasy and rebellion, and ingratitude against the Supreme Author of\nall their enjoyments, \u201cthey praised the gods of gold, silver, brass,\niron, and stone, but the God in whose hand was their breath, and whose\nwere all their ways, they praised or glorified not.\u201d For these\ncomplicated crimes his doom was denounced in the midst of the\nentertainment; a divine hand appeared, which wrote on the plaister of\nthe wall, opposite to the king, and full in his view, a mysterious\ninscription. This tremendous apparition struck Belshazzar with the\ngreatest terror and agony: \u201chis countenance was changed, and his\nthoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and\nhis knees smote against each other.\u201d This is one of the liveliest and\nfinest amplifications of dismay to be found throughout the sacred\nclassics, and infinitely exceeds, both in accuracy and force, the most\nadmired of the Heathen; such as \u201c_et corde et genibus tremit_,\u201d of\nHorace, and \u201c_tarda trementi genua labant_,\u201d of Virgil.\n\nUnable himself to decypher the writing, Belshazzar cried aloud to bring\nin the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, promising that\nwhosoever should read the writing, and explain to him its meaning,\nshould be clothed with scarlet, have a chain of gold about his neck, and\nbe the third ruler in his kingdom. But the writing was too difficult for\nthe Magi; at which the king was still more greatly troubled. In this\ncrisis, and at the instance of the queen mother, the Prophet Daniel was\nsent for, to whom honours were promised, on condition of his explaining\nthe writing. Daniel refused the honours held out to him; but having with\ngreat faithfulness pointedly reproved the monarch for his ingratitude to\nGod who had conferred on him such dignity, and particularly for his\nprofanation of the vessels which were consecrated to his service, he\nproceeded to the interpretation of the words which had been written, and\nstill stood visible on the wall. They were, _Mene, Tekel, Upharsin_.\n\u201cThis is the interpretation of the thing, _Mene_, \u2018God hath numbered thy\nkingdom and finished it;\u2019 _Tekel_, \u2018thou art weighed in the balances and\nart found wanting;\u2019 _Peres_, \u2018thy kingdom is divided, and given to the\nMedes and Persians.\u2019\u201d In that very night, in the midst of their mirth\nand revelling, the city was taken by surprise, Belshazzar himself put to\ndeath, and the kingdom transferred to Darius the Mede. If the character\nof the hand-writing was known to the Magi of Babylon, the meaning could\nnot be conjectured. Perhaps, however, the character was that of the\nancient Hebrew, or what we now call the Samaritan; and in that case it\nwould be familiar to Daniel, though rude and unintelligible to the\nChaldeans. But even if Daniel could read the words, the import of this\nsolemn graphic message to the proud and impious monarch could only have\nbeen made known to the prophet by God. All the ideas the three words\nconvey, are _numbering_, _weighing_, and _dividing_. It was only for the\npower which sent the omen to unfold, not in equivocal terms, like the\nresponses of Heathen oracles, but in explicit language, the decision of\nthe righteous Judge, the termination of his long suffering, and the\ninstant visitation of judgment. See BABYLON.\n\nBELUS, a river of Palestine. On leaving Acre, and turning toward the\nsouth-east, the traveller crosses the river Belus, near its mouth, where\nthe stream is shallow enough to be easily forded on horseback. This\nriver rises out of a lake, computed to be about six miles distant,\ntoward the south-east, called by the ancients _Palus Cendovia_. Of the\nsand of this river, according to Pliny, glass was first made; and ships\nfrom Italy continued to convey it to the glass houses of Venice and\nGenoa, so late as the middle of the seventeenth century.\n\nBENEDICTION, in a general sense, the act of blessing in the name of God,\nor of giving praise to God, or returning thanks for his favours. Hence\nbenediction is the act of saying grace before or after meals. Neither\nthe ancient Jews, nor Christians, ever ate without a short prayer. The\nJews are obliged to rehearse a hundred benedictions every day; of which,\neighty are to be spoken in the morning. Rabbi Nehemiah Baruch, in 1688,\npublished a discourse on the manner wherein the sacerdotal benediction\nis to be pronounced. In the synagogue of Ferrara, it is rather sung than\nspoken. Among the ancient Jews, as well as Christians, benedictions were\nattended with the imposition of hands; and Christians, in process of\ntime, added the sign of the cross, which was made with the same hand,\nelevated or extended. Hence, in the Romish church, benediction was used\nto denote the sign of the cross, made by a bishop or prelate, from an\nidea that it conferred some grace on the people. The custom of receiving\nbenediction by bowing the head before the bishops, is very ancient; and\nwas so universal, that emperors themselves did not decline this mark of\nsubmission. Under the name benediction the Hebrews also frequently\nunderstood the presents which friends made to one another; in all\nprobability because they were generally attended with blessings and\nprayers, both from those who gave and those who received them. The\nsolemn blessing pronounced by the Jewish high priest upon the people, is\nrecorded Num. vi, 22, &c: \u201cThe Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord\nmake his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord\nlift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.\u201d The great\nChristian benediction is, \u201cThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love\nof God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you\nalways.\u201d See BLESSING.\n\nBENHADAD, the son of Tibrimon, king of Syria, came to the assistance of\nAsa, king of Judah, against Baasha, king of Israel, obliging the latter\nto return home and succour his own country, and to abandon Ramah, which\nhe had undertaken to fortify, 1 Kings xv, 18. This Benhadad is thought\nby some to have been the same person with Hadad the Edomite, who\nrebelled against Solomon toward the end of that prince\u2019s reign, 1 Kings\nxi, 25.\n\n2. BENHADAD, king of Syria, son of the preceding, made war upon Ahab,\nking of Israel, but was defeated. In the following year, however, he\ncame with a most powerful army to Aphek, where Ahab again engaged him,\nkilled a hundred thousand of his men, and the remainder endeavouring to\ntake refuge in Aphek, the walls of the city fell upon them, and killed\ntwenty-seven thousand more. Thus completely defeated, Benhadad submitted\nto beg his life of the king of Israel, who not only granted his request,\nbut gave him his liberty, and restored him to his crown upon certain\nconditions, 1 Kings xx. Twelve years afterward, A. M. 3115, Benhadad\ndeclared war against Jehoram, the son and successor of Ahab, 2 Kings vi,\n8; but his designs were made known to Jehoram by the Prophet Elisha, and\nthey were accordingly frustrated. Suspecting some treachery in this\naffair, Benhadad was informed that all his projects were revealed to his\nenemy by Elisha, and getting intelligence that the latter was at Dothan,\nhe sent a detachment of his best troops to invest the city and apprehend\nthe prophet; but they were struck with blindness at Elisha\u2019s prayer, so\nthat they were unable to distinguish him, when he was in the midst of\nthem and held a conversation with them. He then led them into the city\nof Samaria, and having conducted them safely there, he prayed to God\nagain to open their eyes, and induced Jehoram to dismiss them without\nviolence. Generous as this conduct was, it produced no salutary effect\non the infatuated Benhadad; for about four years afterward, he laid\nclose siege to Samaria, and reduced the city to such distress that the\nhead of an ass, which the Israelites considered to be an unclean animal,\nwas sold for fourscore pieces of silver, about 2_l._ 9_s._ sterling; and\nthe fourth part of a cab of dove\u2019s dung, or rather three quarters of a\npint of chick pease, as Bochart understands the word, for five pieces of\nsilver. In fact, such was the pressure of the famine at this time in\nSamaria, that mothers were constrained to eat their own children.\nJehoram, hearing of these calamities, attributed them to Elisha, and\nsent orders to have him put to death; but before his messengers could\nreach the prophet\u2019s house, he came thither himself. Elisha predicted\nthat the next day, about the same hour, a measure of fine flour would be\nsold at the gate of Samaria for a shekel, which, however incredible at\nthe moment, proved to be the case; for in the night, a general panic,\nsupernaturally induced, pervaded the Syrian camp; they imagined that\nJehoram had procured an army of Egyptians to come to his assistance,\nand, abandoning their horses, tents, and provisions, they all took to\nflight. Four lepers, whose disease did not permit them to live within\nthe city, and being ready to perish with hunger, ventured into the\nSyrian camp; and finding it deserted, and at the same time abounding\nwith all sorts of provisions, communicated the information to Jehoram.\nThe king immediately rose, though in the middle of the night; but\nreflecting that probably it was only a stratagem of Benhadad to draw his\npeople out of the town, he first sent parties to reconnoitre. They,\nhowever, speedily returned, and informed him that the enemy was fled,\nand that the roads were every where strewed with arms and garments,\nwhich the Syrians had abandoned to facilitate their flight. As soon as\nthe news was confirmed, the Samaritans went out, pillaged the Syrian\ncamp, and brought in such quantities of provisions, that a measure of\nfine flour was, at the time specified by Elisha, sold at the gate of\nSamaria for a shekel, 2 Kings vii.\n\nThe following year, A. M. 3120, Benhadad fell sick, and sent Hazael, one\nof his officers, with forty camels, loaded with valuable presents, to\nthe Prophet Elisha, to interrogate him, whether or not he should recover\nof his indisposition. Elisha fixed his eyes steadfastly on Hazael, and\nthen burst into tears: \u201cGo,\u201d said he, \u201cand tell Benhadad, Thou mayest\ncertainly recover; though the Lord hath showed me that he shall\nassuredly die.\u201d He at the same time apprised Hazael that he himself\nwould reign in Syria, and do infinite mischief to Israel. Hazael on this\nreturned and told Benhadad that his health should be restored. But on\nthe next day he took a thick cloth, which, having dipped in water, he\nspread over the king\u2019s face and stifled him. He then took possession of\nthe kingdom of Syria, according to the prediction of Elisha, 2 Kings\nviii.\n\n3. BENHADAD, the son of Hazael, mentioned in the preceding article,\nsucceeded his father as king of Syria, 2 Kings xiii, 24. During his\nreign, Jehoash, king of Israel, recovered from him all that his father\nHazael had taken from Jehoahaz his predecessor. He defeated him in three\nseveral engagements, and compelled him to surrender all the country\nbeyond Jordan, 2 Kings xiii, 25.\n\nBENI KHAIBIR, sons of Keber, the descendants of the Rechabites, to whom\nit was promised, Jer. xxxv, 19, \u201cThus saith the Lord, Jonadab, the son\nof Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.\u201d They were\nfirst brought into notice in modern times by Mr. Samuel Brett, who wrote\na narrative of the proceedings of the great council of the Jews in\nHungary, A. D. 1650. He says of the sect of the Rechabites, \u201cthat they\nobserve their old rules and customs, and neither sow, nor plant, nor\nbuild houses; but live in tents, and often remove from one place to\nanother with their whole property and families.\u201d They are also mentioned\nin Neibuhr\u2019s travels. Mr. Wolff, a converted Jew, gives the following\naccount in a late journal. He inquired of the rabbins at Jerusalem,\nrelative to these wandering Jews, and received the following\ninformation: \u201cRabbi Mose Secot is quite certain that the Beni Khaibir\nare descendants of the Rechabites; at this present moment they drink no\nwine, and have neither vineyard, nor field, nor seed; but dwell, like\nArabs, in tents, and are wandering nomades. They receive and observe the\nlaw of Moses by tradition, for they are not in possession of the written\nlaw.\u201d Mr. Wolff afterward himself visited this people, who have\nremained, amidst all the changes of nations, a most remarkable monument\nof the exact fulfilment of a minute, and apparently at first sight an\nunimportant, prophecy. So true is it, that not one jot or tittle of the\nword of God shall pass away! See RECHABITES.\n\nBENJAMIN, the youngest son of Jacob and Rachel, who was born, A. M.\n2272. Jacob, being on his journey from Mesopotamia, as he was proceeding\nsouthward with Rachel in the company, Gen. xxxv, 16, 17, &c, the pains\nof child-bearing came upon her, about a quarter of a league from\nBethlehem, and she died after the delivery of a son, whom, with her last\nbreath, she named Benoni, that is, \u201cthe son of my sorrow;\u201d but soon\nafterward Jacob changed his name, and called him Benjamin, that is, \u201cthe\nson of my right hand.\u201d See JOSEPH.\n\nBEREA, a city of Macedonia, where St. Paul preached the Gospel with\ngreat success, and where his hearers were careful to compare what they\nheard with the scriptures of the Old Testament, Acts, xvii, 10; for\nwhich they are commended, and held out to us as an example of subjecting\nevery doctrine to the sole test of the word of God.\n\nBERNICE, the daughter of Agrippa, surnamed the Great, king of the Jews,\nand sister to young Agrippa, also king of the Jews. This lady was first\nbetrothed to Mark, the son of Alexander Lysimachus, albarach of\nAlexandria; afterward she married Herod, king of Chalcis, her own uncle\nby the father\u2019s side. After the death of Herod, which happened A. D. 48,\nshe was married to Polemon, king of Pontus, but did not long continue\nwith him. She returned to her brother Agrippa, and with him heard the\ndiscourse which Paul delivered before Festus, Acts xxv.\n\nBERYL, \u05ea\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9, a pellucid gem of a bluish green colour, whence it is\ncalled by the lapidaries, _aqua marina_. Its Hebrew name is a word also\nfor the same reason given to the sea, Psalm xlviii, 7. It is found in\nthe East Indies, Peru, Siberia, and Tartary. It has a brilliant\nappearance, and is generally transparent. It was the tenth stone\nbelonging to the high priest\u2019s pectoral, Exod. xxviii, 10, 20; Rev. xxi,\n20.\n\nBETHABARA, or BETHBARAH, signifies in the Hebrew a place of passage,\nbecause of its ford over the river Jordan, on the east bank of which\nriver it stood over against Jericho, Joshua ii, 7; iii, 15, 16. To this\nplace Gideon sent a party to secure the passage of the river, previous\nto his attack on the Midianites, Judges vii, 24. Here John commenced his\nbaptizing, and here Christ himself was baptized, John i, 28. To this\nplace, also, Jesus retired, when the Jews sought to take him at the\nfeast of dedication; and many who resorted there to him believed on him,\nJohn x, 39\u201342.\n\nBETHANY, a considerable place, situated on the ascent of the mount of\nOlives, about two miles from Jerusalem, John xi, 18; Matt. xxi, 17;\nxxvi, 6, &c. Here it was that Martha and Mary lived, with their brother\nLazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead; and it was here that Mary\npoured the perfume on our Saviour\u2019s head. Bethany at present is but a\nvery small village. One of our modern travellers tells us, that, at the\nentrance into it, there is an old ruin, called the castle of Lazarus,\nsupposed to have been the mansion house where he and his sisters\nresided. At the bottom of a descent, not far from the castle, you see\nhis sepulchre, which the Turks hold in great veneration, and use it for\nan oratory, or place for prayer. Here going down by twenty-five steps,\nyou come at first into a small square room, and from thence creep into\nanother that is smaller, about a yard and a half deep, in which the body\nis said to have been laid. About a bow-shot from hence you pass by the\nplace which they say was Mary Magdalene\u2019s house; and thence descending a\nsteep hill, you come to the fountain of the Apostles, which is so called\nbecause, as the tradition goes, these holy persons were wont to refresh\nthemselves there between Jerusalem and Jericho,--as it is very probable\nthey might, because the fountain is close to the road side, and is\ninviting to the thirsty traveller. Bethany is now a poor village, but\npleasantly situated, says Dr. Richardson, on the shady side of the mount\nof Olives, and abounds in trees and long grass.\n\nBETHAVEN, the same with Bethel. This city, upon the revolt of the ten\ntribes, belonged to the kingdom of Israel, and was therefore one of the\ncities in which Jeroboam set up his golden calves. Whence the prophet in\nderision calls it, \u201cBethaven,\u201d _the house of vanity_ or _idols_, Hosea\niv, 15, instead of \u201cBethel,\u201d _the house of God_, the name which Jacob\nformerly gave it, when he had the vision of the mysterious ladder,\nreaching from earth to heaven, Gen. xxviii, 19.\n\nBETHEL, a city which lay to the west of Ai, about eight miles to the\nnorth of Jerusalem, in the confines of the tribe of Ephraim and\nBenjamin. Here Jacob slept and had his vision. The name of this city had\nformerly been Luz, which signifies _an almond_, and was probably so\ncalled from the number of almond trees which grew in those parts. See\nJACOB.\n\nBETHESDA. This word signifies _the house of mercy_, and was the name of\na pool, or public bath, at Jerusalem, which had five porticos, piazzas,\nor covered walks around it. This bath was called Bethesda, because, as\nsome observe, the erecting of baths was an act of great kindness to the\ncommon people, whose infirmities in hot countries required frequent\nbathing; but the generality of expositors think it had this name rather\nfrom the great goodness of God manifested to his people, in bestowing\nhealing virtues upon its waters. The account of the evangelist is, \u201cNow\nthere was at Jerusalem, by the sheep market, a pool, which is called in\nthe Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a\nmultitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the\nmoving of the water; for an angel went down at a certain season into the\npool: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in\nwas made whole of whatsoever disease he had,\u201d John v, 2\u20134. The\ngenuineness of the fourth verse has been disputed, because it is wanting\nin some ancient MSS, and is written in the margin of another as a\nscholion; but even were the spuriousness of this verse allowed, for\nwhich, however, the evidence is by no means satisfactory, the\nsupernatural character of the account, as it is indicated by the other\nparts of the narrative, remains unaffected. The _agitation_ of the\nwater; its _suddenly_ healing virtue as to all diseases; and the\n_limitation_ to the first that should go in, are all miraculous\ncircumstances. Commentators have however resorted to various hypotheses\nto account for the whole without divine agency. Dr. Hammond says, \u201cThe\nsacrifices were exceedingly numerous at the passover, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, (once\na year, Chrysostom,) when the pool being warm from the immediate washing\nof the blood and entrails, and thus adapted to the cure of the blind,\nthe withered, the lame, and perhaps the paralytic, was yet farther\ntroubled, and the congelations and grosser parts stirred up by an\nofficer or messenger, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, to give it the full effect.\u201d To this\nhypothesis Whitby acutely replies, 1. How could this natural virtue be\nadapted to, and cure, all kinds of diseases? 2. How could the virtue\nonly extend to the cure of one man, several probably entering at the\nsame instant? 3. How unlikely is it, if natural, to take place only at\none certain time, at the passover? for there was a multitude of\nsacrifices slain at other of the feasts. 4. Lastly, and decisively,\nLightfoot shows that there was a laver in the temple for washing the\nentrails; therefore they were not washed in this pool at all.\n\nOthers, however, suppose that the blood of the victims was conveyed from\nthe temple to this pool by pipes; and Kuinoel thinks that it cannot be\ndenied that the blood of animals recently slaughtered may impart a\nmedicinal property to water; and he refers to Richter\u2019s \u201c_Dissertat. de\nBalneo Animali_,\u201d and Michaelis _in loc._ But he admits that it cannot\nbe proved whether the pool was situated out of the city at the sheep\ngate, or in the city, and in the vicinity of the temple; nor that the\nblood of the victims was ever conveyed thither by canals. Kuinoel justly\nobserves, that though in Josephus no mention is made of the baths here\ndescribed, yet this silence ought not to induce us to question the truth\nof this transaction; since the historian omits to record many other\ncircumstances which cannot be doubted; as, for instance, the census of\nAugustus, and the murder of the infants. This critic also supposes that\nSt. John only acts the part of an historian, and gives the account as it\nwas current among the Jews, without vouching for its truth, or\ninterposing his own judgment. Mede follows in the track of absurdly\nattempting to account for the phenomenon on natural principles:--\u201cI\nthink the water of this pool acquired a medicinal property from the mud\nat its bottom, which was heavy with metallic salts,--sulphur perhaps, or\nalum, or nitre. Now this would, from the water being perturbed from the\nbottom by some natural cause, perhaps subterranean heat, or storms, rise\nupward and be mingled with it, and so impart a sanative property to\nthose who bathed in it before the metallic particles had subsided to the\nbottom. That it should have done so, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, is not strange, since\nBartholin has, by many examples, shown, that it is usual with many\nmedicinal baths, to exert a singular force and sanative power at stated\ntimes, and at periodical, but uncertain, intervals.\u201d Doddridge combines\nthe common hypothesis with that of Mede; namely, that the water had at\nall times more or less of a medicinal property; but at some period, not\nfar distant from that in which the transaction here recorded took place,\nit was endued with a miraculous power; an extraordinary commotion being\nprobably observed in the water, and Providence so ordering it, that the\nnext person who accidentally bathed here, being under some great\ndisorder, found an immediate and unexpected cure: the like phenomenon in\nsome other desperate case, was probably observed on a second commotion:\nand these commotions and cures might happen periodically.\n\nAll those hypotheses which exclude miracle in this case are very\nunsatisfactory, nor is there any reason whatever to resort to them; for,\nwhen rightly viewed, there appears a mercy and a wisdom in this miracle\nwhich must strike every one who attentively considers the account,\nunless he be a determined unbeliever in miraculous interposition. For,\n1. The miracle occurred \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, from time to time, that is,\noccasionally, perhaps frequently. 2. Though but one at a time was\nhealed, yet, as this might often occur, a singularly gracious provision\nwas made for the relief of the sick inhabitants of Jerusalem in\ndesperate cases. 3. The angel probably acted invisibly, but the\ncommotion in the waters was so strong and peculiar as to mark a\nsupernatural agent. 4. There is great probability in what Doddridge,\nfollowing Tertullian, supposes, that the waters obtained their healing\nproperty not long before the ministry of Christ, and lost it after his\nrejection and crucifixion by the Jews. In this case a connection was\nestablished between the healing virtue of the pool and the presence of\nChrist on earth, indicating HIM to be the source of this benefit, and\nthe true agent in conferring it; and thus it became, afterward at least,\na confirmation of his mission. 5. The whole might also be emblematical,\n\u201cintended,\u201d says Macknight, \u201cto show that Ezekiel\u2019s vision of waters\nissuing out of the sanctuary was about to be fulfilled, of which waters\nit is said, They shall be healed, and every thing shall live where the\nriver cometh.\u201d It cannot be objected that this was not an age of\nmiracles; and if miracles be allowed, we see in this particular\nsupernatural visitation obvious reasons of fitness, as well as a divine\ncompassion. If however the ends to be accomplished by so public and\nnotable a miraculous interposition were less obvious, still we must\nadmit the fact, or either force absurd interpretations upon the text, or\nmake the evangelist carelessly give his sanction to an instance of\nvulgar credulity and superstition.\n\nMaundrell and Chateaubriand both describe a bason or reservoir, near St.\nStephen\u2019s gate, and bounding the temple on the north, as the identical\npool of Bethesda; which, if it really be what it is represented to be,\nis all that now remains of the primitive architecture of the Jews at\nJerusalem. The latter says, \u201cIt is a reservoir, a hundred and fifty feet\nlong and forty wide. The sides are walled, and these walls are composed\nof a bed of large stones joined together by iron cramps; a wall of mixed\nmaterials runs up on these large stones; a layer of flints is stuck upon\nthe surface of this wall; and a coating is laid over these flints. The\nfour beds are perpendicular with the bottom, and not horizontal: the\ncoating was on the side next to the water; and the large stones rested,\nas they still do, against the ground. This pool is now dry, and half\nfilled up. Here grow some pomegranate trees, and a species of wild\ntamarind of a bluish colour: the western angle is quite full of nopals.\nOn the west side may also be seen two arches, which probably led to an\naqueduct that carried the water into the interior of the temple.\u201d\n\nBETH-HORON. About twelve miles from Jerusalem, lies the Arab village of\nBethoor, where Dr. E. D. Clarke was by accident compelled to pass a\nnight. It is noticed by no other traveller; and yet, there is the\nhighest probability that this is the Beth-horon of the Scriptures. St.\nJerom associates it with Rama, in the remark that they were in his time,\ntogether with other noble cities built by Solomon, only poor villages.\nBeth-horon stood on the confines of Ephraim and Benjamin; which,\naccording to the learned traveller, exactly answers to the situation of\nBethoor. He supposes it, from its situation on a hill, to be Beth-horon\nthe upper, the Beth-horon superior of Eusebius, of which frequent notice\noccurs in the apocryphal writings. Josephus mentions that Cestius, the\nRoman general, marched upon Jerusalem by way of Lydda and Beth-horon.\n\nBETHLEHEM, a city in the tribe of Judah, Judges xvii, 7; and likewise\ncalled Ephrath, Gen. xlviii, 7; or Ephratah, Micah v, 2; and the\ninhabitants of it, Ephrathites, Ruth i, 2; 1 Sam. xvii, 12. Here David\nwas born, and spent his early years as a shepherd. And here also the\nscene of the beautiful narrative of Ruth is supposed to be laid. But its\nhighest honour is, that here our divine Lord condescended to be born of\nwoman:--\u201cAnd thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the\nthousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is\nto be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from\neverlasting.\u201d Travellers describe the first view of Bethlehem as\nimposing. The town appears covering the ridge of a hill on the southern\nside of a deep and extensive valley, and reaching from east to west. The\nmost conspicuous object is the monastery erected over the supposed \u201cCave\nof the Nativity;\u201d its walls and battlements have the air of a large\nfortress. From this same point, the Dead Sea is seen below on the left,\nseemingly very near, \u201cbut,\u201d says Sandys, \u201cnot so found by the traveller;\nfor these high, declining mountains are not to be directly descended.\u201d\nThe road winds round the top of a valley which tradition has fixed on as\nthe scene of the angelic vision which announced the birth of our Lord to\nthe shepherds; but different spots have been selected, the Romish\nauthorities not being agreed on this head. Bethlehem (called in the New\nTestament Bethlehem Ephrata and Bethlehem of Judea, to distinguish it\nfrom Bethlehem of Zabulon) is situated on a rising ground, about two\nhours\u2019 distance, or not quite six miles from Jerusalem. Here the\ntraveller meets with a repetition of the same puerilities and disgusting\nmummery which he has witnessed at the church of the sepulchre. \u201cThe\nstable,\u201d to use the words of Pococke, \u201cin which our Lord was born, is a\n_grotto_ cut out of the rock, according to the eastern custom.\u201d It is\nastonishing to find so intelligent a writer as Dr. E. D. Clarke gravely\nciting St. Jerom, who wrote in the fifth century, as an authority for\nthe truth of the absurd legend by which the cave of the nativity is\nsupposed to be identified. The ancient tombs and excavations are\noccasionally used by the Arabs as places of shelter; but the Gospel\nnarrative affords no countenance to the notion that the Virgin took\nrefuge in any cave of this description. On the contrary, it was\nevidently a manger belonging to the inn or khan: in other words, the\nupper rooms being wholly occupied, the holy family were compelled to\ntake up their abode in the court allotted to the mules and horses, or\nother animals. But the New Testament was not the guide which was\nfollowed by the mother of Constantine, to whom the original church owed\nits foundation. The present edifice is represented by Chateaubriand as\nof undoubtedly high antiquity; yet Doubdan, an old traveller, says that\nthe monastery was destroyed in the year 1263 by the Moslems; and in its\npresent state, at all events, it cannot lay claim to a higher date. The\nconvent is divided among the Greek, Roman, and Armenian Christians, to\neach of whom separate parts are assigned as places of worship and\nhabitations for the monks; but, on certain days, all may perform their\ndevotions at the altars erected over the consecrated spots. The church\nis built in the form of a cross; the nave being adorned with forty-eight\nCorinthian columns in four rows, each column being two feet six inches\nin diameter, and eighteen feet high, including the base and the capital.\nThe nave, which is in possession of the Armenians, is separated from the\nthree other branches of the cross by a wall, so that the unity of the\nedifice is destroyed. The top of the cross is occupied by the choir,\nwhich belongs to the Greeks. Here is an altar dedicated to the wise men\nof the east, at the foot of which is a marble star, corresponding, as\nthe monks say, to the point of the heavens where the miraculous meteor\nbecame stationary, and directly over the spot where the Saviour was born\nin the subterranean church below! A flight of fifteen steps, and a long\nnarrow passage, conduct to the sacred crypt or grotto of the nativity,\nwhich is thirty-seven feet six inches long, by eleven feet three inches\nin breadth, and nine feet high. It is lined and floored with marble, and\nprovided on each side with five oratories, \u201canswering precisely to the\nten cribs or stalls for horses that the stable in which our Saviour was\nborn contained!\u201d The precise spot of the birth is marked by a glory in\nthe floor, composed of marble and jasper encircled with silver, around\nwhich are inscribed the words, _H\u00ecc de Virgine Mari\u00e2 Jesus Christus\nnatus est_. [Here Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.] Over it is\na marble table or altar, which rests against the side of the rock, here\ncut into an arcade. The _manger_ is at the distance of seven paces from\nthe altar; it is in a low recess hewn out of the rock, to which you\ndescend by two steps, and consists of a block of marble, raised about a\nfoot and a half above the floor, and hollowed out in the form of a\nmanger. Before it is the altar of the Magi. The chapel is illuminated by\nthirty-two lamps, presented by different princes of Christendom.\nChateaubriand has described the scene in his usual florid and\nimaginative style: \u201cNothing can be more pleasing, or better calculated\nto excite devotional sentiments, than this subterraneous church. It is\nadorned with pictures of the Italian and Spanish schools, which\nrepresent the mysteries of the place. The usual ornaments of the manger\nare of blue satin, embroidered with silver. Incense is continually\nburning before the cradle of our Saviour. I have heard an organ, touched\nby no ordinary hand, play, during mass, the sweetest and most tender\ntunes of the best Italian composers. These concerts charm the Christian\nArab, who, leaving his camels to feed, repairs, like the shepherds of\nold, to Bethlehem, to adore the King of kings in the manger. I have seen\nthis inhabitant of the desert communicate at the altar of the Magi, with\na fervour, a piety, a devotion, unknown among the Christians of the\nwest. The continual arrival of caravans from all the nations of\nChristendom; the public prayers; the prostrations; nay, even the\nrichness of the presents sent here by the Christian princes, altogether\nproduce feelings in the soul, which it is much easier to conceive than\nto describe.\u201d\n\nSuch are the illusions which the Roman superstition casts over this\nextraordinary scene! In another subterraneous chapel, tradition places\nthe sepulchre of the Innocents. From this, the pilgrim is conducted to\nthe grotto of St. Jerom, where they show the tomb of that father, who\npassed great part of his life in this place; and who, in the grotto\nshown as his oratory, is said to have translated that version of the\nBible which has been adopted by the church of Rome, and is called the\nVulgate. He died at the advanced age of ninety-one, A. D. 422. The\nvillage of Bethlehem contains about three hundred inhabitants, the\ngreater part of whom gain their livelihood by making beads, carving\nmother-of-pearl shells with sacred subjects, and manufacturing small\ntables and crucifixes, all which are eagerly purchased by the pilgrims.\n\nBethlehem has been visited by many modern travellers. The following\nnotice of it by Dr. E. D. Clarke will be read with interest: \u201cAfter\ntravelling for about an hour from the time of our leaving Jerusalem, we\ncame in view of Bethlehem, and halted to enjoy the interesting sight.\nThe town appeared covering the ridge of a hill on the southern side of a\ndeep and extensive valley, and reaching from east to west; the most\nconspicuous object being the monastery, erected over the cave of the\nnativity, in the suburbs, and upon the eastern side. The battlements and\nwalls of this building seemed like those of a vast fortress. The Dead\nSea below, upon our left, appeared so near to us that we thought we\ncould have rode thither in a very short space of time. Still nearer\nstood a mountain upon its western shore, resembling in its form the cone\nof Vesuvius near Naples, and having also a crater upon its top which was\nplainly discernible. The distance, however, is much greater than it\nappears to be; the magnitude of the objects beheld in this fine prospect\ncausing them to appear less remote than they really are. The atmosphere\nwas remarkably clear and serene; but we saw none of those clouds of\nsmoke, which, by some writers, are said to exhale from the surface of\nthe lake, nor from any neighbouring mountain. Every thing about it was\nin the highest degree grand and awful. Bethlehem is six miles from\nJerusalem. Josephus describes the interval between the two cities as\nequal only to twenty stadia; and in the passage referred to, he makes an\nallusion to a celebrated well, which, both from the account given by him\nof its situation, and more especially from the text of the sacred\nScriptures, 2 Sam. xxiii, 15, seems to have contained the identical\nfountain, of whose pure and delicious water we were now drinking.\nConsidered merely in point of interest, the narrative is not likely to\nbe surpassed by any circumstance of Pagan history. David, being a native\nof Bethlehem, calls to mind, during the sultry days of harvest, verse\n13, a well near the gate of the town, the delicious waters of which he\nhad often tasted; and expresses an earnest desire to assuage his thirst\nby drinking of that limpid spring. \u2018And David longed, and said, O that\none would give me to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which\nis by the gate!\u2019 The exclamation is overheard by \u2018three of the mighty\nmen whom David had,\u2019 namely, Adino, Eleazar, and Shamnah, verses 8, 9,\n11. These men sallied forth, and having fought their way through the\ngarrison of the Philistines at Bethlehem, verse 14, \u2018drew water from the\nwell that was by the gate,\u2019 on the other side of the town, and brought\nit to David. Coming into his presence, they present to him the\nsurprising testimony of their valour and affection. The aged monarch\nreceives from their hands a pledge they had so dearly earned, but\nrefuses to drink of water every drop of which had been purchased with\nblood, 2 Sam. xxiii, 17. He returns thanks to the Almighty, who had\nvouchsafed the deliverance of his warriors from the jeopardy they had\nencountered; and pouring out the water as a libation on the ground,\nmakes an offering of it to the Lord. The well still retains its pristine\nrenown; and many an expatriated Bethlehemite has made it the theme of\nhis longing and regret.\u201d\n\nBETHPHAGE, so called from its producing figs, a small village situated\nin Mount Olivet, and, as it seems, somewhat nearer Jerusalem than\nBethany. Jesus being come from Bethany to Bethphage, commanded his\ndisciples to seek out an ass for him that he might ride, in his\ntriumphant entrance into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi, 1, &c. The distance\nbetween Bethphage and Jerusalem is about fifteen furlongs.\n\nBETHSAIDA, a city whose name in Hebrew imports a place of fishing or of\nhunting, and for both of these exercises it was well situated. As it\nbelonged to the tribe of Naphtali, it was in a country remarkable for\nplenty of deer; and as it lay on the north end of the lake Gennesareth,\njust where the river Jordan runs into it, it became the residence of\nfishermen. Three of the Apostles, Philip, Andrew, and Peter, were born\nin this city. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, though it\nfrequently occurs in the New: the reason is, that it was but a village,\nas Josephus tells us, till Philip the tetrarch enlarged it, making it a\nmagnificent city, and gave it the name of Julias, out of respect to\nJulia, the daughter of Augustus C\u00e6sar.\n\nThe evangelists speak of Bethsaida; and yet it then possessed that name\nno longer: it was enlarged and beautified nearly at the same time as\nC\u00e6sarea, and called Julias. Thus was it called in the days of our Lord,\nand so would the sacred historians have been accustomed to call it. But\nif they knew nothing of this, what shall we say of their age? In other\nrespects they evince the most accurate knowledge of the circumstances of\nthe time. The solution is, that, though Philip had exalted it to the\nrank of a city, to which he gave the name of Julias, yet, not long\nafterward, this Julia, in whose honour the city received its name, was\nbanished from the country by her own father. The deeply wounded honour\nof Augustus was even anxious that the world might forget that she was\nhis daughter. Tiberius, whose wife she had been, consigned the\nunfortunate princess, after the death of Augustus, to the most abject\npoverty, under which she sank without assistance. Thus adulation must\nunder two reigns have suppressed a name, from which otherwise the city\nmight have wished to derive benefit to itself; and for some time it was\ncalled by its ancient name Bethsaida instead of Julias. At a later\nperiod this name again came into circulation, and appears in the\ncatalogue of Jewish cities by Pliny. By such incidents, which are so\neasily overlooked, and the knowledge of which is afterward lost, do\nthose who are really acquainted with an age disclose their authenticity.\n\u201cBut it is strange,\u201d some one will say, \u201cthat John reckons this\nBethsaida, or Julias, where he was born, in Galilee, John xii, 21.\nShould he not know to what province his birthplace belonged?\u201d Philip\nonly governed the eastern districts by the sea of Tiberias; but Galilee\nwas the portion of his brother Antipas. Bethsaida or Julias could\ntherefore not have been built by Philip, as the case is; or it did not\nbelong to Galilee, as John alleges. In fact, such an error were\nsufficient to prove that this Gospel was not written by John. Julias,\nhowever, was situated in Gaulonitis, which district was, for deep\npolitical reasons, divided from Galilee; but the ordinary language of\nthe time asserted its own opinion, and still reckoned the Gaulonitish\nprovince in Galilee. When, therefore, John does the same, he proves,\nthat the peculiarity of those days was not unknown to him; for he\nexpresses himself after the ordinary manner of the period. Thus Josephus\ninforms us of Judas the Gaulonite from Gamala, and also calls him in the\nfollowing chapters, the Galilean; and then in another work he applies\nthe same expression to him; from whence we may be convinced that the\ncustom of those days paid respect to a more ancient division of the\ncountry, and bade defiance, in the present case, to the then existing\npolitical geography. Is it possible that historians who, as it is\nevident from such examples, discover throughout so nice a knowledge of\ngeographical arrangements and local and even temporary circumstances,\nshould have written at a time when the theatre of events was unknown to\nthem, when not only their native country was destroyed, but their nation\nscattered, and the national existence of the Jews extinguished and\nextirpated? On the contrary, all this is in proof that they wrote at the\nvery period which they profess, and it also proves the usual antiquity\nassigned to the Gospels.\n\nBETHSHAN, a city belonging to the half tribe of Manasseh, on the west of\nJordan, and not far from the river. It was a considerable city in the\ntime of Eusebius and St. Jerom, and was then, as it had been for several\nages before, called Scythopolis, or the city of the Scythians, from some\nremarkable occurrence when the Scythians made an irruption into Syria.\nIt is said to be six hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, 2 Macc. xii, 29.\nAfter the battle of Mount Gilboa, the Philistines took the body of Saul,\nand hung it against the wall of Bethshan, 1 Sam. xxxi, 10. Bethshan is\nnow called Bysan, and is described by Burckhardt as situated on rising\nground on the west of the Ghor, or valley of Jordan.\n\nBETHSHEMESH, a city of the tribe of Judah, belonging to the priests,\nJoshua xxi, 16. The Philistines having sent back the ark of the Lord, it\nwas brought to Bethshemesh, 1 Sam. vi, 12, where some of the people out\nof curiosity having looked into it, the Lord destroyed seventy of the\nprincipal men belonging to the city, and fifty thousand of the common\npeople, verse 19. It is here to be observed that it was solemnly\nenjoined, Num. iv, 20, that not only the common people but that even the\nLevites themselves should not dare to look into the ark, upon pain of\ndeath. \u201cIt is a fearful thing,\u201d says Bishop Hall, \u201cto use the holy\nordinances of God with an irreverent boldness; fear and trembling become\nus in our access to the majesty of the Almighty.\u201d\n\nBETHUEL, the son of Nahor and Milcah. He was Abraham\u2019s nephew, and\nfather to Laban and Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, Genesis xxii, 20, 23.\n\nBETROTHMENT, a mutual promise or compact between two parties for a\nfuture marriage. The word imports as much as giving one\u2019s troth; that\nis, true faith, or promise. Among the ancient Jews, the betrothing was\nperformed either by a writing, or by a piece of silver given to the\nbride. After the marriage was contracted, the young people had the\nliberty of seeing each other, which was not allowed them before. If,\nafter the betrothment, the bride should trespass against that fidelity\nshe owed to her bridegroom she was treated as an adulteress. See\nMARRIAGE.\n\nBEZER, or Bozra, or Bostra, a city beyond Jordan, given by Moses to\nReuben: this town was designed by Joshua to be a city of refuge; it was\ngiven to the Levites of Gershom\u2019s family, Deut. iv, 43. When Scripture\nmentions Bezer, it adds, \u201cin the wilderness,\u201d because it lay in Arabia\nDeserta, and the eastern part of Edom, encompassed with deserts.\nEusebius places Bozra twenty-four miles from Adraa, or Edrai. This city\nis sometimes said to belong to Reuben, sometimes to Moab, and sometimes\nagain to Edom; because, as it was a frontier town to these three\nprovinces, it was occasionally in the hands of one party, and then was\ntaken by another. The bishops of Bostra subscribed the decrees of\nseveral councils.\n\nBIBLE, _the book_, by way of eminence so called, as containing the\nsacred Scriptures, that is, the inspired writings of the Old and New\nTestament; or the whole collection of those which are received among\nChristians as of divine authority. The word Bible comes from the Greek\n\u0392\u03af\u03d0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, or \u0392\u03b9\u03d0\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, and is used to denote any book; but is emphatically\napplied to the book of inspired Scripture, which is \u201cthe book\u201d as being\nsuperior in excellence to all other books. \u0392\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd again comes from\n\u0392\u03af\u03d0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, the Egyptian reed, from which the ancient paper was procured.\nThe word Bible seems to be used in the particular sense just given by\nChrysostom: \u201cI therefore exhort all of you to procure to yourselves\nBibles, \u0392\u03b9\u03d0\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. If you have nothing else, take care to have the New\nTestament, particularly the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels, for\nyour constant instructers.\u201d And Jerome says, \u201cthat the Scriptures being\nall written by one Spirit, are _one book_.\u201d Augustine also informs us,\n\u201cthat some called all the canonical Scriptures _one book_, on account of\ntheir wonderful harmony and unity of design throughout.\u201d It is not\nimprobable that this mode of speaking gradually introduced the general\nuse of the word Bible for the whole collection of the Scriptures, or the\nbooks of the Old and New Testament. By the Jews the Bible, that is, the\nOld Testament, is called _Mikra_, that is, \u201clecture, or reading.\u201d By\nChristians the Bible, comprehending the Old and New Testament, is\nusually denominated \u201cScripture;\u201d sometimes also the \u201cSacred Canon,\u201d\nwhich signifies the rule of faith and practice. These, and similar\nappellations, are derived from the divine original and authority of the\nBible. As it contains an authentic and connected history of the divine\ndispensations with regard to mankind; as it was given by divine\ninspiration; as its chief subject is religion; and as the doctrines it\nteaches, and the duties it inculcates, pertain to the conduct of men, as\nrational, moral, and accountable beings, and conduce by a divine\nconstitution and promise, to their present and future happiness; the\nBible deserves to be held in the highest estimation, and amply justifies\nthe sentiments of veneration with which it has been regarded, and the\npeculiar and honourable appellations by which it has been denominated.\n\n2. The list of the books contained in the Bible constitutes what is\ncalled the canon of Scripture. Those books that are contained in the\ncatalogue to which the name of canon has been appropriated, are called\ncanonical, by way of contradistinction from others called\ndeutero-canonical, apocryphal, pseudo-apocryphal, &c, which either are\nnot acknowledged as divine books, or are rejected as heretical and\nspurious. (See _Apocrypha_.) The first canon or catalogue of the sacred\nbooks was made by the Jews; but the original author of it is not\nsatisfactorily ascertained. It is certain, however, that the five books\nof Moses, called the Pentateuch, were collected into one body within a\nshort time after his death; since Deuteronomy, which is, as it were, the\nabridgment and recapitulation of the other four, was laid in the\ntabernacle near the ark, according to the order which he gave to the\nLevites, Deut. xxxi, 24. Hence the first canon of the sacred writings\nconsisted of the five books of Moses: for a farther account of which see\n_Pentateuch_. It does not appear that any other books were added to\nthese, till the division of the ten tribes, as the Samaritans\nacknowledged no others. However, after the time of Moses, several\nprophets, and other writers divinely inspired, composed either the\nhistory of their own times, or prophetical books and divine writings, or\npsalms appropriated to the praise of God. But these books do not seem to\nhave been collected into one body, or comprised under one and the same\ncanon, before the Babylonish captivity. This was not done till after\ntheir return from the captivity, about which time the Jews had a certain\nnumber of books digested into a canon, which comprehended none of those\nbooks that were written since the time of Nehemiah. The book of\nEcclesiasticus affords sufficient evidence that the canon of the sacred\nbooks was completed when that tract was composed; for that author, in\nchapter xlix, having mentioned among the famous men and sacred writers,\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, adds the twelve minor prophets who follow\nthose three in the Jewish canon; and from this circumstance we may infer\nthat the prophecies of these twelve were already collected and digested\ninto one body. It is farther evident, that in the time of our Saviour\nthe canon of the Holy Scriptures was drawn up, since he cites the law of\nMoses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are the three kinds of books\nof which that canon is composed, and which he often styles, \u201cthe\nScriptures,\u201d or, \u201cthe Holy Scripture,\u201d Matt. xxi, 42; xxii, 29; xxvi,\n54; John v, 39; and by him therefore the Jewish canon, as it existed in\nhis day, was fully authenticated, by whomsoever or at what time it had\nbeen formed.\n\n3. The person who compiled this canon is generally allowed to be Ezra.\nAccording to the invariable tradition of Jews and Christians, the honour\nis ascribed to him of having collected together and perfected a complete\nedition of the Holy Scriptures. The original of the Pentateuch had been\ncarefully preserved in the side of the ark, and had been probably\nintroduced with the ark into the temple at Jerusalem. After having been\nconcealed in the dangerous days of the idolatrous kings of Judah, and\nparticularly in the impious reigns of Manasseh and Amon, it was found in\nthe days of Josiah, the succeeding prince, by Hilkiah the priest, in the\ntemple. Prideaux thinks, that during the preceding reigns the book of\nthe law was so destroyed and lost, that, beside this copy of it, there\nwas then no other to be obtained. To this purpose he adds, that the\nsurprise manifested by Hilkiah, on the discovery of it, and the grief\nexpressed by Josiah when he heard it read, plainly show that neither of\nthem had seen it before. On the other hand, Dr. Kennicott, with better\nreason, supposes, that long before this time there were several copies\nof the law in Israel, during the separation of the ten tribes, and that\nthere were some copies of it also among the tribes of Judah and\nBenjamin, particularly in the hands of the prophets, priests, and\nLevites; and that by the instruction and authority of these MSS, the\nvarious services in the temple were regulated, during the reigns of the\ngood kings of Judah. He adds, that the surprise expressed by Josiah and\nthe people, at his reading the copy found by Hilkiah, may be accounted\nfor by adverting to the history of the preceding reigns, and by\nrecollecting how idolatrous a king Manasseh had been for fifty-five\nyears, and that he wanted neither power nor inclination to destroy the\ncopies of the law, if they had not been secreted by the servants of God.\nThe law, after being so long concealed, would be unknown almost to all\nthe Jews; and thus the solemn reading of it by Josiah would awaken his\nown and the people\u2019s earnest attention; more especially, as the copy\nproduced was probably the original written by Moses. From this time\ncopies of the law were extensively multiplied among the people; and\nthough, within a few years, the autograph, or original copy of the law,\nwas burnt with the city and temple by the Babylonians, yet many copies\nof the law and the prophets, and of all the other sacred writings, were\ncirculated in the hands of private persons, who carried them with them\ninto their captivity. It is certain that Daniel had a copy of the Holy\nScriptures with him at Babylon; for he quotes the law, and mentions the\nprophecies of Jeremiah, Dan. ix, 2, 11, 13. It appears also, from the\nsixth chap. of Ezra, and from the ninth chap. of Nehemiah, that copies\nof the law were dispersed among the people. The whole which Ezra did may\nbe comprised in the following particulars: He collected as many copies\nof the sacred writings as he could find, and compared them together,\nand, out of them all, formed one complete copy, adjusted the various\nreadings, and corrected the errors of transcribers. He likewise made\nadditions in several parts of the different books, which appeared to be\nnecessary for the illustration, correction, and completion of them. To\nthis class of additions we may refer the last chapter of Deuteronomy,\nwhich, as it gives an account of the death and burial of Moses, and of\nthe succession of Joshua after him, could not have been written by Moses\nhimself. Under the same head have also been included some other\ninterpolations in the Bible, which create difficulties that can only be\nsolved by allowing them; as in Gen. xii, 6; xxii, 14; xxxvi, 3; Exodus\nxvi, 35; Deut. ii, 12; iii, 11, 14; Prov. xxv, 1. The interpolations in\nthese passages are ascribed by Prideaux to Ezra; and others which were\nafterward added, he attributes to Simon the Just. Ezra also changed the\nold names of several places that were become obsolete, putting instead\nof them the new names by which they were at that time called; instances\nof which occur in Genesis xiv, 4, where Dan is substituted for Laish,\nand in several places in Genesis, and also in Numbers, where Hebron is\nput for Kirjath Arba, &c. He likewise wrote out the whole in the Chaldee\ncharacter, changing for it the old Hebrew character, which has since\nthat time been retained only by the Samaritans, and among whom it is\npreserved even to this day. The canon of the whole Hebrew Bible seems,\nsays Kennicott, to have been closed by Malachi, the latest of the Jewish\nprophets, about fifty years after Ezra had collected together all the\nsacred books which had been composed before and during his time.\nPrideaux supposes the canon was completed by Simon the Just, about one\nhundred and fifty years after Malachi: but, as his opinion is founded\nmerely on a few proper names at the end of the two genealogies, 1 Chron.\niii, 19; Nehem. xii, 22, which few names might very easily be added by a\ntranscriber afterward, it is more probable, as Kennicott thinks, that\nthe canon was finished by the last of the prophets, about four hundred\nyears before Christ.\n\n4. It is an inquiry of considerable importance, in its relation to the\nsubject of this article, what books were contained in the canon of the\nJews. The Old Testament, according to our Bibles, comprises thirty-nine\nbooks, viz. the Pentateuch or five books of Moses, called Genesis,\nExodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the books of Joshua,\nJudges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra,\nNehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of\nSolomon, the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah with his Lamentations,\nEzekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,\nHabakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. But, among the\nancient Jews, they formed only twenty-two books, according to the\nletters of their alphabet, which were twenty-two in number; reckoning\nJudges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and his Lamentations, and\nthe twelve minor prophets, (so called from the comparative brevity of\ntheir compositions,) respectively as one book. Josephus says, \u201cWe have\nnot thousands of books, discordant, and contradicting each other: but we\nhave only _twenty-two_, which comprehend the history of all former ages,\nand are justly regarded as divine. _Five_ of them proceed from Moses;\nthey include as well the _laws_, as an account of the creation of man,\nextending to the time of his (Moses) death. This period comprehends\nnearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses to that of\nArtaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the _prophets_, who\nsucceeded Moses, committed to writing, in thirteen books, what was done\nin their days. The remaining four books contain _hymns_ to God, (the\nPsalms,) and instructions of life for man.\u201d The threefold division of\nthe Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, mentioned\nby Josephus, was expressly recognised before his time by Jesus Christ,\nas well as by the subsequent writers of the New Testament. We have\ntherefore sufficient evidence that the Old Testament existed at that\ntime; and if it be only allowed that Jesus Christ was a teacher of a\nfearless and irreproachable character, it must be acknowledged that we\ndraw a fair conclusion, when we assert that the Scriptures were not\ncorrupted in his time: for, when he accused the Pharisees of making the\nlaw of no effect by their traditions, and, when he enjoined his hearers\nto search the Scriptures, he could not have failed to mention the\ncorruptions or forgeries of Scripture, if any had existed in that age.\nAbout fifty years before the time of Christ were written the Targums of\nOnkelos on the Pentateuch, and of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel on the Prophets;\n(according to the Jewish classification of the books of the Old\nTestament;) which are evidence of the genuineness of those books at that\ntime. We have, however, unquestionable testimony of the genuineness of\nthe Old Testament, in the _fact_ that its canon was fixed some centuries\nbefore the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus the son of Sirach, author of the\nbook of Ecclesiasticus, makes evident references to the prophecies of\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and mentions these prophets by name: he\nspeaks also of the twelve minor prophets. It likewise appears from the\nprologue to that book, that the law and the prophets, and other ancient\nbooks, were extant at the same period. The book of Ecclesiasticus,\naccording to the best chronologers, was written in the Syro-Chaldaic\ndialect A. M. 3772, that is, two hundred and thirty-two years before the\nChristian \u00e6ra, and was translated by the grandson of Jesus into Greek,\nfor the use of the Alexandrian Jews. The prologue was added by the\ntranslator; but this circumstance does not diminish the evidence for the\nantiquity of the Old Testament: for he informs us, that the law and the\nprophets, and the other books of their fathers, were studied by his\ngrandfather; a sufficient proof that they were extant in his time. Fifty\nyears, indeed, before the age of the author of Ecclesiasticus, or two\nhundred and eighty-two years before the Christian \u00e6ra, the Greek version\nof the Old Testament, usually called the Septuagint, was executed at\nAlexandria, the books of which are the same as in our Bibles; whence it\nis evident that we still have those identical books, which the most\nancient Jews attested to be genuine. The Christian fathers too, Origen,\nAthanasius, Hilary, Gregory, Nazianzen, Epiphanius, and Jerom, speaking\nof the books that are allowed by the Jews as sacred and canonical, agree\nin saying that they are the same in number with the letters in the\nHebrew alphabet, that is, twenty-two, and reckon particularly those\nbooks which we have already mentioned. Nothing can be more satisfactory\nand conclusive than all the parts of the evidence for the authenticity\nand integrity of the canon of the Old Testament scriptures. The Jews, to\nwhom they were first committed, never varied respecting them; while they\nwere fully recognised by our Lord and his Apostles; and, consequently,\ntheir authenticity is established by express revelation. And that we now\npossess them as thus delivered and authenticated, we have the concurrent\ntestimony of the whole succession of the most distinguished early\nChristian writers, as well as of the Jews to this day, who, in every\nage, and in all countries, the most remote from one another, have\nconstantly been in the habit of reading them in their synagogues.\n\n5. The five books of the law are divided into fifty-four sections, which\ndivision is attributed to Ezra, and was intended for the use of their\nsynagogues, and for the better instruction of the people in the law of\nGod. For, one of these sections was read every Sabbath in their\nsynagogues. They ended the last section with the last words of\nDeuteronomy on the Sabbath of the feast of the tabernacles, and then\nbegan anew with the first section from the beginning of Genesis the next\nSabbath after, and so went round in this circle every year. The number\nof these sections was fifty-four, because in their intercalated years (a\nmonth being then added) there were fifty-four Sabbaths. On other years\nthey reduced them to the number of the Sabbaths which were in those\nyears, by joining two short ones several times into one. For they held\nthemselves obliged to have the whole law thus read over in their\nsynagogues every year. Till the time of the persecution of Antiochus\nEpiphanes, they read only the law; but being then prohibited from\nreading it any more, they substituted in the room of the fifty-four\nsections of the law, fifty-four sections out of the prophets, the\nreading of which they ever after continued. Thus, when the reading of\nthe law was restored by the Maccabees, the section which was read every\nSabbath out of the law served for their first lesson, and the section\nout of the prophets for their second lesson; and this practice was\ncontinued to the times of the Apostles, Acts xiii, 15, 27. These\nsections were divided into verses, called by the Jews _pesukim_, and\nthey are marked out in the Hebrew Bible by two great points at the end\nof them, called from hence, _soph-pasuk_, that is, the end of the verse.\nThis division, if not made by Ezra, is very ancient; for when the\nChaldee came into use in the room of the Hebrew language, after the\nreturn of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, the law was read to\nthe people first in the Hebrew language, and then rendered by an\ninterpreter into the Chaldee language; and this was done period by\nperiod. The division of the Holy Scriptures into chapters is of a much\nlater date. The Psalms, indeed, appear to have been always divided as\nthey are at present, Acts xiii, 33; but as to the rest of the Bible, the\npresent division into chapters was unknown to the ancients.\n\n6. From the time when the Old Testament was completed by Malachi, the\nlast of the prophets, till the publication of the New Testament, about\nfour hundred and sixty years elapsed. During the life of Jesus Christ,\nand for some time after his ascension, nothing on the subject of his\nmission was committed to writing. The period of his remaining upon earth\nmay be regarded as an intermediate state between the old and new\ndispensations. His personal ministry was confined to the land of Judea;\nand, by means of his miracles and discourses, together with those of his\ndisciples, the attention of men, in that country, was sufficiently\ndirected to his doctrine. They were also in possession of the Old\nTestament scriptures; which, at that season, it was of the greatest\nimportance they should consult, in order to compare the ancient\npredictions with what was then taking place. Immediately after the\nresurrection of Jesus Christ, his disciples, in the most public manner,\nand in the place where he had been crucified, proclaimed that event, and\nthe whole of the doctrine which he had commanded them to preach. In this\nservice they continued personally to labour for a considerable time,\nfirst among their countrymen the Jews, and then among the other nations.\nDuring the period between the resurrection and the publication of the\nNew Testament, the churches possessed miraculous gifts, and the prophets\nwere enabled to explain the predictions of the Old Testament, and to\nshow their fulfilment. After their doctrine had every where attracted\nattention, and, in spite of the most violent opposition, had forced its\nway through the civilized world; and when churches or societies of\nChristians were collected, not only in Judea, but in the most celebrated\ncities of Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, the scriptures of the New\nTestament were written by the Apostles, and other inspired men, and\nintrusted to the keeping of these churches.\n\nThe whole of the New Testament was not written at once, but in different\nparts, and on various occasions. Six of the Apostles, and two inspired\ndisciples who accompanied them in their journeys, were employed in this\nwork. The histories which it contains of the life of Christ, known by\nthe name of the Gospels, were composed by four of his contemporaries,\ntwo of whom had been constant attendants on his public ministry. The\nfirst of these was published within a few years after his death, in that\nvery country where he had lived, and among the people who had seen him\nand observed his conduct. The history called the Acts of the Apostles,\nwhich contains an account of their proceedings, and of the progress of\nthe Gospel, from Jerusalem, among the Gentile nations, was published\nabout the year 64, being thirty years after our Lord\u2019s crucifixion, by\none who, though not an Apostle, declares that he had \u201cperfect\nunderstanding of all things, from the very first,\u201d and who had written\none of the Gospels. This book, commencing with a detail of proceedings,\nfrom the resurrection of Jesus Christ, carries down the evangelical\nhistory till the arrival of Paul as a prisoner at Rome. The Epistles,\naddressed to churches in particular places, to believers scattered up\nand down in different countries, or to individuals, in all twenty-one in\nnumber, were separately written, by five of the Apostles, from\nseventeen, to twenty, thirty, and thirty-five years after the death of\nChrist. Four of these writers had accompanied the Lord Jesus during his\nlife, and had been \u201ceye witnesses of his majesty.\u201d The fifth was the\nApostle Paul, who, as he expresses it, was \u201cone born out of due time,\u201d\nbut who had likewise seen Jesus Christ, and had been empowered by him to\nwork miracles, which were \u201cthe signs of an Apostle.\u201d One of these five\nalso wrote the book of Revelation, about the year A. D. 96, addressed to\nseven churches in Asia, containing Epistles to these churches from Jesus\nChrist himself, with various instructions for the immediate use of all\nChristians, together with a prophetical view of the kingdom of God till\nthe end of time. These several pieces, which compose the scriptures of\nthe New Testament, were received by the churches with the highest\nveneration; and, as the instructions they contain, though partially\naddressed, were equally intended for all, they were immediately copied,\nand handed about from one church to another, till each was in possession\nof the whole. The volume of the New Testament was thus completed before\nthe death of the last of the Apostles, most of whom had sealed their\ntestimony with their blood. From the manner in which these scriptures\nwere at first circulated, some of their parts were necessarily longer in\nreaching certain places than others. These, of course, could not be so\nsoon received into the canon as the rest. Owing to this circumstance,\nand to that of a few of the books being addressed to individual\nbelievers, or to their not having the names of their writers affixed, or\nthe designation of Apostle added, a doubt for a time existed among some\nrespecting the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of\nJames, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of\nJohn, the Epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation. These, however,\nthough not universally, were generally acknowledged; while all the other\nbooks of the New Testament were without dispute received from the\nbeginning. This discrimination proves the scrupulous care of the first\nchurches on this highly important subject.\n\nAt length these books, which had not at first been admitted, were, like\nthe rest, universally received, not by the votes of a council, as is\nsometimes asserted, but after deliberate and free inquiry by many\nseparate churches, under the superintending providence of God, in\ndifferent parts of the world. It is at the same time a certain fact,\nthat no other books beside those which at present compose the volume of\nthe New Testament, were admitted by the churches. Several apocryphal\nwritings were published under the name of Jesus Christ and his Apostles,\nwhich are mentioned by the writers of the first four centuries, most of\nwhich have perished, though some are still extant. Few or none of them\nwere composed before the second century, and several of them were forged\nas late as the third century. But they were not acknowledged as\nauthentic by the first Christians; and were rejected by those who have\nnoticed them, as spurious and heretical. Histories, too, as might have\nbeen expected, were written of the life of Christ; and one forgery was\nattempted, of a letter said to have been written by Jesus himself to\nAbgarus, king of Edessa; but of the first, none were received as of any\nauthority, and the last was universally rejected. \u201cBeside our Gospels,\nand the Acts of the Apostles,\u201d says Paley, \u201cno Christian history\nclaiming to be written by an Apostle, or Apostolical man, is quoted\nwithin three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by any writer now\nextant or known, or, if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and\nrejection.\u201d This agreement of Christians respecting the Scriptures, when\nwe consider their many differences in other respects, is the more\nremarkable, since it took place without any public authority being\ninterposed. \u201cWe have no knowledge\u201d says the above author, \u201cof any\ninterference of authority in the question before the council of\nLaodicea, in the year 363. Probably the decree of this council rather\ndeclared than regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking,\nthe judgment of some neighbouring churches, the council itself\nconsisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the\nadjoining countries. Nor does its authority seem to have extended\nfarther.\u201d But the fact, that no public authority was interposed, does\nnot require to be supported by the above reasoning. The churches at the\nbeginning, being widely separated from each other, necessarily judged\nfor themselves in this matter, and the decree of the council was founded\non the coincidence of their judgment. In delivering this part of his\nwritten revelation, God proceeded as he had done in the publication of\nthe Old Testament scriptures. For a considerable time, his will was\ndeclared to mankind through the medium of oral tradition. At length he\nsaw meet, in his wisdom, to give it a more permanent form. But this did\nnot take place till a nation, separated from all others, was provided\nfor its reception. In the same manner, when Jesus Christ set up his\nkingdom in the world, of which the nation of Israel was a type, he first\nmade known his will by means of verbal communication, through his\nservants whom he commissioned and sent out for that purpose; and when,\nthrough their means, he had prepared his subjects and collected them\ninto churches, to be the depositaries of his word, he caused it to be\ndelivered to them in writing. His kingdom was not to consist of any\nparticular nation, like that of Israel, but of all those individuals, in\nevery part of the world, who should believe in his name. It was to be\nruled, not by means of human authority, or compulsion of any kind, but\nsolely by his authority. These sacred writings were thus intrusted to a\npeople prepared for their reception,--a nation among the nations, but\nsingularly distinct from all the rest, who guarded and preserved them\nwith the same inviolable attachment as the Old Testament scriptures had\nexperienced from the Jews.\n\n7. Respecting the lateness of the time when the scriptures of the New\nTestament were written, no objection can be offered, since they were\npublished before that generation passed away which had witnessed the\ntransactions they record. The dates of these writings fall within the\nperiod of the lives of many who were in full manhood when the Lord Jesus\nwas upon earth; and the facts detailed in the histories, and referred to\nin the Epistles, being of the most public nature, were still open to\nfull investigation. It must also be recollected, that the Apostles and\ndisciples, during the whole intermediate period, were publicly\nproclaiming to the world the same things which were afterward recorded\nin their writings. Thus were the Scriptures, as we now possess them,\ndelivered to the first churches. By the concurrent testimony of all\nantiquity, both of friends and foes, they were received by Christians of\ndifferent sects, and were constantly appealed to on all hands, in the\ncontroversies that arose among them. Commentaries upon them were written\nat a very early period, and translations made into different languages.\nFormal catalogues of them were published, and they were attacked by the\nadversaries of Christianity, who not only did not question, but\nexpressly admitted, the facts they contained, and that they were the\ngenuine productions of the persons whose names they bore. In this manner\nthe Scriptures were also secured from the danger of being in any respect\naltered or vitiated. \u201cThe books of Scripture,\u201d says Augustine, \u201ccould\nnot have been corrupted. If such an attempt had been made by any one,\nhis design would have been prevented and defeated. His alterations would\nhave been immediately detected by many and more ancient copies.\u201d The\ndifficulty of succeeding in such an attempt is apparent hence, that the\nScriptures were early translated into divers languages, and copies of\nthem were numerous. The alterations which any one attempted to make\nwould have been soon perceived; just even as now, in fact, lesser faults\nin some copies are amended by comparing ancient copies or those of the\noriginal. \u201cIf any one,\u201d continues Augustine, \u201cshould charge you with\nhaving interpolated some texts alleged by you as favourable to your\ncause, what would you say? Would you not immediately answer that it is\nimpossible for you to do such a thing in books read by all Christians;\nand that if any such attempt had been made--by you, it would have been\npresently discerned and defeated by comparing the ancient copies? Well,\nthen, for the same reason that the Scriptures cannot be corrupted by\nyou, neither could they be corrupted by any other people.\u201d Accordingly,\nthe uniformity of the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures that are\nextant, which are incomparably more numerous than those of any ancient\nauthor, and which are dispersed through so many countries, and in so\ngreat a variety of languages, is truly astonishing. It demonstrates both\nthe veneration in which the Scriptures have been always held, and the\nsingular care that has been taken in transcribing them. The number of\nvarious readings, that by the most minute and laborious investigation\nand collations of manuscripts have been discovered in them, are said to\namount to one hundred and fifty thousand; though at first sight they may\nseem calculated to diminish confidence in the sacred text, yet in no\ndegree whatever do they affect its credit and integrity. They consist\nalmost wholly in palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and\nverbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of a letter or\narticle, the substitution of a word for its equivalent, or the\ntransposition of a word or two in a sentence. Taken altogether, they\nneither change nor affect a single doctrine or duty announced or\nenjoined in the word of God. When, therefore, we consider the great\nantiquity of the sacred books, the almost infinite number of copies, of\nversions, and of editions, which have been made of them in all\nlanguages, in languages which have not any analogy one with another,\namong nations differing so much in their customs and their religious\nopinions,--when we consider these things, it is truly astonishing, and\ncan only be ascribed to the watchful providence of God over his own\nword, that, among the various readings, nothing truly essential can be\ndiscerned, which relates to either precept or doctrine, or which breaks\nthat connection, that unity which subsists in all the various parts of\ndivine revelation, and which demonstrates the whole to be the work of\none and the same Spirit.\n\n8. Having considered the appellations by which the Bible is\ndistinguished, the books of which it consists, the time and manner in\nwhich they were collected, it may not be improper to subjoin a few\nobservations on the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, on\ntheir high original and divine authority, and on their great importance\nand utility.\n\nIt should here be considered, that the genuineness of the Scriptures\nproves the truth of the principal facts contained in them; to which\npurpose we may observe that it is very rare to meet with any genuine\nwritings of the historical kind, in which the principal facts are not\ntrue, unless it be in instances where both the motives which engaged the\nauthor to falsify, and the circumstances which gave some plausibility to\nthe fiction, are apparent; neither of which can be alleged in the\npresent case with any colour of reason. As this is rare in general, it\nis more rare when the writer treats of things that happened in his own\ntime, and under his own cognizance and direction, and communicates his\nhistory to persons under the same circumstances; all which may be said\nof the writers of the Scripture history. Beside, the great importance of\nthe facts mentioned in the Scriptures makes it more improbable, that the\nseveral authors should either have attempted to falsify, or have\nsucceeded in such an attempt. The same observation may be applied to the\ngreat number of particular circumstances of time, place, persons, &c,\nmentioned in the Scriptures, and to the harmony of the books with\nthemselves, and with each other. These are arguments both for the\ngenuineness of the books, and truth of the facts distinctly considered,\nand also arguments for deducing the truth from the genuineness.\nMoreover, if the books of the Old and New Testaments were written by the\npersons to whom they have been ascribed, that is, if they be genuine,\nthe moral characters of these writers afford the strongest assurance,\nthat the facts asserted by them are true. The sufferings which several\nof the writers underwent both in life and in death, in attestation of\nthe facts delivered by them, furnish a particular argument in favour of\nthese facts. Again, the arguments here alleged for proving the truth of\nthe Scripture history from the genuineness of the books, are as\nconclusive in respect of the miraculous facts, as of the common ones. It\nmay also be observed, that if we allow the genuineness of the books to\nbe a sufficient evidence of the common facts which they record, the\nmiraculous facts must also be allowed from their close connection with\nthe others. It is necessary to admit both or neither. We cannot conceive\nthat Moses should have delivered the Israelites from their slavery in\nEgypt, or conducted them through the wilderness for forty years, at all\nin such manner as the common history represents, unless we suppose the\nmiraculous facts intermixed with it to be true also. In like manner, the\nfame of Christ\u2019s miracles, the multitudes which followed him, the\nadherence of his disciples, the jealousy and hatred of the chief\npriests, scribes, and Pharisees, with many other facts of a common\nnature, are impossible to be accounted for, unless we allow that he did\nreally work miracles. And the same observations hold, in general, of the\nother parts of the Scripture history. We might urge that a particular\nargument in favour of the miraculous part of the Scripture history, may\nbe deduced from the reluctance of mankind to receive miraculous facts;\nwhich would put the writers and readers very much upon their guard, and\nwould operate as a strong check upon the publication of a miraculous\nhistory at or near the time when the miracles were said to be performed;\nand thus it would serve as a strong confirmation of such a history, if\nits genuineness be previously granted.\n\n9. In connection with the preceding proposition we may observe, that the\ngenuineness of the Scriptures proves their divine authority. Porphyry in\neffect acknowledges the truth of this proposition, in its reference to\nthe book of Daniel, by being unable to devise a method of invalidating\nits divine authority implied in the accomplishment of the prophecies\nwhich it contains, without asserting that they were written after the\nevent, or that they were forgeries. Many of the other books of the Old\nand New Testaments have unquestionable evidences of the divine\nforeknowledge, if they be allowed genuine; such are those supplied by\nMoses\u2019s prophecy concerning the captivity of the Israelites, or of a\nstate not yet erected; Isaiah\u2019s concerning Cyrus; Jeremiah\u2019s concerning\nthe duration of the Babylonish captivity; Christ\u2019s concerning the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity that was to follow; St.\nJohn\u2019s concerning the great corruption of the Christian church; and\nDaniel\u2019s concerning the fourth empire in its declension; which last was\nextant in the time of Porphyry, at least; that is, before the events\nwhich it represents. The truth of the proposition might also be argued\nfrom the sublimity and excellence of the doctrines contained in the\nScriptures; in no respect suiting the supposed authors, or the ages in\nwhich they lived, their education or occupation; so that, if they were\nthe real authors, we are under the necessity of admitting the divine\nassistance. The converse of this proposition, namely, that the divine\nauthority of the Scriptures infers their genuineness, will be readily\nand universally acknowledged. Moreover, the truth of the principal facts\ncontained in the Scriptures proves their divine authority. Such is the\nframe of the human mind, that the Scripture history, allowed to be true,\nmust convince us that Christ, the Prophets, and the Apostles, were\nendued with a power greater than human, and acted by the authority of a\nBeing of the highest wisdom and goodness. By such mode of reasoning it\nis shown that the genuineness of the Scriptures, the truth of the\nprincipal facts contained in them, and their divine authority, appear to\nbe so connected with each other, that, any one being established upon\nindependent principles, the other two may be inferred from it. On the\nsubject of the inspiration of the Scriptures, see INSPIRATION.\n\n10. Another argument in favour of the genuineness of the books of the\nOld and New Testaments, and of the truth of the principal facts\ncontained in them, may be deduced from the manner in which they have\nbeen transmitted down from one age to another; resembling that in which\nall other genuine books and true histories have been conveyed down to\nposterity. As the works of the Greek and Roman writers were considered\nby these nations as having been transmitted to them by their ancestors\nin a continued succession from the times when the respective authors\nlived, so have the books of the Old Testament been accounted by the\nJews, and those of the New by the Christians; and it is an additional\nevidence in the last case, that the primitive Christians were not a\ndistinct nation, but a great multitude of people dispersed through all\nthe nations of the Roman empire, and even extending itself beyond the\nbounds of that empire. As the Greeks and Romans always believed the\nprincipal facts of their historical books, so the Jews and Christians\ndid more, and never seem to have doubted of the truth of any part of\ntheirs. In short--whatever can be said of the traditional authority due\nto the Greek and Roman writers--something analogous to this, and for the\nmost part of greater weight, may be urged for the Jewish and Christian.\nNow, as all sober minded persons admit the books usually ascribed to the\nGreek and Roman historians, philosophers, &c, to be genuine, and the\nprincipal facts related or alluded to in them to be true, and that one\nchief evidence for this is the general traditionary one here recited,\nthey ought, therefore, to pay the same regard to the books of the Old\nand New Testaments, since there are the same, or even greater, reasons\nfor it. Beside, these traditionary evidences are sufficient; and we thus\nobtain a real argument, as well as one _ad hominem_, for receiving books\nthus handed down to us. For it is not conceivable, that whole nations\nshould either be imposed upon themselves, or concur to deceive others by\nforgeries of books or of facts. These books and facts must therefore, in\ngeneral, be genuine and true; and it is a strong additional evidence of\nthis, that all nations must be jealous of forgeries for the same reasons\nas we are.\n\n11. We may proceed to state farther, that the great importance of the\nhistories, precepts, promises, threatenings, and prophecies contained in\nthe Scriptures, is in evidence both of their genuineness, and of the\ntruth of the principal facts mentioned in them. The history of the\ncreation, fall, deluge, longevity of the patriarchs, dispersion of\nmankind, calling of Abraham, descent of Jacob with his family into\nEgypt, and the precepts of abstaining from blood, and of circumcision,\nwere of such concern, either to mankind in general, or to the Israelites\nin particular, and some of them of so extraordinary a nature, as that it\ncould not be a matter of indifference to the people among whom the\naccount given of them in Genesis was first published, whether they\nreceived them or not. On the supposition that this account was first\npublished among the Israelites by Moses, and then confirmed by clear,\nuniversal, uninterrupted tradition, it will be easy to conceive how it\nshould be handed down from age to age among the Jews, and received by\nthem as indubitable. But, supposing the account to be false, or that\nthere were no such vestiges and evidences of these histories and\nprecepts, it will be difficult to conceive how this could have happened,\nlet the time of publication be what it may. If early, the people would\nreject at once the account, for want of a clear tradition; if late, it\nwould be natural to inquire how the author was informed of things never\nknown before to others. As to other cosmogonies and theogonies current\namong Pagans, which are evident fictions, they furnish no just objection\nagainst the Mosaic history, because they were generally regarded merely\nas amusing fictions; and yet they concealed in figures, or expressed in\nplain words, some truths which agree with the book of Genesis, and\nafford a strong presumptive evidence in favour of this book. With\nrespect to the law of Moses, this was extremely burdensome, expensive,\nand severe, particularly in its reference to the crime of idolatry, to\nwhich mankind were then extravagantly prone; and it was absurd,\naccording to human judgment, in the instances of prohibiting their\nfurnishing themselves with horses for war, and of commanding all the\nmales of the whole nation to appear at Jerusalem three times a year.\nNevertheless, it claims a divine authority, and appeals to facts of the\nmost notorious kind, and to customs and ceremonies of the most peculiar\nnature, as the memorials of these facts. Can we then conceive that any\nnation, with such motives to reject, and such opportunities of\ndetecting, the forgery of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and\nDeuteronomy, should yet receive them, and submit to this heavy yoke?\nThat the Jews did submit to the law of Moses in these circumstances, is\nevident from the books of the Old and New Testaments, if we allow them\nthe least truth and genuineness, or even from profane writers, and from\nthe present observance of it by the Jews scattered through all the\nkingdoms of the world. Should it be said that other nations have\nascribed divine authority to their lawgivers, and submitted to very\nsevere laws, it may be alleged in reply to this, that the pretences of\nlawgivers among the Pagans to inspiration, and the submission of the\npeople, may be accounted for from their peculiar circumstances at the\ntime, without recurring to real inspiration; and more especially if we\nadmit the patriarchal revelations related by Moses, and his own divine\nlegation, as Heathen lawgivers copied after these, and hence we derive a\nstrong argument in their favour. Beside, no instance occurs among the\nPagans of a body of laws framed at once and remaining invariable;\nwhereas the body politic of the Israelites assumed a complete form at\nonce, and has preserved it, with little variation, to the present time,\nand under many external disadvantages; thus supplying us with an\ninstance altogether without parallel, and showing the high opinion which\nthey entertained of the great importance of their law. In short, of all\nthe fictions or forgeries that can happen among any people, the most\nimprobable is that of the Jewish body of civil laws, and seems to be\nutterly impossible.\n\n12. If we farther examine the history contained in the books of Joshua,\nJudges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and\nextending from the death of Moses to the re\u00ebstablishment of the Jews\nafter the Babylonish captivity by Ezra and Nehemiah, we shall find a\nvariety of important facts, most of which must be supposed to leave such\nvestiges of themselves, either external and visible, or internal in the\nminds and memories of the people, as would verify them if true, or cause\nthem to be rejected if false. The conquest of the land of Canaan, the\ndivision of it, and the appointment of cities for the priests and\nLevites by Joshua; the frequent slaveries of the Israelites to the\nneighbouring kings, and their deliverance by the judges; the creation of\na kingdom by Samuel; the translation of this kingdom from Saul\u2019s family\nto David, with his conquests; the glory of Solomon\u2019s kingdom; the\nbuilding of the temple; the division of the kingdom; the idolatrous\nworship set up at Dan and Bethel; the captivity of the Israelites by the\nkings of Assyria; the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar; the\ndestruction of their temple; their return under Cyrus, rebuilding the\ntemple under Darius Hystaspes, and re\u00ebstablishment under Artaxerxes\nLongimanus, by Ezra and Nehemiah:--these events are some of them the\nmost glorious, and some of them the most reproachful, that can happen to\nany people. How can we reconcile forgeries of such opposite kinds, and\nespecially as they are interwoven together by various complicated and\nnecessary connections, which do not admit of separation? The facts,\nindeed, are of such importance, notoriety, and permanency in their\neffects, that no particular persons among the Israelites could first\nproject the design of feigning them, that their own people would not\nconcur with such a design, and that neighbouring nations would not\npermit the fiction to pass. Nothing but the invincible evidence of the\nfacts here alleged, could induce a jealous multitude among the\nIsraelites or neighbouring nations to acquiesce. This must be\nacknowledged upon the supposition that the several books were published\nin or near the times when the facts that are recorded in them happened.\nBut suppose all these historical books forged by Ezra; the hypothesis is\nevidently impossible. Things so important and notorious, so honourable\nand so reproachful to the people for whose sake they were forged, would\nhave been rejected with the utmost indignation, unless there were the\nstrongest and most genuine traces of these things already among the\npeople. They must therefore, in part at least, be true. If it be said\nthat additions were made by Ezra, these additions must have been either\nof important or trivial matters. On the first supposition, the\ndifficulty already stated recurs; and if the important facts are true,\nwhat possible motive could have induced Ezra to make additions of no\nimportance? Beside, if any ancient writings were extant, Ezra must\neither copy after them, which destroys the present supposition, or\ndiffer from and oppose them, which would betray him. If there were no\nsuch ancient writings, the people would be led to inquire with regard to\nmatters of importance, for what reason Ezra was so particular in things\nof which there was neither any memory, nor account in writing. Should it\nbe said that the people did not regard what Ezra had thus forged, this\nreduces the subject in question to matters of small or of no importance.\nBeside, why should Ezra write if no one would read or regard? Farther:\nEzra must have had, like other men, friends, enemies, and rivals; and\nsome, or all of these, would have been a check upon him, and a security\nagainst him, in matters of importance. If we suppose these books,\ninstead of having been forged at once, to have been forged successively,\nat the interval of one, two, or three centuries after the facts related,\nwe shall involve ourselves in the same or similar difficulties. Upon the\nwhole, then, we may conclude, that the forgery of the annals of the\nIsraelites appears to be impossible, as well as that of the body of\ntheir civil laws. It is needless to examine the books of Esther, Job,\nthe Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; and we might proceed\nto the Prophecies; but this will be resumed under the article\n_Prophecy_. For the subjects comprehended in the books of the New\nTestament. See GOSPEL:GOSPEL, and #CHRISTIANITY.\n\n13. We shall here subjoin some general evidences in attestation of the\ntruth of the books of Scripture. That Jews and Christians have thought\ntheir sacred books very highly important, most genuine, and true,\nappears from the persecutions and sufferings which they have undergone\non account of their attachment to them, and because they would not be\nprevailed upon to surrender them. The preservation of the law of Moses,\nprobably the first book written in any language, whilst many others of a\nlater date have been lost, shows the great regard that has been paid to\nit; and from this circumstance we may infer that this and the other\nbooks of the Old Testament have been preserved on account of their\nimportance, or from some other cause, equally evincing their genuineness\nand truth. The great value set upon these books appears also from the\nmany early translations and paraphrases of them; and these translations\nand paraphrases serve to correct errors that are unavoidable in the\nlapse of time, and to secure their integrity and purity. The hesitation\nand difficulty with which some few books of the New Testament were\nreceived into the canon, show the great care and concern of the\nprimitive Christians about the canon, and the high importance of the\nbooks admitted into it; and afford a strong evidence of their\ngenuineness and truth. The same observation is in a degree applicable to\nthe Jewish canon. Moreover, the religious hatred and animosity which\nsubsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, and between several of the\nancient sects among the Christians, convince us of what importance they\nall thought their sacred books, and disposed them to watch over one\nanother with a jealous eye. Farther: the genuineness of the books of the\nOld and New Testaments may be evinced from the language, style, and\nmanner of writing used in them. The Hebrew language, in which the Old\nTestament was written, being the language of an ancient people, who had\nlittle intercourse with their neighbours, would not change so fast as\nmodern languages have done, since different nations have been variously\nblended with one another by the extension of trade, arts, and sciences;\nand yet some changes must have occurred in the interval that elapsed\nbetween the time of Moses and that of Malachi. The biblical Hebrew\ncorresponds so exactly to this criterion, as to afford a considerable\nargument in favour of the genuineness of the books of the Old Testament.\nBeside, these books have too great a diversity of style to be the work\nof either one Jew, or of any set of contemporary Jews. If they be\nforgeries, there must have been a succession of impostors in different\nages, who concurred in the same iniquitous design. Again: the Hebrew\nlanguage ceased to be spoken, as a living language, soon after the time\nof the Babylonish captivity; and it would be difficult or impossible to\nforge any thing in it after it became a dead language. Hence it appears,\nthat all the books of the Old Testament must at least be nearly as\nancient as the Babylonish captivity; and as they could not all be\nwritten in the same age, some must be much more ancient, and this would\nreduce us to the necessity of supposing a succession of conspiring\nimpostors. Moreover, there is, as we have already observed, a simplicity\nof style, and an unaffected manner of writing, in all the books of the\nOld Testament, which is a strong evidence of their genuineness. The\nstyle of the New Testament, in particular, is not only simple and\nunaffected, but is Greek influenced by the Hebrew idiom, and exactly\nanswers to the circumstances of time, places, and persons. To which we\nmay add, that the narrations and precepts of both the Old and New\nTestament are delivered without hesitation; the writers teaching as\nhaving authority: and this circumstance is peculiar to those who unite,\nwith a clear knowledge of what they deliver, a perfect integrity of\nheart. But a farther argument for the genuineness and truth of the\nScriptures is supplied by the very great number of particular\ncircumstances of time, place, persons, &c, mentioned in them. It is\nneedless to recount these; but they are incompatible with forged and\nfalse accounts, that do not abound in such particularities, and the want\nof which furnishes a suspicion to their discredit. Compare, in this\nrespect, Manetho\u2019s account of the dynasties of Egypt, Ctesias\u2019s of the\nAssyrian kings, and those which the technical chronologers have given of\nthe ancient kingdoms of Greece, which are defective in such particulars,\nwith the history by Thucydides of the Peloponnesian war, and with\nC\u00e6sar\u2019s of the war in Gaul, and the difference will be sufficiently\napparent. Dr. Paley\u2019s admirable treatise, entitled, \u201c_Hor\u00e6 Paulin\u00e6_,\u201d\naffords very valuable illustrations of this argument as it respects the\ngenuineness of the books of the New Testament. The agreement of the\nScriptures with history, natural and civil, is a farther proof of their\ngenuineness and truth. The history of the fall agrees in an eminent\nmanner both with the obvious facts of labour, sorrow, pain, and death,\nwith what we see and feel every day, and with all our philosophical\ninquiries into the frame of the human mind, the nature of social life,\nand the origin of evil. Natural history bears a strong testimony to\nMoses\u2019s account of the deluge. Civil history affords many evidences\nwhich corroborate the same account. (See _Deluge_.) The Mosaic account\nof the confusion of languages, of the dispersion of Noah\u2019s sons, and of\nthe state of religion in the ancient postdiluvian world, is not only\nrendered probable, but is in a very high degree established, by many\ncollateral arguments. See CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES, and DIVISION OF THE\nEARTH.\n\n14. The agreement of the books of the Old and New Testaments with\nthemselves and with each other, affords another argument both of their\ngenuineness and truth. The laws of the Israelites are contained in the\nPentateuch, and referred to, in a great variety of ways, direct and\nindirect, in the historical books, in the Psalms, and in the Prophecies.\nThe historical facts also in the preceding books are often referred to\nin those that succeed, and in the Psalms and Prophecies. In like manner,\nthe Gospels have the greatest harmony with each other, and the Epistles\nof St. Paul with the Acts of the Apostles; and, indeed, there is\nscarcely any book of either the Old or New Testament, which may not be\nshown to refer to many of the rest, in one way or other. For the\nillustration of this argument, let us suppose that no more remained of\nthe Roman writers than Livy, Tully, and Horace; would they not, by their\nreferences to the same facts and customs, by the sameness of style in\nthe same writer, and difference in the different ones, and numberless\nother such like circumstances of critical consideration, prove\nthemselves, and one another to be genuine, and the principal facts\nrelated, or alluded to, to be true? Whoever will apply this reasoning to\nthe present case will perceive, that the numberless minute, direct, and\nindirect agreements and coincidences, that present themselves to all\ndiligent readers of the Scriptures, prove their truth and genuineness\nbeyond all contradiction.\n\nThe harmony and agreement of the several writers of the Old and New\nTestament appear the more remarkable, when it is considered that their\nvarious parts were penned by several hands in very different conditions\nof life, from the throne and sceptre down to the lowest degree, and in\nvery distant ages, through a long interval of time; which would\nnaturally have led a spirit of imposture to have varied its schemes, and\nto have adapted them to different stations in the world, and to the\ndifferent vicissitudes of every age. David wrote about four hundred\nyears after Moses, and Isaiah about two hundred and fifty after David,\nand Matthew more than seven hundred years after Isaiah; and yet these\nauthors, with all the other Prophets and Apostles, write in perfect\nharmony, confirming the authority of their predecessors, labouring to\nreduce the people to the observance of their instructions, and loudly\nexclaiming against the neglect and contempt of them, and denouncing the\nseverest judgments against such as continued disobedient. Consequently,\nas the writers of the Holy Scriptures, though they all claim a divine\nauthority, yet write in perfect connection and harmony, mutually\nconfirming the doctrine and testimony of each other, and concurring to\nestablish the very same religious truths and principles, it is a strong\nproof that they all derived their instructions from the same fountain,\nthe wisdom of God, and were indeed under the direction and illumination\nof the same Spirit. This leads us to add, that the unity of design,\nwhich appears in the dispensations recorded in the Scriptures, is an\nargument not only of their truth and genuineness, but also of their\ndivine authority. In order to perceive the force of this argument, it is\nonly necessary to inquire what this design is, and how it is pursued by\nthe series of events and divine interpositions recorded in the\nScriptures. (See _Dispensation_.) It should also be considered, that the\nhistorical evidences in favour of the genuineness, truth, and divine\nauthority of the Scriptures, do not become less from age to age; but, on\nthe contrary, it may rather be presumed that they increase. Since the\nthree great concurring events of printing, the reformation of religion\nin these western parts, and the restoration of letters, so many more\nevidences and coincidences have been discovered in favour of the Jewish\nand Christian histories, as may serve, in some measure, to supply the\nwant of those that have been lost in the preceding times; and as this\naccumulation of evidences is likely to continue, there is great reason\nto hope that it will at length become irresistible to all and silence\neven every gainsayer.\n\n15. The moral characters of the Prophets, and the Apostles, prove the\ntruth and divine authority of the Scriptures. The characters of the\npersons who are said in the Scriptures to have had divine\ncommunications, and a divine mission, are so much superior to the\ncharacters that occur in common life, that we can scarcely account for\nthe more eminent individuals, and much less so for so large a succession\nof them, continued through so many ages, without allowing the divine\ncommunications and assistance which they allege. Notwithstanding\nconsiderable imperfections that pertained to many of these eminent\npersons, and the occasional offences chargeable upon one or two of them,\nyet the impartial reader should consider whether the Prophets, Apostles,\n&c, were not so much superior, not only to mankind at an average, but\neven to the best men among the Greeks and Romans, as is not fairly to be\naccounted for by the mere powers of human nature. If this statement\nshould not be conceded, their characters, however, are too good to allow\nthe supposition of an impious fraud and imposture, which must have been\nthe case if they had not divine authority. Beside, it should be\nrecollected, that the undisguised and impartial manner in which the\nimperfections and faults of the eminent persons mentioned in Scripture\nare related, furnishes a remarkable additional evidence for the truth of\nthose parts of the Scripture history in which such relations occur,\nbeside such evidences as extend to the whole.\n\n16. The excellence of the doctrine contained in the Scriptures is an\nadditional evidence of their authority. This argument has great force\nindependently of all other considerations. Suppose, for instance, that\nthe author of the Gospel, which goes under the name of St. Matthew, was\nnot known, and that it was unsupported by the writers of the primitive\ntimes; yet such are the unaffected simplicity of the narrations, the\npurity of the doctrine, and the sincere piety and goodness of the\nsentiments, that it carries its own authority with it. The same\nobservation is applicable in general to all the books of the Old and New\nTestaments; so that if there was no other book in the world beside the\nBible, a man could not reasonably doubt of the truth of revealed\nreligion. If all other arguments were set aside, we may conclude from\nthis single consideration, that the authors of the books of the Old and\nNew Testaments, whoever they were, cannot have made a false claim to\ndivine authority. The Scriptures contain doctrines concerning God,\nprovidence, a future state, the duty of man, &c, far more pure and\nsublime than can in any way be accounted for from the natural powers of\nmen, so circumstanced as the sacred writers were. Let the reader\nconsider whether it can be reasonably supposed, that Jewish shepherds,\nfishermen, &c, should, both before and after the rise of the Heathen\nphilosophy, so far exceed men of the greatest abilities and\naccomplishments in other nations, by any other means than divine\ncommunications. Indeed, no writers, from the invention of letters to the\npresent times, are equal to the penmen of the books of the Old and New\nTestaments in true excellence, utility and dignity; and this is surely\nsuch an internal criterion of their divine authority, as ought not to be\nresisted.\n\n17. The many and great advantages which have accrued to the world from\nthe patriarchal, Judaical, and Christian revelations, confirm the whole.\nThese advantages relate partly to the knowledge, and partly to the\npractice, of religion. The internal worth and excellence of the\nScriptures, as containing the best principles of knowledge, holiness,\nconsolation, and hope, and their consequent utility and importance in a\nmoral and practical view, fully and directly demonstrate their divine\noriginal. For an enlarged view of this branch of evidence see\nCHRISTIANITY.\n\nBIBLISTS, or BIBLICI, a term applied to certain doctors in the twelfth\nand thirteenth centuries, who expounded the sacred writings in their\npublic schools, and endeavoured to establish their doctrines by the\nauthority of Scripture, in opposition to uncertain traditions, or the\nspeculations of the schools. Upon the same principle, the Pietists of\nthe seventeenth century formed what they called Biblical colleges, for\nexpounding the Scriptures.\n\nBIER. See BURIAL.\n\nBILDAD, the Shuhite, one of Job\u2019s friends, thought by some to have\ndescended from Shuah, the son of Abraham, by Keturah, Job ii, 11; viii,\nxviii, xxv.\n\nBILHAH, Rachel\u2019s handmaid, given by her to Jacob her husband, as a\nconcubinary wife, that, through her she might have a son, Gen. xxx, 3,\n4, &c. See BARRENNESS.\n\nBIND. To bind and loose are taken for condemning and absolving: \u201cAnd I\nwill give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever\nthou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou\nshalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,\u201d Matt. xvi, 19. By\nbinding and loosing, in the language of the Jews, is understood,\nlikewise, permitting and forbidding; or declaring any thing in a\njudicial manner to be permitted or forbidden; and on the promotion of\ntheir doctors, they put the keys into their hands with these words,\n\u201cReceive the power of binding and loosing.\u201d So our Lord says, \u201cI am not\ncome to destroy,\u201d to unloose or dissolve, \u201cthe law, but to fulfil,\u201d that\nis, to confirm and establish it, Matt. v, 17. See KEYS.\n\nBIRD, \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8, a common name for all birds, but is sometimes used for the\nsparrow in particular.\n\nBirds are distinguished by the Jewish legislator into clean and unclean.\nSuch as fed upon grain and seeds were allowed for food, and such as\ndevoured flesh and carrion were prohibited.\n\nMoses, to inspire the Israelites with sentiments of tenderness toward\nthe brute creation, commands them, if they find a bird\u2019s nest, not to\ntake the dam with the young, but to suffer the old one to fly away, and\nto take the young only, Deut. xxii, 6. This is one of those merciful\nconstitutions in the law of Moses which respect the animal creation, and\ntended to humanize the heart of that people, to excite in them a sense\nof the divine providence extending itself to all creatures, and to teach\nthem to exercise their dominion over them with gentleness. Beside, the\nyoung never knew the sweets of liberty; the dam did: they might be taken\nand used for any lawful purpose; but the dam must not be brought into a\nstate of captivity. The poet Phocylides has a maxim, in his admonitory\npoem, very similar to that in the sacred texts:--\n\n          \u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03d6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9,\n          \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03d6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n          Nor from a nest take all the birds away,\n          The mother spare, she\u2019ll breed a future day.\n\nIt appears that the ancients hunted birds. Baruch, iii, 17, speaking of\nthe kings of Babylon, says, \u201cThey had their pastime with the fowls of\nthe air;\u201d and Daniel, iii, 38, tells Nebuchadnezzar that God had made\nthe fowls of the air subject to him.\n\nBirds were offered in sacrifice on many occasions. In the sacrifices for\nsin, he who had not a lamb, or a kid, \u201cmight offer two turtles, or two\nyoung pigeons; one for a sin-offering, the other for a burnt-offering.\nThese he presented to the priest, who offered that first which was for\nthe sin-offering, and wrung off the head from the neck, but did not\ndivide it asunder: the other he was to offer for a burnt-offering,\u201d Lev.\nv, 7, 8. When a man who had been smitten with a leprosy was healed, he\ncame to the entrance of the camp of Israel, and the priest went out to\ninspect him, whether he were entirely cured, Lev. xiv, 5, 6. After this\ninspection, the leprous person came to the door of the tabernacle, and\noffered two living sparrows, or two birds; (pure birds, those of which\nit was lawful to eat;) he made a wisp with branches of cedar and hyssop,\ntied together with a thread, or scarlet ribbon; he filled an earthen pot\nwith running water, that the blood of the bird might be mingled with it;\nthen the priest, dipping the bunch of hyssop and cedar into the water,\nsprinkled with it the leper who was healed; after which he let loose the\nliving bird, to fly where it would. In Palestine dead bodies were\nsometimes left exposed to birds of prey, as appears from Scripture; but,\ngenerally, they were buried in the evening: even criminals were taken\ndown from the gallows.\n\nBIRTHRIGHT, or PRIMOGENITURE, the right of the first-born or eldest son.\nThe birthright, or right of primogeniture, had many privileges annexed\nto it. The first-born was consecrated to the Lord, Exod. xxii, 29; had a\ndouble portion of the estate allotted him, Deut. xxi, 17; had a dignity\nand authority over his brethren, Gen. xlix, 3; succeeded in the\ngovernment of the family or kingdom, 2 Chron. xxi, 3; and, as some with\ngood reason suppose, in ancient times to the priesthood or chief\ngovernment in matters ecclesiastical. Jacob, having bought Esau\u2019s\nbirthright, acquired a title to the particular blessing of his dying\nfather; and, accordingly, he had consigned to him the privilege of the\ncovenant which God made with Abraham, that from his loins the Messiah\nshould spring: a prerogative which descended to his posterity. Reuben\nforfeited the blessings of his birthright, as we see by the express\ndeclaration of his father Jacob, in his benediction of his children,\nGen. xlix, 1, &c, for the crime of incest with his father\u2019s concubine,\non account of which his tribe continued all along in obscurity; while\nthe priesthood was conferred on Levi, the government on Judah, and the\ndouble portion on Joseph, to descend to their respective tribes. And\nthis pre\u00ebminence of the first-born took place from the beginning, and as\nmuch belonged to Cain, before his forfeiture of it, as it did to Reuben\nbefore his. See Genesis iv, 7; xlix, 3. Thus the patriarchs, Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, offered sacrifices, and were priests as well as kings\nin their respective families, Gen. xii, 7, 8; xiii, 18; xvii, 7; xxvi,\n25; xxxi, 54; xxxv, 7. Job, in Arabia, acted in the same capacity, Job,\ni, 5; and it is highly probable that, among the ancient Heathen nations\nin general, the first-born were entitled not only to the civil\nauthority, but also to the priesthood. This seems to have been the case\nin Egypt, in the time of Moses: and hence Jehovah\u2019s destroying their\nfirst-born, as it was the last miracle wrought in that country before\nthe Exodus, so was it the most dreadful, and most effectual in\nprevailing on Pharaoh and the Egyptians to dismiss the Israelites.\n\nBISHOP, \u05e4\u05e7\u05d9\u05d3, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, signifies _an overseer_, or one who has the\ninspection and direction of any thing. Nehemiah speaks of the overseer\nof the Levites at Jerusalem, Neh. xi, 22. The most common acceptation of\nthe word _bishop_ is that in Acts xx, 28, and in St. Paul\u2019s Epistles,\nPhilip, i, 1, where it signifies the pastor of a church. St. Peter calls\nJesus Christ \u201cthe Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,\u201d 1 Peter ii, 25; and\nSt. Paul describes the qualities requisite in a bishop, 1 Tim. iii, 2;\nTitus 1, 2, &c. It is not improbable that the overseers of Christ\u2019s\nchurch are in the New Testament called \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, from the following\npassage in Isaiah: \u201cI will also make thy officers peace, and thine\n_overseers_\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u0223\u03c2,) \u201crighteousness,\u201d Isa. lx, 17. The word, as\nused by the Apostolic writers, when referring to the pastors of\nChristian churches, is evidently of the same import as _presbyter_ or\n_elder_; for the terms, as they occur in the New Testament, appear to be\nsynonymous, and are used indifferently. Thus the same persons that are\ncalled \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, _bishops_ are also called \u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, _elders_.\nHence, when St. Paul came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus for the\npresbyters of the church, and thus addressed them: \u201cTake heed unto\nyourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made\nyou\u201d (the presbyters) \u201c\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u0223\u03c2, bishops,\u201d or overseers, Acts xx, 17.\n\u201cHere,\u201d says Dr. Campbell, \u201cthere can be no question that the same\npersons are denominated presbyters and bishops.\u201d Nor is this the only\npassage in which we find the terms used convertibly. In Titus i, 5, it\nis said, \u201cFor this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set\nin order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders\u201d (Greek,\n\u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u0223\u03c2) \u201cin every city;\u201d and then it follows in verse 7, \u201cFor a\nbishop\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd) \u201cmust be blameless.\u201d In like manner, the Apostle\nPeter, 1 Peter v, 1: \u201cThe elders\u201d (\u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u0223\u03c2) \u201cwhich are among you I\nexhort; feed the flock of God which is among you, _taking the oversight\nthereof_; \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, that is, discharging the office of bishops.\u201d\nSee EPISCOPACY.\n\nBITHYNIA, a country of Asia Minor, stretching along the shore of the\nPontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, from Mysia to Paphlagonia; having Phrygia\nand Galatia on the south. In it are the two cities of Nic\u00e6a, or Nice,\nand Chalcedon: both celebrated in ecclesiastical history, on account of\nthe general councils held in them, and called after their names. The\nformer city is at present called Is-Nick, and the latter Kadi-Keni.\nWithin this country, also, are the celebrated mountains of Olympus. St.\nPeter addressed his first Epistle to the Hebrew Christians who were\nscattered through this and the neighbouring countries.\n\nBITTER HERBS. \u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd. Exod. xii, 8, and Num. ix, 11. The Jews were\ncommanded to eat their passover with a salad of bitter herbs; but\nwhether one particular plant was intended, or any kind of bitter herbs,\nhas been made a question. By the Septuagint it is rendered \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03d6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd;\nby Jerom, \u201c_cum lactucis agrestibus_;\u201d and by the Gr. Venet., \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\n\u03d6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Dr. Geddes remarks, that \u201cit is highly probable that the\nsuccory or wild lettuce is meant.\u201d The Mischna in _Pesachim_, cap. 2,\nreckons five species of these bitter herbs: 1. Chazareth, taken for\nlettuce: 2. Ulsin, supposed to be endive or succory: 3. Tamca, probably\ntansy: 4. Charubbinim, which Bochart thought might be the nettle, but\nScheuchzer shows to be the camomile: 5. Meror, the sow-thistle, or\ndent-de-lion, or wild lettuce. Mr. Forskal says, \u201cthe Jews in Sana and\nin Egypt eat the lettuce with the paschal lamb.\u201d He also remarks, that\n_moru_ is centaury, of which the young stems are eaten in February and\nMarch.\n\nBITTERN. \u05e7\u05e4\u05d5\u05d3. Isa. xiv, 23; xxxiv, 11; and Zephaniah ii, 14.\nInterpreters have rendered this word variously: an _owl_, an _osprey_, a\n_tortoise_, a _porcupine_, and even an _otter_. \u201cHow unhappy,\u201d says Mr.\nHarmer, \u201cthat a word which occurs but three times in the Hebrew Bible\nshould be translated by three different words, and that one of them\nshould be _otter_!\u201d Isaiah, prophesying the destruction of Babylon, says\nthat \u201cthe Lord will make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of\nwater;\u201d and Zephaniah, ii, 14, prophesying against Nineveh, says that\n\u201cthe cormorant and bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it: their\nvoice shall sing in the windows.\u201d The Arabic version reads\n\u201c_al-houbara_.\u201d According to Dr. Shaw, the _houbara_ is \u201cof the bigness\nof a capon, but of a longer body. It feeds on little shrubs and insects,\nlike the _graab el Sahara_; frequenting, in like manner, the confines of\nthe desert.\u201d Golius interprets it _the bustard_; and Dr. Russel says\nthat the Arabic name of the bustard is \u201choubry.\u201d\n\nBITTERNESS, _waters of_. See ADULTERY.\n\nBLASPHEMY, \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, properly denotes _calumny_, _detraction_,\n_reproachful_ or _abusive language_, against whomsoever it be vented.\nThat \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 and its conjugates are very often applied, says Dr.\nCampbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the\nfollowing passages: Matt. xii, 31, 32; xxvii, 39; Mark xv, 29; Luke\nxxii, 65; xxiii, 39; Rom. iii, 8; xiv, 16; 1 Cor. iv, 13; x, 30; Eph.\niv, 31; 1 Tim. vi, 4; Titus iii, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 14; Jude 9, 10; Acts vi,\n11, 13; 2 Pet. ii, 10, 11; in the much greater part of which the English\ntranslators, sensible that they could admit no such application, have\nnot used the words _blaspheme_ or _blasphemy_, but _rail_, _revile_,\n_speak evil_, &c. In one of the passages quoted, a reproachful charge\nbrought even against the devil is called \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Jude 9; and\nrendered by them, \u201crailing accusation.\u201d The import of the word \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\nis _maledicentia_, in the largest acceptation; comprehending all sorts\nof verbal abuse, imprecation, reviling, and calumny. And let it be\nobserved, that when such abuse is mentioned as uttered against God,\nthere is properly no change made in the signification of the word: the\nchange is only in the application; that is, in the reference to a\ndifferent object. The idea conveyed in the explanation now given is\nalways included, against whomsoever the crime be committed. In this\nmanner every term is understood that is applicable to both God and man.\nThus the meaning of the word _disobey_ is the same, whether we speak of\ndisobeying God or of disobeying man. The same may be said of _believe_,\n_honour_, _fear_, &c. As, therefore, the sense of the term is the same,\nthough differently applied, what is essential to constitute the crime of\ndetraction in the one case, is essential also in the other. But it is\nessential to this crime, as commonly understood, when committed by one\nman against another, that there be in the injurious person the will or\ndisposition to detract from the person abused. Mere mistake in regard to\ncharacter, especially when the mistake is not conceived by him who\nentertains it to lessen the character, nay, is supposed, however\nerroneously, to exalt it, is never construed by any into the crime of\ndefamation. Now, as blasphemy is in its essence the same crime, but\nimmensely aggravated by being committed against an object infinitely\nsuperior to man, what is fundamental to the very existence of the crime\nwill be found in this, as in every other species which comes under the\ngeneral name. There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not\nan impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate\nthe minds of others from the love and reverence of God. The blasphemer\nis no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To constitute the\ncrime, it is as necessary that this species of calumny be intentional.\nHe must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavours to inspire\nothers with the same irreverence toward the Deity, or perhaps,\nabhorrence of him, which he indulges in himself. And though, for the\nhonour of human nature, it is to be hoped that very few arrive at this\nenormous guilt, it ought not to be dissembled, that the habitual\nprofanation of the name and attributes of God by common swearing, is but\ntoo manifest an approach toward it. There is not an entire coincidence:\nthe latter of these vices may be considered as resulting solely from the\ndefect of what is good in principle and disposition; the former from the\nacquisition of what is evil in the extreme: but there is a close\nconnection between them, and an insensible gradation from the one to the\nother. To accustom one\u2019s self to treat the Sovereign of the universe\nwith irreverent familiarity, is the first step; malignly to arraign his\nattributes, and revile his providence, is the last. The first divine law\npublished against it, \u201cHe that blasphemeth the name of the Lord\u201d (or\n_Jehovah_, as it is in the Hebrew) \u201cshall be put to death,\u201d Lev. xxiv,\n16, when considered along with the incident that occasioned it, suggests\na very atrocious offence in words, no less than abuse or imprecations\nvented against the Deity. For, in what way soever the crime of the man\nthere mentioned be interpreted,--whether as committed against the true\nGod, the God of Israel, or against any of the false gods whom his\nEgyptian father worshipped,--the law in the words now quoted is\nsufficiently explicit; and the circumstances of the story plainly show,\nthat the words which he had used were derogatory from the Godhead, and\nshocking to the hearers. And if we add to this the only other memorable\ninstance in sacred history, namely, that of Rabshakeh, it will lead us\nto conclude that it is solely a malignant attempt, in words, to lessen\nmen\u2019s reverence of the true God, and, by vilifying his perfections, to\nprevent their placing confidence in him, which is called in Scripture\n_blasphemy_, when the word is employed to denote a sin committed\ndirectly against God. This was manifestly the attempt of Rabshakeh, when\nhe said, \u201cNeither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord,\u201d (the word is\n_Jehovah_,) \u201csaying, Jehovah will surely deliver us. Hath any of the\ngods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of\nAssyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods\nof Sepharvaim, Hena, and Iva? Have they delivered Samaria out of my\nhand? Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, that have\ndelivered their country out of mine hand, that Jehovah should deliver\nJerusalem out of mine hand?\u201d 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33\u201335.\n\n2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular,\nwhich our Lord denominates \u201cblasphemy against the Holy Spirit,\u201d Matt.\nxii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 28, 29; Luke xii, 10. But without entering\nminutely into the discussion of this question, it may suffice here to\nobserve, that this blasphemy is certainly not of the constructive kind,\nbut direct, manifest, and malignant. First, it is mentioned as\ncomprehended under the same genus with abuse against men, and\ncontradistinguished only by the object. Secondly, it is farther\nexplained by being called _speaking against_ in both cases: \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u0223,--\u1f43\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03af\u03c0\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03d6\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c2. \u201cWhosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man.\u201d--\u201cWhosoever\nspeaketh against the Holy Ghost.\u201d The expressions are the same, in\neffect, in all the Evangelists who mention it, and imply such an\nopposition as is both intentional and malevolent. This cannot have been\nthe case of all who disbelieved the mission of Jesus, and even decried\nhis miracles; many of whom, we have reason to think, were afterward\nconverted by the Apostles. But it was the wretched case of some who,\ninstigated by worldly ambition and avarice, slandered what they knew to\nbe the cause of God; and, against conviction, reviled his work as the\noperation of evil spirits. This view of the sin against the Holy Ghost\nis confirmed by the circumstances under which our Lord spoke.\n\nIf we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer\nthan that it is to be understood of the Pharisees\u2019 imputing the miracles\nwrought by the power of the Holy Ghost to the power of the devil; for\nour Lord had just healed one possessed of a devil, and upon this the\nPharisees gave this malicious turn to the miracle. This led our Saviour\nto discourse on the sin of blasphemy. The Pharisees were the persons\ncharged with the crime: the sin itself manifestly consisted in ascribing\nwhat was done by the finger of God to the agency of the devil; and the\nreason, therefore, why our Lord pronounced it unpardonable, is plain;\nbecause, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, they resisted the\nstrongest means of conviction, and that wilfully and malignantly; and,\ngiving way to their passions, opprobriously treated that Holy Spirit\nwhom they ought to have adored. From all which it will probably follow,\nthat no person can now be guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy\nGhost, in the sense in which our Saviour originally intended it; but\nthere may be sins which bear a very near resemblance to it. This appears\nfrom the case of the apostates mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nto whom \u201cno more sacrifice for sins\u201d is said to remain; whose defection,\nhowever, is not represented so much as a direct sin against the Holy\nGhost as against Christ, whom the apostate Jews blasphemed in the\nsynagogues. It implied, however, a high offence against the Holy Spirit\nalso, with whose gifts they had, probably, been endowed, and their\nconduct must be considered, if not the same sin as that committed by the\nPharisees, yet as a _consenting_ with it, and thus as placing them in\nnearly, if not altogether, the same desperate condition. Even apostasy\nin the present day, although a most aggravated and perilous offence,\ncannot be committed with circumstances of equal aggravation to those\nwhich were found in the case of the persons mentioned by St. Paul; and\nit may be laid down as certain, for the relief of those who may be\ntempted to think that they have committed the unpardonable sin, that\ntheir horror of it, and the trouble which the very apprehension causes\nthem, are the sure proofs that they are mistaken. But although there may\nbe now fearful approaches to the unpardonable offence, it is to be\nremembered that there may be many dangerous and fatal sins against the\nHoly Ghost, which are not _the_ sin against him, which has no\nforgiveness.\n\nBLEMISH, whatever renders a person or thing imperfect or uncomely. The\nJewish law required the priests to be free from blemishes of person,\nLev. xxi, 17\u201323; xxii, 20\u201324. Scandalous professors are blemishes to the\nchurch of God, 2 Peter ii, 13; Jude 12, and therefore ought to be put\naway from it, in the exercise of a godly discipline.\n\nBLESS, BLESSING. There are three points of view in which the acts of\nblessing may be considered. The first is, when men are said to bless\nGod, as in Psalm ciii, 1, 2. We are then not to suppose that the divine\nBeing, who is over all, and, in himself, blessed for evermore, is\ncapable of receiving any augmentation of his happiness, from all the\ncreatures which he has made: such a supposition, as it would imply\nsomething of imperfection in the divine nature, must ever be rejected\nwith abhorrence; and, therefore, when the creatures bless the adorable\nCreator, they only ascribe to him that praise and dominion, and honour,\nand glory, and blessing, which it is equally the duty and joy of his\ncreatures to render. But when God is said to bless his people, Gen. i,\n22; Eph. i, 3; the meaning is, that he confers benefits upon them,\neither temporal or spiritual, and so communicates to them some portion\nof that blessedness which, in infinite fulness, dwells in himself, James\ni, 17; Psalm civ, 24, 28; Luke xi, 9\u201313. In the third place men are said\nto bless their fellow creatures. From the time that God entered into\ncovenant with Abraham, and promised extraordinary blessings to his\nposterity, it appears to have been customary for the father of each\nfamily, in the direct line, or line of promise, previous to his death,\nto call his children around him, and to inform them, according to the\nknowledge which it pleased God then to give him, how, and in what\nmanner, the divine blessing conferred upon Abraham was to descend among\nthem. Upon these occasions, the patriarchs enjoyed a divine\nillumination; and under its influence, their benediction was deemed a\nprophetic oracle, foretelling events with the utmost certainty, and\nextending to the remotest period of time. Thus Jacob blessed his sons,\nGen. xlix; and Moses, the children of Israel, Deut. xxxiii. When\nMelchizedeck blessed Abraham, the act of benediction included in it not\nmerely the pronouncing solemn good wishes, but also a petitionary\naddress to God that he would be pleased to ratify the benediction by his\nconcurrence with what was prayed for. Thus Moses instructed Aaron, and\nhis descendants, to bless the congregation, \u201cIn this wise shall ye bless\nthe children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee, and keep\nthee; the Lord make his face to shine upon thee; the Lord lift up his\ncountenance upon thee, and give thee peace,\u201d Num. iv, 23. David says, \u201cI\nwill take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord,\u201d\nPsalm cxvi, 13. This phrase appears to be taken from the practice of the\nJews in their thank-offerings, in which a feast was made of the\nremainder of their sacrifices, and the offerers, together with the\npriests, did eat and drink before the Lord; when, among other rites, the\nmaster of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand and solemnly blessed\nGod for it, and for the mercies which were then acknowledged, and gave\nit to all the guests, every one of whom drank in his turn. To this\ncustom it is supposed our blessed Lord alludes in the institution of the\ncup, which also is called, 1 Cor. x, 16, \u201cthe cup of blessing.\u201d At the\nfamily feasts also, and especially that of the passover, both wine and\nbread were in this solemn and religious manner distributed, and God was\nblessed, and his mercies acknowledged. They blessed God for their\npresent refreshment, for their deliverance out of Egypt, for the\ncovenant of circumcision, and for the law given by Moses; and prayed\nthat God would be merciful to his people Israel, that he would send the\nProphet Elijah, and that he would render them worthy of the kingdom of\nthe Messiah. See also 1 Chron. xvi, 2, 3. In the Mosaic law, the manner\nof blessing is appointed by the lifting up of hands. Our Lord lifted up\nhis hands, and blessed his disciples. It is probable that this action\nwas constantly used on such occasions. The palm of the hand held up was\nprecatory; and the palm turned outward or downward was benedictory. See\nBENEDICTION and LORD\u2019S SUPPER.\n\nBLINDFOLDING. This is the treatment which Christ received from his\nenemies. It refers to a sport which was common among children, called\n\u03bc\u03c5\u0390\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1, in which it was the manner first to blindfold, then to strike,\nand to ask who gave the blow, and not to let the person go till he had\nnamed the right man who had struck him. It was used in reproach of our\nblessed Lord as a Prophet, or divine instructer, and to expose him to\nridicule, Luke xxii, 63, 64.\n\nBLINDNESS is often used in Scripture to express ignorance or want of\ndiscernment in divine things, as well as the being destitute of natural\nsight. See Isa. xlii, 18, 19; vi, 10; Matt. xv, 14. \u201cBlindness of heart\u201d\nis the want of understanding arising from the influence of vicious\npassions. \u201cHardness of heart\u201d is stubbornness of will, and destitution\nof moral feeling. Moses says, \u201cThou shalt not put a stumbling block\nbefore the blind,\u201d Lev. xix, 14, which may be understood literally; or\nfiguratively, as if Moses recommended that charity and instruction\nshould be shown to them who want light and counsel, or to those who are\nin danger of going wrong through their ignorance. Moses says also,\n\u201cCursed be he who maketh the blind to wander out of his way,\u201d Deut.\nxxvii, 18, which may also be taken in the same manner. An ignorant or\nerring teacher is compared by our Lord to a blind man leading a blind\nman;--a strong representation of the presumption of him that professes\nto teach the way of salvation without due qualifications, and of the\ndanger of that implicit faith which is often placed by the people in the\nauthority of man, to the neglect of the Holy Scriptures.\n\nBLOOD. Beside its proper sense, the fluid of the veins of men and\nanimals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. \u201cGod will require\nthe blood of a man,\u201d he will punish murder in what manner soever\ncommitted. \u201cHis blood be upon us,\u201d let the guilt of his death be imputed\nto us. \u201cThe voice of thy brother\u2019s blood crieth;\u201d the murder committed\non him crieth for vengeance. \u201cThe avenger of blood;\u201d he who is to avenge\nthe death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24, 27. 2. Blood means\nrelationship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in\nopposition to a superior nature: \u201cFlesh and blood hath not revealed it\nunto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,\u201d Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are\nalso opposed to the glorified body: \u201cFlesh and blood cannot inherit the\nkingdom of God,\u201d 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil\nspirits: \u201cWe wrestle not against flesh and blood,\u201d against visible\nenemies composed of flesh and blood, \u201cbut against principalities and\npowers,\u201d &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape:\n\u201cJudah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,\u201d Gen. xlix,\n11; Deut. xxxii. 14. 7. The priests were established by God to judge\nbetween blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the\nlife of man is at stake;--to determine whether the murder be casual, or\nvoluntary; whether a crime deserve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8.\nIn its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of\nChrist; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood\nhas \u201cpurchased the church,\u201d Acts xx, 28. \u201cWe are justified by his\nblood,\u201d Rom. v, 9. \u201cWe have redemption through his blood,\u201d Eph. i, 7,\n&c. See ATONEMENT.\n\nThat singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the\nearliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves\nparticular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone,\nor of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was\nsuffocated, or strangled, or killed without drawing its blood from the\ncarcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those\ncomprehensive words, \u201cEven as the green herb have I given you all\nthings,\u201d it was added, \u201cbut flesh with the life thereof, namely, its\nblood, ye shall not eat,\u201d Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the\nchildren of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood\nstill more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the\nfollowing words, \u201cWhatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of\nthe strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I\nwill even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut\nhim off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the\nblood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for\nyour souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,\u201d\nLev. xvii, 10, 11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this\nparticular point, it is added: \u201cTherefore I said unto the children of\nIsrael, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that\nsojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the\nchildren of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which\nhunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even\npour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, for it is the life of\nall flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof; therefore I said\nunto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of\nflesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth\nit shall be cut off,\u201d verses 12\u201314. This restraint, than which nothing\ncan be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon\nbelieving Gentiles, as \u201ca burden\u201d which \u201cit seemed necessary to the Holy\nSpirit to impose upon them,\u201d Acts xv, 28, 29. For this prohibition no\n_moral_ reason seems capable of being offered; nor does it clearly\nappear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the\nphysical reason of its being inhibited; and if, in fact, blood is\ndeleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be\npointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury,\nthan many other unwholesome aliments. There is little force in the\nremark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for\nthose nations that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other\naliments, do not exhibit more ferocity than others. The true reason was,\nno doubt, a _sacrificial_ one. When animals were granted to Noah for\nfood, the blood was reserved; and when the same law was re\u00ebnacted among\nthe Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated with an explanation\nwhich at once shows the original ground upon which it rested: \u201cI have\ngiven it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.\u201d From this\n\u201cadditional reason,\u201d as it has been called, it has been argued, that the\ndoctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was, then, for the\nfirst time, announced by Moses, or the same cause for the prohibition\nwould have been assigned to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless\nthe same reason be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to\nNoah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be\nconceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from\nNoah to Moses; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind,\nwhich in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external\nreason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a mistake to\nsuppose that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had \u201cgiven\nthem the blood for an atonement,\u201d is an \u201c_additional reason_\u201d for the\ninterdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The\nwhole passage occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason there given of\nthe prohibition of blood is, that it is \u201cthe _life_;\u201d and what follows\nrespecting \u201catonement,\u201d is exegetical of this reason;--the life is in\nthe blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by\nturning to the original prohibition in Genesis we find that precisely\nthe same reason is given: \u201cBut the flesh with the blood, which is _the\nlife_ thereof, shall ye not eat.\u201d The reason, then, being the same, the\nquestion is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be\nunderstood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood\nis prohibited because it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is \u201cthe\nblood,\u201d or _life_, \u201cwhich makes atonement.\u201d Let any one attempt to\ndiscover any reason for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere\ncircumstance that it is \u201cthe life,\u201d and he will find it impossible. It\nis no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was LIFE\nSUBSTITUTED FOR LIFE, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life\nof man, and that, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The\nmanner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is indicative that,\nthough he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new\ndoctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or\nappointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating\nit, because he had already made this appointment, without reference to\ntime, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood\nwas the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and\nwe have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its\nblood, a sufficient proof that, before the giving of the law, not only\nwas blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial\npurpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the\nRomans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the\nblood of victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from the\nEgyptians, who deduced it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah.\nThe notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred\nto the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.\n\nBOANERGES. This word is neither Hebrew nor Syriac, and some have thought\nthat the transcribers have not exactly copied it, and that the word was\n_benereen_, \u03b2\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f72\u03bd, which expresses the sound of the Hebrew of the\nphrase, \u201csons of thunder.\u201d Parkhurst judges the word to be the Galilean\npronunciation of the Hebrew \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05e8\u05e2\u05e9 expressed in Greek letters. Now, \u05e8\u05e2\u05e9\nproperly signifies a violent trembling or commotion, and may therefore\nbe well rendered by \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1f74, _thunder_, which is a violent commotion in\nthe air; so, _vice vers\u00e2_, any violent commotion is figuratively, and\nnot unusually, in all languages, called thunder. When our Saviour named\nthe sons of Zebedee, Boanerges, he perhaps had an eye to that prophecy\nof Haggai, \u201cYet once, and I will shake the heavens and the earth,\u201d ii,\n6; which is by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xii, 26, applied to the great\nalteration made in the economy of the Jews by the publication of the\nGospel. The name Boanerges, therefore, given to James and John, imports\nthat they should be eminent instruments in accomplishing the wondrous\nchange, and should, like an earthquake or thunder, mightily bear down\nall opposition, by their inspired preaching and miraculous powers. That\nit does not relate to their _mode_ of preaching is certain; for that\nclearly appears to have been calmly argumentative, and sweetly\npersuasive--the very reverse of what is usually called a thundering\nministry.\n\nBOAR, \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8. The wild boar is considered as the parent stock of our\ndomestic hog. He is smaller, but at the same time stronger and more\nundaunted, than the hog. In his own defence, he will turn on men or\ndogs; and scarcely shuns any denizen of the forests, in the haunts where\nhe ranges. His colour is always an iron grey, inclining to black. His\nsnout is longer than that of the common breed, and his ears are\ncomparatively short. His tusks are very formidable, and all his habits\nare fierce and savage. It should seem, from the accounts of ancient\nauthors, that the ravages of the wild boar were considered as more\nformidable than those of other savage animals. The conquest of the\nErymanthian boar was one of the fated labours of Hercules; and the story\nof the Calydonian boar is one of the most beautiful in Ovid. The\ndestructive ravages of these animals are mentioned in Psalm lxxx, 14.\nDr. Pococke observed very large herds of wild boars on the side of\nJordan, where it flows out of the sea of Tiberias; and saw several of\nthem on the other side lying among the reeds by the sea. The wild boars\nof other countries delight in the like moist retreats. These shady\nmarshes then, it should seem, are called in the Scripture, \u201cwoods;\u201d for\nit calls these animals, \u201cthe wild boars of the woods.\u201d\n\nBOHEMIAN BRETHREN, a sect of heretics, according to the church of Rome;\nbut, in truth, a race of early reformers, who preceded Luther. At first\nthey were charged with so many heresies, that the great reformer was shy\nof them; but, upon receiving from themselves an account of their tenets,\nin 1522, he readily acknowledged them as brethren, and received them\ninto communion. Some time after this, they were driven by persecution\nfrom their native country, and entered into communion with the Swiss\nchurch, as reformed by Zuinglius; and from thence sprang the church of\nthe United Brethren.\n\nBONDS were of two kinds, public and private; the former were employed to\nsecure a prisoner in the public jail, after confession or conviction;\nthe latter when he was delivered to a magistrate, or even to private\npersons, to be kept at their houses till he should be tried. The Apostle\nPaul was subjected to private bonds by Felix, the Roman governor, who\n\u201ccommanded a centurion to keep him, and to let him have liberty, and\nthat he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister, or come unto\nhim,\u201d Acts xxiv, 23. And after he was carried prisoner to Rome, he\n\u201cdwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that\ncame in unto him,\u201d xxviii, 30.\n\nBONNET was a covering for the head, worn by the Jewish priests. Josephus\nsays, that the bonnet worn by the private priests was composed of\nseveral rounds of linen cloth, turned in and sewed together, so as to\nappear like a thick linen crown. The whole was entirely covered with\nanother piece of linen, which came down as low as their forehead, and\nconcealed the deformity of the seams. See Exodus xxviii, 40. The high\npriest\u2019s bonnet was not much different from that which has been\ndescribed.\n\nBOOK, a writing composed on some point of knowledge by a person\nintelligent therein, for the instruction or amusement of the reader. The\nword is formed from the Gothic _boka_, or Saxon _boc_, which comes from\nthe Northern _buech_, of _buechaus_, a beech or service tree, on the\nbark of which our ancestors used to write. Book is distinguished from\npamphlet, or single paper, by its greater length; and from tome or\nvolume, by its containing the whole writing on the subject. Isidore\nmakes this distinction between _liber_ and _codex_; that the former\ndenotes a single book, the latter a collection of several; though,\naccording to Scipio Maffei, _codex_ signifies a book in the square form;\n_liber_, a book in the roll form. The primary distinction between\n_liber_ and _codex_ seems to have been derived, as Dr. Heylin has\nobserved, from the different materials used for writing, among the\nancients: from the innerside of the bark of a tree, used for this\npurpose, and called in Latin _liber_, the name of _liber_ applied to a\nbook was deduced; and from that tablet, formed from the main body of a\ntree, called _caudex_, was derived the appellation of _codex_.\n\n2. Several sorts of materials were formerly used in making books: stone\nand wood were the first materials employed to engrave such things upon\nas men were desirous of having transmitted to posterity. Porphyry makes\nmention of some pillars preserved in Crete, on which the ceremonies\nobserved by the Corybantes in their sacrifices were recorded. The works\nof Hesiod were originally written on tables of lead, and deposited in\nthe temple of the Muses in B\u0153otia. The laws of Jehovah were written\non tables of stone, and those of Solon on wooden planks. Tables of wood\nand ivory were common among the ancients: those of wood, were very\nfrequently covered with wax, that persons might write on them with more\nease, or blot out what they had written. And the instrument used to\nwrite with was a piece of iron, called a _style_; and hence the word\n\u201cstyle\u201d came to be taken for the composition of the writing. The leaves\nof the palm-tree were afterward used instead of wooden planks, and the\nfinest and thinnest part of the bark of such trees as the lime, ash,\nmaple, and elm; and especially the _tilio_, or _phillyrea_, and Egyptian\n_papyrus_. Hence came the word _liber_, (a book,) which signifies the\ninner bark of the trees. And as these barks were rolled up in order to\nbe removed with greater ease, each roll was called _volumen_, a volume;\na name afterward given to the like rolls of paper or parchment. From the\nEgyptian papyrus the word _paper_ is derived. After this, leather was\nintroduced, especially the skins of goats and sheep. For the king of\nPergamus, in collecting his library, was led to the invention of\nparchment made of those skins. The ancients likewise wrote upon linen.\nPliny says, the Parthians, even in his time, wrote upon their clothes;\nand Livy speaks of certain books made of linen, _lintei libri_, upon\nwhich the names of magistrates, and the history of the Roman\ncommonwealth, were written, and preserved in the temple of the goddess\nMoneta.\n\n3. The materials generally used by the ancients for their books, were\nliable to be easily destroyed by the damp, when hidden in the earth; and\nin times of war, devastation, and rapacity, it was necessary to bury in\nthe earth whatever they wished to preserve from the attacks of fraud and\nviolence. With this view, Jeremiah ordered the writings, which he\ndelivered to Baruch, to be put in an earthen vessel, Jer. xxxii. In the\nsame manner the ancient Egyptians made use of earthen urns, or pots of a\nproper shape, for containing whatever they wanted to inter in the earth,\nand which, without such care, would have been soon destroyed. We need\nnot wonder then, that the Prophet Jeremiah should think it necessary to\ninclose those writings in an earthen pot, which were to be buried in\nJudea, in some place where they might be found without much difficulty\non the return of the Jews from captivity. Accordingly two different\nwritings, or small rolls of writing, called books in the original\nHebrew, were designed to be inclosed in such an earthen vessel; but\ncommentators have been much embarrassed in giving any probable account\nof the necessity of two writings, one sealed, the other open; or, as the\npassage has been commonly understood, the one _sealed up_, the other\nleft _open_ for any one to read; more especially, as both were to be\nalike buried in the earth and concealed from every eye, and both were to\nbe examined at the return from the captivity. But the word translated\n_open_, in reference to the evidence, or book which was open, (1 Sam.\niii, 7, 21; Dan. ii, 19, 30; x, 1,) signifies the revealing of future\nevents to the minds of men by a divine agency; and it is particularly\nused in the book of Esther, viii, 13, to express a book\u2019s making known\nthe decree of an earthly king. Consequently the _open book_ of Jeremiah\nseems to signify, not its being then lying open or unrolled before them,\nwhile the other was sealed up; but the book that had revealed the will\nof God, to bring back Israel into their own country, and to cause buying\nand selling of houses and lands again to take place among them. This was\na _book of prophecy_, opening and revealing the future return of Israel,\nand the other little book, which was ordered to be buried along with it,\nwas the purchase deed.\n\n4. By adverting to the different modes of writing in eastern countries,\nwe obtain a satisfactory interpretation of a passage in the book of Job,\nxix, 23, 24, and a distinct view of the beautiful gradation which is\nlost in our translation: \u201cO that my words were now written! O that they\nwere printed (written) in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen\nand lead in the rock for ever!\u201d In the east there is a mode of writing,\nwhich is designed to fix words in the memory, but the writing is not\nintended for duration. Accordingly we are informed by Dr. Shaw, that\nchildren learn to write in Barbary by means of a smooth thin board,\nslightly covered with whiting, which may be wiped off or renewed at\npleasure. Job expresses his wish not only that his words were written,\nbut also written in a book, from which they should not be blotted out,\nnay, still farther, graven in a rock, the most permanent mode of\nrecording them, and especially if the engraved letters were filled with\nlead; or the rock was made to receive leaden tablets, the use of which\nwas known among the ancients. So Pliny, \u201cAt first men wrote on the\nleaves of palm, and the bark of certain trees, but afterward public\ndocuments were preserved on leaden plates, and those of a private nature\non wax, or linen.\u201d\n\n5. The first books were in the form of blocks and tables, of which we\nfind frequent mention in Scripture, under the appellation _sepher_,\nwhich the Septuagint render \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, that is, _square tables_: of which\nform the book of the covenant, book of the law, book, or bill of\ndivorce, book of curses, &c, appear to have been. As flexible matters\ncame to be written on, they found it more convenient to make their books\nin form of rolls, called by the Greeks \u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1, by the Latins\n_volumina_, which appear to have been in use among the ancient Jews as\nwell as the Grecians, Romans, Persians, and even Indians; and of such\ndid the libraries chiefly consist, till some centuries after Christ. The\nform which obtains among us is the square, composed of separate leaves;\nwhich was also known, though little used, among the ancients; having\nbeen invented by Attalus, king of Pergamus, the same who also invented\nparchment: but it has now been so long in possession, that the oldest\nmanuscripts are found in it. Montfaucon assures us, that of all the\nancient Greek manuscripts he has seen, there are but two in the roll\nform; the rest being made up much after the manner of the modern books.\nThe rolls, or volumes, were composed of several sheets, fastened to each\nother, and rolled upon a stick, or _umbilicus_; the whole making a kind\nof column, or cylinder, which was to be managed by the _umbilicus_, as a\nhandle; it being reputed a kind of crime to take hold of the roll\nitself. The outside of the volume was called _frons_; the ends of the\n_umbilicus_ were called _cornua_, \u201chorns;\u201d which were usually carved and\nadorned likewise with silver, ivory, or even gold and precious stones.\nWhilst the Egyptian papyrus was in common use, its brittle nature made\nit proper to roll up what they wrote; and as this had been a customary\npractice, many continued it when they used other materials, which might\nvery safely have been treated in a different manner. To the form of\nbooks belongs the _economy of the inside_, or the order and arrangement\nof points and letters into lines and pages, with margins and other\nappurtenances. This has undergone many varieties: at first, the letters\nwere only divided into lines, then into separate words; which, by\ndegrees, were noted with accents, and distributed by points and stops\ninto periods, paragraphs, chapters, and other divisions. In some\ncountries, as among the orientals, the lines began from the right, and\nran to the left; in others, as in northern and western nations, from the\nleft to the right; others, as the Grecians, followed both directions\nalternately, going in the one and returning in the other, called\n_boustrophedon_, because it was after the manner of oxen turning when at\nplough. In the Chinese books, the lines ran from top to bottom. Again:\nthe page in some is entire, and uniform; in others, divided into\ncolumns; in others distinguished into texts and notes, either marginal,\nor at the bottom: usually it is furnished with signatures and catch\nwords; also with a register to discover whether the book be complete. To\nthese are occasionally added the apparatus of summaries, or side notes;\nthe embellishments of red, gold, or figured initial letters, head\npieces, tail pieces, effigies, schemes, maps, and the like. The end of\nthe book now denoted by _finis_, was anciently marked with a =<=, called\n_coronis_, and the whole frequently washed with an oil drawn from cedar,\nor citron chips, strewed between the leaves to preserve it from rotting.\nThere also occur certain _formul\u00e6_ at the beginning and end of books; as\namong the Jews, the word \u05d7\u05d5\u05e7, _esto fortis_, which we find at the end of\nthe books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Ezekiel, &c, to exhort the\nreader to be courageous, and proceed on to the following book. The\nconclusions were also often guarded with imprecations against such as\nshould falsify them; of which we have an instance in the Apocalypse. The\nMohammedans, for the like reason, place the name of God at the beginning\nof all their books, which cannot fail to procure them protection, on\naccount of the infinite regard which they pay to that name, wherever\nfound. For the like reason it is, that divers of the laws of the ancient\nemperors begin with the formula, _In nomine Dei_. [In the name of God.]\nAt the end of each book the Jews also added the number of verses\ncontained in it, and at the end of the Pentateuch the number of\nsections; that, it might be transmitted to posterity entire. The\nMasorites and Mohammedan doctors have gone farther; so as to number the\nseveral words and letters in each book, chapter, verse, &c, of the Old\nTestament and the Alcoran. The scarcity and high price of books in\nformer ages, ought to render us the more grateful for the discovery of\nthe great art of printing, as especially by that means the Holy Bible,\n\u201cthe word of truth and Gospel of our salvation,\u201d is made familiar to all\nclasses.\n\nThe universal ignorance that prevailed in Europe, from the seventh to\nthe eleventh century, may be ascribed to the scarcity of books during\nthat period, and the difficulty of rendering them more common,\nconcurring with other causes arising from the state of government and\nmanners. The Romans wrote their books either on parchment, or on paper\nmade of the Egyptian papyrus. The latter, being the cheapest, was of\ncourse the most commonly used. But after the Saracens conquered Egypt,\nin the seventh century, the communication between that country and the\npeople settled in Italy, or in other parts of Europe, was almost\nentirely broken off, and the papyrus was no longer in use among them.\nThey were obliged on that account to write all their books upon\nparchment; and as the price of that was high, books became extremely\nrare and of great value. We may judge of the scarcity of materials for\nwriting them from one circumstance. There still remain several\nmanuscripts of the eighth, ninth, and following centuries, written on\nparchment, from which some former writing had been erased, in order to\nsubstitute a new composition in its place. Thus, it is probable, several\nof the works of the ancients perished. A book of Livy or of Tacitus\nmight be erased, to make room for the legendary tale of a saint, or the\nsuperstitious prayers of a missal. Nay, worse instances are recorded, of\nobliterating copies of the Holy Scriptures to make room for the\nlucubrations of some of the more modern fathers of the church.\nManuscripts thus defaced, the vellum or parchment of which is occupied\nwith some other writings, are called \u201cpalimpsests,\u201d _codices rescripti_\nor _palimpsesti_, from \u03d6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03c8\u03b7\u03db\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthat which has been twice scraped.\u201d\nAs this want of materials for writing will serve to account for the loss\nof many of the works of the ancients, and for the small number of MSS.\nprevious to the eleventh century, many facts prove the scarcity of books\nat this period. Private persons seldom possessed any books whatever; and\neven monasteries of note had only one missal. In 1299, John de\nPontissara, bishop of Winchester, borrows of his cathedral convent of\nSt. Swithin, at Winchester, \u201c_bibliam bene glossatam_,\u201d that is, the\nBible, with marginal annotations, in two folio volumes; but gives a bond\nfor the return of it, drawn up with great solemnity. For the bequest of\nthis Bible to the convent, and one hundred marks, the monks founded a\ndaily mass for the soul of the donor. If any person gave a book to a\nreligious house, he believed that so valuable a donation merited eternal\nsalvation, and he offered it on the altar with great ceremony. The prior\nand convent of Rochester declare, that they will every year pronounce\nthe irrevocable sentence of damnation on him who shall purloin or\nconceal a Latin translation of Aristotle\u2019s Poetics, or even obliterate\nthe title. Sometimes a book was given to a monastery, on condition that\nthe donor should have the use of it for his life; and sometimes to a\nprivate person, with the reservation that he who receives it should pray\nfor the soul of his benefactor. In the year 1225, Roger de Insula, dean\nof York, gave several Latin Bibles to the university of Oxford, on\ncondition that the students who perused them should deposit a cautionary\npledge. The library of that university, before the year 1300, consisted\nonly of a few tracts, chained or kept in chests, in the choir of St.\nMary\u2019s church. The price of books became so high, that persons of a\nmoderate could not afford to purchase them. In the year 1174, Walter,\nprior of St. Swithin\u2019s at Winchester, purchased of the monks of\nDorchester, in Oxfordshire, Bede\u2019s homilies, and St. Austin\u2019s psalter\nfor twelve measures of barley and a pall, on which was embroidered in\nsilver the history of St. Birinus converting a Saxon king. About the\nyear 1400, a copy of John of Meun\u2019s \u201cRoman de la Rose\u201d was sold before\nthe palace gate at Paris for forty crowns, or 33_l._ 6_s._ 6_d._ The\ncountess of Anjou paid, for a copy of the homilies of Haimon, bishop of\nHalberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and the same\nquantity of rye and millet. Even so late as the year 1471, when Louis\nXI. of France borrowed the works of Rhasis, the Arabian physician, from\nthe faculty of medicine at Paris, he not only deposited by way of pledge\na considerable quantity of plate, but he was obliged to procure a\nnobleman to join with him as surety in a deed, binding himself under a\ngreat forfeiture to restore it. But when, in the eleventh century, the\nart of making paper was invented, and more especially after the\nmanufacture became general, the number of MSS. increased, and the study\nof the sciences was wonderfully facilitated. Indeed, the invention of\nthe art of making paper, and the invention of the art of printing, are\ntwo very memorable events in the history of literature and of human\ncivilization. It is remarkable, that the former preceded the first\ndawning of letters and improvement in knowledge, toward the close of the\neleventh century; and the latter ushered in the light which spread over\nEurope at the \u00e6ra of the reformation.\n\n6. If the ancient books were large, they were formed of a number of\nskins, of a number of pieces of linen and cotton cloth, or of papyrus,\nor parchment, connected together. The leaves were rarely written over on\nboth sides, Ezek. ii, 9; Zech. v, 1. Books, when written upon very\nflexible materials, were, as stated above, rolled round a stick; and, if\nthey were very long, round two, from the two extremities. The reader\nunrolled the book to the place which he wanted, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03bb\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd,\nand rolled it up again, when he had read it, \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, Luke iv,\n17\u201320; whence the name \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4, _a volume_, or thing rolled up, Psalm xl,\n7; Isaiah xxxiv, 4; Ezek. ii, 9; 2 Kings xix, 14; Ezra vi, 2. The leaves\nthus rolled round the stick, which has been mentioned, and bound with a\nstring, could be easily sealed, Isaiah xxix, 11; Dan. xii, 4; Rev. v, 1;\nvi, 7. Those books, which were inscribed on tablets of wood, lead,\nbrass, or ivory, were connected together by rings at the back, through\nwhich a rod was passed to carry them by. The orientals appear to have\ntaken pleasure in giving tropical or enigmatical titles to their books.\nThe titles, prefixed to the fifty-sixth, sixtieth, and eightieth psalms\nappear to be of this description. And there can be no doubt, that\nDavid\u2019s elegy upon Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i, 18, is called \u05e7\u05e9\u05ea or\n_the bow_, in conformity with this peculiarity of taste.\n\nThe book, or flying roll, spoken of in Zech. v, 1, 2, twenty cubits long\nand ten wide, was one of the ancient rolls, composed of many skins, or\nparchments, glued or sewed together at the end. Though some of these\nrolls or volumes were very long, yet none, probably, was ever made of\nsuch a size as this. This contained the curses and calamities which\nshould befal the Jews. The extreme length and breadth of it shows the\nexcessive number and enormity of their sins, and the extent of their\npunishment.\n\nIsaiah, describing the effects of God\u2019s wrath, says, \u201cThe heavens shall\nbe folded up like a book,\u201d (scroll,) Isaiah xxxiv, 4. He alludes to the\nway among the ancients, of rolling up books, when they purposed to close\nthem. A volume of several feet in length was suddenly rolled up into a\nvery small compass. Thus the heavens should shrink into themselves, and\ndisappear, as it were, from the eyes of God, when his wrath should be\nkindled. These ways of speaking are figurative, and very energetic.\n\n7. Book is sometimes used for letters, memoirs, an edict, or contract.\nIn short, the word _book_, in Hebrew, _sepher_, is much more extensive\nthan the Latin _liber_. The letters which Rabshakeh delivered from\nSennacherib to Hezekiah are called a book. The English translation,\nindeed, reads _letter_; but the Septuagint has \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, and the Hebrew\ntext, \u05d4\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd. The contract, confirmed by Jeremiah for the purchase of a\nfield, is called by the same name, Jer. xxxii, 10; and also the edict of\nAhasuerus in favour of the Jews, Esther ix, 20, though our translators\nhave called it _letters_. The writing which a man gave to his wife when\nhe divorced her, was denominated, in Hebrew, \u201ca book of divorce,\u201d Deut.\nxxiv.\n\nBOOKS, _Writers of_. The ancients seldom wrote their treatises with\ntheir own hand, but dictated them to their freedmen and slaves. These\nwere either \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, _amanuenses_, _notarii_, \u201chasty writers,\u201d or\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, _librarii_, \u201cfair writers,\u201d or \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, _librarii_,\n\u201ccopyists.\u201d The office of these last was to transcribe fairly that which\nthe former had written hastily and from dictation; they were those who\nwere obliged to write books and other documents which were intended to\nbe durable. The correctness of the copies was under the care of the\n_emendator_, _corrector_, \u1f41 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. A great part of the\nbooks of the New Testament was dictated after this custom. St. Paul\nnoted it as a particular circumstance in the Epistle to the Galatians,\nthat he had written it with his own hand, Gal. vi, 11. But he affixed\nthe salutation with his own hand, 2 Thess. iii, 17; 1 Cor. xvi, 21; Col.\niv, 18. The amanuensis who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, has\nmentioned himself near the conclusion, Rom. xvi, 22.\n\nBOOKS, _modes of publication_. Works could only be multiplied by means\nof transcripts. Whenever in this way they passed over to others, they\nwere beyond the control of the author, and published. The edition, or\npublication, by means of the booksellers, was, only at a later period,\nadvantageous to the Christians. The _recitatio_ [reading aloud] preceded\nthe publication, which took place often merely among some few friends,\nand often with great preparations before many persons, who were invited\nfor that purpose. From hence the author became known as the writer, and\nthe world became previously informed of all which they might expect from\nthe work. If the composition pleased them, he was requested to permit\nits transcription; and thus the work left the hands of the author, and\nbelonged to the _publicum_: [public.] Frequently an individual sent his\nliterary labours to some illustrious man, as a present, _strena_, [a\nnew-year\u2019s gift,] _munusculum_; [a small present;] or he prefixed his\nname to it, for the sake of giving him a proof of friendship or regard,\nby means of this express and particular direction of his work. When it\nwas only thus presented or sent to him, and he accepted it, he was\nconsidered as the person bound to introduce it to the world, or as the\n_patronus libri_, [patron of the book,] who had pledged himself, as the\n_patronus person\u00e6_ [patron of the person] to this duty. It now became\nhis office to provide for its publication by means of transcripts, to\nfacilitate its approach _ad limina potentiorum_ to the gates of men of\ngreat influence, and to be its _defensor_.\n\nThus the works of the first founders of the Christian church made their\nappearance before their community. Their Epistles were read in those\ncongregations to which they were directed; and whoever wished to possess\nthem either took a transcript of them, or caused one to be procured for\nhim. The historical works were made known by the authors in the\ncongregations of the Christians, _per recitationem_: [by reading aloud:]\nthe object and general interest in them procured for them readers and\ntranscribers. St. Luke dedicated his writings to an illustrious man of\nthe name of Theophilus.\n\nBOOK OF LIFE, or BOOK OF THE LIVING, or BOOK OF THE LORD, Psalm lxix,\n28. Some have thought it very probable that these descriptive phrases,\nwhich are frequent in Scripture, are taken from the custom, observed\ngenerally in the courts of princes, of keeping a list of persons who are\nin their service, of the provinces which they govern, of the officers of\ntheir armies, of the number of their troops, and sometimes even of the\nnames of their soldiers. Thus, when it is said that any one is written\nin the book of life, it means that he particularly belongs to God, and\nis enrolled among the number of his friends and servants: and to be\n\u201cblotted out of the book of life,\u201d is to be erased from the list of\nGod\u2019s friends and servants, as those who are guilty of treachery are\nstruck off the roll of officers belonging to a prince. The most\nsatisfactory explanation of these phrases is, however, that which refers\nthem to the genealogical lists of the Jews, or to the registers kept of\nthe living, from which the names of all the dead were blotted out.\n\nBOOK OF JUDGMENT. Daniel, speaking of God\u2019s judgment, says, \u201cThe\njudgment was set, and the books were opened,\u201d Dan. vii, 10. This is an\nallusion to what was practised when a prince called his servants to\naccount. The accounts are produced and examined. It is possible he might\nallude, also, to a custom of the Persians, among whom it was a constant\npractice every day to write down the services rendered to the king, and\nthe rewards given to those who had performed them. Of this we see an\ninstance in the history of Ahasuerus and Mordecai, Esther iv, 12, 34.\nWhen, therefore, the king sits in judgment, the books are opened: he\nobliges all his servants to reckon with him; he punishes those who have\nfailed in their duty; he compels those to pay who are indebted to him;\nand he rewards those who have done him services. A similar proceeding\nwill take place at the day of God\u2019s final judgment.\n\nSEALED BOOK, mentioned Isa. xxix, 11, and the book sealed with seven\nseals, in the Revelation v, 1\u20133, are the prophecies of Isaiah and of\nJohn, which were written in a book, or roll, after the manner of the\nancients, and were sealed, which figure truly signifies that they were\nmysterious: they had respect to times remote, and to future events; so\nthat a complete knowledge of their meaning could not be obtained till\nafter what was foretold should happen, and the seals, as it were taken\noff. In old times, letters, and other writings that were to be sealed,\nwere first wrapped round with thread or flax, and then wax and the seal\nwere applied to them. To read them, it was necessary to cut the thread\nor flax, and to break the seals.\n\nBOOTY, spoils taken in war, Num. xxxi, 27\u201332. According to the law of\nMoses, the booty was to be divided equally between those who were in the\nbattle and those who were in the camp, whatever disparity there might be\nin the number of each party. The law farther required that, out of that\npart of the spoils which was assigned to the fighting men, the Lord\u2019s\nshare should be separated; and for every five hundred men, oxen, asses,\nsheep, &c, they were to take one for the high priest, as being the\nLord\u2019s first fruits. And out of the other moiety, belonging to the\nchildren of Israel, they were to give for every fifty men, oxen, asses,\nsheep, &c, one to the Levites.\n\nBOOZ, or BOAZ, the son of Salmon and Rahab, Ruth iv, 21, &c; Matt., i,\n5. Rahab, we know, was a Canaanite of Jericho, Joshua ii, 1. Salmon, who\nwas of the tribe of Judah, married her, and she bore him Booz, one of\nour Saviour\u2019s ancestors according to the flesh. Some say there were\nthree of this name, the son, the grandson, and the great grandson, of\nSalmon: the last Booz was Ruth\u2019s husband, and the father of Obed.\n\n2. BOOZ, or BOAZ, was the name of one of the two brazen pillars which\nSolomon erected in the porch of the temple, the other column being\ncalled Jachin. This last pillar was on the right hand of the entrance\ninto the temple, and Booz on the left, 1 Kings vii, 21. The word\nsignifies _strength_ or _firmness_. Mr. Hutchinson has an express\ntreatise upon these two columns, attempting to show that they\nrepresented the true system of the universe, which he insists was given\nby God to David, and by him to Solomon, and was wrought by Hiram upon\nthese pillars.\n\nBOSOM. See ACCUBATION.\n\nBOSSES, the thickest and strongest parts of a buckler, Job xv, 20.\n\nBOTTLE. The eastern bottle is made of a goat or kid skin, stripped off\nwithout opening the belly; the apertures made by cutting off the tail\nand legs are sewed up, and, when filled, it is tied about the neck. The\nArabs and Persians never go a journey without a small leathern bottle of\nwater hanging by their side like a scrip. These skin bottles preserve\ntheir water, milk, and other liquids, in a fresher state than any other\nvessels they can use. The people of the east, indeed, put into them\nevery thing they mean to carry to a distance, whether dry or liquid, and\nvery rarely make use of boxes and pots, unless to preserve such things\nas are liable to be broken. They enclose these leathern bottles in\nwoollen sacks, because their beasts of carriage often fall down under\ntheir load, or cast it down on the sandy desert. These skin bottles were\nnot confined to the countries of Asia; the roving tribes, which passed\nthe Hellespont soon after the deluge, and settled in Greece and Italy,\nprobably introduced them into those countries. We learn from Homer, that\nthey were in common use among the Greeks at the siege of Troy; for, with\na view to an accommodation between the hostile armies, the heralds\ncarried through the city the things which were necessary to ratify the\ncompact, two lambs, and exhilarating wine, the fruit of the earth, in a\nbottle of goat skin:\n\n              \u1f0c\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b0\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2,\n              \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u1ff7 \u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3. _Il._ lib. iii, l. 246.\n\nThe bottle of wine which Samuel\u2019s mother brought to Eli, 1 Sam. i, 24,\nis called \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc, and was an earthen jug. Another word is used to signify\nthe vessel out of which Jael gave milk to Sisera: she opened a bottle of\nmilk, and gave him drink, Judges iv, 19. This is called \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d3, which\nrefers to something supple, moist, oozing, or, perhaps, imports\n_moistened into pliancy_, as that skin must be which is kept constantly\nfilled with milk. This kind was usually made of goat skins. This word is\nalso used to denote the bottle in which Jesse sent wine by David to\nSaul, 1 Sam. xvi, 20. It is likewise employed to express the bottle into\nwhich the Psalmist desires his tears may be collected, Psalm lvi, 8; and\nthat to which he resembles himself, and which he calls a bottle in the\nsmoke, Psalm cxix, 83, that is, a skin bottle, blackened and shrivelled.\nBeside the words already considered, another \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea, in the plural, is\nused, Job xxxii, 19. This signifies, in general, to swell or distend. On\nreceiving the liquor poured into it, a skin bottle must be greatly\nswelled and distended; and it must be swelled still farther by the\nfermentation of the liquor within it, as that advances to ripeness. In\nthis state, if no vent be given to the liquor, it may overpower the\nstrength of the bottle, or it may penetrate by some secret crevice or\nweaker part. Hence arises the propriety of putting new wine into new\nbottles, which, being strong, may resist the expansion, the internal\npressure of their contents, and preserve the wine to due maturity; while\nold bottles may, without danger, contain old wine, whose fermentation is\nalready past, Matt. ix, 17; Luke v, 38.\n\nBOUDDHISTS, or BUDHISTS, one of the three great sects of India, distinct\nboth from the Brahminical sect, and the Jainas. The Bouddhists do not\nbelieve in a First Cause: they consider matter as eternal; that every\nportion of animated existence has in itself its own rise, tendency, and\ndestiny; that the condition of creatures on earth is regulated by works\nof merit and demerit; that works of merit not only raise individuals to\nhappiness, but, as they prevail, exalt the world itself to prosperity;\nwhile, on the other hand, when vice is predominant, the world\ndegenerates till the universe itself is dissolved. They suppose,\nhowever, that there is always some superior deity, who has attained to\nthis elevation by religious merit; but they do not regard him as the\ngovernor of the world. To the present grand period, comprehending all\nthe time included in a \u201ckulpu,\u201d they assign five deities, four of whom\nhave already appeared, including Goutumu, or Bouddhu, whose exaltation\ncontinues five thousand years, two thousand three hundred and fifty-six\nof which had expired, A. D. 1814. After the expiration of the five\nthousand years, another saint will obtain the ascendancy, and be\ndeified. Six hundred millions of saints are said to be canonized with\neach deity, though it is admitted that Bouddhu took only twenty-four\nthousand devotees to heaven with him. The lowest state of existence is\nin hell; the next is that in the forms of brutes: both these are states\nof punishment. The next ascent is to that of man, which is probationary.\nThe next includes many degrees of honour and happiness up to demigods,\n&c, which are states of reward for works of merit. The ascent to\nsuperior deity is from the state of man. The Bouddhists are taught that\nthere are four superior heavens which are not destroyed at the end of\n\u201ckulpu;\u201d that below these there are twelve other heavens, followed by\nsix inferior heavens; after which follows the earth; then the world of\nsnakes; and then thirty-two chief hells: to which are to be added, one\nhundred and twenty hells of milder torments. The highest state of glory\nis absorption. The person who is unchangeable in his resolution; who has\nobtained the knowledge of things past, present, and to come, through one\n\u201ckulpu;\u201d who can make himself invisible; go where he pleases; and who\nhas attained to complete abstraction; will enjoy absorption. Those who\nperform works of merit are admitted to the heavens of the different\ngods, or are made kings or great men on earth; and those who are wicked\nare born in the forms of different animals, or consigned to different\nhells. The happiness of these heavens is described as entirely sensual.\nThe Bouddhists believe that at the end of a \u201ckulpu\u201d the universe is\ndestroyed. To convey some idea of the extent of this period, the\nilliterate Cingalese use this comparison: \u201cIf a man were to ascend a\nmountain nine miles high, and to renew these journeys once in every\nhundred years, till the mountain were worn down by his feet to an atom,\nthe time required to do this would be nothing to the fourth part of a\n\u2018kulpu.\u2019\u201d Bouddhu, before his exaltation, taught his followers that,\nafter his death, the remains of his body, his doctrine, or an assembly\nof his disciples, were to be held in equal reverence with himself. When\na Cingalese, therefore, approaches an image of Bouddhu, he says, \u201cI take\nrefuge in Bouddhu; I take refuge in his doctrine; I take refuge in his\nfollowers.\u201d There are five commands given to the common Bouddhists; the\nfirst forbids the destruction of animal life; the second forbids theft;\nthe third, adultery; the fourth, falsehood; the fifth, the use of\nspirituous liquors. There are other commands for superior classes, or\ndevotees, which forbid dancing, songs, music, festivals, perfumes,\nelegant dresses, elevated seats, &c. Among works of the highest merit,\none is the feeding of a hungry infirm tiger with a person\u2019s own flesh.\n\nBOURIGNONISTS, the followers of the celebrated Mad. Antoinette Bourignon\nde la Ponte, a native of Flanders, born at Lisle, in 1616. She was so\nmuch deformed at her birth, that it was even debated whether she should\nnot be stifled as a monster. As she grew up, however, this deformity\ngreatly decreased, and she discovered a superior mind, a strong\nimagination, and very early indications of a devotional spirit, strongly\ntinctured with mysticism. She conceived herself to be divinely called,\nand set apart to revive the true spirit of Christianity that had been\nextinguished by theological animosities and debates. In her confession\nof faith, she professes her belief in the Scriptures, and in the\ndivinity and atonement of Christ. The leading principles which pervade\nher productions are these: that man is perfectly free to resist or\nreceive divine grace; that God is ever unchangeable in love toward all\nhis creatures, and does not inflict any arbitrary punishment, but that\nthe evils they suffer are the natural consequences of sin; that true\nreligion consists not in any outward forms of worship, nor systems of\nfaith, but in immediate communion with the Deity, by internal feelings\nand impulses, and by a perfect acquiescence in his will.\n\nThis lady was educated in the Roman Catholic religion; but she declaimed\nequally against the corruptions of the church of Rome and those of the\nReformed churches: hence she was opposed and persecuted by both\nCatholics and Protestants, and after being driven about from place to\nplace, she died at Franeker, in 1680. She maintained that there ought to\nbe a general toleration of all religions. Her notion on God\u2019s\nforeknowledge was, that God was capable of foreknowing all events, but,\nhis power being equal to his knowledge, he purposely withheld from\nhimself that knowledge in certain cases, that he might not interfere\nwith the free agency and responsibility of his creatures. Her works are\nvery numerous, making eighteen volumes in octavo: of which the principal\nare, \u201cThe Light of the World;\u201d \u201cThe Testimony of Truth;\u201d and \u201cThe\nRenovation of the Gospel Spirit;\u201d which are much in esteem among the\nadmirers of mystical theology.\n\nBOW. The expression, \u201cto break the bow,\u201d so frequent in Scripture,\nsignifies to destroy the power of a people, because the principal\noffensive weapon of armies was anciently the bow. \u201cA deceitful bow\u201d is\none that, from some defect, either in bending or the string, carries the\narrow wide of the mark, however well aimed. See ARMS.\n\nBOWELS. The bowels are the seat of mercy, tenderness, and compassion.\nJoseph\u2019s bowels were moved at the sight of his brother Benjamin; that\nis, he felt himself softened and affected. The true mother of the child\nwhom Solomon commanded to be divided, felt her bowels move, and\nconsented that it should be given to the woman who was not its real\nmother, 1 Kings, iii, 26. The Hebrews also sometimes place wisdom and\nunderstanding in the bowels, \u201cWho hath put wisdom in the inner parts?\u201d\nor bowels, Job xxxviii, 36. The Psalmist says, \u201cThy law is within my\nheart,\u201d literally, in the midst of my bowels,--it is by me strongly and\naffectionately regarded, Psalm xl, 8.\n\nBOX TREE, \u05ea\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8, Isa. xli, 9; lx, 13; Ezek. xxvii, 6; 2 Esdras xiv, 24,\nwhere the word appears to be used for _tablets_. Most of the ancient,\nand several of the modern, translators render this word the _buxus_, or\n\u201cbox tree;\u201d but from its being mentioned along with trees of the forest,\nsome more stately tree must be intended, probably the cedar.\n\nBRACELET. A bracelet is commonly worn by the oriental princes, as a\nbadge of power and authority. When the calif Cayem Bemrillah granted the\ninvestiture of certain dominions to an eastern prince, he sent him\nletters patent, a crown, a chain, and bracelets. This was probably the\nreason that the Amalekite brought the bracelet which he found on Saul\u2019s\narm, along with his crown, to David, 2 Sam. i, 10. It was a royal\nornament, and belonged to the regalia of the kingdom. The bracelet, it\nmust be acknowledged, was worn both by men and women of different ranks;\nbut the original word, in the second book of Samuel, occurs only in two\nother places, and is quite different from the term which is employed to\nexpress the more common ornament known by that name. And beside, this\nornament was worn by kings and princes in a different manner from their\nsubjects. It was fastened above the elbow; and was commonly of great\nvalue.\n\nBRAHMINS, or BRACHMINS, the highest caste of Hindoos, to whom is\nconfined the priesthood, and, in general, all their ancient learning,\nwhich is locked up in their sacred language, called the Sanscrit. The\nBrahmins derive that name from Brahma, the Creator; for they maintain\nthe doctrine of three embodied energies, the creative, the preserving,\nand the destroying; personified under the names of Brahma, Vishnu, and\nShiva, all sprung from Brimh; and to each of them is assigned a kind of\ncelestial consort, a female deity, which they describe as a passive\nenergy.\n\nLike the philosophers of Greece, they seem to have had an open and a\nsecret doctrine: the latter, a species of Spinozism, considering the\ngreat Supreme as \u201cthe soul of the world;\u201d endowed with no other quality\nthan ubiquity; requiring no worship, and exerting no power, but in the\nproduction of the three great energies above mentioned. These are so\ningeniously diversified as to produce three hundred and thirty millions\nof gods, or objects of idolatry; so various in character as to suit\nevery man\u2019s taste or humour, and to furnish examples of every vice and\nfolly to which humanity is subject.\n\nAs it respects a future state, two of the principal doctrines of\nBrachminism are transmigration and absorption. After death, the person\nis conveyed, by the messengers of Yumu, through the air to the place of\njudgment. After receiving his sentence, he wanders about the earth for\ntwelve months, as an a\u00ebrial being or ghost; and then takes a body suited\nto his future condition, whether he ascend to the gods, or suffer in a\nnew body, or be hurled into some hell. This is the doctrine of several\n\u201cpooranus;\u201d others maintain, that immediately after death and judgment,\nthe person suffers the pains of hell, and removes his sin by suffering;\nand then returns to the earth in some bodily form. The descriptions\nwhich the \u201cpooranus\u201d give of the heavens of the gods are truly in the\neastern style; all things, even the beds of the gods, are made of gold\nand precious stones. All the pleasures of these heavens are exactly what\nwe should expect in a system formed by uninspired and unrenewed men:\nlike the paradise of Mohammed, they are brothels, rather than places of\nrewards for \u201cthe pure in heart.\u201d Here all the vicious passions are\npersonified, or rather, deified: the quarrels and licentious intrigues\nof the gods fill these places with perpetual uproar, while their\nimpurities are described with the same literality and gross detail, as\nsimilar things are talked of among these idolaters on earth.\n\nBut the highest degree of happiness is absorption. God, as separated\nfrom matter, the Hindoos contemplate as a being reposing in his own\nhappiness, destitute of ideas; as infinite placidity; as an unruffled\nsea of bliss; as being perfectly abstracted, and void of consciousness.\nThey therefore deem it the height of perfection to be like this being.\nHence Krishnu, in his discourse to Urjoonu, praises the man \u201cwho\nforsaketh every desire that entereth into his heart; who is happy of\nhimself; who is without affection; who rejoiceth not either in good or\nevil; who, like the tortoise, can restrain his members from their wonted\npurpose; to whom pleasure and pain, gold, iron, and stones are the\nsame.\u201d \u201cThe learned,\u201d adds Krushnu, \u201cbehold Brumhu alike in the reverend\n\u2018branhun,\u2019 perfected in knowledge; in the ox, and in the elephant; in\nthe dog, and in him who eateth of the flesh of dogs.\u201d The person whose\nvery nature, say they, is absorbed in divine meditation; whose life is\nlike a sweet sleep, unconscious and undisturbed; who does not even\ndesire God, and who is thus changed into the image of the ever blessed;\nobtains absorption into Brumhu. The ceremonies leading to absorption are\ncalled by the name of \u201ctupushya\u201d and the persons performing them, a\n\u201ctupushwee.\u201d Forsaking the world; retiring to a forest; fasting, living\non roots, fruits, &c;--remaining in certain postures; exposure to all\nthe inclemencies of the weather, &c; these, and many other austere\npractices are prescribed, to subdue the passions, to fix the mind,\nhabituate it to meditation, and fill it with that serenity and\nindifference to the world which is to prepare it for absorption, and\nplace it beyond the reach of future birth.\n\nBRAMBLE, \u05d0\u05d8\u05d3, a prickly shrub, Judges ix, 14, 15; Psalm lviii, 9. In the\nlatter place it is translated \u201cthorn.\u201d Hiller supposes _atad_ to be the\n_cynobastus_, or sweetbrier. The author of \u201cScripture Illustrated\u201d says,\nthat the bramble seems to be well chosen as the representative of the\noriginal; which should be a plant bearing fruit of some kind, being\nassociated, Judges ix, 14, though by opposition, with the vine. The\napologue or fable of Jotham has always been admired for its spirit and\napplication. It has also been considered as the oldest fable extant.\n\nBRANCH, a title of Messiah: \u201cAnd there shall come forth a rod out of the\nstem of Jesse, and a BRANCH shall grow out of his roots,\u201d Isaiah xi, 1.\nSee also Zech. iii, 8; vi, 12; Jer. xxiii, 5; xxxiii, 15. When Christ is\nrepresented as a slender twig, shooting out from the trunk of an old\ntree lopped to the very root and decayed, and becoming itself a mighty\ntree, reference is made, 1. To the kingly dignity of Christ, springing\nup from the decayed house of David; 2. To the exaltation which was to\nsucceed his humbled condition on earth, and to the glory and vigour of\nhis mediatorial reign.\n\nBRASS. \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05ea. The word _brass_ occurs very often in our translation of\nthe Bible; but that is a mixed metal, for the making of which we are\nindebted to the German metallurgists of the thirteenth century. That the\nancients knew not the art of making it, is almost certain. None of their\nwritings even hint at the process. There can be no doubt that copper is\nthe original metal intended. This is spoken of as known prior to the\nflood; and to have been discovered, or at least wrought, as was also\niron, in the seventh generation from Adam, by Tubal-cain: whence the\nname _Vulcan_. The knowledge of these two metals must have been carried\nover the world afterward with the spreading colonies of the Noachid\u00e6.\nAgreeably to this, the ancient histories of the Greeks and Romans speak\nof Cadmus as the inventor of the metal which by the former is called\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, and by the latter _\u00e6s_; and from him had the denomination\n_cadmea_. According to others, Cadmus discovered a mine, of which he\ntaught the use. The name of the person here spoken of was undoubtedly\nthe same with Ham, or Cam, the son of Noah, who probably learned the art\nof assaying metals from the family of Tubal-cain, and communicated that\nknowledge to the people of the colony which he settled.\n\nBRASEN SERPENT, the, was an image of polished brass, in the form of one\nof those fiery serpents which were sent to chastise the murmuring\nIsraelites in the wilderness, and whose bite caused violent heat,\nthirst, and inflammation. By divine command \u201cMoses made a serpent of\nbrass,\u201d or copper, and \u201cput it upon a pole; and it came to pass, that if\na serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he\nlived,\u201d Num. xxi, 6\u20139. This brasen serpent was preserved as a monument\nof the divine mercy, but in process of time became an instrument of\nidolatry. When this superstition began, it is difficult to determine;\nbut the best account is given by the Jewish rabbi, David Kimchi, in the\nfollowing manner: From the time that the kings of Israel did evil, and\nthe children of Israel followed idolatry, till the reign of Hezekiah,\nthey offered incense to it; for it being written in the law of Moses,\n\u201cWhoever looketh upon it shall live,\u201d they fancied they might obtain\nblessings by its mediation, and therefore thought it worthy to be\nworshipped. It had been kept from the days of Moses, in memory of a\nmiracle, in the same manner as the pot of manna was: and Asa and\nJehoshaphat did not extirpate it when they rooted out idolatry, because\nin their reign they did not observe that the people worshipped this\nserpent, or burnt incense to it; and therefore they left it as a\nmemorial. But Hezekiah thought fit to take it quite away, when he\nabolished other idolatry, because in the time of his father they adored\nit as an idol; and though pious people among them accounted it only as a\nmemorial of a wonderful work, yet he judged it better to abolish it,\nthough the memory of the miracle should happen to be lost, than suffer\nit to remain, and leave the Israelites in danger to commit idolatry\nhereafter with it. On the subject of the serpent-bitten Israelites being\nhealed by looking at the brasen serpent, there is a good comment in the\nbook of Wisdom, chap. xvi, 4\u201312, in which are these remarkable\nwords:--\u201cThey were admonished, having a sign of salvation,\u201d that is, the\nbrasen serpent, \u201cto put them in remembrance of the commandments of thy\nlaw. For he that turned himself toward it, was not saved by the THING\nthat he saw, but by THEE, that art the Saviour of all,\u201d verses 6, 7. To\nthe circumstance of looking at the brasen serpent in order to be healed,\nour Lord refers, John iii, 14, 15: \u201cAs Moses lifted up the (brasen)\nserpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up,\nthat whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal\nlife.\u201d\n\nBREAD, a term which in Scripture is used, as by us, frequently for food\nin general; but is also often found in its proper sense. Sparing in the\nuse of flesh, like all the nations of the east, the chosen people\nusually satisfied their hunger with bread, and quenched their thirst in\nthe running stream. Their bread was generally made of wheat or barley,\nor lentiles and beans. Bread of wheat flour, as being the most\nexcellent, was preferred: barley bread was used only in times of\nscarcity and distress. So mean and contemptible, in the estimation of\nthe numerous and well-appointed armies of Midian, was Gideon, with his\nhandful of undisciplined militia, that he seems to have been compared to\nbread of this inferior quality, which may account for the ready\ninterpretation of the dream of the Midianite respecting him: \u201cAnd when\nGideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream unto his\nfellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and lo, a cake of barley\nbread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent and smote it\nthat it fell, and overturned it, that the tent lay along. And his fellow\nanswered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon, the\nson of Joash, a man of Israel; for into his hand hath God delivered\nMidian, and all the host.\u201d In the cities and villages of Barbary, where\npublic ovens are established, the bread is usually leavened; but among\nthe Bedoweens and Kabyles, as soon as the dough is kneaded, it is made\ninto thin cakes, either to be baked immediately upon the coals, or else\nin a shallow earthen vessel like a frying-pan, called Tajen. Such were\nthe unleavened cakes which we so frequently read of in Scripture; and\nthose also which Sarah made quickly upon the hearth. These last are\nabout an inch thick; and, being commonly prepared in woody countries,\nare used all along the shores of the Black Sea, from the Palus M\u00e6otis to\nthe Caspian, in Chaldea and Mesopotamia, except in towns. A fire is made\nin the middle of the room: and when the bread is ready for baking, a\ncorner of the hearth is swept, the bread is laid upon it, and covered\nwith ashes and embers; in a quarter of an hour, they turn it. Sometimes\nthey use small convex plates of iron, which are most common in Persia,\nand among the nomadic tribes, as being the easiest way of baking, and\ndone with the least expense; for the bread is extremely thin, and soon\nprepared. The oven is also used in every part of Asia: it is made in the\nground, four or five feet deep, and three in diameter, well plastered\nwith mortar. When it is hot, they place the bread (which is commonly\nlong, and not thicker than a finger) against the sides: it is baked in a\nmoment. Ovens, Chardin apprehends, were not used in Canaan in the\npatriarchal age: all the bread of that time was baked upon a plate, or\nunder the ashes; and he supposes, what is nearly self-evident, that the\ncakes which Sarah baked on the hearth were of the last sort, and that\nthe shew bread was of the same kind. The Arabs about Mount Carmel use a\ngreat strong pitcher, in which they kindle a fire; and when it is\nheated, they mix meal and water, which they apply with the hollow of\ntheir hands to the outside of the pitcher; and this extremely soft\npaste, spreading itself, is baked in an instant. The heat of the pitcher\nhaving dried up all the moisture, the bread comes off as thin as our\nwafers; and the operation is so speedily performed, that in a very\nlittle time a sufficient quantity is made. But their best sort of bread\nthey bake, either by heating an oven, or a large pitcher full of little\nsmooth shining flints, upon which they lay the dough, spread out in the\nform of a thin broad cake. Sometimes they use a shallow earthen vessel,\nresembling a frying pan, which seems to be the pan mentioned by Moses,\nin which the meat-offering was baked. This vessel, Dr. Shaw informs us,\nserves both for baking and frying; for the bagreah of the people of\nBarbary differs not much from our pancakes; only, instead of rubbing the\npan in which they fry them with butter, they rub it with soap, to make\nthem like a honey-comb. If these accounts of the Arab stone pitcher, the\npan, and the iron hearth or copper plate, be attended to, it will not be\ndifficult to understand the laws of Moses in the second chapter of\nLeviticus: they will be found to answer perfectly well to the\ndescription which he gives us of the different ways of preparing the\nmeat-offerings. As the Hebrews made their bread thin, in the form of\nlittle flat cakes, they did not cut it with a knife, but broke it; which\ngave rise to the expression, _breaking bread_, so frequent in Scripture.\n\nThe Arabians and other eastern people, among whom wood is scarce, often\nbake their bread between two fires made of cow dung, which burns slowly,\nand bakes the bread very leisurely. The crumb of it is very good, if it\nbe eaten the same day; but the crust is black and burnt, and retains a\nsmell of the materials that were used in baking it. This may serve to\nexplain a passage in Ezekiel, iv, 9\u201313. The straits of a siege and the\nscarcity of fuel were thus intimated to the Prophet. During the whole\noctave of the passover, the Hebrews use only unleavened bread, as a\nmemorial that at the time of their departure out of Egypt they wanted\nleisure to bake leavened bread; and, having left the country with\nprecipitation, they were content to bake bread which was not leavened,\nExod. xii, 8. The practice of the Jews at this day, with relation to the\nuse of unleavened bread, is as follows: They forbid to eat, or have in\ntheir houses, or in any place belonging to them, either leavened bread\nor any thing else that is leavened. That they may the better observe\nthis rule, they search into all the corners of the house with scrupulous\nexactness for all bread or paste, or any thing that is leavened. After\nthey have thus well cleansed their houses, they whiten them, and furnish\nthem with kitchen and table utensils, all new, and with others which are\nto be used only on that day. If they are movables, which have served\nonly for something else, and are made of metal, they have them polished,\nand put into the fire, to take away all the impurity which they may have\ncontracted by touching any thing leavened. All this is done on the\nthirteenth day of Nisan, or on the vigil of the feast of the passover,\nwhich begins with the fifteenth of the same month, or the fourteenth day\nin the evening; for the Hebrews reckon their days from one evening to\nanother. On the fourteenth of Nisan, at eleven o\u2019clock, they burn the\ncommon bread, to show that the prohibition of eating leavened bread is\nthen commenced; and this action is attended with words, whereby the\nmaster of the house declares that he has no longer any thing leavened in\nhis keeping; that, at least, he believes so. In allusion to this\npractice, we are commanded to \u201cpurge out the old leaven;\u201d by which\n\u201cmalice and wickedness\u201d are intended; and to feed only on the\n\u201cunleavened bread of sincerity and truth.\u201d\n\n2. SHEW BREAD, or, according to the Hebrews, _the bread of faces_, was\nbread offered every Sabbath day upon the golden table in the holy place,\nExod. xxv, 30. The Hebrews affirm that these loaves were square, and had\nfour sides, and were covered with leaves of gold. They were twelve in\nnumber, according to the number of the twelve tribes, in whose names\nthey were offered. Every loaf was composed of two assarons of flour,\nwhich make about five pints and one-tenth. These loaves were unleavened.\nThey were presented hot every Sabbath day, the old ones being taken away\nand eaten by the priests only. This offering was accompanied with salt\nand frankincense, and even with wine, according to some commentators.\nThe Scripture mentions only salt and incense; but it is presumed that\nwine was added, because it was not wanting in other sacrifices and\nofferings. It is believed that these loaves were placed one upon\nanother, in two piles of six each; and that between every loaf were two\nthin plates of gold, folded back in a semicircle the whole length of\nthem, to admit air, and to prevent the loaves from growing mouldy. These\ngolden plates, thus turned in, were supported at their extremities by\ntwo golden forks, which rested on the ground. The twelve loaves, because\nthey stood before the Lord, were called \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d4\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, or\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03b9, the bread of faces, or of the presence; and are therefore\ndenominated in our English translation _the shew bread_.\n\nSince part of the frankincense put upon the bread was to be burnt on the\naltar for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord; and\nsince Aaron and his sons were to eat it in the holy place, Lev. xxiv,\n5\u20139, it is probable that this bread typified Christ, first presented as\na sacrifice to Jehovah, and then becoming spiritual food to such as in\nand through him are spiritual priests to God, even his Father, Rev. i,\n6; v, 10; xx, 6; 1 Peter ii, 5. It appears, from some places in\nScripture, (see Exodus xxix, 32, and Numbers vi, 15,) that there was\nalways near the altar a basket full of bread, in order to be offered\ntogether with the ordinary sacrifices.\n\nBREASTPLATE, or PECTORAL, one part of the priestly vestments, belonging\nto the Jewish high priests. It was about ten inches square, Exod.\nxxviii, 13\u201331; and consisted of a folded piece of the same rich\nembroidered stuff of which the ephod was made. It was worn on the breast\nof the high priest, and was set with twelve precious stones, on each of\nwhich was engraven the name of one of the tribes. They were set in four\nrows, three in each row, and were divided from each other by the little\ngolden squares or partitions in which they were set. The names of these\nstones, and that of the tribe engraven on them, as also their\ndisposition on the breastplate, are usually given as follows; but what\nstones really answer to the Hebrew name, is for the most part very\nuncertain:--\n\n          _Sardine_,            _Topaz_,           _Carbuncle_,\n           REUBEN.              SIMEON.               LEVI.\n          _Emerald_,          _Sapphire_,           _Diamond_,\n            JUDAH.                DAN.              NAPHTALI.\n          _Ligure_,             _Agate_,           _Amethyst_,\n             GAD.                ASHER.             ISSACHAR.\n           _Beryl_,             _Onyx_,             _Jasper_,\n           ZEBULUN.             JOSEPH.             BENJAMIN.\n\nThis breastplate was fastened at the four corners, those on the top to\neach shoulder, by a golden hook or ring, at the end of a wreathen chain;\nand those below to the girdle of the ephod, by two strings or ribbons,\nwhich had likewise two rings or hooks. This ornament was never to be\nseparated from the priestly garment; and it was called the _memorial_,\nbecause it was a sign whereby the children of Israel might know that\nthey were presented to God, and that they were had in remembrance by\nhim. It was also called the _breastplate of judgment_, because it had\nthe divine oracle of URIM and THUMMIM annexed to it. These words signify\n_lights_ and _perfections_, and are mentioned as in the high priest\u2019s\nbreastplate; but what they were, we cannot determine. Some think they\nwere two precious stones added to the other twelve, by the extraordinary\nlustre of which, God marked his approbation of a design, and, by their\nbecoming dim, his disallowance of it; others, that these two words were\nwritten on a precious stone, or plate of gold, fixed in the breastplate;\nothers, that the letters of the names of the tribes, were the Urim and\nThummim; and that the letters by standing out, or by an extraordinary\nillumination, marked such words as contained the answer of God to him\nwho consulted this oracle. Le Clerc will have them to be the names of\ntwo precious stones, set in a golden collar of the high priest, and\ncoming down to his breast, as the magistrates of Egypt wore a golden\nchain, at the end of which hung the figure of truth, engraven on a\nprecious stone. Prideaux thinks the words chiefly denote the clearness\nof the oracles dictated to the high priest, though perhaps the lustre of\nthe stones in his breastplate might represent this clearness. Jahn says\nthe most probable opinion is, that URIM and THUMMIM (\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, \u05d5\u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd,\n_light_ and _justice_, Septuagint, \u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) [manifestation\nand truth] was a sacred lot, 1 Samuel xiv, 41, 42. There were employed,\nperhaps, in determining this lot, three precious stones, on one of which\nwas engraven \u05db\u05df, _yes_; on the other, \u05dc\u05d0, _no_; the third being\ndestitute of any inscription. The question proposed, therefore, was\nalways to be put in such a way, that the answer might be direct, either\n_yes_ or _no_, provided any answer was given at all. These stones were\ncarried in the purse or bag, formed by the lining or interior of the\npectoral; and when the question was proposed, if the high priest drew\nout the stone which exhibited _yes_, the answer was affirmative; if the\none on which _no_ was written, the answer was negative; if the third, no\nanswer was to be given, Joshua vii, 13\u201321; 1 Sam. xiv, 40\u201343; xxviii, 6.\nIn the midst of all this conjecture, only two things are certain: 1.\nThat one of the appointed methods of consulting God, on extraordinary\nemergencies, was by URIM and THUMMIM: 2. That the oracles of God\nrejected all equivocal and enigmatical replies, which was the character\nof the Heathen pretended oracles. \u201cThe words of the Lord are pure\nwords.\u201d His own oracle bears, therefore, an inscription which signifies\n_lights_ and _perfections_, or, _the shining_ and _the perfect_; or,\naccording to the LXX, _manifestation_ and _truth_. In this respect it\nmight be a type of the Christian revelation made to the true Israel, the\nChristian church, by the Gospel. St. Paul seems especially to allude to\nthis translation of Urim and Thummim by the Septuagint, when he speaks\nof himself and his fellow labourers, \u201ccommending themselves to every\nman\u2019s conscience _by manifestation of the truth_;\u201d in opposition to\nthose who by their errors and compliances with the Jewish prejudices, or\nwith the philosophical taste of the Greeks, obscured the truth, and\nrendered ambiguous the guidance of Christian doctrine. His preaching is\nthus tacitly compared to the oracles of God; theirs, to the misleading\nand perplexed oracles of the Heathen.\n\nBRIDE and BRIDEGROOM. Under this head an account of the marriage customs\nof ancient times, the knowledge of which is so necessary to explain many\nallusions in the Holy Scriptures, may be properly introduced. Among the\nJews, the state of marriage was, from the remotest periods of their\nhistory, reckoned so honourable, that the person who neglected or\ndeclined to enter into it without a good reason, was thought to be\nguilty of a great crime. Such a mode of thinking was not confined to\nthem; in several of the Grecian states, marriage was held in equal\nrespect. The Jews did not allow marriageable persons to enter into that\nhonourable state without restriction; the high priest was forbidden by\nlaw to marry a widow; and the priests of every rank, to take a harlot to\nwife, a profane woman, or one put away from her husband. To prevent the\nalienation of inheritances, an heiress could not marry but into her own\ntribe. The whole people of Israel, being a holy nation, separated from\nall the earth to the service of the true God, and to be the depositaries\nof his law, were forbidden to contract matrimonial alliances with the\nidolatrous nations in their vicinity. The marriage engagement of a\nminor, without the knowledge and consent of the parents, was of no\nforce; so sacred was the parental authority held among that people.\nThese customs appear to have been derived from a very remote antiquity;\nfor when Eliezer of Damascus went to Mesopotamia to take a wife from\nthence unto his master\u2019s son, he disclosed the motives of his journey to\nthe father and brother of Rebecca; and Hamor applied to Jacob and his\nsons, for their consent to the union of Dinah with his son Shechem.\nSamson also consulted his parents about his marriage; and entreated them\nto get for him the object of his choice. Marriage contracts seem to have\nbeen made in the primitive ages with little ceremony. The suitor\nhimself, or his father, sent a messenger to the father of the woman, to\nask her in marriage. In the remote ages of antiquity, women were\nliterally purchased by their husbands; and the presents made to their\nparents or other relations were called their dowry. Thus, we find\nShechem bargaining with Jacob and his sons for Dinah: \u201cLet me find grace\nin your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me, I will give: ask me never\nso much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto\nme; but give me the damsel to wife,\u201d Gen. xxxiv, 2. The practice still\ncontinues in the country of Shechem; for when a young Arab wishes to\nmarry, he must purchase his wife; and for this reason, fathers, among\nthe Arabs, are never more happy than when they have many daughters. They\nare reckoned the principal riches of a house. An Arabian suitor will\noffer fifty sheep, six camels, or a dozen of cows: if he be not rich\nenough to make such offers, he proposes to give a mare or a colt,\nconsidering in the offer the merit of the young woman, the rank of her\nfamily, and his own circumstances. In the primitive times of Greece, a\nwell-educated lady was valued at four oxen. When they are agreed on both\nsides, the contract is drawn up by him that acts as cadi or judge among\nthese Arabs. In some parts of the east, a measure of corn is formally\nmentioned in contracts for their concubines, or temporary wives, beside\nthe sum of money which is stipulated by way of dowry. This custom is\nprobably as ancient as concubinage, with which it is connected; and if\nso, it will perhaps account for the Prophet Hosea\u2019s purchasing a wife of\nthis kind, for fifteen pieces of silver, and for a homer of barley, and\na half homer of barley. When the intended husband was not able to give a\ndowry, he offered an equivalent. The patriarch Jacob, who came to Laban\nwith only his staff, offered to serve him seven years for Rachel: a\nproposal which Laban accepted. This custom has descended to modern\ntimes; for in Cabul the young men who are unable to advance the required\ndowry \u201clive with their future father-in-law, and earn their bride by\ntheir services, without ever seeing the object of their wishes.\u201d The\ncontract of marriage was made in the house of the woman\u2019s father, before\nthe elders and governors of the city or district. The espousals by\nmoney, or a written instrument, were performed by the man and woman\nunder a tent or canopy erected for that purpose. Into this chamber the\nbridegroom was accustomed to go with his bride, that he might talk with\nher more familiarly; which was considered as a ceremony of confirmation\nto the wedlock. While he was there, no person was allowed to enter: his\nfriends and attendants waited for him at the door, with torches and\nlamps in their hands; and when he came out, he was received by all that\nwere present with great joy and acclamation. To this ancient custom, the\nPsalmist alludes in his magnificent description of the heavens: \u201cIn them\nhe set a tabernacle for the sun; which, as a bridegroom coming out of\nhis chamber, rejoices as a strong man to run a race,\u201d Psalm xix, 4. A\nJewish virgin legally betrothed was considered as a lawful wife; and, by\nconsequence, could not be put away without a bill of divorce. And if she\nproved unfaithful to her betrothed husband, she was punished as an\nadulteress; and her seducer incurred the same punishment as if he had\npolluted the wife of his neighbour. This is the reason that the angel\naddressed Joseph, the betrothed husband of Mary, in these terms:\n\u201cJoseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife;\nfor that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.\u201d The Evangelist\nLuke gives her the same title: \u201cAnd Joseph also went up from Galilee\nunto Bethlehem, to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife,\u201d Luke ii, 4,\n5.\n\n2. Ten or twelve months commonly intervened between the ceremony of\nespousals and the marriage: during this interval, the espoused wife\ncontinued with her parents, that she might provide herself with nuptial\nornaments suitable to her station. This custom serves to explain a\ncircumstance in Samson\u2019s marriage, which is involved in some obscurity.\n\u201cHe went down,\u201d says the historian, \u201cand talked with the woman,\u201d (whom\nhe had seen at Timnath,) \u201cand she pleased him well,\u201d Judges xiv, 7, &c.\nThese words seem to refer to the ceremony of espousals; the following,\nto the subsequent marriage: \u201cAnd after a time he returned to take her,\u201d\nJudges xiv, 8. Hence a considerable time intervened between the\nespousals and their actual union. From the time of the espousals, the\nbridegroom was at liberty to visit his espoused wife in the house of her\nfather; yet neither of the parties left their own abode during eight\ndays before the marriage; but persons of the same age visited the\nbridegroom, and made merry with him. These circumstances are distinctly\nmarked in the account which the sacred historian has given us of\nSamson\u2019s marriage: \u201cSo his father went down unto the woman, and made\nthere a feast; for so used the young men to do. And it came to pass when\nthey saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him,\u201d\nJudges xiv, 10. These companions were the children of the bride chamber,\nof whom our Lord speaks: \u201cCan the children of the bride chamber mourn as\nlong as the bridegroom is with them?\u201d Matt. xix, 15. The marriage\nceremony was commonly performed in a garden, or in the open air; the\nbride was placed under a canopy, supported by four youths, and adorned\nwith jewels according to the rank of the married persons; all the\ncompany crying out with joyful acclamations, \u201cBlessed be he that\ncometh!\u201d It was anciently the custom, at the conclusion of the ceremony,\nfor the father and mother and kindred of the woman, to pray for a\nblessing upon the parties. Bethuel and Laban, and the other members of\ntheir family, pronounced a solemn benediction upon Rebecca before her\ndeparture: \u201cAnd they blessed Rebecca, and said unto her, Thou art our\nsister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions; and let thy seed\npossess the gate of those that hate them,\u201d Gen. xxiv, 60. And in times\nlong posterior to the age of Isaac, when Ruth, the Moabitess, was\nespoused to Boaz, \u201call the people that were in the gate, and the elders,\nsaid, We are witnesses: the Lord make the woman that is come into thine\nhouse like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did build the house of\nIsrael; and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem,\u201d\nRuth iv, 11, 12. After the benedictions, the bride is conducted with\ngreat pomp to the house of her husband: this is usually done in the\nevening; and as the procession moved along, money, sweetmeats, flowers,\nand other articles, were thrown among the populace, which they caught in\ncloths made for such occasions, stretched in a particular manner upon\nframes. The use of perfumes at eastern marriages is common; and upon\ngreat occasions very profuse.\n\n3. It was the custom among the ancient Greeks, and the nations around\nthem, to conduct the new-married couple with torches and lamps to their\ndwelling; as appears from the messenger in Euripides, who says he called\nto mind the time when he bore torches before Menelaus and Helena. These\ntorches were usually carried by servants; and the procession was\nsometimes attended by singers and dancers. Thus Homer, in his\ndescription of the shield of Achilles:--\n\n        --\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5,\n        \u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd,\n        \u1f28\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5. \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.     _Il._ lib. xviii, l. 490.\n\n\u201cIn one of the sculptured cities, nuptials were celebrating, and solemn\nfeasts; through the city they conducted the new-married pair from their\nchambers, with flaming torches, while frequent shouts of Hymen burst\nfrom the attending throng, and young men danced in skilful measures to\nthe sound of the pipe and the harp.\u201d\n\nA similar custom is observed among the Hindoos. The husband and wife, on\nthe day of their marriage, being both in the same palanquin, go about\nseven and eight o\u2019clock at night, accompanied with all their kindred and\nfriends; the trumpets and drums go before them; and they are lighted by\na number of flambeaux; immediately before the palanquin walk many women,\nwhose business it is to sing verses, in which they wish them all manner\nof prosperity. They march in this equipage through the streets for the\nspace of some hours, after which they return to their own house, where\nthe domestics are in waiting. The whole house is illumined with small\nlamps; and many of those flambeaux already mentioned are kept ready for\ntheir arrival, beside those which accompany them, and are carried before\nthe palanquin. These flambeaux are composed of many pieces of old linen,\nsqueezed hard against one another in a round figure, and thrust down\ninto a mould of copper. The persons that hold them in one hand have in\nthe other a bottle of the same metal with the copper mould, which is\nfull of oil, which they take care to pour out from time to time upon the\nlinen, which otherwise gives no light. The Roman ladies also were led\nhome to their husbands in the evening by the light of torches. A Jewish\nmarriage seems to have been conducted in much the same way; for in that\nbeautiful psalm, where David describes the majesty of Christ\u2019s kingdom,\nwe meet with this passage: \u201cAnd the daughter of Tyre shall be there with\na gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favour. The\nking\u2019s daughter is all-glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold.\nShe shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needle work; the\nvirgins, her companions that follow her, shall be brought unto thee.\nWith gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into\nthe king\u2019s palace,\u201d Psalm xlv, 12, &c. In the parable of the ten\nvirgins, the same circumstances are introduced: \u201cThey that were foolish\ntook their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in\ntheir vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried,\u201d leading\nthe procession through the streets of the city, the women and domestics\nthat were appointed to wait his arrival at home, \u201call slumbered and\nslept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom\ncometh! Go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed\ntheir lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil;\nfor our lamps are gone out,\u201d Matt. xxv, 6.\n\nThe following extract from Ward\u2019s \u201cView of the Hindoos\u201d very strikingly\nillustrates this parable: \u201cAt a marriage, the procession of which I saw\nsome years ago, the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived\nat Serampore, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After\nwaiting two or three hours, at length, near midnight, it was announced,\nas if in the very words of Scripture, \u2018Behold, the bridegroom cometh! Go\nye out to meet him.\u2019 All the persons employed now lighted their lamps,\nand ran with them in their hands to fill up their stations in the\nprocession; some of them had lost their lights, and were unprepared; but\nit was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to\nthe house of the bride, at which place the company entered a large and\nsplendidly illuminated area, before the house covered with an awning,\nwhere a great multitude of friends dressed in their best apparel were\nseated upon mats. The bridegroom was carried in the arms of a friend,\nand placed on a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a\nshort time, and then went into the house, the door of which was\nimmediately shut, and guarded by Sepoys. I and others expostulated with\nthe door keepers, but in vain.\u201d\n\n4. But among the Jews, the bridegroom was not always permitted to\naccompany his bride from her father\u2019s house; an intimate friend was\noften sent to conduct her, while he remained at home to receive her in\nhis apartment. Her female attendants had the honour to introduce her;\nand whenever they changed the bride\u2019s dress, which is often done, they\npresented her to the bridegroom. It is the custom, and belongs to their\nideas of magnificence, frequently to dress and undress the bride, and to\ncause her to wear on that same day all the clothes made up for her\nnuptials. These circumstances discover the force of St. John\u2019s language,\nin his magnificent description of the Christian church in her millennial\nstate: \u201cAnd I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from\nGod out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband,\u201d Rev.\nxxi, 2.\n\n5. Those that were invited to the marriage were expected to appear in\ntheir best and gayest attire. If the bridegroom was in circumstances to\nafford it, wedding garments were prepared for all the guests, which were\nhung up in the antechamber for them to put on over the rest of their\nclothes, as they entered the apartments where the marriage feast was\nprepared. To refuse, or even to neglect, putting on the wedding garment,\nwas reckoned an insult to the bridegroom; aggravated by the circumstance\nthat it was provided by himself for the very purpose of being worn on\nthat occasion, and was hung up in the way to the inner apartment, that\nthe guests must have seen it, and recollected the design of its\nsuspension. This accounts for the severity of the sentence pronounced by\nthe king, who came in to see the guests, and found among them one who\nhad neglected to put it on: \u201cAnd he saith unto him, Friend, how camest\nthou in hither, not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless,\u201d\nMatt. xxii, 11, because it was provided at the expense of the\nentertainer, and placed full in his view. \u201cThen said the king to the\nservants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into\nouter darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.\u201d\n\nThe following extract will show the importance of having a suitable\ngarment for a marriage feast, and the offence taken against those who\nrefuse it when presented as a gift. \u201cThe next day, Dec. 3d, the king\nsent to invite the ambassadors to dine with him once more. The\nMehemander told them, it was the custom that they should wear over their\nown clothes the best of those garments which the king had sent them. The\nambassadors at first made some scruple of that compliance; but when they\nwere told that it was a custom observed by all ambassadors, and that no\ndoubt the king would take it very ill at their hands if they presented\nthemselves before him without the marks of his liberality, they at last\nresolved to do it; and, after their example, all the rest of the\nretinue.\u201d\n\nBRIER. This word occurs several times in our translation of the Bible,\nbut with various authorities from the original. 1. \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Judges viii,\n7, 16, is a particular kind of thorn. 2. \u05d7\u05d3\u05e7, Prov. xv, 19; Micah vii,\n4. It seems hardly possible to determine what kind of plant this is.\nSome kind of tangling prickly shrub is undoubtedly meant. In the former\npassage there is a beautiful opposition, which is lost in our rendering:\n\u201cThe _narrow way_ of the slothful is like a perplexed path among briers;\nwhereas the _broad road_\u201d (elsewhere rendered _causeway_) \u201cof the\nrighteous is a high bank;\u201d that is, free from obstructions, direct,\nconspicuous, and open. The common course of life of these two characters\nanswers to this comparison. Their manner of going about business, or of\ntransacting it, answers to this. An idle man always takes the most\nintricate, the most oblique, and eventually the most thorny, measures to\naccomplish his purpose; the honest and diligent man prefers the most\nopen and direct. In Micah, the unjust judge, taking bribes, is a brier,\nholding every thing that comes within his reach, hooking all that he can\ncatch. 3. \u05e1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, Ezek. ii, 6. This word is translated by the Septuagint,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03db\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _stung by the \u0153strus_, or _gadfly_; and they use the\nlike word in Hosea iv, 16, where, what in our version is \u201ca backsliding\nheifer,\u201d they render \u201ca heifer stung by the \u0153strus.\u201d These coincident\nrenderings lead to the belief that both places may be understood of some\nvenomous insect. The word \u05e1\u05e8\u05e8 may lead us to _sarran_, by which the\nArabs thus describe \u201ca great bluish fly, having greenish eyes, its tail\narmed with a piercer, by which it pesters almost all horned cattle,\nsettling on their heads, &c. Often it creeps up the noses of asses. It\nis a species of gadfly; but carrying its sting in its tail.\u201d 4. \u05e1\u05dc\u05d5\u05df,\nEzek. xxviii, 24, and \u05e1\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Ezek. ii, 6, must be classed among thorns.\nThe second word Parkhurst supposes to be a kind of thorn, overspreading\na large surface of ground, as the dewbrier. It is used in connection\nwith \u05e7\u05d5\u05e6, which, in Gen. iii, 18, is rendered _thorns_. The author of\n\u201cScripture Illustrated\u201d queries, however, whether, as it is associated\nwith \u201cscorpions\u201d in Ezek. ii, 6, both this word and _serebim_ may not\nmean some species of venomous insects. 5. \u05e1\u05e8\u05e4\u05d3, mentioned only in Isaiah\nlv, 13, probably means a prickly plant; but what particular kind it is\nimpossible to determine. 6. \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e8. This word is used only by the Prophet\nIsaiah, and in the following places: Isa. v, 6; vii, 23\u201325; ix, 17; x,\n17; xxvii, 4; and xxxii, 13. It is probably a brier of a low kind; such\nas overruns uncultivated lands.\n\nBRIMSTONE, \u05d2\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea, Gen. xix, 24; Deut. xxix, 23; Job xviii, 15; Psalm xi,\n6; Isaiah xxx, 33; xxxiv, 9; Ezek. xxxviii, 22. It is rendered \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd by\nthe Septuagint, and is so called in Luke xvii, 29. Fire and brimstone\nare represented in many passages of Scripture as the elements by which\nGod punishes the wicked; both in this life, and another. There is in\nthis a manifest allusion to the overthrow of the cities of the plain of\nthe Jordan, by showers of ignited sulphur, to which the physical\nappearances of the country bear witness to this day. The soil is\nbituminous, and might be raised by eruptions into the air, and then\ninflamed and return in horrid showers of overwhelming fire. This awful\ncatastrophe, therefore, stands as a type of the final and eternal\npunishment of the wicked in another world. In Job. xviii, 15, Bildad,\ndescribing the calamities which overtake the wicked person, says,\n\u201cBrimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation.\u201d This may be a\ngeneral expression, to designate any great destruction: as that in Psalm\nxi, 6, \u201cUpon the wicked he shall rain fire and brimstone.\u201d Moses, among\nother calamities which he sets forth in case of the people\u2019s\ndisobedience, threatens them with the fall of brimstone, salt, and\nburning like the overthrow of Sodom, &c, Deut. xxix, 23. The Prophet\nIsaiah, xxxiv, 9, writes that the anger of the Lord shall be shown by\nthe streams of the land being turned into pitch, and the dust thereof\ninto brimstone. See DEAD SEA.\n\nBROOK is distinguished from a river by its flowing only at particular\ntimes; for example, after great rains, or the melting of the snow;\nwhereas a river flows constantly at all seasons. However, this\ndistinction is not always observed in the Scripture; and one is not\nunfrequently taken for the other,--the great rivers, such as the\nEuphrates, the Nile, the Jordan, and others being called brooks. Thus\nthe Euphrates, Isaiah xv, 7, is called the brook of willows. It is\nobserved that the Hebrew word, \u05e0\u05d7\u05dc, which signifies _a brook_, is also\nthe term for a valley, whence the one is often placed for the other, in\ndifferent translations of the Scriptures. To deal deceitfully \u201cas a\nbrook,\u201d and to \u201cpass away as the stream thereof,\u201d is to deceive our\nfriend when he most needs and expects our help and comfort, Job vi, 15;\nbecause brooks, being temporary streams, are dried up in the heats of\nsummer, when the traveller most needs a supply of water on his journey.\n\nBROTHER. 1. A brother by the same mother, a uterine brother, Matt. iv,\n21; xx, 20. 2. A brother, though not by the same mother, Matt. i, 2. 3.\nA near kinsman, a cousin, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3. Observe, that in\nMatt. xiii, 55, James, and Joses, and Judas, are called the \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76,\n_brethren_, of Christ, but were most probably only his cousins by his\nmother\u2019s side; for James and Joses were the sons of Mary, Matt. xxvii,\n56; and James and Judas, the sons of Alpheus, Luke vi, 15, 16; which\nAlpheus is therefore probably the same with Cleopas, the husband of\nMary, sister to our Lord\u2019s mother, John xix, 25.\n\nBUCKLER. See ARMS.\n\nBUILD. Beside the proper and literal signification of this word, it is\nused with reference to children and a numerous posterity. Sarah desires\nAbraham to take Hagar to wife, that by her she may be builded up, that\nis, have children to uphold her family, Gen. xvi, 2. The midwives who\nrefused obedience to Pharaoh\u2019s orders, when he commanded them to put to\ndeath all the male children of the Hebrews, were rewarded for it; God\nbuilt them houses, that is, he gave them a numerous posterity. The\nProphet Nathan tells David that God would build his house; that is, give\nhim children and successors, 2 Sam. vii, 27. Moses, speaking of the\nformation of the first woman, says, God built her with the rib of Adam,\nGen. ii, 22.\n\nBUL, the eighth month of the ecclesiastical year of the Jews, and the\nsecond month of the civil year. It answers to October, and consists of\ntwenty-nine days. On the sixth day of this month the Jews fasted,\nbecause on that day Nebuchadnezzar put to death the children of Zedekiah\nin the presence of their unhappy father, whose eyes, after they had been\nwitnesses of this sad spectacle, he ordered to be put out, 2 Kings xxv,\n7. We find the name of this month mentioned in Scripture but once, 1\nKings vi, 38.\n\nBULL, the male of the beeve kind; and it is to be recollected that the\nHebrews never castrated animals. There are several words translated\n\u201cbull\u201d in Scripture, of which the following is a list, with the meaning\nof each: \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8, a bove, or cow, of any age. \u05ea\u05d0\u05d5, the wild bull, oryx, or\nbuffalo, occurs only Deut. xiv, 5; and in Isaiah li, 20, \u05ea\u05d5\u05d0, with the\ninterchange of the two last letters. \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9, a word implying _strength_,\ntranslated \u201cbulls,\u201d Psalm xxii, 12; l, 13; lxviii, 30; Isaiah xxxiv, 7;\nJer. xlvi, 15. \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8, herds, horned cattle of full age. \u05e4\u05e8, a full grown\nbull, or cow, fit for propagating. \u05e2\u05d2\u05dc, a full grown, plump young bull;\nand in the feminine, a heifer. \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8, Chaldee _taur_, and Latin _taurus_;\nthe ox accustomed to the yoke: occurs only in Ezra vi, 9, 17; vii, 17;\nDan. iv, 25, 32, 33; xxii, 29, 30.\n\nThis animal was reputed by the Hebrews to be clean, and was generally\nmade use of by them for sacrifices. The Egyptians had a particular\nveneration for it, and paid divine honours to it; and the Jews imitated\nthem in the worship of the golden calves or bulls, in the wilderness,\nand in the kingdom of Israel. The wild bull is found in the Syrian and\nArabian deserts. It is frequently mentioned by the Arabian poets, who\nare copious in their descriptions of hunting it, and borrow many images\nfrom its beauty, strength, swiftness, and the loftiness of its horns.\nThey represent it as fierce and untamable; as being white on the back,\nand having large shining eyes. Bulls, in a figurative and allegorical\nsense, are taken for powerful, fierce, and insolent enemies, Psalm xxii,\n12; lxviii, 30.\n\nBULRUSH, \u05d2\u05de\u05d0, Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7. A\nplant growing on the banks of the Nile, and in marshy grounds. The stalk\nrises to the height of six or seven cubits, beside two under water. This\nstalk is triangular, and terminates in a crown of small filaments\nresembling hair, which the ancients used to compare to a _thyrsus_. This\nreed, the _Cyperus papyrus_ of Linn\u00e6us, commonly called \u201cthe Egyptian\nreed,\u201d was of the greatest use to the inhabitants of the country where\nit grew; the pith contained in the stock served them for food, and the\nwoody part for building vessels, figures of which are to be seen on the\nengraven stones and other monuments of Egyptian antiquity. For this\npurpose they made it up, like rushes, into bundles; and, by tying these\nbundles together, gave their vessels the necessary shape and solidity.\n\u201cThe vessels of bulrushes,\u201d or papyrus, \u201cthat are mentioned in sacred\nand profane history,\u201d says Dr. Shaw, \u201cwere no other than large fabrics\nof the same kind with that of Moses, Exodus ii, 3; which, from the late\nintroduction of plank and stronger materials, are now laid aside.\u201d Thus\nPliny takes notice of the \u201c_naves papyraceas armamentaque Nili_,\u201d \u201cships\nmade of papyrus, and the equipments of the Nile;\u201d and he observes, \u201c_ex\nips\u00e2 quidem papyro navigia texunt_,\u201d \u201cof the papyrus itself they\nconstruct sailing vessels.\u201d Herodotus and Diodorus have recorded the\nsame fact; and among the poets, Lucan, \u201c_Conseritur bibul\u00e2 Memphitis\ncymba papyro_,\u201d \u201cthe Memphian\u201d or Egyptian boat is made of the thirsty\npapyrus; where the epithet _bibul\u00e2_, \u201cdrinking,\u201d \u201csoaking,\u201d \u201cthirsty,\u201d\nis particularly remarkable, as corresponding with great exactness to the\nnature of the plant, and to its Hebrew name, which signifies _to soak_\nor _drink up_. These vegetables require much water for their growth;\nwhen, therefore, the river on whose banks they grew was reduced, they\nperished sooner than other plants. This explains Job viii, 11, where the\ncircumstance is referred to as an image of transient prosperity: \u201cCan\nthe flag grow without water? Whilst it is yet in its greenness, and not\ncut down, it withereth before any other herb.\u201d\n\nBURIAL, the interment of a deceased person; an office held so sacred,\nthat they who neglected it have in all nations been held in abhorrence.\nAs soon as the last breath had fled, the nearest relation, or the\ndearest friend, gave the lifeless body the parting kiss, the last\nfarewell and sign of affection to the departed relative. This was a\ncustom of immemorial antiquity; for the patriarch Jacob had no sooner\nyielded up his spirit, than his beloved Joseph, claiming for once the\nright of the first-born, \u201cfell upon his face and kissed him.\u201d It is\nprobable he first closed his eyes, as God had promised he should do:\n\u201cJoseph shall put his hands upon thine eyes.\u201d The parting kiss being\ngiven, the company rent their clothes, which was a custom of great\nantiquity, and the highest expression of grief in the primitive ages.\nThis ceremony was never omitted by the Hebrews when any mournful event\nhappened, and was performed in the following manner: they took a knife,\nand holding the blade downward, gave the upper garment a cut in the\nright side, and rent it a hand\u2019s breadth. For very near relations, all\nthe garments are rent on the right side. After closing the eyes, the\nnext care was to bind up the face, which it was no more lawful to\nbehold. The next care of surviving friends was to wash the body,\nprobably, that the ointments and perfumes with which it was to be\nwrapped up, might enter more easily into the pores, when opened by warm\nwater. This ablution, which was always esteemed an act of great charity\nand devotion, was performed by women. Thus the body of Dorcas was\nwashed, and laid in an upper room, till the arrival of the Apostle\nPeter, in the hope that his prayers might restore her to life. After the\nbody was washed, it was shrouded, and swathed with a linen cloth,\nalthough in most places, they only put on a pair of drawers and a white\ntunic; and the head was bound about with a napkin. Such were the napkin\nand grave clothes in which the Saviour was buried.\n\n2. The body was sometimes embalmed, which was performed by the Egyptians\nafter the following method: the brain was removed with a bent iron, and\nthe vacuity filled up with medicaments; the bowels were also drawn out,\nand the trunk being stuffed with myrrh, cassia, and other spices, except\nfrankincense, which were proper to exsiccate the humours, it was pickled\nin nitre, in which it lay for seventy days. After this period, it was\nwrapped in bandages of fine linen and gums, to make it adhere; and was\nthen delivered to the relations of the deceased entire; all its\nfeatures, and the very hairs of the eyelids, being preserved. In this\nmanner were the kings of Judah embalmed for many ages. But when the\nfuneral obsequies were not long delayed, they used another kind of\nembalming. They wrapped up the body with sweet spices and odours,\nwithout extracting the brain, or removing the bowels. This is the way in\nwhich it was proposed to embalm the lifeless body of our Saviour; which\nwas prevented by his resurrection. The meaner sort of people seem to\nhave been interred in their grave clothes, without a coffin. In this\nmanner was the sacred body of our Lord committed to the tomb. The body\nwas sometimes placed upon a bier, which bore some resemblance to a\ncoffin or bed, in order to be carried out to burial. Upon one of these\nwas carried forth the widow\u2019s son of Nain, whom our compassionate Lord\nraised to life, and restored to his mother. We are informed in the\nhistory of the kings of Judah, that, Asa being dead, they laid him in\nthe bed, or bier, which was filled with sweet odours. Josephus, the\nJewish historian, describing the funeral of Herod the Great, says, His\nbed was adorned with precious stones; his body rested under a purple\ncovering; he had a diadem and a crown of gold upon his head, a sceptre\nin his hand; and all his house followed the bed. The bier used by the\nTurks at Aleppo is a kind of coffin, much in the form of ours, only the\nlid rises with a ledge in the middle.\n\n3. The Israelites committed the dead to their native dust; and from the\nEgyptians, probably, borrowed the practice of burning many spices at\ntheir funerals. \u201cThey buried Asa in his own sepulchres, which he made\nfor himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was\nfilled with sweet odours, and divers kinds of spices, prepared by the\napothecaries\u2019 art; and they made a very great burning for him,\u201d 2 Chron.\nxvi, 14. Thus the Old Testament historian entirely justifies the account\nwhich the Evangelist gives, of the quantity of spices with which the\nsacred body of Christ was swathed. The Jews object to the quantity used\non that occasion, as unnecessarily profuse, and even incredible; but it\nappears from their own writings, that spices were used at such times in\ngreat abundance. In the Talmud it is said, that no less than eighty\npounds of spices were consumed at the funeral of rabbi Gamaliel the\nelder. And at the funeral of Herod, if we may believe the account of\ntheir most celebrated historian, the procession was followed by five\nhundred of his domestics carrying spices. Why then should it be reckoned\nincredible, that Nicodemus brought of myrrh and aloes about a hundred\npounds\u2019 weight, to embalm the body of Jesus?\n\n4. The funeral procession was attended by professional mourners,\neminently skilled in the art of lamentation, whom the friends and\nrelations of the deceased hired, to assist them in expressing their\nsorrow. They began the ceremony with the stridulous voices of old women,\nwho strove, by their doleful modulations, to extort grief from those\nthat were present. The children in the streets through which they\npassed, often suspended their sports, to imitate the sounds, and joined\nwith equal sincerity in the lamentations. \u201cBut whereunto shall I liken\nthis generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and\ncalling unto their fellows, and saying, We have mourned unto you, and ye\nhave not lamented,\u201d Matt. ix, 17. Music was afterward introduced to aid\nthe voices of the mourners: the trumpet was used at the funerals of the\ngreat, and the small pipe or flute for those of meaner condition. Hired\nmourners were in use among the Greeks as early as the Trojan war, and\nprobably in ages long before; for in Homer, a choir of mourners were\nplanted around the couch on which the body of Hector was laid out, who\nsung his funeral dirge with many sighs and tears:--\n\n          \u1f49\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\n          \u03a4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2,\n          \u0398\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u0223\u03c2. \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.    _Il._ lib. xxiv, l. 720.\n\n          \u201cA melancholy choir attend around,\n          With plaintive sighs and music\u2019s solemn sound;\n          Alternately they sing, alternate flow\n          The obedient tears, melodious in their wo.\u201d   POPE.\n\nIn Egypt, the lower class of people call in women who play on the tabor;\nand whose business it is, like the hired mourners in other countries, to\nsing elegiac airs to the sound of that instrument, which they accompany\nwith the most frightful distortions of their limbs. These women attend\nthe corpse to the grave, intermixed with the female relations and\nfriends of the deceased, who commonly have their hair in the utmost\ndisorder; their heads covered with dust; their faces daubed with indigo,\nor at least rubbed with mud; and howling like maniacs. Such were the\nminstrels whom our Lord found in the house of Jairus, making so great a\nnoise round the bed on which the dead body of his daughter lay. The\nnoise and tumult of these retained mourners, and the other attendants,\nappear to have begun immediately after the person expired. It is evident\nthat this sort of mourning and lamentation was a kind of art among the\nJews: \u201cWailing shall be in the streets; and they shall call such as are\nskilful of lamentation to wail,\u201d Amos v, 16. Mourners are still hired at\nthe obsequies of Hindoos and Mohammedans, as in former times. To the\ndreadful noise and tumult of the hired mourners, the following passage\nof Jeremiah indisputably refers; and shows the custom to be derived from\na very remote antiquity: \u201cCall for the mourning women that they may\ncome; and send for cunning women, that they may come, and let them make\nhaste, and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may run down with\ntears, and our eyelids gush out with waters,\u201d Jer. ix, 17. The funeral\nprocessions of the Jews in Barbary are conducted nearly in the same\nmanner as those in Syria. The corpse is borne by four to the place of\nburial: in the first rank march the priests, next to them the kindred of\nthe deceased; after whom come those that are invited to the funeral; and\nall singing in a sort of plain song, the forty-ninth Psalm. Hence the\nProphet, Amos viii, 3, warns his people that public calamities were\napproaching, so numerous and severe, as should make them forget the\nusual rites of burial, and even to sing one of the songs of Zion over\nthe dust of a departed relative. This appears to be confirmed by a\nprediction in the eighth chapter: \u201cAnd the songs of the temple shall be\nhowlings in that day, saith the Lord God; there shall be many dead\nbodies in every place; they shall cast them forth with _silence_;\u201d they\nshall have none to lament and bewail; none to blow the funeral trump or\ntouch the pipe and tabor; none to sing the plaintive dirge, or express\ntheir hope of a blessed resurrection, in the strains of inspiration. All\nshall be silent despair. See SEPULCHRES.\n\nBUSH. \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4. This word occurs in Exod. iii, 2, 4, and Deut. xxxiii, 16, as\nthe name of the bush in which God appeared to Moses. If it be the \u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2\nmentioned by Dioscorides, it is the white thorn. Celsius calls it the\n_rubus fructicosus_. The number of these bushes in this region seems to\nhave given the name to the mountain Sinai. The word \u05e0\u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, found only\nin Isa. vii, 19, and there rendered \u201cbushes,\u201d means _fruitful pastures_.\n\nBUTTER is taken in Scripture, as it has been almost perpetually in the\neast, for cream or liquid butter, Prov. xxx, 33; 2 Sam. xvii, 29. The\nancient way of making butter in Arabia and Palestine was probably nearly\nthe same as is still practised by the Bedoween Arabs, and Moors in\nBarbary, and which is thus described by Dr. Shaw: \u201cTheir method of\nmaking butter is by putting the milk or cream into a goat\u2019s skin turned\ninside out, which they suspend from one side of the tent to the other;\nand then pressing it to and fro in one uniform direction, they quickly\nseparate the unctious and wheyey parts. In the Levant they tread upon\nthe skin with their feet, which produces the same effect.\u201d The last\nmethod of separating the butter from the milk, perhaps may throw light\nupon a passage in Job of some difficulty: \u201cWhen I washed my steps with\nbutter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil,\u201d Job xxxi, 6. The\nmethod of making butter in the east illustrates the conduct of Jael, the\nwife of Heber, described in the book of Judges: \u201cAnd Sisera said unto\nher, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink, for I am thirsty:\nand she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink and covered him.\u201d In\nthe Song of Deborah, the statement is repeated: \u201cHe asked water, and she\ngave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish,\u201d Judges iv,\n19; v, 25. The word \u05d7\u05de\u05d0\u05d4, which our translators rendered _butter_,\nproperly signifies _cream_; which is undoubtedly the meaning of it in\nthis passage: for Sisera complained of thirst, and asked a little water\nto quench it;--a purpose to which butter is but little adapted. Mr.\nHarmer, indeed, urges the same objection to cream, which, he contends,\nfew people would think a very proper beverage for one that was extremely\nthirsty; and concludes that it must have been butter-milk which Jael,\nwho had just been churning, gave to Sisera. But the opinion of Dr.\nRussel is preferable,--that the _hemah_ of the Scriptures is probably\nthe same as the _haymak_ of the Arabs, which is not, as Harmer supposed,\nsimple cream, but cream produced by simmering fresh sheep\u2019s milk for\nsome hours over a slow fire. It could not be butter newly churned, which\nJael presented to Sisera, because the Arab butter is apt to be foul, and\nis commonly passed through a strainer before it is used: and Russel\ndeclares, he never saw butter offered to a stranger, but always\n_haymak_; nor did he ever observe the orientals drink butter-milk, but\nalways _leban_, which is coagulated sour milk, diluted with water. It\nwas _leban_, therefore, which Pococke mistook for butter-milk, with\nwhich the Arabs treated him in the Holy Land. A similar conclusion may\nbe drawn concerning the butter and milk which the wife of Heber\npresented to Sisera: they were forced cream or _haymak_, and _leban_, or\ncoagulated sour milk, diluted with water, which is a common and\nrefreshing beverage in those sultry regions. In Isaiah vii, 15, butter\nand honey are mentioned as food which, in Egypt and other places in the\neast, is in use to this day. The butter and honey are mixed, and the\nbread is then dipped in it.\n\nBYSSUS. By this word we generally understand that fine Egyptian linen of\nwhich the priests\u2019 tunics were made. But we must distinguish three kinds\nof commodities, which are generally comprehended under the name of\n_linen_: 1. The Hebrew \u05d1\u05d3, which signifies _linen_: 2. \u05e9\u05e9, which\nsignifies _cotton_: 3. \u05d1\u05d5\u05e5, which is commonly called _bussus_, and is\nthe silk growing from a certain shell fish, called _pinna_. We do not\nfind the name _butz_ in the text of Moses, though the Greek and Latin\nuse the word _byssus_, to signify the fine linen of certain habits\nbelonging to the priests. The word _butz_ occurs only in 1 Chron. xv,\n27; Ezek. xxvii, 16; Esther i, 6. In the Chronicles we see David dressed\nin a mantle of _butz_, with the singers and Levites. Solomon used _butz_\nin the veils of the temple and sanctuary. Ahasuerus\u2019s tents were upheld\nby cords of _butz_; and Mordecai was clothed with a mantle of purple and\n_butz_, when king Ahasuerus honoured him with the first employment in\nhis kingdom. Lastly, it is observed that there was a manufacture of\n_butz_ in the city of Beersheba, in Palestine. This _butz_ must have\nbeen different from common linen, since in the same place where it is\nsaid, David wore a mantle of byssus, we read likewise that he had on a\nlinen ephod.\n\n\nCAB, or KAB, a Hebrew measure, containing three pints one-third of our\nwine measure, or two pints five-sixths of our corn measure.\n\nCABBALA, a mysterious kind of science, delivered to the ancient Jews, as\nthey pretend, by revelation, and transmitted by oral tradition to those\nof our times; serving for the interpretation of the books both of nature\nand Scripture. The word is variously written, as _Cabala_, _Caballa_,\n_Kabbala_, _Kabala_, _Cabalistica_, _Ars Cabala_, and _Gaballa_. It is\noriginally Hebrew, \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4, and properly signifies _reception_; formed from\nthe verb \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc, _to receive by tradition_, or _from father to son_;\nespecially in the Chaldee and Rabbinical Hebrew. Cabbala, then,\nprimarily denotes any sentiment, opinion, usage, or explication of\nScripture, transmitted from father to son. In this sense the word\n_cabbala_ is not only applied to the whole art, but also to each\noperation performed according to the rules of that art. Thus it is,\nrabbi Jacob Ben Ascher, surnamed Baal-Hatturim, is said to have compiled\nmost of the cabbalas invented on the books of Moses before his time. As\nto the origin of the cabbala, the Jews relate many marvellous tales.\nThey derive the mysteries contained in it from Adam; and assert, that\nwhilst the first man was in paradise, the angel Raphael brought him a\nbook from heaven, which contained the doctrines of heavenly wisdom; and\nthat when Adam received this book, angels came down from heaven to learn\nits contents; but that he refused to admit them to the knowledge of\nsacred things, intrusted to himself alone: that, after the fall, this\nbook was taken back into heaven; that, after many prayers and tears, God\nrestored it to Adam; and that it passed from Adam to Seth. The Jewish\nfables farther relate, that the book being lost, and the mysteries\ncontained in it almost forgotten, in the degenerate age preceding the\nflood, they were restored by special revelation to Abraham, who\ntransmitted them to writing in the book \u201cJezirah;\u201d and that the\nrevelation was renewed to Moses, who received a traditionary and\nmystical, as well as a written and preceptive, law from God.\nAccordingly, the Jews believe that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai, not\nonly the law, but also the explication of that law; and that Moses,\nafter his coming down, retiring to his tent, rehearsed to Aaron both the\none and the other. When he had done, the sons of Aaron, Eleazar and\nIthamar, were introduced to a second rehearsal. This being over, the\nseventy elders that composed the sanhedrim were admitted; and, lastly,\nthe people, as many as pleased; to all of whom Moses again repeated both\nthe law and explanation, as he received them from God: so that Aaron\nheard it four times, his sons thrice, the elders twice, and the people\nonce. Now, of the two things which Moses taught them, the laws and the\nexplanation, only the first were committed to writing; which is what we\nhave in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. As to the second, or the\nexplication of those laws, they were contented to impress it well in\ntheir memory, to teach it their children; they to theirs, &c. Hence the\nfirst part they call simply the law, or the written law; the second, the\noral law, or cabbala. Such is the original notion of the cabbala.\n\n2. The cabbala being again lost amidst the calamities of the Babylonish\ncaptivity, was once more revealed to Esdras; and it is said to have been\npreserved in Egypt, and transmitted to posterity through the hands of\nSimeon Ben Setach, Elkanah, Akibha, Simeon Ben Jochai, and others. The\nonly warrantable inference from these accounts, which bear the obvious\nmarks of fiction, is, that the cabbalistic doctrine obtained early\ncredit among the Jews as a part of their sacred tradition, and was\ntransmitted, under this notion, by the Jews in Egypt to their brethren\nin Palestine. Under the sanction of ancient names, many fictitious\nwritings were produced, which greatly contributed to the spreading of\nthis mystical system. Among these were \u201cSepher Happeliah,\u201d or the book\nof wonders; \u201cSepher Hakkaneh,\u201d or the book of the pen; and \u201cSepher\nHabbahir,\u201d or the book of light. The first unfolds many doctrines said\nto have been delivered by Elias to the rabbi Elkanah; the second\ncontains mystical commentaries on the divine commands; and the third\nillustrates the most sublime mysteries. Among the profound doctors who,\nbeside the study of tradition, cultivated with great industry the\ncabbalistic philosophy, the most celebrated persons are the rabbis\nAkibba, who lived soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Simeon\nBen Jochai, who flourished in the second century. To the former is\nascribed the book entitled \u201cJezirah,\u201d concerning the creation; and to\nthe latter, the book \u201cSohar,\u201d or brightness; and these are the principal\nsources from which we derive our knowledge of the cabbala.\n\n3. That this system of the cabbalistic philosophy, which we may consider\nas the acroamatic, esoteric, or concealed doctrine of the Jews, by way\nof contradistinction from the exoretic or popular doctrine, was not of\nHebrew origin, we may conclude with a very great degree of probability,\nfrom the total dissimilarity of its abstruse and mysterious doctrines to\nthe simple principles of religion taught in the Mosaic law; and that it\nwas borrowed from the Egyptian schools will sufficiently appear from a\ncomparison of its tenets with those of the oriental and Alexandrian\nphilosophy. Many writers have, indeed, imagined that they have found in\nthe cabbalistic dogmas a near resemblance of the doctrines of\nChristianity; and they have thought that the fundamental principles of\nthis mystical system were derived from divine revelation. This opinion,\nhowever, may be traced up to a prejudice which originated with the Jews,\nand passed from them to the Christian fathers, by which they were led to\nascribe all Pagan wisdom to a Hebrew origin: a notion which very\nprobably took its rise in Egypt, when Pagan tenets first crept in among\nthe Jews. Philo, Josephus, and other learned Jews, in order to flatter\ntheir own vanity, and that of their countrymen, industriously propagated\nthis opinion; and the more learned fathers of the Christian church, who\nentertained a high opinion of the Platonic philosophy, hastily adopted\nit, from an imagination that if they could trace back the most valuable\ndoctrines of Paganism to a Hebrew origin, this could not fail to\nrecommend the Jewish and Christian religions to the attention of the\nGentile philosophers. Many learned moderns, relying implicitly upon\nthese authorities, have maintained the same opinion; and have thence\nbeen inclined to credit the report of the divine original of the Jewish\ncabbala. But the opinion is unfounded; and the cabbalistic system is\nessentially inconsistent with the pure doctrine of divine revelation.\nThe true state of the case seems to be, that during the prophetic ages,\nthe traditions of the Jews consisted in a simple explanation of those\ndivine truths which the prophets delivered, or their law exhibited,\nunder the veil of emblems. After this period, when the sects of the\nEssenes and Therapeut\u00e6 were formed in Egypt, foreign tenets and\ninstitutions were borrowed from the Egyptians and Greeks; and, in the\nform of allegorical interpretations of the law, were admitted into what\nmight then be called the Jewish mysteries, or secret doctrines. These\ninnovations chiefly consisted in certain dogmas concerning God and\ndivine things, at this time received in the Egyptian schools;\nparticularly at Alexandria, where the Platonic and Pythagorean doctrines\non these subjects had been blended with the oriental philosophy. The\nJewish mysteries, thus enlarged by the accession of Pagan dogmas, were\nconveyed from Egypt to Palestine, at the time when the Pharisees, who\nhad been driven into Egypt under Hyrcanus, returned with many other Jews\ninto their own country. From this time the cabbalistic mysteries\ncontinued to be taught in the Jewish schools; but at length they were\nadulterated by a mixture of Peripatetic doctrines, and other tenets.\nThese mysteries were not, probably, reduced to any systematic forms in\nwriting, till after the dispersion of the Jews; when in consequence of\ntheir national calamities, they became apprehensive that those sacred\ntreasures would be corrupted or lost. In preceding periods, the\ncabbalistic doctrines underwent various corruptions, particularly from\nthe prevalence of the Aristotelian philosophy. The similarity, or rather\nthe coincidence, of the cabbalistic, Alexandrian, and oriental\nphilosophy, will be sufficiently evinced by briefly stating the common\ntenets in which these different systems agreed. They are as\nfollow:--\u201cAll things are derived by emanation from one principle; and\nthis principle is God. From him a substantial power immediately\nproceeds, which is the image of God, and the source of all subsequent\nemanations. This second principle sends forth, by the energy of\nemanation, other natures, which are more or less perfect, according to\ntheir different degrees of distance, in the scale of emanation, from the\nfirst source of existence, and which constitute different worlds or\norders of being, all united to the eternal power from which they\nproceed. Matter is nothing more than the most remote effect of the\nemanative energy of the Deity. The material world receives its form from\nthe immediate agency of powers far beneath the first source of being.\nEvil is the necessary effect of the imperfection of matter. Human souls\nare distant emanations from Deity; and, after they are liberated from\ntheir material vehicles, will return, through various stages of\npurification, to the fountain whence they first proceeded.\u201d From this\nbrief view it appears, that the cabbalistic system, which is the\noffspring of the other two, is a fanatical kind of philosophy,\noriginating in defect of judgment and eccentricity of imagination, and\ntending to produce a wild and pernicious enthusiasm.\n\n4. Among the explications of the law which are furnished by the cabbala,\nand which, in reality, are little else but the several interpretations\nand decisions of the rabbins on the laws of Moses, some are mystical;\nconsisting of odd abstruse significations given to a word, or even to\nthe letters whereof it is composed: whence, by different combinations,\nthey draw meanings from Scripture very different from those it seems\nnaturally to import. The art of interpreting Scripture after this manner\nis called more particularly _cabbala_; and it is in this last sense the\nword is more ordinarily used among us. This cabbala, called also\nartificial cabbala, to distinguish it from the first kind, or simple\ntradition, is divided into three sorts. The first, called _gematria_,\nconsists in taking letters as figures, or arithmetical numbers, and\nexplaining each word by the arithmetical value of the letters whereof it\nis composed; which is done various ways: the second is called\n_notaricon_, and consists either in taking each letter of a word for an\nentire diction, or in making one entire diction out of the initial\nletters of many: the third kind, called _themurah_, that is, _changing_,\nconsists in changing and transposing the letters of a word; which is\ndone various ways. The generality of the Jews prefer the cabbala to the\nliteral Scripture; comparing the former to the sparkling lustre of a\nprecious stone, and the latter to the fainter glimmering of a candle.\nThe cabbala only differs from masorah, as the latter denotes the science\nof reading the Scripture; the former, of interpreting it. Both are\nsupposed to have been handed down from generation to generation by oral\ntradition only, till at length the readings were fixed by the vowels and\naccents, as the interpretations were by the gemara.\n\n5. Cabbala is also applied to the use, or rather abuse, which\nvisionaries and enthusiasts make of Scripture, for discovering futurity\nby the study and consideration of the combination of certain words,\nletters, and numbers, in the sacred writings. All the words, terms,\nmagic figures, numbers, letters, charms, &c, used in the Jewish magic,\nas also in the hermetical science, are comprised under this species of\ncabbala; which professes to teach the art of curing diseases, and\nperforming other wonders, by means of certain arrangements of sacred\nletters and words. But it is only the Christians that call it by this\nname, on account of the resemblance this art bears to the explications\nof the Jewish cabbala: for the Jews never used the word _cabbala_ in any\nsuch sense; but ever with the utmost respect and veneration. It is not,\nhowever, the magic of the Jews alone which we call cabbala; but the word\nis also used for any kind of magic.\n\nCABUL, the name which Hiram, king of Tyre, gave to the twenty cities in\nthe land of Galilee, of which Solomon made him a present, in\nacknowledgment for the great services in building the temple, 1 Kings\nix, 31. These cities not being agreeable to Hiram, on viewing them, he\ncalled them the land of Cabul, which in the Hebrew tongue denotes\n_displeasing_; others take it to signify _binding_ or _adhesive_, from\nthe clayey nature of the soil.\n\nC\u00c6SAR, a title borne by all the Roman emperors till the destruction of\nthe empire. It took its rise from the surname of the first emperor,\nCaius Julius C\u00e6sar; and this title, by a decree of the senate, all the\nsucceeding emperors were to bear. In Scripture, the reigning emperor is\ngenerally mentioned by the name of C\u00e6sar, without expressing any other\ndistinction: so in Matt. xxii, 21, \u201cRender unto C\u00e6sar,\u201d &c, Tiberias is\nmeant; and in Acts xxv, 10, \u201cI appeal unto C\u00e6sar,\u201d Nero is intended.\n\nC\u00c6SAREA, a city and port of Palestine, built by Herod the Great, and\nthus called in honour of Augustus C\u00e6sar. It was on the site of the tower\nof Strato. This city, which was six hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, is\noften mentioned in the New Testament. Here it was that Herod Agrippa was\nsmitten of the Lord for not giving God the glory, when the people were\nso extravagant in his praise. Cornelius the centurion, who was baptized\nby St. Peter, resided here, Acts x, 1, &c; and also Philip the deacon,\nwith his four maiden daughters. At C\u00e6sarea the Prophet Agabus foretold\nthat Paul would be bound and persecuted at Jerusalem. Lastly, the\nApostle himself continued two years a prisoner at C\u00e6sarea, till he was\nconducted to Rome. When Judea was reduced to the state of a Roman\nprovince, C\u00e6sarea became the stated residence of the proconsul, which\naccounts for the circumstance of Paul being carried thither from\nJerusalem, to defend himself.\n\nDr. E. D. Clarke\u2019s remarks upon this once celebrated city will be read\nwith interest: \u201cOn the 15th of July, 1801, we embarked, after sunset,\nfor Acre, to avail ourselves of the land wind, which blows during the\nnight, at this season of the year. By day break, the next morning, we\nwere off the coast of C\u00e6sarea; and so near with the land that we could\nvery distinctly perceive the appearance of its numerous and extensive\nruins. The remains of this city, although still considerable, have long\nbeen resorted to as a quarry, whenever building materials are required\nat Acre. Djezzar Pacha brought from hence the columns of rare and\nbeautiful marble, as well as the other ornaments of his palace, bath,\nfountain, and mosque at Acre. The place at present is inhabited only by\njackals and beasts of prey. As we were becalmed during the night, we\nheard the cries of these animals until day break. Pococke mentions the\ncurious fact of the former existence of crocodiles in the river of\nC\u00e6sarea. Perhaps there has not been in the history of the world an\nexample of any city, that in so short a space of time rose to such an\nextraordinary height of splendour as did this of C\u00e6sarea; or that\nexhibits a more awful contrast to its former magnificence, by the\npresent desolate appearance of its ruins. Not a single inhabitant\nremains. Its theatres, once resounding with the shouts of multitudes,\necho no other sound than the nightly cries of animals roaming for their\nprey. Of its gorgeous palaces and temples, enriched with the choicest\nworks of art, and decorated with the most precious marbles, scarcely a\ntrace can be discerned. Within the space of ten years after laying the\nfoundation, from an obscure fortress, it became the most celebrated and\nflourishing city of all Syria. It was named C\u00e6sarea by Herod, in honour\nof Augustus, and dedicated by him to that emperor, in the twenty-eighth\nyear of his reign. Upon this occasion, that the ceremony might be\nrendered illustrious, by a degree of profusion unknown in any former\ninstance, Herod assembled the most skilful musicians, wrestlers, and\ngladiators from all parts of the world. This solemnity was to be renewed\nevery fifth year. But, as we viewed the ruins of this memorable city,\nevery other circumstance respecting its history was absorbed in the\nconsideration that we were actually beholding the very spot where the\nscholar of Tarsus, after two years\u2019 imprisonment, made that eloquent\nappeal, in the audience of the king of Judea, which must ever be\nremembered with piety and delight. In the history of the actions of the\nholy Apostles, whether we regard the internal evidence of the narrative,\nor the interest excited by a story so wonderfully appalling to our\npassions and affections, there is nothing that we call to mind with\nfuller emotions of sublimity and satisfaction. \u2018In the demonstration of\nthe Spirit and of power,\u2019 the mighty advocate for the Christian faith\nhad before \u2018reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to\ncome,\u2019 till the Roman governor, Felix, trembled as he spoke. Not all the\noratory of Tertullus; not the clamour of his numerous adversaries; not\neven the countenance of the most profligate of tyrants availed against\nthe firmness and intrepidity of the oracle of God. The judge had\ntrembled before his prisoner; and now a second occasion offered, in\nwhich, for the admiration and the triumph of the Christian world, one of\nthe bitterest persecutors of the name of Christ, and a Jew, appeals, in\nthe public tribunal of a large and populous city, to all its chiefs and\nits rulers, its governor and its king, for the truth of his conversion\nfounded on the highest evidence.\u201d\n\nC\u00c6SAREA PHILIPPI was first called Laish or Leshem, Judg. xviii, 7. After\nit was subdued by the Danites, Judg. v, 29, it received the name of Dan;\nand is by Heathen writers called Paneas. Philip, the youngest son of\nHerod the Great, made it the capital of his tetrarchy, enlarged and\nembellished it, and gave it the name of C\u00e6sarea Philippi. It was\nsituated at the foot of Mount Hermon, near the head of the Jordan; and\nwas about fifty miles from Damascus, and thirty from Tyre. Our Saviour\nvisited and taught in this place, and healed one who was possessed of an\nevil spirit: here also he gave the memorable rebuke to Peter, Mark viii.\n\nCAIAPHAS, high priest of the Jews, succeeded Simon, son of Camith; and\nafter possessing this dignity nine years, from A. M. 4029 to 4038, he\nwas succeeded by Jonathan, son of Ananas, or Annas. Caiaphas was high\npriest, A. M. 4037, which was the year of Jesus Christ\u2019s death. He\nmarried a daughter of Annas, who also is called high priest in the\nGospel, because he had long enjoyed that dignity. When the priests\ndeliberated on the seizure and death of Jesus Christ, Caiaphas declared,\nthat there was no room for debate on that matter, \u201cbecause it was\nexpedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation\nshould not perish,\u201d John xi, 49, 50. This sentiment was a prophecy,\nwhich God suffered to proceed from the mouth of the high priest on this\noccasion, importing, that the death of Jesus would be for the salvation\nof the world. When Judas had betrayed Jesus, he was first taken before\nAnnas, who sent him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, who possibly lived in\nthe same house, John xviii, 24. The priests and doctors of the law there\nassembled to judge our Saviour, and to condemn him. The depositions of\ncertain false witnesses being insufficient to justify a sentence of\ndeath against him, and Jesus continuing silent, Caiaphas, as high\npriest, said to him, \u201cI adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us\nwhether thou art the Christ, the Son of God!\u201d To this adjuration, so\nsolemnly made by the superior judge, Jesus answered, \u201cThou hast said;\nnevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man\nsitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.\u201d\nOn hearing these words, Caiaphas rent his clothes, saying, \u201cWhat farther\nneed have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy.\nWhat think ye?\u201d They answered, \u201cHe is worthy of death.\u201d And as the power\nof life and death was not at this time in their hands, but was reserved\nby the Romans, they conducted him to Pilate, that he might confirm their\nsentence, and order his execution.\n\nTwo years after this, Vitellus, governor of Syria, coming to Jerusalem\nat the passover, was received very magnificently by the people. As an\nacknowledgment for this honour, he restored the custody of the high\npriest\u2019s ornaments to the priests, he remitted certain duties raised on\nthe fruits of the earth, and deposed the high priest Caiaphas. From this\nit appears that Caiaphas had fallen under popular odium, for his\ndeposition was to gratify the people.\n\nCAIN, the eldest son of Adam and Eve. He was the first man who had been\na child, and the first man born of woman. For his history, as connected\nwith that of Abel, see _Abel_. The curse pronounced upon Cain, on\naccount of his fratricide, is thus expressed: \u201cAnd the Lord said unto\nCain, Where is thy brother Abel? And he said, I know not: am I my\nbrother\u2019s keeper? And God said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy\nbrother\u2019s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed\nfrom the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother\u2019s\nblood from thy hand. When thou tillest it, it shall not henceforth yield\nunto thee its strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the\nearth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can\nbear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from _the face of the\nearth_,\u201d meaning, probably, from his own native district, and from the\npresence of his kindred, \u201cand from _thy face_ shall I be hid;\u201d by which\nhe probably intended the divine glory, or Shekinah, whose appearance\nsanctified the place of primitive worship, and was the pledge of\nacceptance and protection. The mark set upon Cain \u201clest any one finding\nhim should kill him,\u201d has been variously interpreted. Some have supposed\nit a change in the colour of his skin, others a certain horror of\ncountenance. The LXX. understood the passage to mean, that the Lord gave\nhim a sign, to assure him that his life should be preserved. Whatever it\nwas, its object was not to aggravate, but to mitigate, his punishment,\nwhich may intimate that Cain had manifested repentance. Cain, being thus\nbanished from the presence of the Lord, retired into the land of Nod,\nlying east from the province of Eden. While he dwelt in this country,\nwhich is generally understood to be Susiana, or Chusistan, he had a son,\nwhom he named Enoch, in memory of whom he built a city of the same name.\nThis is all we learn from Scripture concerning Cain.\n\nCAKE. See BREAD.\n\nCALAH, a city of Assyria, built by Ashur, Gen. x, 12. From it the\nadjacent country, on the north-east of the Tigris, and south of the\nGordian mountains of Armenia, was called Callachene, or Callacine.\n\nCALAMUS, \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4. Exod. xxx, 23; Cantic. iv, 14; Isa. xliii, 24; Jer. vi,\n20; Ezek. xxvii, 19. An aromatic reed, growing in moist places in Egypt,\nin Judea near lake Genezareth, and in several parts of Syria. It grows\nto about two feet in height; bearing from the root a knotted stalk,\nquite round, containing in its cavity a soft white pith. The whole is of\nan agreeable aromatic smell; and the plant is said to scent the air with\na fragrance even while growing. When cut down, dried, and powdered, it\nmakes an ingredient in the richest perfumes. It was used for this\npurpose by the Jews.\n\nCALAMUS SCRIPTORIUS, a reed answering the purpose of a pen to write\nwith. The ancients used styles, to write on tablets covered with wax;\nbut reeds, to write on parchment or papyrus. The Psalmist says, \u201cMy\ntongue is the pen of a ready writer,\u201d xlv, 1. The Hebrew signifies\nrather a style. The third book of Maccabees states, that the writers\nemployed in making a list of the Jews in Egypt, produced their reeds\nquite worn out. Baruch wrote his prophecies _with ink_, Jer. xxxvi, 4;\nand, consequently, used reeds; for it does not appear that quills were\nthen used to write with. In third John 13, the Apostle says, he did not\ndesign to write with pen (reed) and ink. The Arabians, Persians, Turks,\nGreeks, and Armenians, to this day, write with reeds or rushes.\n\nCALEB, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, was one of those who\naccompanied Joshua, when he was deputed by Moses to view the land of\nCanaan, which the Lord had promised them for an inheritance, Num. xiii.\nThe deputies sent on this occasion were twelve in number, selected one\nout of each of the tribes, and they performed their commission with\ngreat promptitude and skill; they traversed the country in every\ndirection, bringing with them, on their return, some of its finest\nfruits for the inspection of their brethren. Some of them, however,\nafter making the report of the beauty and goodness of the country, which\nthey described to be a land flowing with milk and honey, added, that the\ninhabitants of it were remarkable for their strength, while its cities\nwere large and enclosed with walls. These later particulars having\nexcited a spirit of murmuring among the Israelites, Caleb endeavoured to\nanimate their courage by dwelling upon the fertility of the country, and\nexhorting them to go boldly and take possession of it. Others, however,\ndissuaded the people from making the attempt, assuring them that they\nwould never make themselves masters of it. We have seen giants there,\nsaid they, in comparison of whom we were as grasshoppers; on which the\npeople declared against the project, and intimated their wish to return\nagain into Egypt. Moses and Aaron no sooner heard this than they fell\nupon their faces before the whole congregation, and Joshua and Caleb\nrent their clothes, imploring them to take courage and march boldly on;\nsince, if God were with them, they might easily make a conquest of the\nwhole land. So exasperated, however, were the multitude, that they were\nproceeding to stone Caleb and Joshua, when the glory of the Lord\nappeared upon the tabernacle, and threatened their extermination. Moses,\nhaving fervently interceded for them, the Lord graciously heard his\nprayer; but though he was pleased not to destroy them immediately, he\nprotested with an oath, that none of those who had murmured against him\nshould see the land of Canaan, but that they should all die in the\nwilderness. \u201cAs for my servant Caleb,\u201d it was added, \u201cwho hath\nfaithfully followed me, him will I bring into the land, and he shall\npossess it, he and his children after him,\u201d Num. xiv, 1\u201324. Joshua also\nobtained a similar exception, verses 30, 38. When Joshua had entered the\npromised land, and conquered a considerable part of it, Caleb, with the\npeople of his tribe, came to meet him at Gilgal, and finding that he was\nabout to divide the land among the twelve tribes, Caleb petitioned to\nhave the country which was inhabited by the giants allotted to him, on\nwhich Joshua blessed him and granted his request. Assisted by a portion\nof his tribe, he marched against Hebron, and slew the children of Anak:\nthence he proceeded to Debir, and finding the place almost impregnable,\nhe offered his daughter Achsah in marriage to the hero that should take\nit. This was done by his nephew Othniel, who in consequence obtained\nAchsah with a considerable portion also of territory. We are not\ninformed of the particular time or manner of the death of Caleb; but by\nhis three sons, Iru, Elah, and Naam, he had a numerous posterity, who\nmaintained an honourable rank among their brethren. See Num. xiii, xiv,\nJosh. xiv, 6\u201315; xv, 13\u201319; Judges i, 9\u201315; 1 Chron. iv, 15\u201320. \u05e2\u05d2\u05dc\n\nCALF, \u05e2\u05d2\u05dc. The young of the ox kind. There is frequent mention in\nScripture of calves, because they were made use of commonly in\nsacrifices. The \u201cfatted calf,\u201d mentioned in several places, as in 1 Sam.\nxxviii, 24, and Luke xv, 23, was stall fed, with special reference to a\nparticular festival or extraordinary sacrifice. The \u201ccalves of the\nlips,\u201d mentioned by Hosea, xiv, 2, signify the sacrifices of praise\nwhich the captives of Babylon addressed to God, being no longer in a\ncondition to offer sacrifices in his temple. The Septuagint render it\nthe \u201cfruit of the lips;\u201d and their reading is followed by the Syriac,\nand by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xiii, 15. The \u201cgolden calf\u201d was an\nidol set up and worshipped by the Israelites at the foot of mount Sinai\nin their passage through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. Having\nbeen conducted through the wilderness by a pillar of cloud and fire,\nwhich preceded them in their marches, while Moses was receiving the\ndivine commands that cloud covered the mountain, and they probably\nimagined that it would no longer be their guide; and, therefore, applied\nto Aaron to make for them a sacred sign or symbol, as other nations had,\nwhich might visibly represent God. With this request, preferred\ntumultuously, and in a menacing manner, Aaron in a moment of weakness\ncomplied. The image thus formed is supposed to have been like the\nEgyptian deity, Apis, which was an ox, an animal used in agriculture,\nand so a symbol of the god who presided over their fields, or of the\nproductive power of the Deity. The means by which Moses reduced the\ngolden calf to powder, so that when mixed with water he made the people\ndrink it, in contempt, has puzzled commentators. Some understand that he\ndid this by a chymical process, then well known, but now a secret;\nothers, that he beat it into gold leaf, and then separated this into\nparts so fine, as to be easily potable; others, that he reduced it by\nfiling. The account says, that he took the calf, burned it to powder,\nand mixed the powder with water; from which it is probable, as several\nJewish writers have thought, that the calf was not wholly made of gold,\nbut of wood, covered with a profusion of gold ornaments cast and\nfashioned for the occasion. For this reason it obtained the epithet\ngolden, as afterward some ornaments of the temple were called, which we\nknow were only overlaid with gold. It would in that case be enough to\nreduce the wood to powder in the fire, which would also blacken and\ndeface the golden ornaments; but there is no need to suppose they were\nalso reduced to powder. It is plain from Aaron\u2019s proclaiming a fast to\nJehovah, Exod. xxxii, 4, and from the worship of Jeroboam\u2019s calves being\nso expressly distinguished from that of Baal, 2 Kings x, 28\u201331, that\nboth Aaron and Jeroboam meant the calves they formed and set up for\nworship to be emblems of Jehovah. Nevertheless, the inspired Psalmist\nspeaks of Aaron\u2019s calf with the utmost abhorrence, and declares that, by\nworshipping it, they forgat God their Saviour, (see 1 Cor. x, 9,) who\nhad wrought so many miracles for them, and that for this crime God\nthreatened to destroy them, Psalm cvi, 19\u201324; Exod. xxxii, 10; and St.\nStephen calls it plainly \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, _an idol_, Acts vii, 41. As for\nJeroboam, after he had, for political reasons, 1 Kings xii, 27, &c, made\na schism in the Jewish church, and set up two calves in Dan and Bethel,\nas objects of worship, he is scarcely ever mentioned in Scripture but\nwith a particular stigma set upon him: \u201cJeroboam, the son of Nebat, who\nmade Israel to sin.\u201d\n\nCALL, to name a person or thing, Acts xi, 26; Rom. vii, 3. 2. To cry to\nanother for help; and hence, to pray. The first passage in the Old\nTestament in which we meet with this phrase, is Gen. iv, 26, where we\nread, \u201cThen began men to call on the name of the Lord,\u201d or Jehovah; the\nmeaning of which seems to be, that they then first began to worship him\nin public assemblies. In both the Old and New Testament, to call upon\nthe name of the Lord, imports invoking the true God in prayer, with a\nconfession that he is Jehovah, that is, with an acknowledgment of his\nessential and incommunicable attributes. In this view the phrase is\napplied to the worship of Christ.\n\nCALLING, a term in theology, which is taken in a different sense by the\nadvocates and the impugners of the Calvinistic doctrine of grace. By the\nformer it is thus stated: In the golden chain of spiritual blessings\nwhich the Apostle enumerates in Rom. viii, 30, originating in the divine\npredestination, and terminating in the bestowment of eternal glory on\nthe heirs of salvation, that of calling forms an important link.\n\u201cMoreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he\ncalled, them he also glorified.\u201d Hence we read of \u201cthe called according\nto his purpose,\u201d Rom. viii, 28. There is indeed a universal call of the\nGospel to all men; for wherever it comes it is the voice of God to those\nwho hear it, calling them to repent and believe the divine testimony\nunto the salvation of their souls; and it leaves them inexcusable in\nrejecting it, John iii, 14\u201319; but this universal call is not\ninseparably connected with salvation; for it is in reference to it that\nChrist says, \u201cMany are called, but few are chosen,\u201d Matt. xxii, 14. But\nthe Scripture also speaks of a calling which is effectual, and which\nconsequently is more than the outward ministry of the word; yea, more\nthan some of its partial and temporary effects upon many who hear it,\nfor it is always ascribed to God\u2019s making his word effectual through the\nenlightening and sanctifying influences of his Holy Spirit. Thus it is\nsaid, \u201cPaul may plant, and Apollos water, but God giveth the increase,\u201d\n1 Cor. iii, 6, 7. Again, he is said to have \u201copened the heart of Lydia,\nthat she attended to the doctrine of Paul,\u201d Acts xvi, 14. \u201cNo man can\ncome unto Christ, except the Father draw him,\u201d John vi, 44. Hence faith\nis said to be the gift of God, Eph. ii, 8; Phil. i, 29. The Spirit takes\nof the things of Christ and shows them to men, John xvi, 14; and thus\nopens their eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the\npower of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 18. And so God saves his people, not\nby works of righteousness which they have done, but according to his\nmercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,\nTitus iii, 5. Thus they are saved, and called with a holy calling, not\naccording to their works, but according to the divine purpose and grace\nwhich was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. i,\n9.\n\n2. To this it is replied, that this whole statement respecting a\nbeliever\u2019s calling is without any support from the Scriptures, and is\neither a misunderstanding, or a misapplication of their sense. \u201cTo call\u201d\nsignifies to invite to the blessings of the Gospel, to offer salvation\nthrough Christ, either by God himself, or, under his appointment, by his\nservants; and in the parable of the marriage of the king\u2019s son, Matt.\nxxii, 1\u201314, which appears to have given rise, in many instances, to the\nuse of this term in the Epistles, we have three descriptions of \u201ccalled\u201d\nor invited persons. First, the disobedient, who would not come in at the\ncall, but made light of it. Second, the class of persons represented by\nthe man who, when the king came in to see his guests, had not on the\nwedding garment; and with respect to whom our Lord makes the general\nremark, \u201cFor many are called, but few are chosen;\u201d so that the persons\nthus represented by this individual culprit were not only \u201ccalled,\u201d but\nactually came into the company. Third, the approved guests; those who\nwere both called and chosen. As far as the simple calling or invitation\nis concerned, all these three classes stood upon equal ground--all were\ninvited; and it depended upon their choice and conduct whether they\nembraced the invitation, and were admitted as guests. We have nothing\nhere to countenance the notion of what is termed \u201ceffectual calling.\u201d\nThis implies an irresistible influence exerted upon all the approved\nguests, but withheld from the disobedient, who could not, therefore, be\notherwise than disobedient; or at most could only come in without that\nwedding garment, which it was never put into their power to take out of\nthe king\u2019s wardrobe; and the want of which would necessarily exclude\nthem, if not from the church on earth, yet from the church in heaven.\nThe doctrine of Christ\u2019s parables is in entire contradiction to this\nnotion of irresistible influence; for they who refused, and they who\ncomplied but partially with the calling, are represented, not merely as\nbeing left without the benefit of the feast, but as incurring additional\nguilt and condemnation for refusing the invitation. It is to this offer\nof salvation by the Gospel, this invitation to spiritual and eternal\nbenefits, that St. Peter appears to refer, when he says, \u201cFor the\nPROMISE is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off,\neven as many as the Lord our God shall CALL,\u201d Acts ii, 39; a passage\nwhich declares \u201cthe promise\u201d to be as extensive as the \u201ccalling;\u201d in\nother words, as the offer or invitation. To this also St. Paul refers,\nRom. i, 5, 6: \u201cBy whom we have received grace and Apostleship, for\nobedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;\u201d that is, to\npublish his Gospel, in order to bring all nations to the obedience of\nfaith; \u201camong whom are ye also the CALLED of Jesus Christ;\u201d you at Rome\nhave heard the Gospel, and have been invited to salvation in consequence\nof this design. This promulgation of the Gospel, by the personal\nministry of the Apostle, under the name of _calling_, is also referred\nto in Gal. i, 6: \u201cI marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that\n_called you_ into the grace of Christ,\u201d obviously meaning, that it was\nhe himself who had called them, by his preaching, to embrace the grace\nof Christ. So also in chap. v, 13: \u201cFor, brethren, ye have been _called_\nunto liberty.\u201d Again: 1 Thess. ii, 12: \u201cThat ye would walk worthy of\nGod, who hath CALLED you,\u201d invited you, \u201cto his kingdom and glory.\u201d\n\n3. In our Lord\u2019s parable it will also be observed, that the persons\ncalled are not invited as separate individuals to partake of solitary\nblessings; but they are called to \u201ca feast,\u201d into a company or society,\nbefore whom the banquet is spread. The full revelation of the transfer\nof the visible church of Christ from Jews by birth, to believers of all\nnations, was not, however, then made. When this branch of the evangelic\nsystem was fully revealed to the Apostles, and taught by them to others,\nthat part of the meaning of our Lord\u2019s parable which was not at first\ndeveloped was more particularly discovered to his inspired followers.\nThe calling of guests to the evangelical feast, we then more fully\nlearn, was not the mere calling of men to partake of spiritual benefits;\nbut calling them also to form a spiritual society composed of Jews and\nGentiles, the believing men of all nations; to have a common fellowship\nin these blessings, and to be formed into this fellowship for the\npurpose of increasing their number, and diffusing the benefits of\nsalvation among the people or nation to which they respectively\nbelonged. The invitation, \u201cthe calling,\u201d of the first preachers was to\nall who heard them in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and other places;\nand those who embraced it, and joined themselves to the church by faith,\nbaptism, and continued public profession, were named, especially and\neminently, \u201cthe called,\u201d because of their obedience to the invitation.\nThey not only put in their claim to the blessings of Christianity\nindividually, but became members of the new church, that spiritual\nsociety of believers which God now visibly owned as his people. As they\nwere thus called into a common fellowship by the Gospel, this is\nsometimes termed their \u201cvocation;\u201d as the object of this church state\nwas to promote \u201choliness,\u201d it is termed a \u201choly vocation;\u201d as sanctity\nwas required of the members, they are said to have been \u201ccalled to be\nsaints;\u201d as the final result was, through the mercy of God, to be\neternal life, we hear of \u201cthe hope of their calling,\u201d and of their being\n\u201ccalled to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus.\u201d\n\n4. These views will abundantly explain the various passages in which the\nterm _calling_ occurs in the Epistles: \u201cEven us whom he hath _called_,\nnot of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,\u201d Rom. ix, 24; that is,\nwhom he hath made members of his church through faith. \u201cBut unto them\nwhich are _called_, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and\nthe wisdom of God;\u201d the wisdom and efficacy of the Gospel being, of\ncourse, acknowledged in their very profession of Christ, in opposition\nto those to whom the preaching of \u201cChrist crucified\u201d was \u201ca stumbling\nblock,\u201d and \u201cfoolishness,\u201d 1 Cor. i, 24. \u201cIs any man _called_,\u201d (brought\nto acknowledge Christ, and to become a member of his church,) \u201cbeing\ncircumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any _called_ in\nuncircumcision? let him not be circumcised,\u201d 1 Cor. vii, 18. \u201cThat ye\nwalk worthy of the _vocation_, wherewith ye are called. There is one\nbody, and one Spirit, even as ye are _called_ in one hope of your\ncalling,\u201d Eph. iv, 1, 4. \u201cThat ye would walk worthy of God, who hath\n_called_ you to his kingdom and glory,\u201d 1 Thess. ii, 12. \u201cThrough\nsanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he\n_called_ you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord\nJesus Christ,\u201d 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. \u201cWho hath saved us and _called_ us\nwith a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his\nown purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the\nworld began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour\nJesus Christ,\u201d 2 Tim. i, 9, 10. On this passage we may remark, that the\n\u201ccalling,\u201d and the \u201cpurpose\u201d mentioned in it, must of necessity be\ninterpreted to refer to the establishment of the church on the principle\nof faith, so that it might include men of all nations; and not, as\nformerly, be restricted to natural descent. For _personal election_, and\na purpose of _effectual personal calling_, could not have been hidden\ntill manifested by the \u201cappearing of Christ;\u201d since every instance of\ntrue conversion to God in any age prior to the appearing of Christ,\nwould be as much a manifestation of eternal election, and an instance of\npersonal effectual calling, according to the Calvinistic scheme, as it\nwas after the appearance of Christ. The Apostle is speaking of a purpose\nof God, which was kept _secret_ till revealed by the Christian system;\nand, from various other parallel passages, we learn that this secret,\nthis \u201cmystery,\u201d as he often calls it, was the union of the Jews and\nGentiles in \u201cone body,\u201d or church, by faith.\n\n5. In none of these passages is the doctrine of the exclusive calling of\na set number of men contained; and the synod of Dort, as though they\nfelt this, only attempt to _infer_ the doctrine from a text already\nquoted; but which we will now more fully notice: \u201cWhom he did\npredestinate, them he also _called_; and whom he _called_, them he also\njustified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified,\u201d Rom. viii,\n30. This is the text on which the Calvinists chiefly rest their doctrine\nof effectual calling; and tracing it, as they say, through its steps and\nlinks, they conclude, that a set and determinate number of persons\nhaving been predestinated unto salvation, this set number only are\n_called effectually_, then justified, and finally glorified. But this\npassage was evidently nothing to the purpose, unless it had spoken of a\nset and determinate number of men as predestinated and called,\nindependent of any consideration of their faith and obedience; which\nnumber as being determinate, would, by consequence exclude the rest. The\ncontext declares that those who are foreknown, and predestinated to\neternal glory, are true believers, those who \u201clove God,\u201d as stated in a\nsubsequent verse; for of such only the Apostle speaks; and when he adds,\n\u201cMoreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he\ncalled, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also\nglorified;\u201d he shows in particular how the divine purpose to glorify\nbelievers is carried into effect, through all its stages. The great\ninstrument of bringing men to \u201clove God\u201d is the Gospel; they are,\ntherefore, _called_, invited by it, to this state and benefit; the\ncalling being obeyed, they are _justified_; and being justified, and\ncontinuing in that state of grace, they are _glorified_. Nothing,\nhowever, is here said to favour the conclusion, that many others who\nwere _called_ by the Gospel, but refused, might not have been justified\nand glorified as well as they; nothing to distinguish this calling into\ncommon and effectual: and the very guilt which those are every where\nrepresented as contracting who despised the Gospel calling, shows that\nthey reject a grace which is sufficient, and sincerely intended, to save\nthem.\n\nCALNEH, a city in the land of Shinar, built by Nimrod, and one of the\ncities mentioned Genesis x, 10, as belonging to his kingdom. It is\nbelieved to be the same with Calno, mentioned in Isa. x, 9. It is said\nby the Chaldee interpreters, as also by Eusebius and Jerom, to be the\nsame with Ctesiphon, standing upon the Tigris, about three miles distant\nfrom Seleucia, and that for some time it was the capital city of the\nParthians. Bochart, Wells, and Micha\u00eblis, agree in this opinion.\n\nCALVARY, or, as it is called in Hebrew, _Golgotha_, \u201ca skull,\u201d or \u201cplace\nof skulls,\u201d supposed to be thus denominated from the similitude it bore\nto the figure of a skull or man\u2019s head, or from its being a place of\nburial. It was a small eminence or hill to the north of Mount Sion, and\nto the west of old Jerusalem, upon which our Lord was crucified. The\nancient summit of Calvary has been much altered, by reducing its level\nin some parts, and raising it in others, in order to bring it within the\narea of a large and irregular building, called \u201cThe Church of the Holy\nSepulchre,\u201d which now occupies its site. But in doing this, care has\nbeen taken that none of the parts connected with the crucifixion should\nsuffer any alteration. The same building also encloses within its\nspacious walls several other places reputed sacred. The places which\nclaim the chief attraction of the Christian visitant of this church, and\nthose only perhaps which can be relied on, are, the spot on which the\ncrucifixion took place, and the sepulchre in which our Lord was\nafterward laid. The first has been preserved without mutilation: being a\npiece of ground about ten yards square, in its original position; and so\nhigh above the common floor of the church, that there are, according to\nChateaubriand, twenty-one steps to ascend up to it. Mr. Buckingham\ndescribes the present mount as a rock, the summit of which is ascended\nby a steep flight of eighteen or twenty steps from the common level of\nthe church, which is equal with that of the street without; and beside\nthis, there is a descent of thirty steps, from the level of the church,\ninto the chapel of St. Helena, and by eleven more to the place where the\ncross was said to be found. On this little mount is shown the hole in\nwhich the cross was fixed; and near it the position of the crosses of\nthe two thieves: one, the penitent, on the north; and the other on the\nsouth. Here, also, is shown a cleft in the rock, said to have been\ncaused by the earthquake which happened at the crucifixion. The\nsepulchre, distant, according to Mr. Jolliffe, forty-three yards from\nthe cross, presents rather a singular and unexpected appearance to a\nstranger; who, for such a place, would naturally expect to find an\nexcavation in the ground, instead of which, he perceives it altogether\nraised, as if artificially, above its level. The truth is, that in the\nalterations which were made on Calvary, to bring all the principal\nplaces within the projected church, the earth around the sepulchre was\ndug away; so that, what was originally a cave in the earth has now the\nappearance of a closet or grotto above ground. The sepulchre itself is\nabout six feet square and eight high. There is a solid block of the\nstone left in excavating the rock, about two feet and a half from the\nfloor, and running along the whole of the inner side; on which the body\nof our Lord is said to have been laid. This, as well as the rest of the\nsepulchre, is now faced with marble: partly from the false taste which\nprevailed in the early ages of Christianity, in disguising with profuse\nand ill-suited embellishments the spots rendered memorable in the\nhistory of its Founder; and partly, perhaps, to preserve it from the\ndepredations of the visitants. This description of the holy sepulchre\nwill but ill accord with the notions entertained by some English readers\nof a grave; but a cave or grotto, thus excavated in rocky ground, on the\nside of a hill, was the common receptacle for the dead among the eastern\nnations. Such was the tomb of Christ; such that of Lazarus; and such are\nthe sepulchres still found in Judea and the east. It may be useful\nfarther to observe, that it was customary with Jews of property to\nprovide a sepulchre of this kind on their own ground, as the place of\ntheir interment after death; and it appears that Calvary itself, or the\nground immediately around it, was occupied with gardens; one of which\nbelonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who had then recently caused a new\nsepulchre to be made for himself. It was this sepulchre, so close at\nhand, and so appropriate, which he resigned for the use of our Lord;\nlittle thinking perhaps, at the time, how soon it would again be left\nvacant for its original purpose by his glorious resurrection.\n\nCALVINISM, that scheme of doctrine on predestination and grace, which\nwas taught by Calvin, the celebrated reformer, in the early part of the\nsixteenth century. His opinions are largely opened in the third book of\nhis \u201cInstitutes:\u201d \u201cPredestination we call the eternal decree of God; by\nwhich he hath determined in himself what he would have to become of\nevery individual of mankind. For they are not all created with similar\ndestiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal\ndamnation for others. Every man, therefore, being _created for one or\nother of these ends_, we say, he is predestinated, either to life, or to\ndeath.\u201d After having spoken of the election of the race of Abraham, and\nthen of particular branches of that race, he proceeds: \u201cThough it is\nsufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel, freely chooses whom\nhe will, and rejects others, his gratuitous election is but half\ndisplayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom God not only\noffers salvation, but _assigns_ it in such a manner that the certainty\nof the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt.\u201d He sums up the\nchapter, in which he thus generally states the doctrine, in these words:\n\u201cIn conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we\nassert, that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all\ndetermined both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would\ncondemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns\nthe elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of\nhuman merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate\nof life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but _incomprehensible_,\njudgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election;\nand justification as another token of its manifestation, till they\narrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his\nelect by vocation and justification, so by _excluding_ the reprobate\nfrom the knowledge of his name, and sanctification of his Spirit, he\naffords another indication of the judgment that awaits them,\u201d chap. 21,\nbook iii.\n\n2. In the commencement of the following chapter he thus rejects the\nnotion that predestination is to be understood as resulting from God\u2019s\nforeknowledge of what would be the conduct of either the elect or the\nreprobate: \u201cIt is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing\nwhat would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a\ncorrespondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as\nhis children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace; and\ndevotes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees\nwill be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure\nelection by covering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that\nit originates in another cause,\u201d book iii, chap. 22. Consistently with\nthis, he a little farther on asserts, that election does not flow from\nholiness, but holiness from election: \u201cFor when it is said, that the\nfaithful are elected that they should be holy, it is fully implied, that\nthe holiness they were in future to possess had its origin in election.\u201d\nHe proceeds to quote the example of Jacob and Esau, as loved and hated\nbefore they had done good or evil, to show that the only reason of\nelection and reprobation is to be placed in God\u2019s \u201csecret counsel.\u201d He\nwill not allow the future wickedness of the reprobate to have been\nconsidered in the decree of their rejection, any more than the\nrighteousness of the elect, as influencing their better fate: \u201c\u2018God hath\nmercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.\u2019 You\nsee how he (the Apostle) attributes _both_ to the _mere will_ of God.\nIf, therefore, we can assign no reason why he grants mercy to his people\nbut because such is his pleasure, neither shall we find any other cause\nbut _his will_ for the reprobation of others. For when God is said to\nharden, or show mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught, by this\ndeclaration, to seek _no cause beside his will_.\u201d (_Ibid._) \u201cMany,\nindeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in\nsuch a way as to deny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile\nand absurd; because election itself could not exist, without being\nopposed to reprobation;--whom God _passes by he therefore reprobates_;\nand _from no other cause_ than his determination to exclude them from\nthe inheritance which he predestines for his children,\u201d book iii, chap.\nxxiii.\n\n3. This is the scheme of predestination as exhibited by Calvin; and to\nthe objection taken from justice, he replies, \u201cThey\u201d (the objectors)\n\u201cinquire by what right the Lord is angry with his creatures who had not\nprovoked him by any previous offence; for that to devote to destruction\nwhom he pleases, is more like the caprice of a tyrant, than the lawful\nsentence of a judge. If such thoughts ever enter into the minds of pious\nmen, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this\none consideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is, only to inquire\ninto the causes of the divine _will_; which is, in fact, and is justly\nentitled to be, the _cause_ of every thing that exists. For if it has\nany cause, then there must be something antecedent on which it depends,\nwhich it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule\nof justice; so that what he wills must be considered just, for this very\nreason, because he wills it.\u201d Thus he assumes the very thing in dispute,\nthat God has willed the destruction of any part of the human race, \u201cfor\nno other cause than because he _wills it_;\u201d of which assumption there is\nnot only not a word of proof in Scripture; but, on the contrary, it\nascribes the death of him that dieth to his own will, and not to the\nwill of God. 2. He pretends that to assign any _cause_ to the divine\nwill is to suppose something antecedent to, something above God, and\ntherefore \u201cimpious;\u201d as if we might not suppose something IN God to be\nthe rule of his will, not only without any impiety, but with truth and\npiety; as, for instance, his perfect wisdom, holiness, justice, and\ngoodness; or, in other words, to believe the exercise of his will to\nflow from the perfection of his whole nature; a much more honourable and\nScriptural view of the will of God than that which subjects it to no\nrule, even though it should arise from the nature of God himself. 3.\nWhen he calls the will of God, \u201cthe highest rule of justice,\u201d beyond\nwhich we cannot push our inquiries, he confounds the will of God, as a\nrule of justice _to us_, and as a rule to himself. This will is our\nrule; yet even then, because we know that it is the will of a perfect\nbeing: but when Calvin represents _mere will_ as constituting God\u2019s own\nrule of justice, he shuts out knowledge, discrimination of the nature of\nthings, and holiness; which is saying something very different from that\ngreat truth, that God cannot will any thing but what is perfectly just.\nIt is to say that blind will, will which has no respect to any thing but\nitself, is God\u2019s highest rule of justice; a position which, if presented\nabstractedly, many Calvinists themselves would spurn. 4. He determines\nthe question by the authority of his own metaphysics, and totally\nforgets that one _dictum_ of inspiration overturns his whole\ntheory,--God \u201c_willeth_ all men to be saved;\u201d a declaration, which in no\npart of the sacred volume is opposed or limited by any contrary\ndeclaration.\n\n4. Calvin was not, however, content thus to leave the matter; but\nresorts to an argument, in which he has been generally followed by those\nwho have adopted his system with some mitigations: \u201cAs we are all\ncorrupted by sin, we must necessarily be odious to God, and that not\nfrom tyrannical cruelty, but in the most _equitable estimation_ of\njustice. If all whom the Lord predestinates to death are, in their\nnatural condition, liable to the sentence of death, what injustice do\nthey complain of receiving from him?\u201d To this Calvin very fairly states\nthe obvious rejoinder made in his day; and which the common sense of\nmankind will always make,--\u201cThey object, Were they not by the decree of\nGod antecedently predestinated to that corruption which is now stated as\nthe _cause_ of their condemnation? When they perish in their corruption,\ntherefore, they only suffer the punishment of that misery into which, in\nconsequence of his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his\nposterity with him.\u201d The manner in which Calvin attempts to meet this\nobjection, shows how truly unanswerable it is upon his system. \u201cI\nconfess,\u201d says he, \u201cindeed, that all the descendants of Adam fell, _by\nthe Divine will_, into that miserable condition in which they are now\ninvolved; and this is what I asserted from the beginning, that we must\nalways return at last _to the sovereign determination of God\u2019s will_;\nthe cause of which is hidden in himself. But it follows not, therefore,\nthat God is liable to this reproach; for we will answer them in the\nlanguage of Paul, \u2018O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall\nthe thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus\u2019\u201d\nThat is, in order to escape the pinch of the objection, he assumes that\nSt. Paul affirms that God has \u201cformed\u201d a part of the human race for\neternal misery; and that, by imposing silence upon them, he intended to\ndeclare that this proceeding in God was just. Now the passage may be\nproved from its context to have no respect to the eternal state of men\nat all; but, if that were less obvious, it gives no answer to the\nobjection; and we are brought round again, as indeed he confesses, to\nhis former, and indeed only, argument, that the whole matter as he\nstates it, is to be referred back to the divine will; which will, though\nperfectly arbitrary, is, as he contends, the highest rule of justice: \u201cI\nsay, with Augustine, that the Lord created those whom he certainly\nforeknew would fall into destruction; and that this was actually so,\nbecause _he willed it_; but of his will, it belongs not to us to demand\nthe reason, which we are incapable of comprehending; nor is it\nreasonable, that the divine will should be made the subject of\ncontroversy with us, which is only another name for the highest rule of\njustice.\u201d Thus he shuts us out from pursuing the argument. But the\nevasion proves the objection unanswerable. For if all is to be resolved\ninto the mere will of God as to the destruction of the reprobate; if\nthey were created for this purpose, as Calvin expressly affirms; if they\nfell into their corruption in pursuance of God\u2019s determination; if, as\nhe had said before, \u201cGod passes them by, and reprobates them, _from no\nother_ cause than his determination to exclude them from the inheritance\nof his children,\u201d why refer to their natural corruption at all, and\ntheir being odious to God in that state, since the same reason is given\nfor their corruption as for their reprobation?--not any fault of theirs;\nbut the mere will of God, \u201cthe reprobation hidden in his secret\ncounsel,\u201d and that not grounded on the visible and tangible fact of\ntheir demerit. Thus the election taught by Calvin is not the choice of\nsome persons to peculiar grace from the whole mass, equally deserving of\npunishment; (though this is a sophism;) since, in that case, the decree\nof reprobation would rest upon God\u2019s foreknowledge of those passed by as\ncorrupt and guilty, which notion he rejects: \u201cFor since God foresees\nfuture events only in consequence of _his decree that they shall\nhappen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is\nevident that all things come to pass rather by _ordination and decree_.\u201d\n\u201cIt is a HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess; but no one can deny that God\nforeknew the future fate of man before he created him; and that he did\nforeknow it, because it was _appointed_ by his own decree.\u201d Agreeably to\nthis, he repudiates the distinction between will and permission: \u201cFor\nwhat reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his\nwill? It is _not probable_, however, that man procured his own\ndestruction by the mere _permission_, and without any _appointment_, of\nGod.\u201d\n\n5. With this doctrine he again attempts to reconcile the demerit of men:\n\u201cTheir perdition depends on the divine predestination in such a manner,\nthat the _cause_ and _matter_ of it are found _in themselves_. For the\nfirst man fell because the Lord had determined it should so happen. The\nreason of this determination is unknown to us.--Man, therefore, falls\naccording to the _appointment_ of divine providence; but he falls by\n_his own fault_. The Lord had a little before pronounced every thing\nthat he had made to be \u2018very good.\u2019 Whence, then, comes the depravity of\nman to revolt from his God? Lest it should be thought to come from\ncreation, God approved and commended what had proceeded from himself. By\nhis own wickedness, therefore, man corrupted the nature he had received\npure from the Lord, and by his fall he drew all his posterity with him\nto destruction.\u201d It is in this way that Calvin attempts to avoid the\ncharge of making God the author of sin. But how God should not merely\n_permit_ the defection of the first man, but _appoint_ it, and _will_\nit, and that his will should be the \u201cnecessity of things,\u201d (all which he\nhad before asserted,) and yet that Deity should not be the author of\nthat which he _appointed_, _willed_, and _imposed a necessity upon_,\nwould be rather a delicate inquiry. It is enough that Calvin rejects the\nimpious doctrine; and even though his principles directly lead to it,\nsince he has put in his disclaimer, he is entitled to be exempted from\nthe charge;--but the logical conclusion is inevitable.\n\n6. In much the same manner he contends that the necessity of sinning is\nlaid upon the reprobate by the ordination of God, and yet denies God to\nbe the author of their sinful acts, since the corruption of men was\nderived from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God. He exhorts us\n\u201crather to contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, which is\nnearer to us, in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a\nhidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in the predestination of\nGod.\u201d \u201cFor though, by the eternal providence of God, man was _created_\nto that misery to which he is subject, yet the _ground_ of it he has\nderived from himself, not God; since he is thus ruined, solely in\nconsequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to\nvicious and impure depravity.\u201d Thus, almost in the same breath, he\naffirms that men became reprobate from no other cause than \u201cthe will of\nGod,\u201d and his \u201csovereign determination;\u201d that men have no reason \u201cto\nexpostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death,\nwithout _any demerit_ of their own, merely by his sovereign will;\u201d--and\nthen, that the corrupt nature of mankind is the _evident_ and _nearer_\ncause of condemnation; (which cause, however, was still a matter of\n\u201cappointment,\u201d and \u201cordination,\u201d not \u201cpermission;\u201d) and that man is\n\u201cruined solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure\nstate in which God created him.\u201d These propositions manifestly fight\nwith each other; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in man\u2019s\ncorruption, it cannot be laid in the mere will and sovereign\ndetermination of God, unless we suppose him to be the author of sin. It\nis this offensive doctrine only, which can reconcile them. For if God so\nwills, and appoints, and necessitates the depravity of man, as to be the\nauthor of it, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the ruin of\nthe reprobate is both from the mere will of God, and from the corruption\nof their nature, which is but the result of that will. The one is then,\nas Calvin states, the \u201cevident and nearer cause,\u201d the other the more\nremote and hidden one; yet they have the same source, and are\nsubstantially acts of the same will. But if it be denied that God is, in\nany sense, the author of evil, and if sin is from man alone, then is the\n\u201ccorruption of nature\u201d the effect of an independent will; and if this\ncorruption be the \u201creal source,\u201d as he says, of men\u2019s condemnation, then\nthe decree of reprobation rests not upon the sovereign will of God, as\nits sole cause, which he affirms; but upon a cause dependent on the will\nof the first man: but as this is denied, then the other must follow.\nCalvin himself, indeed, contends for the perfect concurrence of these\nproximate and remote causes, although in point of fact, to have been\nperfectly consistent with himself, he ought rather to have called the\n_mere will of God_ THE CAUSE of the decree of reprobation, and the\ncorruption of man THE MEANS by which it is carried into\neffect:--language which he sanctions, and which many of his followers\nhave not scrupled to adopt.\n\n7. So certainly does this opinion involve in it the consequences, that\nin sin man is the instrument, and God the actor, that it cannot be\nmaintained, as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. For as two\ncauses of reprobation are expressly laid down, they must be either\nopposed to each other, or be consenting. If they are opposed, the scheme\nis given up; if consenting, then are both reprobation and human\ncorruption the results of the same will, the same decree, and necessity.\nIt would be trifling to say that the decree does not influence; for if\nso, it is no decree in Calvin\u2019s sense, who understands the decree of\nGod, as the foregoing extracts and the whole third book of his\n\u201cInstitutes\u201d plainly show, as _appointing_ what shall be, and by that\nappointment making it _necessary_. Otherwise, he could not reject the\ndistinction between will and permission, and avow the sentiment of St.\nAugustine, \u201cthat the will of God is the necessity of things; and that\nwhat he has willed will necessarily come to pass,\u201d book iii, chap. 23,\nsec. 8. So, in writing to Castellio, he makes the sin of Adam the result\nof an act of God: \u201cYou say Adam fell by his free will. I except against\nit. That he might not fall, he stood in need of that strength and\nconstancy with which God armeth all the elect, as long as he will keep\nthem blameless. Whom God has elected, he props up with an invincible\npower unto perseverance. Why did he not afford this to Adam, if he would\nhave had him stand in his integrity?\u201d And with this view of necessity,\nas resulting from the decree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin\ncoincided; the end and the means, as to the elect, and as to the\nreprobate, are equally fixed by the decree, and are both to be traced to\nthe _appointing_ and _ordaining_ will of God. On such a scheme it is\ntherefore worse than trifling to attempt to make out a case of justice\nin favour of this assumed divine procedure, by alleging the corruption\nand guilt of man: a point which, indeed, Calvin himself, in fact, gives\nup when he says, \u201cThat the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made\nknown to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of\ntheir hearts, _provided it be at the same time stated_, that they are\nabandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up by a just\nbut _inscrutable_ judgment of God, to display his glory in their\ncondemnation.\u201d\n\n8. It was by availing themselves of the ineffectual struggles of Calvin\nto give some colour of justice to his reprobating decree by fixing upon\nthe corruption of man as a cause of reprobation, that some of his\nfollowers endeavoured, in the very teeth of his own express words, to\nreduce his system to sublapsarianism. This was attempted by Amyraldus;\nwho was answered by Curcell\u00e6us, in his tract \u201c_De Jure Dei in\nCreaturas_.\u201d This last writer, partly by several of the same passages we\nhave given above from Calvin\u2019s Institutes, and by extracts from his\nother writings, proves that Calvin did by no means consider man, as\nfallen, to be the object of reprobation; but man not yet created; man as\nto be created, and so reprobated, under no consideration in the divine\nmind of his fall or actual guilt, except as _consequences_ of an eternal\npreterition of the _persons_ of the reprobate, resolvable only into the\nsovereign pleasure of God. The references he makes to men as corrupt,\nand to their corrupt state as the proximate cause of their rejection,\nare all manifestly used to parry off rather than to answer objections,\nand somewhat to moderate and soften, as Curcell\u00e6us observes, the harsher\nparts of his system. And, indeed, for what reason are we so often\nbrought back to that unfailing refuge of Calvin, \u201cthe presumption and\nwickedness of replying against God?\u201d For if reprobation be a matter of\nhuman _desert_, it cannot be a mystery; if it be adequate punishment for\nan adequate fault, there is no need to urge it upon us to bow with\nsubmission to an unexplained sovereignty. We may add, there is no need\nto speak of a remote or first cause of reprobation, if the _proximate_\ncause will explain the whole case; and that Calvin\u2019s continual reference\nto God\u2019s _secret counsel_, and _will_, and _inscrutable judgment_, could\nhave no aptness to his argument. Among English divines, Dr. Twisse has\nsufficiently defended Calvin from the _charge_, as he esteems it, of\nsublapsarianism; and, whatever merit Twisse\u2019s own supralapsarian creed\nmay have, his argument on this point is unanswerable.\n\n9. As it is not intended here to enter into this controversy, on which\nmultitudes of books have been written, and the leading authors are known\nalmost to every one, the above may be sufficient to convey a just notion\nof Calvin\u2019s own opinions. After these subjects had long agitated the\nreformed churches, and given rise to several modifications of Calvin\u2019s\noriginal scheme, and to numerous writings in refutation of it, the synod\nof Dort digested the whole into five articles from which arose the\ncelebrated controversy on the _five points_. These articles, as being\nthe standard of what is generally called strict Calvinism, are, in\nsubstance, as follows:--\n\n(1.) \u201c_Of Predestination._ As all men have sinned in Adam, and have\nbecome exposed to the curse and eternal death, God would have done no\ninjustice to any one, if he had determined to leave the whole human race\nunder sin and the curse, and to condemn them on account of sin;\naccording to those words of the Apostle, \u2018All the world is become guilty\nbefore God,\u2019 Rom. iii, 19, 23; vi, 23. That some, _in time_, have faith\ngiven them by God, and others have it not given, proceeds from his\neternal decree; for \u2018known unto God are all his works from the\nbeginning,\u2019 &c, Acts xv, 18; Eph. i, 11. According to which decree, he\ngraciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard, and he bends\nthem to believe; but the non-elect he leaves, in his judgment, to their\nown perversity and hardness. And here, especially, a deep\ndiscrimination, at the same time both merciful and just; a\ndiscrimination of men equally lost, opens itself to us; or that decree\nof election and reprobation which is revealed in the word of God; which,\nas perverse, impure, and unstable persons do wrest to their own\ndestruction, so it affords ineffable consolation to holy and pious\nsouls. But election is the immutable purpose of God; by which, before\nthe foundations of the world were laid, he chose, out of the whole human\nrace, fallen by their own fault from their primeval integrity into sin\nand destruction, according to the most free _good pleasure_ of his own\nwill, and of _mere grace_, a certain number of men, neither better nor\nworthier than others, but lying in the same misery with the rest, to\nsalvation in Christ; whom he had, even from eternity, constituted\nMediator and head of all the elect, and the foundation of salvation; and\ntherefore he decreed to give them unto him to be saved, and effectually\nto call and draw them into communion with him, by his word and Spirit;\nor he decreed himself to give unto them true faith, to justify, to\nsanctify, and at length powerfully to glorify them, &c, Eph. i, 4\u20136;\nRom. viii, 30. This same election is not made from any _foreseen_ faith,\nobedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality and disposition,\nas a _pre-requisite_ cause or condition in the man who should be\nelected, &c. \u2018He hath chosen us,\u2019 not because we _were_, but \u2018that we\n_might_ be, holy,\u2019 &c, Eph. i, 4; Rom. ix, 11\u201313; Acts xiii, 48.\nMoreover, Holy Scripture doth illustrate and commend to us this eternal\nand free grace of our election, in this more especially, that it doth\ntestify all men not to be elected; but that some are non-elect, or\n_passed by_, in the eternal election of God, whom truly God, from most\nfree, just, irreprehensible, and immutable good pleasure, decreed to\nleave in the _common misery_ into which they had, by _their own fault_,\ncast themselves; and not to bestow on them living faith, and the grace\nof conversion; but having been left in their own ways, and under just\njudgment, at length, not only on account of their unbelief, but also of\nall their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish them, to the\nmanifestation of his own justice. And this is the decree of\n_reprobation_, which determines that God is, in no wise, the author of\nsin, (which, to be thought of, is blasphemy,) but a tremendous,\nincomprehensible, just judge, and avenger.\u201c\n\n(2.) \u201c_Of the Death of Christ._\u201d Passing over, for brevity\u2019s sake, what\nis said of the necessity of atonement, in order to pardon, and of Christ\nhaving offered that atonement and satisfaction, it is added, \u201cThis death\nof the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and\nsatisfaction for sins; of infinite value and price, abundantly\nsufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; but because many who\nare called by the Gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but\nperish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency of\nthe sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own\nfault. God willed that Christ, through the blood of the cross, should,\nout of every people, tribe, nation, and language, _efficaciously_ redeem\nall those, and those _only_, who were from eternity chosen to salvation,\nand given to him by the Father; that he should confer on them the gift\nof faith,\u201d &c.\n\n(3.) \u201c_Of Man\u2019s Corruption, &c._ All men are conceived in sin, and born\nthe children of wrath, indisposed (_inepti_) to all saving good,\npropense to evil, dead in sin, and the slaves of sin; and without the\nregenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they neither are willing nor able\nto return to God, to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose\nthemselves to the correction of it.\u201c\n\n(4.) \u201c_Of Grace and Free will._ But in like manner as, by the fall, man\ndoes not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will; neither hath\nsin, which hath pervaded the whole human race, taken away the nature of\nthe human species, but it hath depraved and spiritually stained it; so\nthat even this divine grace of regeneration does not act upon men like\nstocks and trees, nor take away the properties of his will; or violently\ncompel it, while unwilling; but it spiritually quickens, heals,\ncorrects, and sweetly, and at the same time powerfully, inclines it; so\nthat whereas before it was wholly governed by the rebellion and\nresistance of the _flesh_, now prompt and sincere obedience of the\nSpirit may begin to reign; in which the renewal of our spiritual will,\nand our liberty, truly consist; in which manner, (or for which reason,)\nunless the admirable Author of all good should work in us, there could\nbe no hope to man of rising from the fall by that _free will_, by which,\nwhen standing, he fell into ruin.\u201d\n\n(5.) \u201c_On Perseverance._ God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable\npurpose of election, does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his\nown, even in lamentable falls; nor does he so permit them to glide down,\n(_prolabi_,) that they should fall from the grace of adoption, and the\nstate of justification; or commit the \u2018sin unto death,\u2019 or against the\nHoly Spirit; that, being deserted by him, they should cast themselves\nheadlong into eternal destruction. So that not by their own merits or\nstrength, but by the gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain it, that they\nneither _totally fall_ from faith and grace, nor _finally continue_ in\ntheir falls and perish.\u201d\n\n10. The controversy on these difficult subjects was not decided by the\ndecrees of the synod of Dort, which, it will be seen under that article,\nwere purposely drawn up in a politic and wary manner, so as to quadrate\nwith the opinions, and not to outrage the feelings, of any grade of\nCalvinists. Prior to the convention of that celebrated assembly, the\ndoctrines of Calvin had been refined upon and incautiously carried out\nto some of their legitimate consequences, in a manner almost without\nprecedent, except that of the Mohammedan doctors on the absolute fate\nwhich holds a distinguished place in the Koran. Several of the brightest\nand most acute wits in Europe occupied themselves in sublimating to the\nheight of extravagance the two kindred branches of predestination,--the\neternal and absolute election of certain men to everlasting glory, and\nthe reprobation of the rest of mankind to endless punishment, without\nregard in the divine mind to the foreseen faith of one class or to the\nforeseen unbelief of the other. This course was commenced by Beza, the\ncontemporary and successor of Calvin, who possessed neither his genius\nnor his caution; and his writings contain several rash assertions on\nthese points, which, it is probable, would never have obtained the\napprobation of his departed friend and instructer. Zanchius, with true\nItalian astuteness, carried on this process of refinement in high style;\nand his predestinarian _improvements_ were only equalled by those of\nPiscator, Pareus, Keckerman, Hommius, Kimedontius, Polanus, Sturmius,\nDan\u00e6us, Thysius, Donteklock, Bogerman, Gomar, Smoutius, Triglandius,\ndown to the minor tribe of Contra-Remonstrants, Damman, Maccovius, and\nSibrandus Lubbertus. Nor were the clever divines of our own country a\nwhit behind the foreigners in accomplishing this grand object; and the\ntheological reader, on seeing the names of Perkins, Whitaker, Abbot, and\nTwisse, will instantly recognise men whose doctrinal vagaries were\nfamiliar to all the Calvinists in Europe. No one can form an adequate\nconception of the injury thus inflicted on the divine attributes of\nwisdom, goodness, and mercy, as they have been revealed in the\nScriptures, unless he has read the immense mass of quotations from the\nwritings of these and other divines, which were presented to the notice\nof the synod of Dort by the Remonstrants, especially in their _Rejection\nof Errors_ under each of the five points in dispute; the proofs of which\nwere quoted from their respective authors, and the accuracy and\nfaithfulness of which were never called in question. Not only would the\nminds of all sober Christians in these days be shocked when perusing the\nmonstrous sentiments propounded in those extracts, but even the\ntolerably stiff Calvinists of Oliver Cromwell\u2019s time felt themselves\nscandalized by any allusion to them, and would not admit that their\nopinions had the least affinity to such desecrating dogmas. Little more\nthan twenty years after the synod of Dort, that distinguished polemical\ndivine and accurate scholar, Dr. Thomas Pierce, published his able and\nvery interesting pamphlet, entitled, \u201cA Correct Copy of Some Notes\nconcerning God\u2019s Decrees;\u201d in which, without naming the authors, he gave\nten extracts from celebrated Calvinistic treatises, to prove, that\n\u201cthere are men of no small name who have told the world, that all the\nevil of sin which is in man proceedeth from God only as the author, and\nfrom man only as the instrument.\u201d Four of these extracts will furnish\nsufficient matter to every judicious mind for mournful reflections on\nthe strange obliquities to which the human understanding is\nliable:--(1.) \u201cA wicked man, by the just impulse of God, doeth that\nwhich is not lawful for him to do.\u201d (2.) \u201cWhen God makes an angel or a\nman a transgressor, he himself doth not transgress, because he doth not\nbreak a law. The very same sin, namely, adultery or murder, inasmuch as\nit is the work of God, the author, mover, and compeller, is not a crime;\nbut inasmuch as it is of man, it is a wickedness.\u201d (3.) \u201cGod can will\nthat man shall not fall, by his will which is called _voluntas signi_;\nand in the mean while he can ordain that the same man shall infallibly\nand efficaciously fall, by his will which is called _voluntas\nbeneplaciti_. The former will of God is improperly called his will, for\nit only signifieth what man ought to do by right; but the latter will is\nproperly called a will, because by that he decreed what should\ninevitably come to pass.\u201d (4.) \u201cGod\u2019s will doth pass, not only into the\npermission of the sin, but into the sin itself which is permitted. The\nDominicans,\u201d the high predestinarian order in the church of Rome, \u201cdo\nimperfectly and obscurely relate the truth whilst, beside God\u2019s\nconcurrence to the making way for sin, they require nothing but the\nnegation of efficacious grace, when it is manifest that there is a\nfarther prostitution of sin required.\u201d Of these four passages the first\nis from Calvin himself, the second from Zuinglius, and the third and\nfourth from Dr. Twisse. This pamphlet was the first in a smart\ncontroversy, in which Doctor (afterward Bishop) Reynolds, Baxter,\nHickman, and Barlee, took part against Dr. Pierce, but in which those\neminent men virtually disclaimed all community of sentiment between\nthemselves and such high predestinarians. In their warmth, however, they\naccused the Doctor of having \u201crifled the well-furnished cabinet of the\nBatavian Remonstrant writings,\u201d and of not having hesitated \u201cto be\nbeholden to very thieves, namely, such roguish pamphlets as _Fur\nPredestinatus_ and others are, rather than want materials for invectives\nagainst Calvin, Beza, Twisse,\u201d &c. In his reply, the Doctor says, \u201cWhen\nI published my papers on God\u2019s decrees, I had never so much as seen that\nwell-furnished cabinet, the \u2018_Acta Synodalia Remonstrantium_;\u2019\u201d and he\nproves that he has copied none of his extracts from _Fur Predestinatus_.\nAs his opponents were \u201cso unthankful for the lenity\u201d which he had\ndisplayed in giving \u201cso _short_ a catalogue,\u201d he added other\naffirmations of a still more revolting import, if that were possible.\nThe four extracts which follow, will serve as a correct specimen of the\ngross and unguarded assertions of some of those good men who were thus\nexposed; the first two are from Zanchius, the other two from Piscator,\nboth of them men of renown in that age:--(1.) \u201cReprobates are compelled\nwith a necessity of sinning, and so of perishing, by this ordination of\nGod; and so compelled that they cannot choose but sin and perish.\u201d (2.)\n\u201cGod works all things in all men, not only in the godly, but also in the\nungodly.\u201d (3.) \u201cJudas could not but betray Christ, seeing that God\u2019s\ndecrees are immutable; and whether a man bless or curse, he always doth\nit necessarily in respect of God\u2019s providence, and in so doing he doeth\nalways according to the will of God.\u201d (4.) \u201cIt doth or at least may\nappear from the word of God, that we neither can do more good than we\ndo, nor omit more evil than we omit; because God from eternity hath\nprecisely decreed that both [the good and the evil] should so be done.\nIt is fatally constituted when, and how, and how much, every one of us\nought to study and love piety, or not to love it.\u201d In that newly\nemancipated age, the ample discussion of these topics could not fail to\nproduce much good; and the result in the course of a few years was, that\na vast number of those who had implicitly followed the guidance of\nCalvin, deserted his standard, and either went completely over to the\nranks of Arminius, or halted midway under the command of Baxter. From\nthat time to the middle of the eighteenth century, those dogmas which\nare usually designated as ultra-Calvinian or Antinomian, received no\nsupport except from such shallow divines as Dr. Crisp and his immediate\nadmirers. But when the Rev. John Wesley and his brother, as Arminians,\npropounded the doctrines of the Gospel in as evangelical a manner, and\nwith as marked success, as any Calvinist, a number of those excellent\nmen, both in the church and among the Dissenters, who had been early\nbenefited by the ministry of the two brothers, thought, as many now do,\nthat it was impossible for any thing to be evangelical that was not\nCalvinistic; and, apparently with the design of being at as great a\nremove as possible from a reputed heresy, they became in principle real\nAntinomians. In forming this conclusion, and in running to a supposed\nopposite extreme, such persons seem to have forgotten that those truly\nevangelical principles,--which in Germany and the neighbouring states\neffected the reformation from Popery, which transformed sinners into\nChristians and martyrs, and which, in the perverted state of society\nthat then obtained, but too painfully reminded the sainted sufferers of\nthe domestic, municipal, and national grievances and persecutions to\nwhich the earliest confessors of the name of Christ were subjected,--had\nbeen in beneficial operation long before Calvin\u2019s doctrinal system was\nbrought to maturity, and when he was known only as the humble and\ndiligent pastor of the church of Geneva. And even after the publication\nof his \u201cInstitutes,\u201d which contained the peculiarities of his creed, he\nhad to wait many years, to labour hard, not always in the most\nsanctified spirit, both from the pulpit and the press, and to endure\nmany personal mortifications, before he was able to obtrude his novel\ndogmas on his own immediate connections, or to make any sensible\nimpression on the generally received theology of his learned\ncontemporaries. Such persons ought also to recollect, that, as Dr. Watts\njustly observes, \u201csome of the most rigid and narrow limitations of grace\nto men are found chiefly in Calvin\u2019s _Institutions_, which were written\nin his youth. But his comments on Scripture were the labours of his\nriper years and maturer judgment.\u201d\n\n11. His first tract on predestination was published in 1552; and the\nfirst complete edition of his \u201cInstitutes\u201d did not see the light till\nthe year 1558; but the change in Melancthon\u2019s opinions, from the\nfatality of Stoicism, to the universality of the Gospel, occurred at\nleast six years prior to 1535, when the second edition of his \u201cCommon\nPlaces\u201d was published, that contained his amended creed, and strong\ncautions against the contrary doctrines. One of the most eloquent and\nbest informed writers of the present age has, in reference to this\nsubject, justly observed: \u201cBoth Luther and Melancthon, after their creed\nbecame permanently settled at the diet of Augsburg, (A. D. 1530,) kept\none object constantly in view,--to inculcate only what was plain and\npractical, and never to attempt philosophizing. They perceived, that\nbefore the reformation the doctrine of divine foreknowledge had been\ngrossly misconceived and abused, although guarded by all the logic of\nthe schools; and they felt, that, after it, they had themselves at first\ncontributed to increase the evil, by grounding upon the same high\nargument, although for a very different purpose, the position of an\ninfallible necessity. Thenceforward, therefore, they only taught a\npredestination which the Christian religion explains, and the Christian\nlife exemplifies. Thus, while their adversaries philosophized upon a\npredestination of individuals, preferred one before another by divine\nregard because worthy of such a preference, they taught only that which\nhas been revealed with certainty,--the predestination of a peculiar\ndescription of persons, of _a people zealous of good works_, of the\nChristian church contemplated as an aggregate, not on account of its own\ndignity, but on account of Christ its supreme Head, and _the author of\neternal salvation to all who obey him_. While restoring Scriptural\nsimplicity to the doctrine of predestination, perplexed and disfigured\nby the vanity of the schools, they studiously and anxiously preserved\nevery trace of that universal benevolence by which Christianity is\nparticularly distinguished. \u2018Let us,\u2019 they said, \u2018with both our hands,\nor rather with all our heart, hold fast the true and pious maxim, that\nGod is not the author of sin, that he sits not in heaven writing Stoical\nlaws in the volumes of fate; but, endowed with a perfect freedom\nhimself, he communicates a liberty of action to his creatures; firmly\nopposing the position of necessity as false, and pernicious to morals\nand religion. God, we may be assured, is no cruel and merciless tyrant;\nhe does not hate and reject men, but loves them as a parent loves his\nchildren.\u2019 Universal grace, indeed, was at all times a favourite topic\nwith the Lutherans; nor would they admit of any predestination except\nthat of a beneficent Deity, who was _in Christ reconciling the world to\nhimself_; except a predestination conformable with that order of things\nwhich he has established, and with the use or abuse of the means which\nhe has ordained. \u2018The Almighty,\u2019 they said, \u2018has seriously willed and\ndecreed, from eternity, all men to be saved and to enjoy everlasting\nfelicity; let us not therefore indulge in evil suggestions, and separate\nourselves from his grace, which is as expanded as the space between\nheaven and earth; let us not restrain the general promise, in which he\noffers his favour to all without discrimination, nor confine it to those\nwho, affecting a peculiar garb, wish to be alone esteemed pious and\nsanctified. If many perish, the fault is not to be imputed to the divine\nwill, but to human obstinacy, which despises that will, and disregards a\nsalvation destined for all men.\u2019 \u2018And because _many are called, but few\nare chosen_, let us not,\u2019 they added, \u2018entertain an opinion highly\nimpious,--that God tenders his grace to many, but communicates it only\nto a few; for should we not in the greatest degree detest a Deity by\nwhose arbitrary will we believed ourselves to be excluded from\nsalvation?\u2019 Upon the important point likewise of the conditional\nacceptance of the individual, their ideas were not more distinct than\ntheir language was explicit. \u2018If God chose,\u2019 they argued, \u2018certain\npersons only in order to unite them to himself, and rejected the\nremainder in all respects alike, would not such AN ELECTION WITHOUT\nCAUSES seem tyrannical? Let us therefore be persuaded, that some cause\nexists in us, as some difference is to be found between those who are,\nand those who are not, accepted.\u2019 Thus they conceived that,\npredestinating his elect in Christ, or the Christian church, to eternal\nsalvation, he excludes none from that number by a partial adoption of\nfavourites, but calls all equally, and accepts of all who obey his\ncalling, or, in other words, who become true Christians by possessing\nthe qualifications which Christianity requires.--'He,' they stated, who\n\u2018falls from grace, cannot but perish, completely losing remission of\nsin, with the other benefits which Christ has purchased for him, and\nacquiring in their stead divine wrath and death eternal.\u2019 Melancthon,\nwho in his private correspondence expressly termed Calvin the Zeno of\nhis day, says, \u2018Let us execrate the Stoical disputations which some\nintroduce, who imagine that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit,\neven when they commit atrocious crimes,--a manifest and highly\nreprehensible error; and let us not confirm in fools security and\nblindness.\u2019\u201d\n\nThese quotations might be augmented by others from the earliest Lutheran\nauthors, more Arminian in their import than any which Arminius ever\nwrote: but the preceding are sufficient to show, that, during upward of\nthirty years, the Protestant church in Germany was nourished by\ndoctrines most manifestly at variance with the refinements afterward\npromulgated by Calvin. Real conversions of sinners were never more\nabundant than in that golden age; yet these were produced by the\nblessing of God upon an evangelical agency that had scarcely any thing\nin common with the Genevan dogmas. With these and similar facts before\nhim, therefore, no Calvinist can in common honesty claim for the\npeculiarities of his creed, for those doctrines which distinguish it\nfrom the Melancthonism of the Protestant churches of England and\nGermany, the exclusive title of EVANGELICAL. Equally fallacious is the\nground on which he can prefer any such claim on account of the alleged\ncounsel and advice given by Calvin to our reformers while they were\nengaged in the formation of our Articles and Liturgy. On no fact in the\necclesiastical history of this country are our annalists more completely\nat agreement than on this,--that Calvin\u2019s name and writings were\nscarcely known in England till the time when the persecution under Queen\nMary forced many of our best divines into banishment; and that, to the\ngreat future disquietude of the church, several of these exiles on their\nreturn imported a personal bias either in favour of his discipline or of\nhis dogmas. Anterior to that period he had received no such pressing\ninvitations from our reformers, and from the king himself, as Melancthon\nhad done, for his friendly theological aid in drawing up the doctrinal\nand disciplinary formul\u00e6 of our national church. The man who asserts the\ncontrary to this, and who has the hardihood to deny the Melancthonian\norigin of the Articles and Liturgy, discovers at once his want of\ncorrect information on these subjects, and has never read the convincing\ndocuments appended to the Archbishop of Cashel\u2019s (Dr. Laurence\u2019s) \u201cEight\nSermons,\u201d being the Bampton Lectures for 1804, and entitled, \u201c_An\nAttempt to Illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the\nCalvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical_;\u201d Todd\u2019s treatise \u201c_On\nOriginal Sin, Free Will, &c, as maintained by certain Declarations of\nour Reformers_;\u201d Plaifere\u2019s \u201c_Appello Evangelium_;\u201d nor even the\nportable yet convincing pamphlets of Kipling and Winchester, the former\nentitled \u201c_The Articles not Calvinistic_;\u201d the latter, \u201c_A Dissertation\non the Seventeenth Article of the Church_.\u201d\n\n12. There is one fact connected with these assumed yet unfounded claims,\nwhich has never yet been placed in its proper light, but which it may be\nwell briefly to notice in this place. Calvin himself, in 1535, wrote the\nfollowing truly Melancthonian paragraphs as part of his preface to the\nNew Testament in French: \u201cThis Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, was the\nonly, true, and eternal Son of God, whom the Father was about to send\ninto the world, that he might collect all men together from this horrid\ndispersion and devastation. When, at length, that fulness of time\narrived, that day preordained by the Lord, he openly showed himself as\nthat Messiah who had for so many ages been the desire of all nations,\nand hath most abundantly performed all those things which were necessary\nfor the redemption of all men. But this great blessing was not confined\nsolely within the boundaries of the land of Israel, since, on the\ncontrary, it was intended [_porrigendum_] to be held out for the\nacceptance of the whole human race; because through Christ alone the\nentire family of man was to be reconciled to God, as will be seen, and\nmost amply demonstrated, in these pages of the New Testament.\u201d \u201cTo this\ninheritance of our heavenly Father\u2019s kingdom we are all called without\nrespect of persons,--whether we be men or women, high or low, masters or\nservants, teachers or disciples, [_doctores_] divines or laics, Jews or\nGreeks, Frenchmen or [_Romani_] Italians. From this inheritance no one\nis excluded, if he only so receive Christ as he is offered by the Father\nfor the salvation of all men, and embrace him when received.\u201d Great\nresearch has been displayed by the Calvinists at different periods, in\nendeavouring to discover, in the public formularies of the church, or in\nthe private productions of our reformers, some trace of affinity between\nthem and the writings of Calvin. Only two cases of such affinity have\nyet been found; and, unfortunately for the validity of all pretensions\nof this kind, neither of them contains a single peculiarity of\nCalvinism, but, on the contrary, both are of the moderate and\n_evangelical_ class of the Melancthonian school. One of the passages\nthus discovered is here subjoined from Cranmer\u2019s \u201c_Defence of the True\nand Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament_,\u201d &c; and bears all the marks of\nverisimilitude to the second of the preceding paragraphs from Calvin,\nthough written fifteen years after it:--\u201cAlmighty God, without respect\nof person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay\nperson, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and woman, of\nyoung and old, yea, of English, French, Scot, Greek, Latin, Jew, and\nGentile; of every man according to his faithful and obedient heart unto\nhim, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Jesus Christ.\u201d Had\neither this or the other passage contained the least tinge of what is\nnow considered as belonging exclusively to the system of Calvin, the\nEnglish admirers of that great man would have had some grounds for the\nassertions which have been too confidently made, because so easily\nrefuted.\n\n13. Having given this summary of the sentiments of Calvin himself, and\nof the ancient or strict Calvinists, it is proper to observe, that there\nare, and always have been, many who generally embrace the Calvinistic\nsystem, but object to some particular _parts_, and to the strong\nlanguage in which some of the propositions are expressed. These are\ncalled _moderate_ or _modern_ Calvinists, who differ from Calvin, and\nthe synod of Dort, chiefly on two points,--the doctrine of reprobation,\nand the extent of the death of Christ. The theory of Baxter has already\nbeen noticed. This and all other mitigated schemes rest on two\nprinciples, the sufficiency of the atonement for all mankind, and the\nsufficiency of grace for those who do not believe. Still something more\nis held to be necessary than this sufficiency of grace in order to\nactual salvation; namely, an acceptance by man, which can only be made\nunder that degree of effectual supernatural aid which is dispensed only\nto a certain number of persons, who are thus distinguished as the \u201celect\nof God.\u201d The main characteristic of all these theories, from the first\nto the last, from the highest to the lowest, is, that a part of mankind\nare shut out from the mercies of God, on some ground irrespective of\ntheir refusal of a sincere offer to them of salvation through Christ,\nmade with a communicated power of embracing it. Some power they allow to\nthe reprobate, as natural power, and degrees of superadded moral power;\nbut in no case the power to believe unto salvation; and thus, as one\nwell observes, \u201cWhen they have cut some fair trenches, as if they would\nbring the water of life unto the dwellings of the reprobate, on a sudden\nthey open a sluice which carries it off again.\u201d The whole labour of\nthese theories is to find out some plausible reason for the infliction\nof punishment on them that perish, independent of the only cause\nassigned by the word of God--their rejection of a mercy free for all,\nand made attainable by all. See BAXTERIANISM.\n\n14. After all, however, it is pleasant to find these indications of a\ngrowing consciousness, on the part of modern predestinarians, that the\ncommon notions and common language of mankind on these deep subjects are\nnot far from the truth. And though some too fastidious Arminians may\ncomplain, that, in this desire to enlist the views and words of common\nsense on the side of Calvinism, many of those by whom they are employed\nattach to them a meaning very different from that which ordinary usage\nwarrants; yet even this tendency to approximate to right views should be\nregarded as favourable to the progress of truth, and the evidently\nimproved feeling which has suggested such approximation ought to be met\nin a conciliating spirit. But this is a fault which must always be an\nappendage to such a system, however it may be modified; and does not\nexclusively apply to its modern supporters. The following remarks by\nArchbishop Laurence on the ambiguity of language not unfrequently\ndiscernible in the writings of Calvin himself, are worthy of\nconsideration:--\u201cIn whatsoever sense he wished these words to be\nunderstood, it must be admitted that he sometimes adapted the style of\nothers, who had a very different object in view, to his own peculiar\nopinions. And hence, from the want of a due discrimination, the\nsentiments of his contemporaries, opposite in their natural tendency,\nare often improperly forced into the vortex of Calvinism. Systematizing\nwas his darling propensity, and the ambition of being distinguished as a\nleader in reform his predominant passion: in the arrangements of the\nformer, he never felt a doubt, or found a difficulty; and in the\npursuits of the latter he displayed an equal degree of perseverance and\nardour. Thus, in the doctrine of the eucharist, it is well known that he\nlaboured to acquire celebrity, and conciliate followers, by maintaining\na kind of middle sacramental presence between the corporeal of the\nLutherans, and the mere spiritual of the Zuinglians; expressing himself\nin language which, partly derived from one, and partly from the other,\nverged toward neither extreme; but which, by his singular talent at\nperspicuous combination, he applied, and not without success, to his own\nparticular purpose. Nor was he less solicitous to press into his service\na foreign phraseology upon the subject more immediately before me; a\nsubject on his theory of which he not a little prided himself, and\nseemed contented to stake his reputation. He perceived that the\nLutherans, strongly reprobating every discussion upon the decrees of a\nDeity unrevealed to us, founded predestination solely on a Scriptural\nbasis; contending for a divine will which is seriously, not\nfictitiously, disposed to save all men, and predetermined to save all\nwho become and continue sincere Christians. Zuingle, indeed, had\nreasoned from a different principle; and, although persuaded that God\u2019s\nmercies in Christ were liberally bestowed on all without distinction, on\ninfants who commit not actual crime, and on the Heathen as well as the\nChristian world, he nevertheless was a necessitarian in the strictest\nsense of the expression; referring events of every kind to an\nuncontrollable and absolute predetermination. Zuingle, however, died in\n1531, before the youth of Calvin permitted him to assume the character\nof a reformer; who found Bullinger then at the head of the Zuinglian\nchurch, not only applauding, but adopting, the moderation of\nthe Lutherans; and, to use the phrase of Turretin, plainly\n_Melancthonizing_. But the doctrine alluded to, it may be imagined, was\nof a species too limited and unphilosophical for one of his enterprising\nturn of mind, who never met with an obstacle which he attempted not\ninstantly to surmount. Disregarding, therefore, the sober restrictions\nof the times, he gave loose to the most unbounded speculation: yet,\nanxious by all means to win over all to his opinion, he studiously\nlaboured to preserve, on some popular points, a verbal conformity with\nthe Lutherans. With them, in words, he taught the universality of God\u2019s\ngood will; but it was a universality which he extended only to the\n_offer_ of salvation; conceiving the reprobate to be precluded from the\nreception of that offer by the secret decree of an immutable Deity. The\nstriking feature of _their_ system was an election in Christ, by which\nthey meant an election as Christians. This also, in words, he\ninculcated: his idea, however, of an election in Christ was totally\ndifferent from theirs; for he held it to be the previous election of\ncertain favourites by an irrespective will of God, whom, and whom alone,\nChrist was subsequently appointed to save. But his ingenuity was such,\nin adapting the terms borrowed from another source to his own theory,\nthat some erroneously conceive them to have been thus originally used by\nthe Lutherans themselves. Hence, therefore, much confusion has arisen in\nthe attempt of properly discriminating between the various sentiments of\nProtestants upon this question, at the period under consideration: all\nhave been regarded as formed upon the model which Calvin exhibited; at\nleast by writers who have contemplated him as the greatest reformer of\nhis age, but who have forgotten that, although they chose to esteem him\nthe greatest, they could not represent him as the first in point of\ntime; and that his title to pre\u00ebminence, in the common estimation of his\ncontemporaries, was then far from being acknowledged.\u201d\n\n15. On one topic, however, Calvin and the older divines of that school\nwere very explicit. They tell us plainly, that they found all the\nChristian fathers, both of the Greek and the Latin church down to the\nage of St. Augustine, quite unmanageable for their purpose; and\ntherefore occasionally bestow upon them and their productions epithets\nnot the most courteous. Yet some modern writers, not possessing half the\nsplendid qualifications of those veterans in learning, make a gorgeous\ndisplay of the little that they know concerning antiquity; and wish to\nlead their readers to suppose, that the whole stream of early\nChristianity has flowed down only in their channel. Every one must have\nremarked how much like Calvin all those fathers speak whose works are\nquoted by Toplady in his \u201cHistoric Defence.\u201d Nor can the two Milners, in\ntheir \u201cHistory of the Church,\u201d entirely escape censure on this\naccount,--though both were excellent men, and better scholars than\nToplady. But from the manner in which they \u201cshow up\u201d only those ancient\nChristian authors, some of whose sentiments _seem_ to be nearly in\nunison with their own, they induce the unlearned or half informed to\ndraw the erroneous conclusion,--that the peculiarities of Calvinism are\nnot the inventions of a comparatively recent \u00e6ra, and that they have\nalways formed a prominent part of the profession of faith of every\nChristian community since the days of the Apostles.\n\nAll men must admire the candid and liberal spirit which breathes in the\nsubjoined high but just eulogium on Calvin, from the pen of the same\namiable Archbishop: \u201cCalvin himself was both a wise and a good man;\ninferior to none of his contemporaries in general ability, and superior\nto almost all in the art, as well as elegance, of composition, in the\nperspicuity and arrangement of his ideas, the structure of his periods,\nand the Latinity of his diction. Although attached to a theory, which he\nfound it difficult in the extreme to free from the suspicion of\nblasphemy against God, as the author of sin, he certainly was no\nblasphemer; but, on the contrary, adopted that very theory from an\nanxiety not to commit, but, as he conceived, to avoid blasphemy,--that\nof ascribing to human, what he deemed alone imputable to divine,\nagency.\u201d\n\nCAMBYSES, the son of Cyrus, king of Persia. He succeeded his father, A.\nM. 3475, and is the Ahasuerus mentioned in Ezra iv, 6, to whom, as soon\nas he came to the crown, the Samaritans applied by petition, desiring\nthat the rebuilding of Jerusalem might be stopped. What the motives were\nwhich they made use of to prevail upon this prince, we are ignorant; but\nit is certain, that though he was not persuaded to revoke his father\u2019s\ndecree, yet he put a stop to the works, so that for the remaining seven\nyears and five months which he reigned, the building of the city and\ntemple was suspended. See AHASUERUS.\n\nCAMEL, \u05d2\u05de\u05dc. This animal is called in ancient Arabic, _gimel_; and in\nmodern, _diammel_; in Greek, \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. With very little variation, the\nname is retained in modern languages. The camel is very common in\nArabia, Judea, and the neighbouring countries; and is often mentioned in\nScripture, and reckoned among the most valuable property, 1 Chron. v,\n21; Job i, 3, &c. \u201cNo creature,\u201d says Volney, \u201cseems so peculiarly\nfitted to the climate in which he exists as the camel. Designing this\nanimal to dwell in a country where he can find little nourishment,\nnature has been sparing of her materials in the whole of his formation.\nShe has not bestowed upon him the fleshiness of the ox, horse, or\nelephant; but limiting herself to what is strictly necessary, has given\nhim a long head, without ears, at the end of a long neck without flesh;\nhas taken from his legs and thighs every muscle not immediately\nrequisite for motion; and, in short, bestowed upon his withered body\nonly the vessels and tendons necessary to connect its frame together.\nShe has furnished him with a strong jaw, that he may grind the hardest\naliments; but, lest he should consume too much, has straitened his\nstomach, and obliged him to chew the cud; has lined his foot with a lump\nof flesh, which sliding in the mud, and being no way adapted to\nclimbing, fits him only for a dry, level, and sandy soil, like that of\nArabia. So great, in short, is the importance of the camel to the\ndesert, that, were it deprived of that useful animal, it must infallibly\nlose every inhabitant.\u201d The chief use of the camel has always been as a\nbeast of burden, and for performing journeys across the deserts. They\nhave sometimes been used in war, to carry the baggage of an oriented\narmy, and mingle in the tumult of the battle. Many of the Amalekite\nwarriors, who burnt Ziklag in the time of David, were mounted on camels;\nfor the sacred historian remarks, that of the whole army not a man\nescaped the furious onset of that heroic and exasperated leader, \u201csave\nfour hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled,\u201d 1 Sam. xxx,\n17.\n\nThe passage of Scripture in which our Lord says, \u201cIt is easier for a\ncamel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter\ninto the kingdom of heaven,\u201d Matt. xix, 24, has been the occasion of\nmuch criticism. Some assert that near Jerusalem was a low gate called\n\u201cthe needle\u2019s eye,\u201d through which a camel could not pass unless his load\nwas taken off. Others conjecture that \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 should be read \u03ba\u03ac\u03b2\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _a\ncable_. But there are no ancient manuscripts to support the reading. In\nthe Jewish Talmud, there is, however, a similar proverb respecting an\nelephant: \u201cRabbi Shesheth answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an\nabsurdity, \u2018Perhaps thou art one of the Pambidithians, who can make an\nelephant pass through the eye of a needle;\u2019\u201d that is, says the Aruch,\n\u201cwho speak things impossible.\u201d There is also a saying of the same kind\nin the Koran: \u201cThe impious, who in his arrogancy shall accuse our\ndoctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he\nenter there, till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is\nthus that we shall recompense the wicked,\u201d Surat. vii, 37. Indeed,\nGrotius, Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Micha\u00eblis join in opinion, that the\ncomparison is so much in the figurative style of the oriental nations\nand of the rabbins, that the text is sufficiently authentic.\n\nCAMEL\u2019s HAIR, mentioned Matt. iii, 4; Mark i, 6. John the Baptist, we\nare told, was habited in a raiment of camel\u2019s hair; and Chardin assures\nus, that the modern dervises wear such garments; as they do also great\nleathern girdles. Camel\u2019s hair is also made into those beautiful stuffs,\ncalled shawls; but certainly the coarser manufacture of this material\nwas adopted by John, and we may receive a good idea of its texture, from\nwhat Braithwaite says of the Arabian tents: \u201cThey are made of camel\u2019s\nhair, somewhat like our coarse hair cloths to lay over goods.\u201d By this\ncoarse vesture the Baptist was not merely distinguished, but contrasted\nwith those in royal palaces, who wore \u201csoft raiment,\u201d such as shawls or\nother superfine manufactures, whether of the same material or not.\n\nCAMERONIANS, a sect in Scotland, who separated from the Presbyterians in\n1666, and continued to hold their religious assemblies in the fields.\nThe Cameronians took their denomination from Richard Cameron, a famous\nfield preacher, who, refusing to accept the indulgence to tender\nconsciences granted by King Charles II, as such an acceptance seemed an\nacknowledgment of the king\u2019s supremacy, and that he had before a right\nto silence them, separated from his brethren, and even headed a\nrebellion in which he was killed. His followers were never entirely\nreduced till the Revolution, when they voluntarily submitted to King\nWilliam. The Cameronians adhered rigidly to the form of government\nestablished in 1648.\n\nCAMERONISTS, or CAMERONITES, is the denomination of a party of\nCalvinists in France, who asserted, that the cause of men\u2019s doing good\nor evil proceeds from the knowledge which God infuses into them; and\nthat God does not move the will physically, but only morally, in virtue\nof its dependence on the judgment of the mind. They had this name from\nJohn Cameron, one of the most famous divines among the Protestants of\nFrance, in the seventeenth century, who was born at Glasgow, in\nScotland, about the year 1580, and taught Greek there till he removed to\nBourdeaux in 1600. Here he acquired such celebrity by the fluency with\nwhich he spoke Greek, that he was appointed to teach the learned\nlanguages at Bergerac. He afterward became professor of philosophy at\nSedan; but returning to Bourdeaux in 1604, he devoted himself to the\nstudy of divinity. Upon being appointed tutor to the sons of the\nchancellor of Navarre, he accompanied them to Paris, Geneva, and\nHeidelberg. After having discharged the office of a minister at\nBourdeaux, which he assumed in 1608, for ten years, he accepted the\nprofessorship of divinity at Saumur. Upon the dispersion of that academy\nby the public commotions in 1621, he removed to England, and taught\ndivinity at his own house in London. King James inclined to favour him\non account of his supposed attachment to the hierarchy, made him master\nof the college, and professor of divinity, at Glasgow; but after holding\nthis office, which he found to be unpleasant to him, for a year, he\nreturned to Saumur, where he read private lectures. From thence he\nremoved, in 1624, to Montauban; where the disturbances excited by the\nemissaries of the duke de Rohan led him to remonstrate against the\nprinciples which produced them, with more zeal than prudence. This\noccasioned his being insulted by a private person in the streets, and\nseverely beaten: and this treatment so much affected him, that he soon\nafter died, in 1625, at the early age of forty-six years. Bayle\nrepresents him as \u201ca man of great parts and judgment, of an excellent\nmemory, very learned, a good philosopher, good humoured, liberal not\nonly of his knowledge but his purse, a great talker, a long-winded\npreacher, little versed in the fathers, inflexible in his opinions, and\ninclined to turbulence.\u201d He was one of those who attempted to reconcile\nthe doctrine of predestination, as it had been taught at Geneva, and\nconfirmed at Dort, with the sentiments of those who believe that God\noffers salvation to all mankind. His opinion was maintained and\npropagated by Moses Amyraut, and several others of the most learned\namong the reformed ministers, who thought Calvin\u2019s doctrine too harsh.\nThey were called _Hypothetical Universalists_. Cameron likewise\nmaintained the possibility of salvation in the church of Rome. See\nAMYRAUT and BAXTERIANISM.\n\nCAMP, or ENCAMPMENT, of the Israelites. The whole body of the people,\nconsisting of six hundred thousand fighting men, beside women and\nchildren, was disposed under four battalions, so placed as to enclose\nthe tabernacle, in the form of a square, and each under one general\nstandard. (See _Armies_.) There were forty-one encampments, from their\nfirst in the month of March, at Rameses, in the land of Goshen, in\nEgypt, and in the wilderness, until they reached the land of Canaan.\nThey are thus enumerated in Numbers xxxiii:--\n\n 1. Rameses\n 2. Succoth\n 3. Etham, on the edge of the wilderness\n 4. Pihahiroth\n 5. Marah\n 6. Elim\n 7. By the Red Sea\n 8. Wilderness of Sin\n 9. Dophkah\n 10. Alush\n 11. Rephidim\n 12. Wilderness of Sinai\n 13. Kibroth-hattaavah\n 14. Hazeroth\n 15. Rithmah\n 16. Rimmon-parez\n 17. Libnah\n 18. Rissah\n 19. Kehelatha\n 20. Shapher\n 21. Haradah\n\n 22. Makheloth\n 23. Tahath\n 24. Tarah\n 25. Mithcah\n 26. Hashmonah\n 27. Moseroth\n 28. Bene-jaakan\n 29. Hor-hagidgad\n 30. Jotbathah\n 31. Ebronah\n 32. Ebion-gaber\n 33. Kadesh\n 34. Mount Hor\n 35. Zalmonah\n 36. Punon\n 37. Oboth\n 38. Ije-abarim\n 39. Dibon-gad\n 40. Almon-diblathaim\n 41. Mountains of Abarim\n\nIn the second year after their exodus from Egypt they were numbered; and\nupon an exact poll, the number of their males amounted to six hundred\nand three thousand, five hundred and fifty, from twenty years old and\nupward, Num. i, ii. This vast mass of people, encamped in beautiful\norder, must have presented a most impressive spectacle. That it failed\nnot to produce effect upon the richly endowed and poetic mind of Balaam,\nappears from Num. xxiv, 2; \u201cAnd Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw\nIsrael abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the Spirit of\nGod came upon him, and he took up his parable and said, How goodly are\nthy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel! As the valleys are\nthey spread forth, as gardens by the river side, as the trees of lign\naloes which the Lord hath planted, and as cedar trees beside waters.\u201d\nGrandeur, order, beauty, and freshness, were the ideas at once suggested\nto the mind of this unfaithful prophet, and called forth his unwilling\nadmiration. Perhaps we may consider this spectacle as a type of the\norder, beauty, and glory of the true \u201cchurch in the wilderness,\u201d in\nthose happy days when God \u201cshall not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor\nperverseness in Israel;\u201d when it shall be said, \u201cThe Lord his God is\nwith him, and the shout of a king is among them.\u201d\n\nCAMPHIRE. \u05db\u05e4\u05e8. Greek, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Latin _cyprus_. Canticles i, 14; iv, 13.\nSir T. Browne supposes that the plant mentioned in the Canticles,\nrendered \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in the Septuagint, and _cyprus_ in the Vulgate, is that\ndescribed by Dioscorides and Pliny, which grows in Egypt, and near to\nAscalon, producing an odorate bush of flowers, and yielding the\ncelebrated _oleum cyprinum_. [A sweet oil made of the flowers of the\nprivet tree.] This is one of the plants which is most grateful to the\neye and the smell. The deep colour of its bark, the light green of its\nfoliage, the softened mixture of white and yellow with which the\nflowers, collected into long clusters like the lilac, are coloured; the\nred tint of the ramifications which support them, form an agreeable\ncombination. The flowers, whose shades are so delicate, diffuse around\nthe sweetest odours, and embalm the gardens and apartments which they\nembellish. The women take pleasure in decking themselves with them. With\nthe powder of the dried leaves they give an orange tincture to their\nnails, to the inside of their hands, and to the soles of their feet. The\nexpression, \u05e2\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e6\u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4, rendered \u201cpare their nails,\u201d Deut. xxi, 12,\nmay perhaps rather mean, \u201c_adorn_ their nails;\u201d and imply the antiquity\nof this practice. This is a universal custom in Egypt, and not to\nconform to it would be considered indecent. It seems to have been\npractised by the ancient Egyptians, for the nails of the mummies are\nmost commonly of a reddish hue.\n\nIn the Song of Solomon, the bride is described as saying, \u201cMy beloved is\nunto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi,\u201d chap. i,\n24; and again, \u201cThy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant\nfruits, camphire with spikenard,\u201d chap. iv, 13.\n\nCANA, a town of Galilee, where Jesus performed his first miracle, John\nii, 1, 2, &c. It lay in the tribe of Zebulun, not far from Nazareth.\nCana was visited by Dr. E. D. Clarke, who says, \u201cIt is worthy of note,\nthat, walking among the ruins of a church, we saw large massy stone\npots, answering the description given of the ancient vessels of the\ncountry; these were not preserved nor exhibited as reliques, but lying\nabout, disregarded by the present inhabitants, as antiquities with whose\noriginal use they were unacquainted. From their appearance, and the\nnumber of them, it was quite evident that a practice of keeping water in\nlarge stone pots, each holding from eighteen to twenty-seven gallons,\nwas once common in the country.\u201d\n\nCANAAN, the son of Ham. The Hebrews believe that Canaan, having first\ndiscovered Noah\u2019s nakedness, told his father Ham; and that Noah, when he\nawoke, having understood what had passed, cursed Canaan, the first\nauthor of the offence. Others are of opinion that Ham was punished in\nhis son Canaan, Gen. ix, 25. For though Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not\nexempted from the malediction; on the contrary, he suffers more from it,\nsince parents are more affected with their children\u2019s misfortunes than\nwith their own; especially if the evils have been inflicted through some\nfault or folly of theirs. Some have thought that _Canaan_ may be put\nelliptically for _the father of Canaan_, that is, Ham, as it is rendered\nin the Arabic and Septuagint translations.\n\nThe posterity of Canaan was numerous. His eldest son, Sidon, founded the\ncity of Sidon, and was father of the Sidonians and Phenicians. Canaan\nhad ten other sons, who were fathers of as many tribes, dwelling in\nPalestine and Syria; namely, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites,\nthe Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites,\nthe Zemarites, and the Hemathites. It is believed that Canaan lived and\ndied in Palestine, which from him was called the land of Canaan.\nNotwithstanding the curse is directed against Canaan the son, and not\nagainst Ham the father, it is often supposed that all the posterity of\nHam were placed under the malediction, \u201cCursed be Canaan; a servant of\nservants shall he be unto his brethren.\u201d But the true reason why Canaan\nonly was mentioned probably is, that the curse was in fact restricted to\nthe posterity of Canaan. It is true that many Africans, descendants of\nother branches of Ham\u2019s family, have been largely and cruelly enslaved;\nbut so have other tribes in different parts of the world. There is\ncertainly no proof that the negro race were ever placed under this\nmalediction. Had they been included in it, this would neither have\njustified their oppressors, nor proved that Christianity is not designed\nto remove the evil of slavery. But Canaan alone in his descendants, is\ncursed, and Ham only in that branch of his posterity. It follows that\nthe subjugation of the Canaanitish races to Israel fulfils the prophecy.\nTo them it was limited, and with them it expired. Part of the seven\nnations of the Canaanites were made slaves to the Israelites, when they\ntook possession of their land; and the remainder by Solomon.\n\nCANAAN, LAND OF. In the map it presents the appearance of a narrow slip\nof country, extending along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean; from\nwhich, to the river Jordan, the utmost width does not exceed fifty\nmiles. This river was the eastern boundary of the land of Canaan, or\nPalestine, properly so called, which derived its name from the\nPhilistines or Palestines originally inhabiting the coast. To three of\nthe twelve tribes, however, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, portions of\nterritory were assigned on the eastern side of the river, which were\nafterward extended by the subjugation of the neighbouring nations. The\nterritory of Tyre and Sidon was its ancient border on the north-west;\nthe range of the Libanus and Antilibanus forms a natural boundary on the\nnorth and north-east; while in the south it is pressed upon by the\nSyrian and Arabian deserts. Within this circumscribed district, such\nwere the physical advantages of the soil and climate, there existed, in\nthe happiest periods of the Jewish nation, an immense population. The\nkingdom of David and Solomon, however, extended far beyond these narrow\nlimits. In a north-eastern direction, it was bounded only by the river\nEuphrates, and included a considerable part of Syria. It is stated that\nSolomon had dominion over all the region on the western side of the\nEuphrates, from Thiphsah, or Thapsacus, on that river, in latitude 25\u00b0\n20\u00b4, to Azzah, or Gaza. \u201cTadmore in the wilderness,\u201d (Palmyra,) which\nthe Jewish monarch is stated to have built, (that is, either founded or\nfortified,) is considerably to the north-east of Damascus, being only a\nday\u2019s journey from the Euphrates; and Hamath, the Epiphania of the\nGreeks, (still called Hamah,) in the territory belonging to which city\nSolomon had several \u201cstore cities,\u201d is seated on the Orontes, in\nlatitude 34\u00b0 45\u00b4 N. On the east and south-east, the kingdom of Solomon\nwas extended by the conquest of the country of Moab, that of the\nAmmonites, and Edom; and tracts which were either inhabited or pastured\nby the Israelites, lay still farther eastward. Maon, which belonged to\nthe tribe of Judah, and was situated in or near the desert of Paran, is\ndescribed by Abulfeda as the farthest city of Syria toward Arabia, being\ntwo days\u2019 journey beyond Zoar. In the time of David, the people of\nIsrael, women and children included, amounted, on the lowest\ncomputation, to five millions; beside the tributary Canaanites, and\nother conquered nations.\n\nThe vast resources of the country, and the power of the Jewish monarch,\nmay be estimated not only by the consideration in which he was held by\nthe contemporary sovereigns of Egypt, Tyre, and Assyria, but by the\nstrength of the several kingdoms into which the dominions of David were\nsubsequently divided. Damascus revolted during the reign of Solomon, and\nshook off the Jewish yoke. At his death, ten of the tribes revolted\nunder Jeroboam, and the country became divided into the two rival\nkingdoms of Judah and Israel, having for their capitals Jerusalem and\nSamaria. The kingdom of Israel fell before the Assyrian conqueror, in\nthe year B. C. 721, after it had subsisted about two hundred and fifty\nyears. That of Judah survived about one hundred and thirty years, Judea\nbeing finally subdued and laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, and the temple\nburned B. C. 588. Idumea was conquered a few years after. From this\nperiod till the \u00e6ra of Alexander the Great, Palestine remained subject\nto the Chaldean, Median, and Persian dynasties. At his death, Judea fell\nunder the dominion of the kings of Syria, and, with some short and\ntroubled intervals, remained subject either to the kings of Syria or of\nEgypt, till John Hyrcanus shook off the Syrian yoke, and assumed the\ndiadem, B. C. 130. The Asmonean dynasty, which united, in the person of\nthe monarch, the functions of king and pontiff, though tributary to\nRoman conquerors, lasted one hundred and twenty-six years, till the\nkingdom was given by Anthony to Herod the Great, of an Idumean family,\nB. C. 39.\n\n2. At the time of the Christian \u00e6ra, Palestine was divided into five\nprovinces; Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea, and Idumea. On the death of\nHerod, Archelaus, his eldest son, succeeded to the government of Judea,\nSamaria, and Idumea, with the title of tetrarch; Galilee being assigned\nto Herod Antipas; and Perea, or the country beyond Jordan, to the third\nbrother, Philip. But in less than ten years the dominions of Archelaus\nbecame annexed, on his disgrace, to the Roman province of Syria; and\nJudea was thenceforth governed by Roman procurators. Jerusalem, after\nits final destruction by Titus, A. D. 71, remained desolate and almost\nuninhabited, till the emperor Hadrian colonized it, and erected temples\nto Jupiter and Venus on its site. The empress Helena, in the fourth\ncentury, set the example of repairing in pilgrimage to the Holy Land, to\nvisit the scenes consecrated by the Gospel narrative; and the country\nbecame enriched by the crowds of devotees who flocked there. In the\nbeginning of the seventh century, it was overrun by the Saracens, who\nheld it till Jerusalem was taken by the crusaders in the twelfth. The\nLatin kingdom of Jerusalem continued for about eighty years, during\nwhich the Holy Land streamed continually with Christian and Saracen\nblood. In 1187, Judea was conquered by the illustrious Saladin, on the\ndecline of whose kingdom it passed through various revolutions, and at\nlength, in 1317, was finally swallowed up in the Turkish empire.\n\nPalestine is now distributed into pashalics. That of Acre or Akka\nextends from Djebail nearly to Jaffa; that of Gaza comprehends Jaffa and\nthe adjacent plains; and these two being now united, all the coast is\nunder the jurisdiction of the pasha of Acre. Jerusalem, Hebron, Nablous,\nTiberias, and in fact, the greater part of Palestine, are included in\nthe pashalic of Damascus, now held in conjunction with that of Aleppo;\nwhich renders the present pasha, in effect, the viceroy of Syria. Though\nboth pashas continue to be dutiful subjects to the Grand Seignior in\nappearance, and annually transmit considerable sums to Constantinople to\ninsure the yearly renewal of their office, they are to be considered as\ntributaries, rather than subjects of the Porte; and it is supposed to be\nthe religious supremacy of the Sultan, as caliph and vicar of Mohammed,\nmore than any apprehension of his power, which prevents them from\ndeclaring themselves independent. The reverence shown for the firmauns\nof the Porte throughout Syria attests the strong hold which the Sultan\nmaintains, in this character, on the Turkish population. The pashas of\nEgypt and Bagdad are attached to the Turkish sovereign by the same\necclesiastical tie, which alone has kept the ill-compacted and feeble\nempire from crumbling to ruin.\n\n3. A few additional remarks upon the topography and climate will tend to\nelucidate the force of many of those parts of Scripture which contain\nallusions to these topics. Dr. E. D. Clarke, after stating his resolve\nto make the Scriptures his only guide throughout this interesting\nterritory, says, \u201cThe delight afforded by the internal evidences of\ntruth, in every instance where their fidelity of description was proved\nby a comparison of existing documents, surpassed even all we had\nanticipated. Such extraordinary instances of coincidence even with the\ncustoms of the country as they are now exhibited, and so many wonderful\nexamples of illustration afforded by contrasting the simple narrative\nwith the appearances presented, made us only regret the shortness of our\ntime, and the limited sphere of our abilities for the comparison.\u201d Judea\nis beautifully diversified with hills and plains--hills now barren and\ngloomy, but once cultivated to their summits, and smiling in the variety\nof their produce, chiefly the olive and the vine; and plains, over which\nthe Bedouin now roves to collect a scanty herbage for his cattle, but\nonce yielding an abundance of which the inhabitants of a northern\nclimate can form no idea. Rich in its soil; glowing in the sunshine of\nan almost perpetual summer; and abounding in scenery of the grandest, as\nwell as of the most beautiful kind; this happy country was indeed a land\nwhich the Lord had blessed: but Mohammedan sloth and despotism, as the\ninstruments employed to execute the curse of Heaven, have converted it\ninto a waste of rock and desert, with the exception of some few spots,\nwhich remain to attest the veracity of the accounts formerly given of\nit. The hills of Judea frequently rise into mountains; the most\nconsiderable of which are those of Lebanon and Hermon, on the north;\nthose which surround the sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea, also attain a\nrespectable elevation. The other mountains of note are, Carmel, Tabor,\nEbal, and Gerizim, and the mountains of Gilboa, Gilead, and Abarim; with\nthe summits of the latter, Nebo and Pisgah: a description of which will\nbe found under their respective heads. Many of the hills and rocks\nabound in caverns, the refuge of the distressed, or the resorts of\nrobbers.\n\n4. From the paucity of rain which falls in Judea, and the heat and\ndryness of the atmosphere for the greater part of the year, it possesses\nbut few rivers; and as these, have all their rise within its boundaries,\ntheir course is short, and their size inconsiderable: the principal is\nthe Jordan, which runs about a hundred miles. The other remarkable\nstreams are, the Arnon, the Jabbok, the Kishon, the Kedron, the Besor,\nthe Sorek, and the stream called the river of Egypt. These, also, will\nbe found described under their respective heads. This country was once\nadorned with woods and forests: as we read of the forest of cedars in\nLebanon, the forest of oaks in Bashan, the forest or wood of Ephraim,\nand the forest of Hareth in the tribe of Judah. Of these, the woods of\nBashan alone remain; the rest have been swept away by the ravages of\ntime and of armies, and by the gradual consumption of the inhabitants,\nwhose indolence and ignorance have prevented their planting others.\n\n5. There are no volcanoes now existing in Judea or its vicinity: nor is\nmention made of any in history, although volcanic traces are found in\nmany parts on its eastern side, as they are also in the mountains of\nEdom on the south, the Djebel Shera and Hesma, as noticed by Burckhardt.\nThere can be no doubt that many of the sacred writers were familiarly\nacquainted with the phenomena of volcanoes; whence it may be inferred\nthat they were presented to their observation at no great distance, and\nfrom which they drew some of their sublimest imagery. Mr. Horne has\nadduced the following instances: \u201cThe mountains quake at him, and the\nhills _melt_, and the earth is _burned_ at his presence. His fury is\n_poured out like fire_, and the rocks are thrown down by him,\u201d Nahum i,\n5, 6. \u201cBehold, the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come\ndown and tread upon the high places of the earth. And _the mountains\nshall be molten_ under him, and the valleys shall be _cleft as wax\nbefore the fire_, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place,\u201d\nMicah i, 3, 4. \u201cO that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou\nwouldest come down, that the _mountains might flow down_ at thy\npresence. As when _the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters\nto boil_, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations\nmay tremble at thy presence. When thou didst terrible things which we\nlooked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy\npresence,\u201d Isa. lxiv, 1\u20133.\n\n6. The climate of Judea, from the southern latitude of the country, is\nnecessarily warm. The cold of winter is, indeed, sometimes greater than\nin European climates situated some degrees farther to the north; but it\nis of short duration, and the general character of the climate is that\nof heat. Both heat and cold are, however, tempered by the nature of the\nsurface; the winter being scarcely felt in the valleys, while in the\nsummer the heat is almost insupportable; and, on the contrary, in the\nmore elevated parts, during the winter months, or rather weeks, frosts\nfrequently occur, and snow sometimes falls, while the air in summer is\ncomparatively cool and refreshing. Many winters pass without either snow\nor frost; and in the coldest weather which ever occurs, the sun in the\nmiddle of the day is generally warm, and often hot; so that the pain of\ncold is in reality but little felt, and the poor who cannot afford fires\nmay enjoy, during several hours of the day, the more genial and\ninvigorating influence of the sun. This is the ordinary character of the\nwinters; though in some years, as will be seen presently, the cold is\nmore severely felt during the short time that it prevails, which is\nnever more than two months, and more frequently not so much as one.\nToward the end of November, or beginning of December, domestic fires\nbecome agreeable. It was at this time that Jehoiakim, king of Judah, is\nrepresented by Jeremiah as sitting in his winter house, with a fire\nburning on the hearth before him, Jer. xxxvi, 22. The same luxury,\nthough frequently by no means necessary, is used by the wealthy till the\nend of March.\n\n7. Rain only falls during the autumn, winter, and spring, when it\nsometimes descends with great violence: the greatest quantity, and that\nwhich properly constitutes the rainy season, happening between the\nautumnal equinox, or somewhat later, and the beginning of December;\nduring which period, heavy clouds often obscure the sky, and several\ndays of violent rain sometimes succeed each other with winds. This is\nwhat in Scripture is termed the early or the former rain. Showers\ncontinue to fall at uncertain intervals, with some cloudy but more fair\nweather, till toward the vernal equinox, when they become again more\nfrequent and copious till the middle of April. These are the latter\nrains, Joel ii, 23. From this time to the end of May, showers come on at\nirregular intervals, gradually decreasing as the season advances; the\nsky being for the most part serene, and the temperature of the air\nagreeable, though sometimes acquiring a high degree of heat. From the\nend of May, or beginning of June, to the end of September, or middle of\nOctober, scarce a drop of rain falls, the sky being constantly\nunclouded, and the heat generally oppressive. During this period, the\ninhabitants commonly sleep on the tops of their houses. The storms,\nespecially in the autumn, are preceded by short but violent gusts of\nwind, which, from the surface of a parched soil, raise great clouds of\ndust; which explains what is meant by, \u201cYe shall not _see_ wind,\u201d 2\nKings iii, 7. The continuation of the same passage likewise implies,\nthat such circumscribed whirlwinds were generally considered as the\nprecursors of rain: a circumstance likewise alluded to by Solomon, who\nsays, \u201cWhoso boasteth himself of a false gift, is like clouds and wind\nwithout rain,\u201d Prov. xxv, 14. Another prognostic of an approaching storm\nis a small cloud rising in the west, and increasing until it overspreads\nthe whole heavens. Such was the cloud, \u201clike a man\u2019s hand,\u201d which\nappeared to Elijah, on mount Carmel; which spread \u201ctill the heaven was\nblack with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain,\u201d 1 Kings xviii,\n44. To this phenomenon, and the certainty of the prognostic, our Saviour\nalludes: \u201cWhen ye see a cloud\u201d (or _the_ cloud, \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd) \u201crise out\nof the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is,\u201d\nLuke xii, 54. The same appearance is noticed by Homer:--\n\n          \u1f69\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\n          \u1f18\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03d6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u0396\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u1f30\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2,\n          \u03a4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u2019, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f20\u03b0\u03c4\u03b9 \u03d6\u1f76\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1,\n          \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03d6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03af \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03ad \u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1 \u03d6\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd.\n          \u1fec\u03af\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd. \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.   _Il._ lib. iv, 275.\n\n            \u201cSlow from the main the heavy vapours rise,\n            Spread in dim streams, and sail along the skies,\n            Till black as night the swelling tempest shows,\n            The cloud condensing as the west wind blows.\n            He dreads the impending storm,\u201d &c.    POPE.\n\nHail frequently falls in the winter and spring in very heavy storms, and\nwith hailstones of an enormous size. Dr. Russel says that he has seen\nsome at Aleppo which measured two inches in diameter; but sometimes they\nare found to consist of irregularly shaped pieces, weighing near three\nounces. The copious dew forms another peculiarity of this climate,\nfrequently alluded to in Scripture: so copious, indeed, is it sometimes,\nas to resemble small rain, and to supply the wants of superficial\nvegetation. Mr. Maundrell, when travelling near mount Hermon, says, \u201cWe\nwere instructed by experience what the Psalmist means by \u2018the dew of\nHermon,\u2019 Psalm cxxxiii, 3; our tents being as wet with it, as if it had\nrained all night.\u201d\n\n8. The seasons are often adverted to in Scripture, under the terms \u201cseed\ntime and harvest.\u201d The former, for wheat, is about the middle of October\nto the middle or end of November: barley is put into the ground two and\nsometimes three months later. The wheat harvest commences about the\ntwentieth of May, and early in June the whole is off the ground. The\nbarley harvest, it is to be observed, is generally a fortnight earlier.\nA survey of the astonishing produce of this country, and of the manner\nin which its most rocky and, to appearance, insuperably sterile parts,\nare made to yield to the wants of man, will be sufficient to refute the\nobjections raised by skeptical writers against the possibility of its\nfurnishing subsistence to the multitude of its former inhabitants\nrecorded in Scripture. Dr. Clarke, when travelling from Napolose to\nJerusalem, relates, \u201cThe road was mountainous, rocky, and full of loose\nstones; yet the cultivation was every where marvellous: it afforded one\nof the most striking pictures of human industry which it is possible to\nbehold. The limestone rocks and stony valleys of Judea were entirely\ncovered with plantations of figs, vines, and olive trees: not a single\nspot seemed to be neglected. The hills, from their bases to their upmost\nsummits, were entirely covered with gardens: all of these were free from\nweeds, and in the highest state of agricultural perfection. Even the\nsides of the most barren mountains had been rendered fertile, by being\ndivided into terraces, like steps rising one above another, whereon soil\nhad been accumulated with astonishing labour. Among the standing crops,\nwe noticed millet, cotton, linseed, and tobacco; and occasionally small\nfields of barley. A sight of this territory can alone convey any\nadequate idea of its surprising produce: it is truly the Eden of the\neast, rejoicing in the abundance of its wealth. Under a wise and a\nbeneficent government, the produce of the Holy Land would exceed all\ncalculation. Its perennial harvest; the salubrity of its air; its limpid\nsprings; its rivers, lakes, and matchless plains; its hills and\ndales;--all these, added to the serenity of its climate, prove this land\nto be indeed \u2018a field which the Lord hath blessed: God hath given it of\nthe dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and\nwine.\u2019\u201d An oriental\u2019s ideas of fertility differ, however, from ours; for\nto him, plantations of figs, vines, and olives, with which the limestone\nrocks of Judea were once covered, would suggest the same associations of\nplenty and opulence that are called up in the mind of an Englishman by\nrich tracts of corn land. The land of Canaan is characterized as flowing\nwith milk and honey; and it still answers to this description; for it\ncontains extensive pasture lands of the richest quality, and the rocky\ncountry is covered with aromatic plants, yielding to the wild bees, who\nhive in the hollow of the rocks, such abundance of honey as to supply\nthe poorer classes with an article of food. Honey from the rocks is\nrepeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, as a delicious food, and an\nemblem of plenty, 1 Sam. xiv, 25; Psa. lxxxi, 16. Dates are another\nimportant article of consumption; and the neighbourhood of Judea was\nfamous for its numerous palm trees, which are found springing up from\nchance-sown kernels in the midst of the most arid districts. When to\nthese wild productions we add the oil extracted from the olive, so\nessential an article to an oriental, we shall be at no loss to account\nfor the ancient fertility of the most barren districts of Judea, or for\nthe adequacy of the soil to the support of so numerous a population,\nnotwithstanding the comparatively small proportion of arable land. There\nis no reason to doubt, however, that corn and rice would be imported by\nthe Tyrian merchants; which the Israelites would have no difficulty in\nexchanging for the produce of the olive ground and the vineyard, or for\ntheir flocks and herds. Delicious wine is still produced in some\ndistricts, and the valleys bear plentiful crops of tobacco, wheat,\nbarley, and millet. Tacitus compares both the climate and the soil,\nindeed, to those of Italy; and he particularly specifies the palm tree\nand balsam tree as productions which gave the country an advantage over\nhis own. Among other indigenous productions may be enumerated the cedar\nand other varieties of the pine, the cypress, the oak, the sycamore, the\nmulberry tree, the fig tree, the willow, the turpentine tree, the\nacacia, the aspen, the arbutus, the myrtle, the almond tree, the\ntamarisk, the oleander, the peach tree, the chaste tree, the carob or\nlocust tree, the oskar, the doom, the mustard plant, the aloe, the\ncitron, the apple, the pomegranate, and many flowering shrubs. The\ncountry about Jericho was celebrated for its balsam, as well as for its\npalm trees; and two plantations of it existed during the last war\nbetween the Jews and the Romans, for which both parties fought\ndesperately. But Gilead appears to have been the country in which it\nchiefly abounded: hence the name, \u201cbalm of Gilead.\u201d Since the country\nhas fallen under the Turkish dominion, it has ceased to be cultivated in\nPalestine, but is still found in Arabia. Other indigenous productions\nhave either disappeared or are now confined to circumscribed districts.\nIron is found in the mountain range of Libanus, and silk is produced in\nabundance in the plains of Samaria.\n\n9. The grand distinction of Canaan, however, is, that it was the only\npart of the earth made, by divine institution, a type of heaven. So it\nwas exhibited to Abraham, and also to the Jews. It pointed to the\neternal rest which the spiritual seed of the father of the faithful were\nto enjoy after the pilgrimage of life; its holy city was the figure of\nthe \u201cJerusalem above;\u201d and Zion, with its solemn and joyful services\nrepresented that \u201chill of the Lord\u201d to which the redeemed shall come\nwith songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads; where they shall\nobtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall fly away.\n\nCANAANITES, the posterity of Canaan by his eleven sons, who are supposed\nto have settled in the land of Canaan, soon after the dispersion of\nBabel. Five of these are known to have dwelt in the land of Canaan; viz.\nHeth, Jebus, Hemor or Amor, Girgashi, and Hevi or Hivi; and these,\ntogether with their father Canaan, became the heads of so many nations.\nSina or Sini was another son of Canaan, whose settlement is not so\nprecisely ascertained; but some authors infer, from the affinity of the\nnames, that the Desert of Sin, and Mount Sinai, were the places of his\nabode, and that they were so called from him. The Hittites inhabited the\ncountry about Hebron, as far as Beersheba, and the brook Besor, reckoned\nby Moses the southern limits of Canaan. The Jebusites dwelt near them on\nthe north, as far as the city of Jebus, since called Jerusalem. The\nAmorites possessed the country on the east side of Jordan, between the\nriver Arnon on the south-east, and Mount Gilead on the north, afterward\nthe lot of Reuben and Gad. The Girgashites lay next above the Amorites,\non the east side of the Sea of Tiberias, and their land was afterward\npossessed by the half tribe of Manasseh. The Hivites dwelt northward,\nunder Mount Libanus. The Perizzites, who make one of the seven nations\nof the Canaanites, are supposed, by Heylin and others, to be the\ndescendants of Sina or Sini; and it is probable, since we do not read of\ntheir abode in cities, that they lived dispersed, and in tents, like the\nScythians, roving on both sides of the Jordan, on the hills and plains;\nand that they were called by that name from the Hebrew _pharatz_, which\nsignifies \u201cto disperse.\u201d The Canaanites dwelt in the midst of all, and\nwere surrounded by the rest. This appears from the sacred writings to\nhave been the respective situation of those seven nations, which are\nsaid to have been doomed to destruction for their idolatry and\nwickedness, when the Israelites first invaded their country. The learned\nhave not absolutely determined whether the nations proceeding from\nCanaan\u2019s other six sons should be reckoned among the inhabitants of the\nland of Canaan. The prevalent opinion is, that they were not included.\nAs to the customs, manners, arts, sciences, and language of the seven\nnations that inhabited the land of Canaan, they must, from the situation\nthey severally occupied, have been very different. Those who inhabited\nthe sea coast were merchants, and by reason of their commerce and wealth\nscattered colonies over almost all the islands and maritime provinces of\nthe Mediterranean. (See _Phenicia_) The colonies which Cadmus carried to\nThebes in B\u00e6otia, and his brother Cilix into Cilicia, are said to have\nproceeded from the stock of Canaan. Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus,\nCorfu, Majorca, Minorca, Gades, and Ebutris, are supposed to have been\npeopled by the Canaanites. The other Canaanites, whose situation was\ninland, were employed partly in pasturage, and partly in tillage, and\nthey were also well skilled in the exercise of arms. Those who dwelt in\nthe walled cities, and who had fixed abodes, cultivated the land; and\nthose who wandered about, as the Perizzites seem to have done, grazed\ncattle: so that among the Canaanites, we discover the various classes of\nmerchants, and, consequently, mariners; of artificers, soldiers,\nshepherds, and husbandmen. We learn, also, from their history, that they\nwere all ready, however diversified by their occupations or local\ninterests, to join in a common cause; that they were well appointed for\nwar, both offensive and defensive; that their towns were well fortified;\nthat they were sufficiently furnished with military weapons and warlike\nchariots; that they were daring, obstinate, and almost invincible; and\nthat they were not destitute of craft and policy. Their language, we\nfind, was well understood by Abraham, who was a Hebrew, for he conversed\nreadily with them on all occasions; but as to their mode of writing,\nwhether it was originally their own or borrowed from the Israelites, it\nis not so easy to determine. Their religion, at least in part, seems to\nhave been preserved pure till the days of Abraham, who acknowledged\nMelchisedek to be priest of the most high God; and Melchisedek was,\nwithout doubt, a Canaanite, or, at least, dwelt at that time in Canaan\nin high esteem and veneration.\n\n2. But we learn from the Scripture history, that the Hittites in\nparticular were become degenerate in the time of Isaac and Rebekah; for\nthey could not endure the thoughts of Jacob\u2019s marrying one of the\ndaughters of Heth, as Esau had done. From this time, then, we may date\nthe prevalence of those abominations which subjected them to the divine\ndispleasure, and made them unworthy of the land which they possessed. In\nthe days of Moses, they were become incorrigible idolaters; for he\ncommands his people to destroy their altars, and break down their\nimages, (statues or pillars,) and cut down their groves, and burn their\ngraven images with fire. And lest they should pervert the Israelites,\nthe latter were strictly enjoined not to intermarry with them; but \u201cto\nsmite them, and utterly destroy them, nor show mercy upon them,\u201d Deut.\nvii, 1\u20135. They are accused of the cruel custom of sacrificing men, and\nare said to have made their seed pass through the fire to Moloch, Lev.\nxviii, 21. Their morals were as corrupt as their doctrine: adultery,\nbestiality of all sorts, profanation, incest, and all manner of\nuncleanness, are the sins laid to their charge. \u201cThe Canaanites,\u201d says\nMr. Bryant, \u201cas they were a sister tribe of the Mizraim, resembled them\nin their rites and religion. They held a heifer, or cow, in high\nveneration, agreeably to the customs of Egypt. Their chief deity was the\nsun, whom they worshipped, together with the Baalim, under the titles of\nOurchol, Adonis, or Thamuz.\u201d\n\n3. When the measure of the idolatries and abominations of the Canaanites\nwas filled up, God delivered their country into the hands of the\nIsraelites, who conquered it under Joshua. However, they resisted with\nobstinate valour, and kept Joshua employed six years from the time of\nhis passing the river Jordan, and entering Canaan, in the year B. C.\n1451, to the year B. C. 1445, the sabbatical year beginning from the\nautumnal equinox; when he made a division of the land among the tribes\nof Israel, and rested from his conquests. As God had commanded this\npeople, long before, to be treated with rigour, see Deut. vii, 2, Joshua\nextirpated great numbers, and obliged the rest to fly, some of them into\nAfrica, and others into Greece. Procopius says, they first retreated\ninto Egypt, but advanced into Africa, where they built many cities, and\nspread themselves over those vast regions which reach to the straits,\npreserving their old language with little alteration. In the time of\nAthanasius, the Africans still said they were descended from the\nCanaanites; and when asked their origin, they answered, \u201cCanani.\u201d It is\nagreed, that the Punic tongue was nearly the same as the Canaanitish or\nHebrew.\n\n4. On the rigorous treatment of the nations of Canaan by the Israelites,\nto which infidels have taken so many exceptions, the following remarks\nof Paley are a sufficient reply: The first thing to be observed is, that\nthe nations of Canaan were destroyed for their wickedness. This is plain\nfrom Lev. xviii, 24, &c. Now the facts disclosed in this passage\nsufficiently testify, that the Canaanites were a wicked people; that\ndetestable practices were general among them, and even habitual; that it\nwas for these enormities the nations of Canaan were destroyed. It was\nnot, as some have imagined, to make way for the Israelites; nor was it\nsimply to make away with their idolatry; but it was because of the\nabominable crimes which usually accompanied the latter. And we may\nfarther learn from the passage, that God\u2019s abhorrence of these crimes\nand his indignation against them are regulated by the rules of strict\nimpartiality, since Moses solemnly warns the Israelites against falling\ninto the like wicked courses, \u201cthat the land,\u201d says he, \u201ccast not you\nout also, when you defile it, as it cast out the nations that were\nbefore you; for whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even\nthe souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people,\u201d\nLev. xviii, 28, 29. Now, when God, for the wickedness of a people, sends\nan earthquake, or a fire, or a plague among them, there is no complaint\nof injustice, especially when the calamity is known, or expressly\ndeclared beforehand, to be inflicted for the wickedness of such people.\nIt is rather regarded as an act of exemplary penal justice, and, as\nsuch, consistent with the character of the moral Governor of the\nuniverse. The objection, therefore, is not to the Canaanitish nations\nbeing destroyed; (for when their national wickedness is considered, and\nwhen that is expressly stated as the cause of their destruction, the\ndispensation, however severe, will not be questioned;) but the objection\nis solely to the manner of destroying them. I mean there is nothing but\nthe manner left to be objected to: their wickedness accounts for the\nthing itself. To which objection it may be replied, that if the thing\nitself be just, the manner is of little signification, of little\nsignification even to the sufferers themselves. For where is the great\ndifference, even to them, whether they were destroyed by an earthquake,\na pestilence, a famine, or by the hands of an enemy? Where is the\ndifference, even to our imperfect apprehensions of divine justice,\nprovided it be, and is known to be, for their wickedness that they are\ndestroyed? But this destruction, you say, confounded the innocent with\nthe guilty. The sword of Joshua, and of the Jews spared neither women\nnor children. Is it not the same with all other national visitations?\nWould not an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague, or a famine among them\nhave done the same? Even in an ordinary and natural death the same thing\nhappens; God takes away the life he lends, without regard, that we can\nperceive, to age, or sex, or character. \u201cBut, after all, promiscuous\nmassacres, the burning of cities, the laying waste of countries, are\nthings dreadful to reflect upon.\u201d Who doubts it? so are all the\njudgments of Almighty God. The effect, in whatever way it shows itself,\nmust necessarily be tremendous, when the Lord, as the Psalmist expresses\nit, \u201cmoveth out of his place to punish the wicked.\u201d But it ought to\nsatisfy us; at least this is the point upon which we ought to rest and\nfix our attention; that it was for excessive, wilful, and forewarned\nwickedness, that all this befel them, and that it is all along so\ndeclared in the history which recites it.\n\nBut, farther, if punishing them by the hands of the Israelites rather\nthan by a pestilence, an earthquake, a fire, or any such calamity, be\nstill an objection, we may perceive, I think, some reasons for this\nmethod of punishment in preference to any other whatever; always bearing\nin our mind, that the question is not concerning the justice of the\npunishment, but the mode of it. It is well known, that the people of\nthose ages were affected by no proof of the power of the gods which they\nworshipped, so deeply as by their giving them victory in war. It was by\nthis species of evidence that the superiority of their own gods above\nthe gods of the nations which they conquered, was, in their opinion,\nevinced. This being the actual persuasion which then prevailed in the\nworld, no matter whether well or ill founded, how were the neighbouring\nnations, for whose admonition this dreadful example was intended, how\nwere they to be convinced of the supreme power of the God of Israel\nabove the pretended gods of other nations; and of the righteous\ncharacter of Jehovah, that is, of his abhorrence of the vices which\nprevailed in the land of Canaan? How, I say, were they to be convinced\nso well, or at all indeed, as by enabling the Israelites, whose God he\nwas known and acknowledged to be, to conquer under his banner, and drive\nout before them, those who resisted the execution of that commission\nwith which the Israelites declared themselves to be invested, namely,\nthe expulsion and extermination of the Canaanitish nations? This\nconvinced surrounding countries, and all who were observers or\nspectators of what passed, first, that the God of Israel was a real God;\nsecondly, that the gods which other nations worshipped, were either no\ngods, or had no power against the God of Israel; and thirdly, that it\nwas he, and he alone, who possessed both the power and the will, to\npunish, to destroy, and to exterminate from before his face, both\nnations and individuals, who gave themselves up to the crimes and\nwickedness for which the Canaanites were notorious. Nothing of this sort\nwould have appeared, or with the same evidence, from an earthquake, or a\nplague, or any natural calamity. These might not have been attributed to\ndivine agency at all, or not to the interposition of the God of Israel.\n\nAnother reason which made this destruction both more necessary, and more\ngeneral, than it would have otherwise been, was the consideration, that\nif any of the old inhabitants were left, they would prove a snare to\nthose who succeeded them in the country; would draw and seduce them by\ndegrees into the vices and corruptions which prevailed among themselves.\nVices of all kinds, but vices most particularly of the licentious kind,\nare astonishingly infectious. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.\nA small number of persons addicted to them, and allowed to practise them\nwith impunity or encouragement, will spread them through the whole mass.\nThis reason is formally and expressly assigned, not simply for the\npunishment, but for the extent to which it was carried; namely,\nextermination: \u201cThou shalt utterly destroy them, that they teach you not\nto do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their\ngods.\u201d\n\nIn reading the Old Testament account, therefore, of the Jewish wars and\nconquests in Canaan, and the terrible destruction brought upon the\ninhabitants thereof, we are always to remember that we are reading the\nexecution of a dreadful but just sentence, pronounced by Jehovah against\nthe intolerable and incorrigible crimes of these nations; that they were\nintended to be made an example to the whole world of God\u2019s avenging\nwrath against sins, which, if they had been suffered to continue, might\nhave polluted the whole ancient world, and which could only be checked\nby the signal and public overthrow of nations notoriously addicted to\nthem, and so addicted as even to have incorporated them into their\nreligion and their public institutions; and that the Israelites were\nmere instruments in the hands of a righteous Providence for effecting\nthe extirpation of a people, of whom it was necessary to make a public\nexample to the rest of mankind; that this extermination, which might\nhave been accomplished by a pestilence, by fire, by earthquakes, was\nappointed to be done by the hands of the Israelites, as being the\nclearest and most intelligible method of displaying the power and the\nrighteousness of the God of Israel; his power over the pretended gods of\nother nations; and his righteous indignation against the crimes into\nwhich they were fallen.\n\nCANDACE, the name of an Ethiopian queen, whose eunuch coming to\nJerusalem to worship the Lord, was baptized by Philip the deacon, near\nBethsura, in the way to Gaza, as he was returning to his own country,\nActs viii, 27. The Ethiopia here mentioned was the isle or peninsula of\nMero\u00eb to the south of Egypt, which, as Mr. Bruce shows, is now called\nAtbara, up the Nile. Candace was the common name of the queens of that\ncountry. Strabo and Pliny mention queens of that name as reigning in\ntheir times. That the queen mentioned in the Acts was converted by the\ninstrumentality of her servant, and that the country thus received\nChristianity at that early period, are statements not supported by any\ngood testimony. See ABYSSINIAN CHURCH.\n\nCANDLESTICK. The instrument so rendered by our translators was more\nproperly a stand for lamps. One of beaten gold was made by Moses, Exod.\nxxv, 31, 32, and put into the tabernacle in the holy place, over against\nthe table of shew bread. The basis of this candlestick was also of pure\ngold; it had seven branches, three on each side, and one in the middle.\nWhen Solomon had built the temple, he was not satisfied with placing one\ngolden candlestick there, but had ten put up, of the same form and metal\nwith that described by Moses, five on the north, and five on the south\nside of the holy place, 1 Kings vii, 49. After the Jews returned from\ntheir captivity, the golden candlestick was again placed in the temple,\nas it had been before in the tabernacle by Moses. The lamps were kept\nburning perpetually; and were supplied morning and evening with pure\nolive oil. Josephus says, that after the Romans had destroyed the\ntemple, the several things which were found within it, were carried in\ntriumph to Rome, namely, the golden table, and the golden candlestick\nwith seven branches. These were lodged in the temple built by Vespasian,\nand consecrated to Peace; and at the foot of Mount Palatine, there is a\ntriumphal arch still visible, upon which Vespasian\u2019s triumph is\nrepresented, and the several monuments which were carried publicly in\nthe procession are engraved, and among the rest the candlestick with the\nseven branches, which are still discernible upon it. In Rev. i, 12, 20,\nmention is made of seven golden candlesticks, which are said to be\nemblems of the seven Christian churches.\n\nCANKER-WORM, \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7, Psalm cv, 34; Jer. li, 27, where it is rendered\n_caterpillar_; Joel i, 4; ii, 25; Nahum iii, 15, _canker-worm_. As it is\nfrequently mentioned with the locust, it is thought by some to be a\nspecies of that insect. It certainly cannot be the canker-worm, as our\nversion renders it; for in Nahum, it is expressly said to have wings and\nfly, to camp in the hedges by day, and commit its depredations in the\nnight. But it may be, as the Septuagint renders it in five passages out\nof eight where it occurs, the _bruchus_, or \u201chedge-chaffer.\u201d\nNevertheless, the passage, Jer. li, 27, where the _ialek_ is described\nas \u201crough,\u201d that is, with hair standing on end on it, leads us very\nnaturally to the rendering of our translators in that place, \u201cthe rough\ncaterpillar,\u201d which, like other caterpillars, at a proper time, casts\nits exterior covering and flies away in a winged state. Scheuchzer\nobserves that we should not, perhaps, be far from the truth, if with the\nancient interpreters, we understood this _ialek_, after all, as a kind\nof locust; as some species of them have hair principally on the head,\nand others have prickly points standing out.\n\nCANON, a word used to denote the authorized catalogue of the sacred\nwritings. The word is originally Greek, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1f7c\u03bd, and signifies a _rule_ or\n_standard_, by which other things are to be examined and judged.\nAccordingly the same word has been applied to the tongue of a balance,\nor that small part which, by its perpendicular position, determines the\neven poise or weight, or, by its inclination either way, the uneven\npoise of the things which are weighed. Hence it appears, that as the\nwritings of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists contain an authentic\naccount of the revealed will of God, they are the rule of the belief and\npractice of those who receive them. Canon is also equivalent to a list\nor catalogue, in which are inserted those books which contain the rule\nof faith.\n\nFor an account of the settling of the canon of Scripture, see _Bible_.\nThe following observations of Dr. Alexander, in his work on the canon,\nproving that no canonical book of the Old or New Testament has been\nlost, may here be properly introduced.--No canonical book of the Old\nTestament has been lost. On this subject, there has existed some\ndiversity of opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine as saying, \u201cthat\nmany of the writings of the prophets had perished, which may readily be\nproved from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and\nnot only negligent, but impious; so that some books were lost through\ncarelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed.\u201d In\nconfirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made to 1 Kings iv, 32, 33,\nwhere it is said of Solomon, \u201cthat he spake three thousand proverbs, and\nhis songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the\ncedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he\nspake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of\nfishes.\u201d All these productions, it is acknowledged, have perished. Again\nit is said in 1 Chron. xxix, 29, 30: \u201cNow, the acts of David the king,\nfirst and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer,\nand in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer;\nwith all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and\nover Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.\u201d The book of\nJasher, also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x, 13: \u201cAnd the\nsun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged\nthemselves on their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?\u201d\nAnd in 2 Sam. i, 18: \u201cAnd he bade them teach the children of Israel the\nuse of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.\u201d\n\nThe book of the wars of the Lord is referred to in Numbers xxi, 14. But\nwe have in the canon no books under the name of Nathan and Gad, nor any\nbook of Jasher, nor of the wars of the Lord. Moreover, we frequently are\nreferred, in the sacred history, to other chronicles or annals, for a\nfuller account of the matters spoken of, which chronicles are not now\nextant. And in 2 Chron. ix, 29, it is said, \u201cNow, the rest of the acts\nof Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan\nthe prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the\nvisions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam, the son of Nebat?\u201d Now, it\nis well known that none of these writings of the prophets are in the\ncanon; at least, none of them under their names. It is said, also, in 2\nChron. xii, 15, \u201cNow, the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not\nwritten in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer,\nconcerning genealogies?\u201d Of which works nothing remains under the names\nof these prophets.\n\n1. The first observation which may be made on this subject is, that\nevery book referred to or quoted in the sacred writings is not\nnecessarily an inspired or canonical book. Because St. Paul cites\npassages from the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must receive\ntheir poems as inspired.\n\n2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neither inspired\nnor canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the prophets;\nbut was occasional, and for particular important purposes. In common\nmatters, and especially in things no way connected with religion, it is\nreasonable to suppose that the Prophets and Apostles were left to the\nsame guidance of reason and common sense as other men. A man, therefore,\ninspired to deliver some prophecy, or even to write a canonical book,\nmight write other books with no greater assistance than other good men\nreceive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some canonical books, it\ndoes not follow that what he wrote on natural history was also inspired,\nany more than Solomon\u2019s private letters to his friends, if ever he wrote\nany. Let it be remembered that the Prophets and Apostles were only\ninspired on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all\ndifficulties respecting such works as these will vanish. How many of the\nbooks referred to in the Bible, and mentioned above, may have been of\nthis description, it is now impossible to tell; but probably several of\nthem belong to this class. No doubt there were many books of annals much\nmore minute and particular in the narration of facts than those which we\nhave. It was often enough merely to refer to these _state papers_, or\npublic documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to the facts\non account of which the reference was made. The book of the wars of the\nLord might, for aught that appears, have been merely a muster roll of\nthe army. The word translated _book_ has so extensive a meaning in\nHebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose that it was a writing\nat all. The book of Jasher (or of _Rectitude_, if we translate the word)\nmight have been some useful compend taken from Scripture, or composed by\nthe wise, for the regulation of justice and equity between man and man.\nAugustine, in his \u201cCity of God,\u201d has distinguished accurately on this\nsubject. \u201cI think,\u201d says he, \u201cthat those books which should have\nauthority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men\ncomposed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by\ninspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is\nonly by those written by inspiration that we are to suppose that God,\nthrough them, is speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulness\nof knowledge; the other, for authority in religion; in which authority\nthe canon is preserved.\u201d\n\n3. But again: it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the\ncompleteness of the canon, that there may have been inspired writings\nwhich were not intended for the instruction of the church in all ages,\nbut composed by the prophets for some special occasion. These writings,\nthough inspired, were not canonical. They were temporary in their\ndesign; and when that was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We\nknow that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to the\npeople, of which we have not a trace on record. Many true prophets are\nmentioned, who wrote nothing that we know of; and several are mentioned,\nwhose names are not even given. The same is true of the Apostles. Very\nfew of them had any concern in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet\nthey all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they wrote letters on\nspecial occasions, to the churches planted by them; yet these were not\ndesigned for the perpetual instruction of the universal church.\nTherefore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad, might have written\nsome things by inspiration which were never intended to form a part of\nthe sacred volume. It is not asserted that there certainly existed such\ntemporary inspired writings: all that is necessary to be maintained is,\nthat, supposing such to have existed, which is not improbable, it does\nnot follow that the canon is incomplete by reason of their loss.\n\n4. The last remark in relation to the books of the Old Testament\nsupposed to be lost is, that it is highly probable that we have several\nof them now in the canon, under another name. The books of Samuel,\nKings, and Chronicles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a\nsuccession of prophets. There is reason to believe that, until the canon\nof sacred Scripture was closed, the succession of prophets was never\ninterrupted. Whatever was necessary to be added, by way of explanation,\nto any book already received into the canon, they were competent to\nannex; or, whatever annals or histories it was the purpose of God to\nhave transmitted to posterity, they would be directed and inspired to\nprepare. Thus, different parts of these books might have been penned by\nGad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, &c. That some parts of these histories were\nprepared by prophets, we have clear proof in one instance; for Isaiah\nhas inserted in his prophecy several chapters which are contained in 2\nKings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt were originally written\nby himself. The Jewish doctors are of opinion that the book of Jasher is\none of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole law. The book of the\nwars of the Lord has by many been supposed to be no other than the book\nof Numbers.\n\nThus, it sufficiently appears from an examination of particulars, that\nthere exists no evidence that any canonical book of the Old Testament\nhas been lost. To which we may add, that there are many general\nconsiderations of great weight which go to prove that no part of the\nScriptures of the Old Testament has been lost. The translation of these\nbooks into Greek is sufficient to show that the same books existed\nnearly two hundred years before the advent of Christ. And, above all,\nthe unqualified testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by\nChrist and his Apostles, ought to satisfy us that we have lost none of\nthe inspired books of the canon. The Scriptures are constantly referred\nto, and quoted as infallible authority by them, as we have before shown.\nThese oracles were committed to the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they\nare never charged with unfaithfulness in this trust. The Scriptures are\ndeclared to have been written \u201cfor our learning;\u201d and no intimation is\ngiven that they had ever been mutilated, or in any degree corrupted.\n\nAs to the New Testament, the same author proceeds: With respect to the\nNew Testament, I am ready to concede, as was before done, that there may\nhave been books written by inspired men that have been lost; for\ninspiration was occasional, not constant; and confined to matters of\nfaith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in matters of\nmere science. And if such writings have been lost, the canon of\nScripture has suffered no more by this means, than by the loss of any\nother uninspired books. But again: I am willing to go farther, and say\nthat it is possible (although I know no evidence of the fact) that some\nthings, written under the influence of inspiration, for a particular\noccasion, and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, may have\nbeen lost, without injury to the canon. For, since much that the\nApostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly lost, so there is no\nreason why every word which they wrote must necessarily be preserved,\nand form a part of the canonical volume. For example: suppose that when\nSt. Paul said, \u201cI wrote to you in an epistle not to company with\nfornicators,\u201d 1 Cor. v, 9, he referred to an epistle which he had\nwritten to the Corinthians, before the one now called the First; it\nmight never have been intended that this letter should form a\nconstituent part of the canon; for although it treated of subjects\nconnected with Christian faith or practice, yet, an occasion having\narisen, in a short time, of treating these subjects more at large, every\nthing in that epistle (supposing it ever to have been written) may have\nbeen included in the two Epistles to the Corinthians which are now in\nthe canon.\n\n1. The first argument to prove that no canonical book has been lost, is\nderived from the watchful care of providence over the sacred Scriptures.\nNow, to suppose that a book written by the inspiration of the Holy\nSpirit, and intended to form a part of the canon, which is the rule of\nfaith to the church, should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely\nnot very honourable to the wisdom of God, and in no way consonant with\nthe ordinary method of his dispensations, in regard to his precious\ntruth. There is good reason to think that, if God saw it needful, and\nfor the edification of the church, that such books should be written\nunder the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his providence he would\nhave taken care to preserve them from destruction. We do know that this\ntreasure of divine truth has been, in all ages, and in the worst times,\nthe special care of God, or not one of the sacred books would now be in\nexistence. And if one canonical book might be lost through the\nnegligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And thus the end of\nGod, in making a revelation of his will, might have been defeated. But\nwhatever other corruptions have crept into the Jewish or Christian\nchurches, it does not appear that either of them, as a body, ever\nincurred the censure of having been careless in preserving the oracles\nof God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who perverted the sacred\nScriptures to their own ruin, with having lost any portion of the sacred\ndeposit intrusted to them. History informs us of the fierce and\nmalignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes, to abolish every vestige of the\nsacred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people\nmanifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and\ndefeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their\nlives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the\nsacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested,\nand with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the\nChristians. Every effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings of\nChristians; and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the\nNew Testament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel\npersecution, did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the\nholy book; but they were ever afterward called traitors; and it was with\nthe utmost difficulty that any of them could be received again into the\ncommunion of the church, after a long repentance, and the most humbling\nconfessions of their fault. Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it\nmust have been in these early times, when the word of God was valued far\nabove life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with\nhis blood.\n\n2. Another argument which appears to me to be convincing is, that in a\nlittle time, all the sacred books were dispersed over the whole world.\nIf a book had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed in one\nregion, the loss could soon have been repaired, by sending for copies to\nother countries. The considerations just mentioned would, I presume, be\nsatisfactory to all candid minds, were it not that it is supposed that\nthere is evidence that some things were written by the Apostles which\nare not now in the canon. We have already referred to an epistle to the\nCorinthians, which St. Paul is supposed to have written to them,\npreviously to the writing of those which we now possess. But it is by no\nmeans certain, or even probable, that St. Paul ever did write such an\nepistle; for not one ancient writer makes the least mention of any such\nletter, nor is there any where to be found any citation from it, or any\nreference to it. It is a matter of testimony, in which all the fathers\nconcur, as with one voice, that St. Paul wrote no more than fourteen\nepistles, all of which we now have. But still, St. Paul\u2019s own\ndeclaration stands in the way of our opinion: \u201cI wrote to you in an\nepistle,\u201d 1 Cor. v, 9, 11. The words in the original are, \u1f1c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03db\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7; the literal version of which is, \u201cI have written to you in\nthe epistle,\u201d or \u201cin this epistle;\u201d that is, in the former part of it;\nwhere, in fact, we find the very thing which he says that he had\nwritten. See 1 Cor. v, 2, 5, 6. But it is thought by learned and\njudicious commentators, that the words following, \u039d\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd,\n\u201cBut now I have written unto you,\u201d require that we should understand the\nformer clause, as relating to some former time; but a careful attention\nto the context will convince us that this reference is by no means\nnecessary. The Apostle had told them in the beginning of the chapter, to\navoid the company of fornicators, &c; but it is manifest, from the tenth\nverse, that he apprehended that his meaning might be misunderstood, by\nextending the prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with\nthe world; therefore, he repeats what he had said, and informs them that\nit had relation only to the professors of Christianity, who should be\nguilty of such vices. The whole may be thus paraphrased: \u201cI wrote to you\nabove in my letter, that you should separate from those who were\nfornicators, and that you should purge them out as old leaven; but,\nfearing lest you should misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I\nhave directed you to avoid all intercourse with the Heathen around you,\nwho are addicted to these shameful vices, which would make it necessary\nthat you should go out of the world, I now inform you that my meaning\nis, that you do not associate familiarly with any who make a profession\nof Christianity, and yet continue in these evil practices.\u201d In\nconfirmation of this interpretation, we can adduce the old Syriac\nversion, which, having been made soon after the days of the Apostles, is\ngood testimony in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable\nversion, the meaning of the eleventh verse is thus given: \u201cThis is what\nI have written unto you,\u201d or, \u201cthe meaning of what I have written unto\nyou.\u201d\n\nThe only other passage in the New Testament which has been thought to\nrefer to an epistle of St. Paul not now extant, is that in Colossians\niv, 16: \u201cAnd when this epistle is read among you, cause also that it be\nread in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the\nepistle from Laodicea.\u201d But what evidence is there that St. Paul ever\nwrote an epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has\nbeen founded, in ancient and modern times, correctly interpreted, has no\nsuch import. The words in the original are, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5, \u201cand that ye likewise read the epistle from\nLaodicea,\u201d Col. iv, 16. These words have been differently taken; for, by\nthem some understand that an epistle had been written by St. Paul to the\nLaodiceans, which he desired might be read in the church at Colosse.\nChrysostom seems to have understood them thus; and the Romish writers\nalmost universally have adopted this opinion. \u201cTherefore,\u201d says\nBellarmine, \u201cit is certain that St. Paul\u2019s epistle to the Laodiceans is\nnow lost.\u201d And their opinion is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we\nread, _eamque Laodicensium_, \u201cthat which is of the Laodiceans;\u201d but even\nthese words admit of another construction. Many learned Protestants,\nalso, have embraced the same interpretation; while others suppose that\nSt. Paul here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they think\nhe sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious.\nBut that neither of these opinions is correct, may be rendered very\nprobable. That St. Paul could not intend, by the language used in the\npassage under consideration, an epistle written by himself, will appear\nby the following arguments: (1.) St. Paul could not, with any propriety\nof speech, have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to the\nLaodiceans, an epistle _from_ Laodicea. He certainly would have said,\n\u03d6\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, [to Laodicea,] or some such thing. Who ever heard of an\nepistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an\nepistle from them? (2.) If the epistle referred to in this passage had\nbeen one written by St. Paul, it would have been most natural for him to\ncall it his epistle; and this would have rendered his meaning incapable\nof misconstruction. (3.) All those best qualified to judge of the fact,\nand who were well acquainted with St. Paul\u2019s history and writings, never\nmention any such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac\ninterpreter, knew any thing of such an epistle of St. Paul. But it may\nbe asked, To what epistle, then, does St. Paul refer? It seems safest in\nsuch a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense\nof the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the\nLaodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians,\ntogether with his own epistle, for their perusal.\n\nCANTICLES, _the book of_, in Hebrew, \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, _the song of songs_.\nThe church, as well as the synagogue, received this book generally as\ncanonical. The royal author appears, in the typical spirit of his times,\nto have designed to render a ceremonial appointment descriptive of a\nspiritual relation; and this song is accordingly considered, by\njudicious writers, to be a mystical allegory of that sort which induces\na more sublime sense on historical truths, and which, by the description\nof human events, shadows out divine circumstances. The sacred writers\nwere, by God\u2019s condescension, authorized to illustrate his strict and\nintimate relation to the church by the figure of a marriage; and the\nemblem must have been strikingly becoming and expressive to the\nconceptions of the Jews, since they annexed ideas of peculiar mystery to\nthis appointment, and imagined the marriage union to be a counterpart\nrepresentation of some original pattern in heaven. Hence it was\nperformed among them with very peculiar ceremonies and solemnity, with\nevery thing that could give dignity and importance to its rites.\nSolomon, therefore, in celebrating the circumstances of his marriage,\nwas naturally led, by a train of correspondent reflections, to consider\nthat spiritual connection which it was often employed to symbolize; and\nthe idea must have been the more forcibly suggested to him, as he was at\nthis period preparing to build a temple to God, and thereby to furnish a\nvisible representation of the Hebrew church. The spiritual allegory thus\nworked up by Solomon to its highest perfection, was very consistent with\nthe prophetic style, which was accustomed to predict evangelical\nblessings by such parabolical figures; and Solomon was more immediately\nfurnished with a pattern for this representation by the author of the\nforty-fifth Psalm, who describes, in a compendious allegory, the same\nfuture connection between Christ and his church.\n\n2. But though the work be certainly an allegorical representation, many\nlearned men, in an unrestrained eagerness to explain the song, even in\nits minutest and most obscure particulars, have too far indulged their\nimaginations; and, by endeavouring too nicely to reconcile the literal\nwith the spiritual sense, have been led beyond the boundaries which a\nreverence for the sacred Scriptures should ever prescribe. The ideas\nwhich the sacred writers furnish concerning the mystical relation\nbetween Christ and his church, though well accommodated to our\napprehensions by the allusion of a marriage union, are too general to\nillustrate every particular contained in this poem, which may be\nsupposed to have been intentionally decorated with some ornaments\nappropriate to the literal construction. When the general analogy is\nobvious, we are not always to expect minute resemblance, and should not\nbe too curious in seeking for obscure and recondite allusions. Solomon,\nin the glow of an inspired fancy, and unsuspicious of misconception or\ndeliberate perversion, describes God and his church, with their\nrespective attributes and graces, under colourings familiar and\nagreeable to mankind, and exhibits their ardent affection under the\nauthorized figures of earthly love. No similitude, indeed, could be\nchosen so elegant and apposite for the illustration of this intimate and\nspiritual alliance, as a marriage union, if considered in the chaste\nsimplicity of its first institution, or under the interesting\ncircumstances with which it was established among the Jews.\n\n3. This poem may be considered, as to its form, as a dramatic poem of\nthe pastoral kind. There is a succession of time, and a change of place,\nto different parts of the palace and royal gardens. The persons\nintroduced as speakers, are the bridegroom and bride, and their\nrespective attendants. The interchange of dialogue is carried on in a\nwild and digressive manner; but the speeches are adapted to the persons\nwith appropriate elegance. The companions of the bride compose a kind of\nchorus, which seems to bear some resemblance to that afterward adopted\nin the Grecian tragedy. Solomon and his queen assume the pastoral\nsimplicity of style, which is favourable to the communication of their\nsentiments. The poem abounds throughout with beauties, and presents\nevery where a delightful and romantic display of nature, painted at its\nmost interesting season, and described with every ornament that an\ninventive fancy could furnish. It is justly entitled Song of Songs, or\nmost excellent song, as being superior to any that an uninspired writer\ncould have produced, and tending, if properly understood, to purify the\nmind, and to elevate the affections from earthly to heavenly things.\n\nCAPERNAUM, a city celebrated in the Gospels, being the place where Jesus\nusually resided during the time of his ministry. It stood on the sea\ncoast, that is, on the coast of the sea of Galilee, in the borders of\nZebulun and Naphtalim, Matt. iv, 15, and consequently toward the upper\npart of it. As it was a convenient port from Galilee to any place on the\nother side of the sea, this might be our Lord\u2019s inducement to make it\nthe place of his most constant residence. Upon this account Capernaum\nwas highly honoured; and though \u201cexalted unto heaven,\u201d as its\ninhabitants boasted, because it made no proper use of this signal favour\nit drew from him the severe denunciation, that it should \u201cbe brought\ndown to hell,\u201d Matt. xi, 23. This sentence of destruction has been fully\nrealized; the ancient city is reduced to a state of utter desolation.\nBurckhardt supposes the ruins called Tal Houm, near the rivulet called\nEl Eshe, to be those of Capernaum. Mr. Buckingham, who gives this place\nthe name of Talhhewn, describes considerable and extensive ruins; the\nonly remains of those edifices which exalted Capernaum above its\nfellows.\n\nCAPPADOCIA, is called in Hebrew _Caphtor_. Cappadocia joined Galatia on\nthe east, and is mentioned in Acts ii, 9, and by St. Peter, who\naddresses his First Epistle to the dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia,\nCappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia. The people of this country were formerly\ninfamous for their vices; but after the promulgation of Christianity, it\nproduced many great and worthy men: among these may be reckoned Gregory\nNazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, and St. Basil, commonly styled the Great.\n\nCAPTIVES. The treatment of persons taken in war among ancient nations\nthrows great light upon many passages of Scripture. The eastern\nconqueror often stripped his unhappy captives naked, shaved their heads,\nand made them travel in that condition, exposed to the burning heat of a\nvertical sun by day, and the chilling cold of the night. Such barbarous\ntreatment was to modest women the height of cruelty and indignity;\nespecially to those who had been educated in softness and elegance, who\nhad figured in all the superfluities of ornamental dress, and whose\nfaces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of man. The Prophet\nIsaiah mentions this as the hardest part of the sufferings in which\nfemale captives are involved: \u201cThe Lord will expose their nakedness.\u201d\nThe daughter of Zion had indulged in all the softness of oriental\nluxury; but the offended Jehovah should cause her unrelenting enemies to\ndrag her forth from her secret chambers into the view of an insolent\nsoldiery; strip her of her ornaments, in which she so greatly delighted;\ntake away her splendid and costly garments, discover her nakedness, and\ncompel her to travel in that miserable plight to a far distant country,\na helpless captive, the property of a cruel lord. Arrived in the land of\ntheir captivity, captives were often purchased at a very low price. The\nProphet Joel complains of the contemptuous cheapness in which the people\nof Israel were held by those who made them captives: \u201cAnd they have cast\nlots for my people; and have given a boy for a harlot, and sold a girl\nfor wine, that they might drink.\u201d The custom of casting lots for the\ncaptives taken in war appears to have prevailed both among the Jews and\nthe Greeks. The same allusion occurs in the prophecy of Obadiah:\n\u201cStrangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into\nhis gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem,\u201d Obadiah 11. With respect to\nthe Greeks, we have an instance in Tryphiodorus:--\n\n             \u201cShared out by lot the female captives stand,\n             The spoils divided with an equal hand;\n             Each to his ship conveys his rightful share,\n             Price of their toil, and trophies of the war.\u201d\n\n2. By an inhuman custom which is still retained in the east, the eyes of\ncaptives taken in war were not seldom put out, sometimes literally\nscooped or dug out of their sockets. This dreadful calamity Samson had\nto endure from the unrelenting vengeance of his enemies. In a posterior\nage, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah and Benjamin, after being\ncompelled to behold the violent death of his sons and nobility, had his\neyes put out, and was carried in chains to Babylon. The barbarous custom\nlong survived the decline and fall of the Babylonian empire; for by the\ntestimony of Mr. Maurice, in his history of Hindostan, the captive\nprinces of that country were often treated in this manner by their more\nfortunate rivals; a red hot iron was passed over their eyes, which\neffectually deprived them of sight, and at the same time of their title\nand ability to reign. To the wretched state of such prisoners, the\nProphet Isaiah alludes in a noble prediction, where he describes in very\nglowing colours the character and work of the promised Messiah: \u201cHe hath\nsent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the\ncaptives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them\nthat are bruised,\u201d as captives too frequently were by the weight of\ntheir fetters.\n\n3. It seems to have been the practice of eastern kings, to command their\ncaptives taken in war, especially those that had, by the atrociousness\nof their crimes, or the stoutness of their resistance, greatly provoked\ntheir indignation, to lie down on the ground, and then put to death a\ncertain part of them, which they measured with a line, or determined by\nlot. This custom was not, perhaps, commonly practised by the people of\nGod, in their wars with the nations around them; but one instance is\nrecorded in the life of David, who inflicted this punishment on the\nMoabites: \u201cAnd he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting\nthem down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to\ndeath, and with one full line to keep alive: and so the Moabites became\nDavid\u2019s servants, and brought gifts,\u201d 2 Sam. viii, 2. But the most\nshocking punishment which the ingenious cruelty of a haughty and\nunfeeling conqueror ever inflicted on the miserable captive, is\ndescribed by Virgil in the eighth book of the \u00c6neid; and which even a\nRoman, inured to blood, could not mention without horror:--\n\n\u201c_Quid memorem infandas c\u00e6des? quid facta tyranni_,\u201d &c.\n\n                                                               Line 483.\n\n          \u201cWhat words can paint those execrable times,\n          The subjects\u2019 sufferings, and the tyrant\u2019s crimes!\n          That blood, those murders, O ye gods! replace\n          On his own head, and on his impious race:\n          The living and the dead at his command\n          Were coupled face to face, and hand to hand,\n          Till, choked with stench, in loathed embraces tied,\n          The lingering wretches pined away, and died.\u201d\n                                                DRYDEN.\n\nIt is to this deplorable condition of a captive that the Apostle refers,\nin that pathetic exclamation, \u201cO wretched man that I am! who shall\ndeliver me from the body of this death?\u201d Who shall rescue me, miserable\ncaptive as I am, from this continual burden of sin which I carry about\nwith me; and which is cumbersome and odious, as a dead carcass bound to\na living body, to be dragged along with it where-ever it goes?\n\nCAPTIVITY. God generally punished the sins and infidelities of the Jews\nby different captivities or servitudes. The first captivity is that of\nEgypt, from which they were delivered by Moses, and which should be\nconsidered rather as a permission of providence, than as a punishment\nfor sin. Six captivities are reckoned during the government by judges:\nthe first, under Chushanrishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, which continued\nabout eight years; the second, under Eglon, king of Moab, from which the\nJews were delivered by Ehud; the third, under the Philistines, from\nwhich they were rescued by Shamgar; the fourth, under Jabin, king of\nHazor, from which they were delivered by Deborah and Barak; the fifth,\nunder the Midianites, from which Gideon freed them; and the sixth, under\nthe Ammonites and Philistines, during the judicatures of Jephthah,\nIbzan, Elon, Abdon, Eli, Samson, and Samuel. But the greatest and most\nremarkable captivities were those of Israel and Judah, under their regal\ngovernment.\n\nCAPTIVITIES OF ISRAEL. In the year of the world 3264, Tiglath-pileser\ntook several cities, and carried away captives, principally from the\ntribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, 2 Kings xv, 29.\nIn the year of the world 3283, Shalmaneser took and destroyed Samaria,\nafter a siege of three years, and transplanted the tribes that had been\nspared by Tiglath-pileser, to provinces beyond the Euphrates, 2 Kings\nxviii, 10, 11. It is generally believed, there was no return of the ten\ntribes from this second captivity. But when we examine carefully the\nwritings of the Prophets, we find a return of at least a great part of\nIsrael from the captivity clearly pointed out. Hosea says, \u201cThey shall\ntremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of\nAssyria; and I will place them in their houses, saith the Lord,\u201d Hosea\nxi, 11. Amos says, \u201cAnd I will bring again my people Israel from their\ncaptivity: they shall build their ruined cities and inhabit them,\u201d &c,\nAmos ix, 14. Obadiah observes, \u201cThe captivity of this host of the\nchildren of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites,\u201d &c, Obadiah\n18, 19. To the same purpose speak the other Prophets. \u201cThe Lord shall\nassemble the outcast of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of\nJudah,\u201d Isa. xi, 12, 13. Ezekiel received an order from God to take two\npieces of wood, and write on one, \u201cFor Judah and for the children of\nIsrael;\u201d and on the other, \u201cFor Joseph and for all the house of Israel;\u201d\nand to join these two pieces of wood, that they might become one, and\ndesignate the reunion of Judah and Israel, Ezek. xxxvii, 16. Jeremiah is\nequally express: \u201cThe house of Judah shall walk with the house of\nIsrael; and they shall come together out of the north, to the land which\nI have given for an inheritance to their fathers,\u201d Jer. iii, 18. See\nalso Jer. xxxi, 7\u20139, 16, 17, 20; xvi, 15; xlix, 2, &c; Zech. ix, 13; x,\n6, 10; Micah ii, 12. In the historical books of Scripture, we find that\nIsraelites of the ten tribes, as well as of Judah and Benjamin, returned\nfrom the captivity. Among those that returned with Zerubbabel are\nreckoned some of Ephraim and Manasseh, who settled at Jerusalem with the\ntribe of Judah. When Ezra numbered those who returned from the\ncaptivity, he only inquired whether they were of the race of Israel; and\nat the first passover which was then celebrated in the temple, was a\nsacrifice of twelve he-goats for the whole house of Israel, according to\nthe number of the tribes, Ezra vi, 16, 17; viii, 35. Under the\nMaccabees, and in our Saviour\u2019s time, we see Palestine peopled by\nIsraelites of all the tribes indifferently. The Samaritan Chronicle\nasserts that in the thirty-fifth year of the pontificate of Abdelus,\nthree thousand Israelites, by permission of King Sauredius, returned\nfrom captivity, under the conduct of Adus, son of Simon.\n\nCAPTIVITIES OF JUDAH. The captivities of Judah are generally reckoned\nfour: the first, in the year of the world 3398, under King Jehoiakim,\nwhen Daniel and others were carried to Babylon; the second, in the year\nof the world 3401, and in the seventh year of the reign of Jehoiakim,\nwhen Nebuchadnezzar carried three thousand and twenty-three Jews to\nBabylon; the third, in the year of the world 3406, and in the fourth of\nJehoiachin, when this prince, with part of his people, was sent to\nBabylon; and the fourth in the year 3416, under Zedekiah, from which\nperiod begins the captivity of seventy years, foretold by the Prophet\nJeremiah. Dr. Hales computes that the first of these captivities, which\nhe thinks formed the commencement of the Babylonish captivity, took\nplace in the year before Christ 605. The Jews were removed to Babylon by\nNebuchadnezzar, who, designing to render that city the capital of the\neast, transplanted thither very great numbers of people, subdued by him\nin different countries. In Babylon the Jews had judges and elders, who\ngoverned them, and who decided matters in dispute juridically, according\nto their laws. Of this we see a proof in the story of Susanna, who was\ncondemned by elders of her own nation. Cyrus, in the year of the world\n3457, and in the first year of his reign at Babylon, permitted the Jews\nto return to their own country, Ezra i, 1. However, they did not obtain\nleave to rebuild the temple; and the completion of those prophecies\nwhich foretold the termination of their captivity after seventy years,\nwas not till the year of the world 3486. In that year, Darius Hystaspes,\nby an edict, allowed them to rebuild the temple. In the year of the\nworld 3537, Artaxerxes Longimanus sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem. The Jews\nassert that only the refuse of their nation returned from the captivity,\nand that the principal of them continued in and near Babylon, where they\nhad been settled, and where they became very numerous. It may, however,\nbe doubted whether the refuse of Judah was really carried to Babylon. It\nappears from incidental observations in Scripture that some remained;\nand Major Rennell has offered several reasons for believing that only\ncertain classes of the Jews were deported to Babylon, as well as into\nAssyria. Nebuchadnezzar carried away only the principal inhabitants, the\nwarriors, and artisans of every kind; and he left the husbandmen, the\nlabourers, and in general, the poorer classes, that constitute the great\nbody of the people.\n\nCARAITES, or KAR\u00c6ITES, an ancient Jewish sect. The name signifies\n_Textualists_, or _Scripturists_, and was originally given to the school\nof Shammai, (about thirty years or more before Christ,) because they\nrejected the traditions of the elders, as embraced by the school of\nHillel and the Pharisees, and all the fanciful interpretations of the\nCabbala. They claim, however, a much higher antiquity, and produce a\ncatalogue of doctors up to the time of Ezra. The rabbinists have been\naccustomed to call them Sadducees; but they believed in the inspiration\nof the Scriptures, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment.\nThey believe that Messiah is not yet come, and reject all calculations\nof the time of his appearance: yet they say, it is proper that even\nevery day they should receive their salvation by Messiah, the Son of\nDavid. As to the practice of religion, they differ from the rabbinists\nin the observance of the festivals, and keep the Sabbath with more\nstrictness. They extend their prohibition of marriage to more degrees of\naffinity, and admit not of divorce on any slight or trivial grounds. The\nsect of Caraites still exists, but their number is inconsiderable. They\nare found chiefly in the Crimea, Lithuania, and Persia; at Damascus,\nConstantinople, and Cairo. Their honesty in the Crimea is said to be\nproverbial.\n\nCARBUNCLE, \u05d1\u05e8\u05e7\u05ea, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Ezek. xxviii, 13; and\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03be, Eccles. xxxii, 5; Tobit xiii, 17; a very elegant and rare gem,\nknown to the ancients by the name \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03be, or _coal_, because, when held\nup before the sun, it appears like a piece of bright burning charcoal:\nthe name _carbunculus_ has the same meaning. It was the third stone in\nthe first row of the pectoral; and is mentioned among the glorious\nstones of which the new Jerusalem is figuratively said to be built.\nBishop Lowth observes that the precious stones, mentioned Isa. liv, 11,\n12, and Rev. xxi, 18, seem to be general images to express beauty,\nmagnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the ideas of\nthe eastern nations; and to have never been intended to be strictly\nscrutinized, and minutely and particularly explained, as if they had\nsome precise moral or spiritual meaning. Tobit, in his prophecy of the\nfinal restoration of Israel, Tobit xii, 16,17, describes the new\nJerusalem in the same oriental manner.\n\nCARMEL, in the southern part of Palestine, where Nabal the Carmelite,\nAbigail\u2019s husband, dwelt, Joshua xv, 55; 1 Sam. xxv.\n\n2. CARMEL was also the name of a celebrated mountain in Palestine.\nThough spoken of in general as a single mountain, it ought rather to be\nconsidered as a mountainous region, the whole of which was known by the\nname of Carmel, while to one of the hills, more elevated than the rest,\nthat name was usually applied by way of eminence. It had the plain of\nSharon on the south; overlooked the port of Ptolemais on the north; and\nwas bounded on the west by the Mediterranean sea; forming one of the\nmost remarkable promontories that present themselves on the shores of\nthat great sea. According to Volney, it is about two thousand feet in\nheight, and has the shape of a flattened cone. Its sides are steep and\nrugged; the soil neither deep nor rich; and among the naked rocks\nstinted with plants, and wild forests which it presents to the eye,\nthere are at present but few traces of that fertility which we are\naccustomed to associate with the idea of Mount Carmel. Yet even Volney\nhimself acknowledges that he found among the brambles, wild vines and\nolive trees, which proved that the hand of industry had once been\nemployed on a not ungrateful soil. Of its ancient productiveness there\ncan be no doubt; the etymology and ordinary application of its name\nbeing sufficient evidence of the fact. Carmel is not only expressly\nmentioned in Scripture as excelling other districts in that respect;\nbut, every place possessed of the same kind of excellence obtained from\nit the same appellation in the language both of the prophets and the\npeople. Mount Carmel is celebrated in the Old Testament, as the usual\nplace of residence of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha. It was here that\nElijah so successfully opposed the false prophets of Baal, 1 Kings\nxviii; and there is a certain part of the mountain facing the west, and\nabout eight miles from the point of the promontory, which the Arabs call\nMansur, and the Europeans the place of sacrifice, in commemoration of\nthat miraculous event. Near the same place is also still shown a cave,\nin which it is said the Prophet had his residence. The brook Kishon,\nwhich issues from Mount Tabor, waters the bottom of Carmel, and falls\ninto the sea toward the northern side of the mountain, and not the\nsouthern, as some writers have erroneously stated. Its greatest\nelevation is about one thousand five hundred feet; hence, when the sea\ncoast on one side, and the plain on the other, are oppressed with sultry\nheat, this hill is refreshed by cooling breezes, and enjoys a delightful\ntemperature. The fastnesses of this rugged mountain are so difficult of\naccess, that the Prophet Amos classes them with the deeps of hell, the\nheight of heaven, and the bottom of the sea: \u201cThough they dig into\nhell,\u201d (or the dark and silent chambers of the grave,) \u201cthence shall\nmine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring\nthem down; and though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will\nsearch and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in\nthe bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall\nbite them,\u201d Amos ix, 2, 3. Lebanon raises to heaven a summit of naked\nand barren rocks, covered for the greater part of the year with snow;\nbut the top of Carmel, how naked and sterile soever its present\ncondition, was clothed with verdure which seldom was known to fade. Even\nthe lofty genius of Isaiah, stimulated and guided by the Spirit of\ninspiration, could not find a more appropriate figure to express the\nflourishing state of the Redeemer\u2019s kingdom, than \u201cthe excellency of\nCarmel and Sharon.\u201d\n\nCART, a machine used in Palestine to force the corn out of the ear, and\nbruise the straw, Isaiah xxviii, 27, 28. The wheels of these carts were\nlow, broad, and shod with iron, and were drawn over the sheaves spread\non the floor by means, of oxen.\n\nCASTOR and POLLUX. It is said that the vessel which carried Paul to Rome\nhad the sign of Castor and Pollux, Acts xxviii, 11. Castor and Pollux\nwere sea-gods, and invoked by sailors; and even the light balls or\nmeteors which are sometimes seen on ships, were called Castor and\nPollux. An inscription in Gruter proves that seamen implored Castor and\nPollux in dangers at sea. It is to be observed, that St. Luke does not\nmention the name, but the sign, of the ship. By the word sign, the\nsacred writer meant a protecting image of the deity, to whom the vessel\nwas in some sort consecrated; as at present in Catholic countries, most\nof their vessels are named after some saint, St. Xavier, St. Andero, St.\nDominique, &c. It appears to be certain, that the figure which gave name\nto the ship was at the head, and the tutelary deity was placed on the\npoop.\n\nCASUIST, one who studies and decides upon cases of conscience. Escobar\nhas made a collection of the opinions of all the casuists before his\ntime. M. Le Feore, preceptor to Louis XIII, said that the books of the\ncasuists taught \u201cthe art of quibbling with God;\u201d which does not seem far\nfrom truth, by reason of the multitude of distinctions and subtleties\nwith which they abound. Mayer has published a bibliotheca of casuists,\ncontaining an account of all the writers on cases of conscience, ranged\nunder three heads; the first comprehending the Lutheran; the second, the\nCalvinistic; and the third, the Roman casuists.\n\nCASUISTRY, the doctrine and science of conscience and its cases, with\nthe rules and principles of resolving the same; drawn partly from\nnatural reason, or equity, and partly from the authority of Scripture,\nthe canon law, councils, fathers, &c. To casuistry belongs the decision\nof all difficulties arising about what a man may lawfully do or not do;\nwhat is sin or not sin; what things a man is obliged to do in order to\ndischarge his duty, and what he may let alone without breach of it.\nAlthough the morality of the Gospel is distinguished by its purity and\nby its elevation, it is necessarily exhibited in a general form; certain\nleading principles are laid down; but the application of these to the\ninnumerable cases which occur in the actual intercourse of life, is left\nto the understanding and the conscience of individuals. Had it been\notherwise, the Christian code would have swelled to an extent which\nwould have rendered it in a great degree useless; it would have been\ndifficult or impossible to recollect all its provisions; and, minute as\nthese would have been, they would still have been defective,--new\nsituations or combinations of circumstances modifying duty continually\narising, which it would have been impracticable or hurtful to\nanticipate. When the principles of duty are rightly unfolded, and when\nthey are placed on a sound foundation, there is, to a fair mind, no\ndifficulty in accommodating them to its own particular exigencies. A few\ncases, it is true, may occur, where it is a matter of doubt in what way\nmen should act; but these are exceedingly rare, and the lives of vast\nnumbers may come to an end without any of them happening to occasion\nperplexity. Every man may be, and perhaps is, sensible, that his errors\nare to be ascribed, not to his having been at a loss to know what he\nshould have done, but to his deliberately or hastily violating what he\nsaw to be right, or to his having allowed himself to confound, by vain\nand subtile distinctions, what, in the case of any one else, would have\nleft in his mind no room for hesitation. The manner, however, in which\nthe Gospel inculcates the law of God, combined with other causes in\nleading to a species of moral discussion, which, pretending to ascertain\nin every case what ought to be practised, and thus to afford plain and\nsafe directions to the conscience, terminated in what has been\ndenominated casuistry.\n\nThe schoolmen delighted in this species of intellectual labour. They\ntransferred their zeal for the most fanciful and frivolous distinctions\nin what respected the doctrines of religion to its precepts; they\nanatomized the different virtues; nicely examined all the circumstances\nby which our estimate of them should be influenced; and they thus\nrendered the study of morality inextricable, confounded the natural\nnotions of right and wrong, and so accustomed themselves and others to\nweigh their actions, that they could easily find some excuse for what\nwas most culpable, while they continued under the impression that they\nwere not deviating from what, as moral beings, was incumbent upon them.\nThe corruption of manners which was introduced into the church during\nthe dark ages rendered casuistry very popular; and, accordingly, many\nwho affected to be the most enlightened writers of their age, and\nperhaps really were so, tortured their understanding or their fancy in\nsolving cases of conscience, and often in polluting their own\nimaginations and those of others, by employing them on possible crimes,\nupon which, however unlikely was their occurrence in life, they were\neager to pronounce a decision. The happy change which the Reformation\nproduced upon the views of men respecting the sacred Scriptures, tended\nto erect that pure standard of duty which for ages had been laid in the\ndust. Yet for a considerable time Protestant divines occupied themselves\nwith the intricacies of casuistry, thus in some degree shutting out the\nlight which they had fortunately poured upon the world. The Lutheran\ntheologians walked very much in the tract which the schoolmen had\nopened, although their decisions were much more consonant with\nChristianity; and it was not uncommon in some countries for\necclesiastical assemblies to devote part of their time to the resolution\nof questions which might have been safely left unnoticed, which now are\nalmost universally regarded as frivolous, and about which almost the\nmost ignorant would be ashamed to ask an opinion. Even after much of the\nsophistry, and much of the moral perversion connected with casuistry,\nwere exploded, the form of that science was preserved, and many valuable\nmoral principles in conformity to it delivered. The venerable Bishop\nHall published a celebrated work, to which he gave the appellation of\n\u201cCases of Conscience Practically resolved;\u201d and he introduces it with\nthe following observations addressed to the reader: \u201cOf all divinity,\nthat part is most useful which determines cases of conscience; and of\nall cases of conscience, the practical are most necessary, as action is\nof more concernment than speculation; and of all practical cases, those\nwhich are of most common use are of so much greater necessity and\nbenefit to be resolved, as the errors thereof are more universal, and\ntherefore more prejudicial to the society of mankind. These I have\nselected out of many; and having turned over divers casuists, have\npitched upon those decisions which I hold most conformable to\nenlightened reason and religion; sometimes I follow them, and sometimes\nI leave them for a better guide.\u201d He divides his work into four\nparts,--Cases of profit and traffic, Cases of life and liberty, Cases of\npiety and religion, and Cases matrimonial; under each of these solving a\nnumber of questions, or rather giving a number of moral dissertations.\n\nCasuistry, as a systematic perversion of Christian morality, is now, in\nthe Protestant world, very much unknown; though there still is, and\nperhaps always will be, that softening down of the strict rules of duty,\nto which mankind are led either by self-deceit, or by the natural desire\nof reconciling, with the hope of the divine favour, considerable\nobliquity from that path of rectitude and virtue which alone is\nacceptable to God. But the most striking specimen of the length to which\ncasuistry was carried, and of the dangerous consequences which resulted\nfrom it, is furnished by the history of the maxims and sentiments of the\nJesuits, that celebrated order, which combined with profound literature,\nand the most zealous support of Popery, an ambition that perverted their\nunderstandings, or rather induced them to employ their rational powers\nin the melancholy work of poisoning the sources of morality, and of\ncasting the name and the appearance of virtue over a dissoluteness of\nprinciple and a profligacy of licentiousness, which, had they not been\nchecked by sounder views, and by feelings and habits favourable to\nmorality, would have spread through the world the most degrading misery.\nSee JESUITS.\n\nCATERPILLAR. \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc. The word occurs Deut. xxviii, 38; Psa. lxviii, 46;\nIsa. xxxiii, 4; 1 Kings viii, 37; 2 Chron. vi, 28; Joel i, 4; ii, 25. In\nthe four last cited texts, it is distinguished from the locust, properly\nso called; and in Joel i, 4, is mentioned as \u201ceating up\u201d what the other\nspecies had left, and therefore might be called _the consumer_, by way\nof eminence. But the ancient interpreters are far from being agreed what\nparticular species it signifies. The Septuagint in Chronicles, and\nAquila in Psalms, render it \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2: so the Vulgate in Chronicles and\nIsaiah, and Jerom in Psalms, _bruchus_, the chafer, which is a great\ndevourer of leaves. From the Syriac version, however, Micha\u00eblis is\ndisposed to understand it the _taupe grillon_, \u201cmole cricket,\u201d which, in\nits grub state, is very destructive to corn and other vegetables, by\nfeeding on their roots. See LOCUST.\n\nCATHOLIC denotes what is general or universal. The rise of heresies\ninduced the primitive Christian church to assume to itself the\nappellation of _catholic_, as being a characteristic to distinguish\nitself from them. The Romish church now proudly assumes the title\n_catholic_, in opposition to all who have separated from her communion,\nand whom she considers as heretics and schismatics, while she herself\nremains the only true and Christian church. The church of Christ is\ncalled catholic, because it extends throughout the world, and endures\nthrough all time.\n\n2. CATHOLIC, _general_, Epistles. They are seven in number; namely, one\nof James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. They are called\ncatholic, because directed to Christian converts generally, and not to\nany particular church. Hug, in his \u201cIntroduction to the New Testament,\u201d\ntakes another view of the import of this term, which was certainly used\nat an early period, as by Origen and others:--\u201cWhen the Gospels and Acts\nof the Apostles constituted one peculiar division, the works of Paul\nalso another, there still remained writings of different authors, which\nmight likewise form a collection of themselves, to which a name must be\ngiven. It might most aptly be called _the common collection_, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, of the Apostles, and the treatises contained in it, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 and\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, which are commonly used by the Greeks as synonyms. For this\nwe find a proof even in the most ancient ecclesiastical language.\nClemens Alexandrinus calls the epistle which was despatched by the\nassembly of the Apostles, Acts xv, 23, the \u2018catholic epistle,\u2019 as that\nin which all the Apostles had a share, \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Hence our seven epistles are catholic, or epistles of\n_all_ the Apostles who are authors.\u201d\n\nCAVES, or CAVERNS. The country of Judea, being mountainous and rocky, is\nin many parts full of caverns, to which allusions frequently occur in\nthe Old Testament. At Engedi, in particular, there was a cave so large,\nthat David, with six hundred men, hid themselves in the sides of it, and\nSaul entered the mouth of the cave without perceiving that any one was\nthere, 1 Sam. xxiv. Josephus tells us of a numerous gang of banditti,\nwho, having infested the country, and being pursued by Herod with his\narmy, retired into certain caverns, almost inaccessible, near Arbela in\nGalilee, where they were with great difficulty subdued. \u201cBeyond\nDamascus,\u201d says Strabo, \u201care two mountains, called Trachones, from which\nthe country has the name of Trachonitis; and from hence, toward Arabia\nand Iturea, are certain rugged mountains, in which there are deep\ncaverns; one of which will hold four thousand men.\u201d Tavernier, in his\n\u201cTravels in Persia,\u201d speaks of a grotto between Aleppo and Bir, that\nwould hold near three thousand horse. And Maundrel assures us, that\n\u201cthree hours distant from Sidon, about a mile from the sea, there runs\nalong a high rocky mountain, in the sides of which are hewn a multitude\nof grottoes, all very little differing from each other. They have\nentrances about two foot square. There are of these subterraneous\ncaverns two hundred in number. It may, with probability, at least, be\nconcluded that these places were contrived for the use of the living,\nand not of the dead.\u201d These extracts may be useful in explaining such\npassages of Scripture as the following: \u201cBecause of the Midianites, the\nchildren of Israel made them dens which are in the mountains, and caves,\nand strong holds,\u201d Judges vi, 2. To these they betook themselves for\nrefuge in times of distress and hostile invasion:--\u201cWhen the men of\nIsrael saw that they were in a strait, for the people were distressed,\nthen the people did hide themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in\nrocks, and in high places, and in pits,\u201d 1 Sam. xiii, 6. See also Jer.\nxli, 9: \u201cTo enter into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the\nearth,\u201d became with the prophets a very proper and familiar image to\nexpress a state of terror and consternation. Thus Isa. ii, 19: \u201cThey\nshall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth,\nfor fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth\nto shake terribly the earth.\u201d\n\nCEDAR, \u05d0\u05e8\u05d6. The cedar is a large and noble evergreen tree. Its lofty\nheight, and its far extended branches, afford spacious shelter and\nshade, Ezek. xxxi, 3, 6, 8. The wood is very valuable; is of a reddish\ncolour, of an aromatic smell, and reputed incorruptible. This is owing\nto its bitter taste, which the worms cannot endure, and to its resin,\nwhich preserves it from the injuries of the weather. The ark of the\ncovenant, and much of the temple of Solomon, and that of Diana at\nEphesus, were built of cedar. The tree is much celebrated in Scripture.\nIt is called, \u201cthe glory of Lebanon,\u201d Isa. lx, 13. On that mountain it\nmust in former times have flourished in great abundance. There are some\ncedars still growing there which are prodigiously large. But the\ntravellers who have visited the place within these two or three\ncenturies, and who describe trees of vast size, inform us that their\nnumber is diminished greatly; so that, as Isaiah says, \u201ca child may\nnumber them,\u201d Isa. x, 19. Maundrell measured one of the largest size,\nand found it to be twelve yards and six inches in girt, and yet sound;\nand thirty-seven yards in the spread of its boughs. Gabriel Sionita, a\nvery learned Syrian Maronite, who assisted in editing the Paris\nPolyglott, a man worthy of all credit, thus describes the cedars of\nmount Lebanon, which he had examined on the spot: \u201cThe cedar grows on\nthe most elevated part of the mountain, is taller than the pine, and so\nthick, that five men together could scarcely encompass one. It shoots\nout its branches at ten or twelve feet from the ground: they are large\nand distant from each other, and are perpetually green. The wood is of a\nbrown colour, very solid and incorruptible, if preserved from wet. The\ntree bears a small cone like that of the pine.\u201d\n\nCELSUS. A Pagan philosopher of the second century, who composed a work\nagainst Christianity, in which he so expressly refers to the facts of\nthe Gospels, and to the books of the New Testament, as to have furnished\nimportant undesigned testimony to their antiquity and truth.\n\nCEMETERY. See SEPULCHRE.\n\nCENSER, a sacred instrument made use of in the religious rites of the\nHebrews. It was a vase which contained incense to be used in sacrifice.\nWhen Aaron made an atonement for himself and his house, he was to take a\ncenser full of burning coals of fire from off the altar of the Lord,\nLev. xvi, 12. And Solomon, when he provided furniture for the temple of\nthe Lord, made, among other things, censers of pure gold, 1 Kings vii,\n50.\n\nCENTURION, an officer in the Roman army, who, as the term indicates, had\nthe command of a hundred men, Matt. viii, 5, &c.\n\nCEPHAS, \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2, from \u05db\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0, a _rock_. The Greek \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and the Latin\n_Petrus_, have the same signification. See PETER.\n\nCEREMONY, an assemblage of several actions, forms, and circumstances,\nserving to render a thing magnificent and solemn. Applied to religious\nservices, it signifies the external rites and manner in which the\nministers of religion perform their sacred functions, and direct or lead\nthe worship of the people. In 1646, M. Ponce, published a history of\nancient ceremonies, showing the rise, growth, and introduction of each\nrite into the church, and its gradual advancement to superstition. Many\nof them were borrowed from Judaism, but more from Paganism. In all\nreligions adapted to the nature of man there must be some positive\ninstitutions for fixing the mind upon spiritual objects, and\ncounteracting that influence of material things upon habits and pursuits\nwhich is, and must be, constantly exerted. Without such institutions,\nreligion might be preserved, indeed, by a few of superior understanding\nand of strong powers of reflection; but among mankind in general all\ntrace of it would soon be lost. When the end for which they are\nappointed is kept in view, and the simple examples of the New Testament\nare observed, they are of vast importance to the production both of\npious feelings and of virtuous conduct; but there has constantly been a\npropensity in the human race to mistake the means for the end, and to\nconsider themselves as moral and religious, when they scrupulously\nobserve what was intended to produce morality and religion. The reason\nis obvious: ceremonial observances can be performed without any great\nsacrifice of propensities and vices; they are palpable; when they are\nobserved by men who, in the tenor of public life, do not act immorally,\nthey are regarded by others as indicating high attainments in virtue;\nand through that self-deceit which so wonderfully misleads the reason,\nand inclines it to minister to the passions which it should restrain,\nmen have themselves become persuaded that their acknowledgment of divine\nauthority, implied in their respect to the ritual which that authority\nis conceived to have sanctioned, may be taken as a proof that they have\nnothing to apprehend from the violation of the law under which they are\nplaced. But, whatever be the causes of this, the fact itself is\nestablished by the most extensive and the most incontrovertible\nevidence. We find it, indeed, wherever mankind have had notions of\nsuperior power, and of their obligation to yield obedience to the will\nof the supreme Being.\n\nUnder the system of polytheism which prevailed in the most enlightened\nnations previous to the publication of Christianity, this was carried so\nfar, that the connection between religion and morality was in a great\ndegree dissolved, rites and ceremonies, sacrifices and oblations, were\nall that it was thought requisite to observe; when these were carefully\nperformed, there was no hesitation in ascribing piety to the persons who\ndid perform them, however deficient they might be in virtuous and pious\ndispositions. Even under the Mosaical dispensation, proceeding as it\ndid, immediately from heaven, and adapted, as in infinite wisdom it was,\nto the situation of those to whom it was given, the same evil early\nbegan to be experienced; and although it was lamented and exposed by the\nprophets, and the most enlightened men among the Jews, it was so far\nfrom being eradicated, that it continued to acquire strength, till it\nwas exhibited in all its magnitude in the character prevalent among the\nPharisees at the period of Christ\u2019s manifestation. With this highly\npopular and revered class of men, religion was either merely a matter of\nceremony, or was employed, for base and interested purposes, to cast a\nveil of sanctity over their actions. They said long prayers, but it was\nfor a show; they gave alms, but it was after they had sounded a trumpet,\nthat the eye of man might be fixed upon their beneficence; and, as to\nthe point now under review, they were most strikingly described by our\nSaviour, when he said of them, \u201cThey pay tithe of mint, and anise, and\ncummin, but they neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice, and\nmercy, and truth.\u201d The Christian religion not only expressly guards\nagainst an evil which had become so prevalent, but its whole spirit is\nat variance with it, its own ceremonial observances being few, and\nobviously emblematical of whatever is excellent and holy. But still the\nGospel finds human nature as other religions found it; and\necclesiastical history, even from the earliest periods, shows with what\nastonishing perverseness, and with what wonderful ingenuity, men\ndeparted from the simplicity of Christianity, and substituted in its\nroom the most childish, and often the most pernicious, practices and\nobservances. The _power_ of godliness was lost in _forms_; and the\ninnovations of a profane _will-worship_ became almost innumerable. The\neffect was, that men regarded God as less concerned with the moral\nconduct of his creatures, than with the _quantum_ of _service_ they\nperformed in his temples; and religion and morals were so disjoined,\nthat one became the substitute for the other, to the universal\ncorruption of the Christian world.\n\nCERINTHIANS. Of Cerinthus, the founder of this sect, Dr. Burton gives\nthe following account: Cerinthus is said to have been one of those Jews\nwho, when St. Peter returned to Jerusalem, expostulated with him for\nhaving baptized Cornelius, Acts xi, 2. He is also stated to have been\none of those who went down from Judea to Antioch, and said, \u201cExcept ye\nbe circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved,\u201d Acts xv,\n1. According to the same account, he was one of the false teachers who\nseduced the Galatians to Judaism; and he is also charged with joining in\nthe attack which was made upon St. Paul, for polluting the temple by the\nintroduction of Greeks, Acts xxi, 27, 28. I cannot find any older\nauthority for these statements than that of Epiphanius, who wrote late\nin the fourth century, and is by no means worthy of implicit credit. He\nasserts, also, that Cerinthus was one of the persons alluded to by St.\nLuke, as having already undertaken to write the life of Jesus. But all\nthese stories I take to be entirely inventions; and there is no evidence\nthat Cerinthus made himself conspicuous at so early a period. Iren\u00e6us\nspeaks of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, as being considerably prior to\nthat of the Cerinthians. According to the same writer, Carpocrates also\npreceded Cerinthus; and if it be true, as so many of the fathers assert,\nthat St. John wrote his Gospel expressly to confute this heresy, we can\nhardly come to any other conclusion, than that it was late in the first\ncentury when Cerinthus rose into notice. He appears undoubtedly to have\nbeen a Jew; and there is evidence that, after having studied philosophy\nin Egypt, he spread his doctrines in Asia Minor. This will account for\nhis embracing the Gnostic opinions, and for his exciting the notice of\nSt. John, who resided at Ephesus. He was certainly a Gnostic in his\nnotion of the creation of the world, which he conceived to have been\nformed by angels; and his attachment to that philosophy may explain what\notherwise seems inconsistent, that he retained some of the Mosaic\nceremonies, such as the observance of Sabbaths and circumcision; though,\nlike other Gnostics, he ascribed the law and the prophets to the angel\nwho created the world. This adoption or rejection of different parts of\nthe same system was a peculiar feature of the Gnostic philosophy; and\nthe name of Cerinthus probably became eminent, because he introduced a\nfresh change in the notion concerning Christ. The Gnostics, like their\nleader, Simon Magus, had all of them been Docet\u00e6, and denied the real\nhumanity; but Cerinthus is said to have maintained that Jesus had a real\nbody, and was the son of human parents, Joseph and Mary. In the other\npoints he agreed with the Gnostics, and believed that Christ was one of\nthe \u00e6ons who descended on Jesus at his baptism. It is difficult to\nascertain who was the first Gnostic that introduced this opinion. Some\nwriters give the merit of it to Ebion; and yet it is generally said that\nCerinthus and Ebion agreed in their opinions concerning Christ, and that\nCerinthus preceded Ebion. Again Carpocrates is said to have held the\nsame sentiments; and he is placed by Iren\u00e6us before Cerinthus: so that\nit is difficult, if not impossible, to decide the chronological\nprecedence of these heretics. Perhaps the safest inference to draw from\nso many conflicting testimonies is this: that Carpocrates was the first\nGnostic of eminence who was not a Docetist; but that the notion of Jesus\nbeing born of human parents was taught more explicitly and with more\nsuccess by Cerinthus. Carpocrates is reported to have been distinguished\nby the gross immorality of his life; and whatever we may think of the\nimputations cast upon the Gnostics in general, it seems impossible to\ndeny that this person, at least, professed and practised a perfect\nliberty of action. There is also strong evidence that in this instance\nCerinthus followed his example.\n\nThere is a peculiar doctrine ascribed to this heretic, which, if it\noriginated with him, may well account for the celebrity of his name.\nCerinthus has been handed down as the first person who held the notion\nof a millennium; and though the fathers undoubtedly believed that,\nprevious to the general resurrection, the earth would undergo a\nrenovation, and the just would rise to enjoy a long period of\nterrestrial happiness, yet there was a marked and palpable difference\nbetween the millennium of the fathers and that of Cerinthus. The fathers\nconceived this terrestrial happiness to be perfectly pure and freed from\nthe imperfections of our nature; but Cerinthus is said to have promised\nhis followers a millennium of the grossest pleasures and the most\nsensual gratifications. It is singular that all the three sources, to\nwhich we may trace the Gnostic doctrines, might furnish some foundation\nfor this notion of a millennium. Thus Plato has left some speculations\nconcerning the \u201cgreat year,\u201d when, after the expiration of thirty-six\nthousand years, the world was to be renewed, and the golden age to\nreturn. It was the belief of the Persian magi, according to Plutarch,\nthat the time would come, when Ahreman, or the evil principle, would be\ndestroyed; when the earth would lose its impediments and inequalities,\nand all mankind would be of one language, and enjoy uninterrupted\nhappiness. It was taught, in the Cabbala, that the world was to last six\nthousand years, which would be followed by a period of rest for a\nthousand years more. There appears in this an evident allusion, though\non a much grander scale, to the sabbatical years of rest. The\ninstitution of the jubilee, and the glowing descriptions given by the\nprophets of the restoration of the Jews, and the reign of the Messiah,\nmay have led the later Jews to some of their mystical fancies; and when\nall these systems were blended together by the Gnostics, it is not\nstrange, if a millennium formed part of their creed long before the time\nof Cerinthus. It seems probable, however, that he went much farther than\nhis predecessors in teaching that the millennium would consist in a\ncourse of sensual indulgence; and it may have been his notions upon this\nsubject, added to those concerning the human nature of Christ, which led\nhim to maintain, contrary to the generality of Gnostics, that Christ had\nnot yet risen, but that he would rise hereafter. The Gnostics, as we\nhave seen, denied the resurrection altogether. Believing Jesus to be a\nphantom, they did not believe that he was crucified; and they could not\ntherefore believe that he had risen. But Cerinthus, who held that Jesus\nwas born, like other human beings, found no difficulty in believing\nliterally that he was crucified; and he is said also to have taught that\nhe would rise from the dead at some future period. It is most probable\nthat this period was that of the millennium; and the words of St. John\nin the Revelation would easily be perverted, where it is said of the\nsouls of the martyrs, that \u201cthey lived and reigned with Christ a\nthousand years,\u201d Rev. xx, 4.\n\nCHALCEDONY, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd, Rev. xxi, 19; a precious stone. Arethas, who has\nwritten an account of Bithynia, says that it was so called from\nChalcedon, a city of that country, opposite to Byzantium; and it was in\ncolour like a carbuncle. Some have supposed this also to be the stone\ncalled \u05e0\u05e4\u05da, translated \u201cemerald,\u201d Exodus xxviii, 18.\n\nCHALDEA, or Babylonia, the country lying on both sides of the Euphrates,\nof which Babylon was the capital; and extending southward to the Persian\nGulf, and northward into Mesopotamia, at least as far as Ur, which is\ncalled Ur of the Chaldees. This country had also the name of Shinar. See\nBABYLON.\n\nCHALDEAN PHILOSOPHY claims attention on account of its very high\nantiquity. The most ancient people, next to the Hebrews, among the\neastern nations, who appear to have been acquainted with philosophy, in\nits more general sense, were the Chaldeans; for though the Egyptians\nhave pretended that the Chaldeans were an Egyptian colony, and that they\nderived their learning from Egypt, there is reason to believe that the\nkingdom of Babylon, of which Chaldea was a part, flourished before the\nEgyptian monarchy; and that the Egyptians were rather indebted to the\nChaldeans, than the Chaldeans to the Egyptians. Nevertheless, the\naccounts that have been transmitted to us by the Chaldeans themselves,\nof the antiquity of their learning, are blended with fable, and involved\nin considerable uncertainty. There are other circumstances,\nindependently of the antiquity of the Chaldean philosophy, which render\nour knowledge of it imperfect and uncertain. We derive our acquaintance\nwith it from other nations, and principally from the Greeks, whose\nvanity led them to despise and misrepresent the pretended learning of\nbarbarous nations. The Chaldeans also adopted a symbolical mode of\ninstruction, and transmitted their doctrines to posterity under a veil\nof obscurity, which it is not easy to remove. To all which, we may add\nthat, about the commencement of the Christian \u00e6ra, a race of\nphilosophers sprung up, who, with a view of gaining credit to their own\nwild and extravagant doctrines, passed them upon the world as the\nancient wisdom of the Chaldeans and Persians, in spurious books, which\nthey ascribed to Zoroaster, or some other eastern philosopher. Thus, the\nfictions of these impostors were confounded with the genuine dogmas of\nthe ancient eastern nations. Notwithstanding these causes of\nuncertainty, which perplex the researches of modern inquirers into the\ndistinguishing doctrines and character of the Chaldean philosophy, it\nappears probable that the philosophers of Chaldea were the priests of\nthe Babylonian nation, who instructed the people in the principles of\nreligion, interpreted its laws, and conducted its ceremonies. Their\ncharacter was similar to that of the Persian magi, and they are often\nconfounded with them by the Greek historians. Like the priests in most\nother nations, they employed religion in subserviency to the ruling\npowers, and made use of imposture to serve the purposes of civil policy.\nAccordingly, Diodorus Siculus relates, that they pretended to predict\nfuture events by divination, to explain prodigies, and interpret dreams,\nand to avert evils, or confer benefits, by means of augury and\nincantations. For many ages, they retained a principal place among\ndiviners. In the reign of Marcus Antonius, when the emperor and his\narmy, who were perishing with thirst, were suddenly relieved by a\nshower, the prodigy was ascribed to the power and skill of the Chaldean\nsoothsayers. Thus accredited for their miraculous powers, they\nmaintained their consequence in the courts of princes. The principal\ninstrument which they employed in support of their superstition, was\nastrology. The Chaldeans were probably the first people who made regular\nobservations upon the heavenly bodies, and hence the appellation of\nChaldean became afterward synonymous with that of astronomer.\nNevertheless all their observations were applied to the sole purpose of\nestablishing the credit of judicial astrology; and they employed their\npretended skill in this art, in calculating nativities, foretelling the\nweather, predicting good and bad fortune, and other practices usual with\nimpostors of this class. While they taught the vulgar that all human\naffairs are influenced by the stars, and professed to be acquainted with\nthe nature and laws of their influence, and consequently to possess a\npower of prying into futurity, they encouraged much idle superstition,\nand many fraudulent practices. Hence other professors of these\nmischievous arts were afterward called Chaldeans, and the arts\nthemselves were called Babylonian arts. Among the Romans these impostors\nwere so troublesome, that, during the time of the republic, it became\nnecessary to issue an edict requiring the Chaldeans, or mathematicians,\n(by which latter appellation they were commonly known,) to depart from\nRome and Italy within ten days; and, afterward, under the emperors,\nthese soothsayers were put under the most severe interdiction.\n\nThe Chaldean philosophy, notwithstanding the obscurity that has rendered\nit difficult of research, has been highly extolled, not only by the\norientals and Greeks, but by Jewish and Christian writers: but upon\nrecurring to authorities that are unquestionable, there seems to be\nlittle or nothing in this branch of the barbaric philosophy which\ndeserves notice. The following brief detail will include the most\ninteresting particulars. From the testimony of Diodorus, and also from\nother ancient authorities, collected by Eusebius, it appears, that the\nChaldeans believed in God, the Lord and Parent of all, by whose\nprovidence the world is governed. From this principle sprung their\nreligious rites, the immediate object of which was a supposed race of\nspiritual beings or demons, whose existence could not have been\nimagined, without first conceiving the idea of a supreme Being, the\nsource of all intelligence. The belief of a supreme Deity, the fountain\nof all the divinities which were supposed to preside over the several\nparts of the material world, was the true origin of all religious\nworship, however idolatrous, not excepting even that which consisted in\npaying divine honours to the memory of dead men. Beside the supreme\nBeing, the Chaldeans supposed spiritual beings to exist, of several\norders; gods, demons, heroes: these they probably distributed into\nsubordinate classes, agreeably to their practice of theurgy or magic.\nThe Chaldeans, in common with the eastern nations in general, admitted\nthe existence of certain evil spirits, clothed in a vehicle of grosser\nmatter; and in subduing or counteracting these, they placed a great part\nof the efficacy of their religious incantations. These doctrines were\nthe mysteries of the Chaldean religion, imparted only to the initiated.\nTheir popular religion consisted in the worship of the sun, moon,\nplanets, and stars, as divinities, after the general practice of the\neast, Job xxxi, 27. From the religious system of the Chaldeans were\nderived two arts, for which they were long celebrated; namely, magic and\nastrology. Their magic, which should not be confounded with witchcraft,\nor a supposed intercourse with evil spirits, consisted in the\nperformance of certain religious ceremonies or incantations, which were\nsupposed, by the interposition of good demons, to produce supernatural\neffects. Their astrology was founded upon the chimerical principle, that\nthe stars have an influence, either beneficial or malignant, upon the\naffairs of men, which may be discovered, and made the certain ground of\nprediction, in particular cases; and the whole art consisted in applying\nastronomical observations to this fanciful purpose, and thus imposing\nupon the credulity of the vulgar.\n\nCHAMBER. See UPPER ROOM.\n\nCHAPTERS. The New Testament was early portioned out into certain\ndivisions, which appear under various names. The custom of reading it\npublicly in the Christian assemblies after the law and the prophets,\nwould soon cause such divisions to be applied to it. The law and the\nprophets were for this end already divided into _parashim_ and\n_haptaroth_, and the New Testament could not long remain without being\ntreated in the same way. The distribution into church lessons was indeed\nthe oldest that took place in it. The Christian teachers gave the name\nof _pericopes_, to the sections read as lessons by the Jews. Justin\nMartyr avails himself of this expression, when he quotes prophetical\npassages. Such is the case also in Clemens of Alexandria; but this\nwriter also gives the name of \u03d6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9 to larger sections of the\nGospels and St. Paul\u2019s Epistles. _Pericopes_ therefore were nothing else\nbut \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, church lessons, or sections of the New Testament, which\nwere read in the assemblies after Moses and the Prophets. In the third\ncentury another division also into \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 occurs. Dionysius of\nAlexandria speaks of them in reference to the Apocalypse, and the\ncontroversies respecting it. Some, says he, went through the whole book,\nfrom chapter to chapter, to show that it bore no sense. In the fifth\ncentury Euthalius produced again a division into chapters, which was\naccounted his invention. He himself however lays claim to nothing more\nthan having composed \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, the summaries of the\ncontents of the chapters in the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic\nEpistles. In the Epistles of St. Paul, not even these are his property;\nbut they are derived \u201cfrom one of the wisest of the fathers, and\nworshippers of Christ,\u201d as he himself says, and he only incorporated\nthem into his stichometrical edition of the New Testament. The chapters\nmust, therefore, have been in existence before Euthalius, if the father\nwhom he mentions composed notices of their contents. But how old they\nare cannot easily be known. The Euthalian \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 are distinguished\nfrom the _pericopes_, or reading portions, by their extent. The Jews had\ndivided the law into fifty-three _parashim_, according to the number of\nthe Sabbaths, taking into account the leap year. Nearly so distributed\nwere the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul\u2019s and the Catholic Epistles,\naccording to the Alexandrine ritual, which Euthalius follows in his\nstichometrical edition, namely, into fifty-six _pericopes_; three more\nthan the number of \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, Sundays, probably for three\nfestivals, which might be observed at Christmas, Easter, and\nWhitsuntide. The Gospels too had naturally in the same way many\n_pericopes_. Such in older times was the practice in Asia also; for\nJustin says, that the believers there assemble themselves for prayer and\nreading on Sunday only, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb7. Since then the whole New\nTestament was distributed into so few sections, these must necessarily\nhave been great, and a _pericope_ in Euthalius sometimes includes in it\nfour, five, and even six chapters. We have spoken hitherto only of the\nchapters of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. In the Gospels\nthere occur to us \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 of two sorts, the greater and the lesser. The\nlesser are the Ammonian which Eusebius rejected, after which he composed\nhis ten canons in order to point out in the Monotessaron of Ammonius the\nrespective contents of every Evangelist. He has explained himself in the\nEpistle to Carpianus on their use, and on the formation of his ten\ncanons, where he names his sections sometimes \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1, sometimes\n\u03d6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9. Matthew has three hundred and fifty-five of these, Mark two\nhundred and thirty-six, Luke three hundred and forty-two, and John two\nhundred and thirty-two. The other chapters are independent of these,\nwhich from their extent are also named the greater. Of these, Matthew\ncontains sixty-eight, Mark forty-nine, Luke eighty-three, and John only\neighteen. There are but very few manuscripts which have not both of them\ntogether. As to the church lessons, to come back to them once more,\nvarious alterations took place in them. As the festival days multiplied,\nthe old division could no longer subsist, and in many churches the\n_pericopes_ were shortened. At last as the ritual of ceremonies was\nenlarged, only certain portions were extracted from the Gospels, the\nActs of the Apostles, and the Epistles, which sometimes were very short.\nA codex of this sort was termed \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; in reference to the Gospels\nalone, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03db\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; and in respect to the other books, \u03d6\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03db\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\nThis seems to have taken place among the Latins much earlier than among\nthe Greeks. There are perfectly credible testimonies, which establish\nsuch an arrangement among the former at the middle of the fifth century,\nat which date nothing of the kind is perceptible among the latter. The\nexpression, \u03d6\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03db\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, appears indeed frequently in the Typicum of\nSt. Sabas, who died in the beginning of the fifth century. But the\nGreeks do not disavow, that this Typicum or monastic ritual was not by\nhimself, that it perished in the invasions of the barbarians, and was\ncomposed anew by John of Damascus, with references _memoriter_, [from\nmemory,] to that of Sabas. He lived toward the middle of the eighth\ncentury, and with an earlier notice of lectionaries among the Greeks we\nare not acquainted. Finally, our present chapters come, as it is well\nknown, from Cardinal Hugo de St. Cher, who in the twelfth century\ncomposed a concordance, and to this end distributed the Bible according\nto his own discretion into smaller portions. They are now moreover\ngenerally admitted in the editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The\nverses, however, are from Robert Stephens, who first introduced them in\nhis edition of the New Testament, A. D. 1551. His son, Henry Stephens,\nwas the first to record this for the information of posterity, in the\npreface to his Greek Concordance to the New Testament; in which he says,\nthat two facts connected with it equally demand our admiration: \u201cThe\nfirst is, that my father, while travelling from Paris to Lyons, finished\nthis division of each chapter into verses, and indeed the greater part\nof it [_inter equitandum_] when riding on his horse. The second fact is,\nthat, a short time prior to this journey, while he had the matter still\nin contemplation, almost all those to whom he mentioned it told him\nplainly that he was an indiscreet man, as though he had a wish to spend\nhis time and labour on an affair which would prove utterly useless, and\nwhich would not obtain for him any commendation, but, on the contrary,\nwould expose him to much ridicule. But behold the result: in opposition\nto the opinion which condemned and discountenanced my father\u2019s\nundertaking, as soon as his invention was published, every edition of\nthe New Testament, whether in the Greek, Latin, French, German, or in\nany other language, which did not adopt it, was immediately discarded.\u201d\nIt perhaps will not be unedifying to add, that this passage has yielded\nmankind another proof that LEARNING is not always synonymous with\nWISDOM: for the phrase respecting riding, which occurs in it, has\nfurnished matter of warm dispute to literary men; some of them\ncontending that _inter equitandum_ means, that Robert Stephens performed\nthe greater part of his task while actually on horseback; but others,\ngiving a more extended construction to the expression, assert that he\nwas engaged in this occupation only when stopping for refreshment at\ninns on the road. Though the first interpretation would probably obtain\nthe greatest number of suffrages from really learned and impartial men;\nyet it is quite sufficient for mankind to know, in either way, that this\ndivision into verses was completed in the course of that journey.\n\nCHARIOTS OF WAR. The Scripture speaks of two sorts of these chariots,\none for princes and generals to ride in, the other used to break the\nenemies battalions, by letting them loose armed with iron, which made\ndreadful havoc among the troops. The most ancient chariots of which we\nhave any notice are Pharaoh\u2019s, which were overwhelmed in the Red Sea,\nExodus xiv, 7. The Canaanites, whom Joshua engaged at the waters of\nMerom, had cavalry and a multitude of chariots, Joshua xi, 4. Sisera,\nthe general of Jabin, king of Hazor, had nine hundred chariots of iron\nin his army, Judges iv, 3. The tribe of Judah could not get possession\nof all the lands of their lot, because the ancient inhabitants of the\ncountry were strong in chariots of iron. The Philistines, in the war\ncarried on by them against Saul, had thirty thousand chariots and six\nthousand horsemen, 1 Sam. xiii, 5. David, having taken one thousand\nchariots of war from Hadadezer, king of Syria, hamstrung the horses, and\nburned nine hundred chariots, reserving only one hundred to himself, 2\nSam. viii, 4. Solomon had a considerable number of chariots, but we know\nof no military expedition in which they were employed, 1 Kings x, 26. As\nJudea was a very mountainous country, chariots could be of no great use\nthere, except in the plains; and the Hebrews often evaded them by\nfighting on the mountains. The kings of the Hebrews, when they went to\nwar, were themselves generally mounted in chariots from which they\nfought, and issued their orders; and there was always a second chariot\nempty, which followed each of them, that if the first was broken he\nmight ascend the other, 2 Chron. xxxv, 24. Chariots were sometimes\nconsecrated to the sun; and the Scripture observes, that Josiah burned\nthose which had been dedicated to the sun by his predecessors, 2 Kings\nxxiii, 11. This superstitious custom was borrowed from the Heathens, and\nprincipally from the Persians.\n\nCHARITY, considered as a Christian grace, ought in our translation, in\norder to avoid mistake, to have been translated _love_. It is the love\nof God, and the love of our neighbour flowing from the love of God; and\nis described with wonderful copiousness, felicity, and even grandeur, by\nSt. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii; a portion of Scripture which, as it shows the\nhabitual temper of a true Christian, cannot be too frequently referred\nto for self-examination, and ought to be constantly present to us as our\nrule. 2. In the popular sense, charity is almsgiving; a duty of\npractical Christianity which is solemnly enjoined, and to which special\npromises are annexed.\n\nCHARM. See DIVINATION.\n\nCHEBAR, a river of Chaldea, Ezek. i, 1. It is thought to have risen near\nthe head of the Tigris, and to have run through Mesopotamia, to the\nsouth-west, and emptied itself into the Euphrates.\n\nCHEDORLAOMER, a king of the Elamites, who were either Persians, or\npeople bordering upon the Persians. This was one of the four\nconfederated kings, who made war upon the five kings of the pentapolis\nof Sodom; and who, after having defeated them, and made themselves\nmasters of a great booty, were pursued and dispersed by Abraham, Gen.\nxiv.\n\nCHEMARIM. This word occurs only once in our version of the Bible: \u201cI\nwill cut off the remnant of Baal, and the name of the Chemarims\n(Chemarim) with the priests,\u201d Zeph. i, 4; but it frequently occurs in\nthe Hebrew, and is generally translated \u201cpriests of the idols,\u201d or\n\u201cpriests clothed in black,\u201d because _chamar_ signifies _blackness_. By\nthis word the best commentators understand the priests of false gods,\nand in particular the worshippers of fire, because they were, it is\nsaid, dressed in black. Le Clerc, however, declares against this last\nopinion. Our translators of the Bible would seem sometimes to understand\nby this word the idols or objects of worship, rather than their priests.\nThis is also the opinion of Le Clerc. Calmet observes that _camar_ in\nArabic signifies _the moon_, and that Isis is the same deity. \u201cAmong the\npriests of Isis,\u201d says Calmet, \u201cwere those called _melanephori_, that\nis, wearers of black; but it is uncertain whether this name was given\nthem by reason of their dressing wholly in black, or because they wore a\nblack shining veil in the processions of this goddess.\u201d\n\nCHEMOSH, \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05e9, an idol of the Moabites, Numbers xxi, 29. The name is\nderived from a root which in Arabic signifies _to hasten_. For this\nreason, many believe Chemosh to be the sun, whose precipitate course\nmight well procure it the name of swift. Some identify Chemosh with\nAmmon; and Macrobius shows that Ammon was the sun, whose rays were\ndenoted by his horns. Calmet is of opinion that the god Hamanus and\nApollo Chomeus, mentioned by Strabo and Ammianus Marcellinus, was\nChamos, or the sun. These deities were worshipped in many parts of the\neast. Some, from the resemblance of the Hebrew Chamos with the Greek\nComos, have thought Chamos to signify Bacchus. Jerom and most\ninterpreters consider Chamosh and Peor as the same deity; but some think\nthat Baal-Peor was Tammuz, or Adonis. To Chemosh Solomon erected an\naltar upon the Mount of Olives, 1 Kings xi, 7. As to the form of the\nidol Chemosh, the Scripture is silent; but if, according to Jerom, it\nwere like Baal-Peor, it must have been of the beeve kind; as were,\nprobably, all the Baals, though accompanied with various insignia. There\ncan be little doubt that part of the religious services performed to\nChemosh, as to Baal-Peor, consisted in revelling and drunkenness,\nobscenities and impurities of the grossest kinds. From Chemosh the\nGreeks seem to have derived their \u039a\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, called by the Romans _Comus_,\nthe god of feasting and revelling.\n\nCHERETHIM. \u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd. Cherethim, or Cherethites, are denominations for the\nPhilistines: \u201cI will stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines, and\nwill cut off the Cherethim, and destroy the remnant of the sea coast,\u201d\nEzek. xxv, 16. Zephaniah, exclaiming against the Philistines, says, \u201cWo\nunto the inhabitants of the sea coasts, the nation of the Cherethites,\u201d\nZeph. ii, 5. It is said, 1 Sam. xxx, 14, that the Amalekites invaded the\nsouth of the Cherethites; that is, of the Philistines. David, and some\nof the kings, his successors, had guards called Cherethites and\nPelethites, 2 Sam. xv, 18; xx, 7. Calmet thinks that they were of the\ncountry of the Philistines; but several expositors of our own country\nare of a different opinion. \u201cWe can hardly suppose,\u201d say the latter,\n\u201cthat David would employ any of these uncircumcised people as his\nbody-guard, or that the Israelitish soldiers would have patiently seen\nforeigners of that nation advanced to such places of honour and trust.\u201d\nIt may, therefore, be inferred that guards were called Cherethites,\nbecause they went with David into Philistia, where they continued with\nhim all the time he was under the protection of Achish. These were the\npersons who accompanied David from the first, and who remained with him\nin his greatest distresses; and it is no wonder, if men of such approved\nfidelity should be chosen for his body-guard. Beside, it is not uncommon\nfor soldiers to derive their names, not from the place of their\nnativity, but of their residence.\n\nCHERUB. \u05db\u05e8\u05d1, plural \u05db\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd. It appears, from Gen. iii, 29, that this is a\nname given to angels; but whether it is the name of a distinct class of\ncelestials, or designates the same order as the seraphim, we have no\nmeans of determining. But the term _cherubim_ generally signifies those\nfigures which Moses was commanded to make and place at each end of the\nmercy seat, or propitiatory, and which covered the ark with expanded\nwings in the most holy place of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. See\nExodus xxv, 18, 19. The original meaning of the term, and the shape or\nform of these, any farther than that they were _alata animata_, \u201cwinged\ncreatures,\u201d is not certainly known. The word in Hebrew is sometimes\ntaken for a calf or ox; and Ezekiel, x, 14, sets down the face of a\ncherub as synonymous to the face of an ox. The word _cherub_, in Syriac\nand Chaldee, signifies to till or plough, which is the proper work of\noxen. _Cherub_ also signifies strong and powerful. Grotius says they\nwere figures much like that of a calf; and Bochart, likewise, thinks\nthat they were more like the figure of an ox than any thing beside; and\nSpencer is of the same mind. But Josephus says they were extraordinary\ncreatures of a figure unknown to mankind. The opinion of most critics,\ntaken, it seems, from Ezek. i, 9, 10, is, that they were figures\ncomposed of parts of various creatures; as a man, a lion, an ox, an\neagle. But certainly we have no decided proof that the figures placed in\nthe holy of holies, in the tabernacle, were of the same form with those\ndescribed by Ezekiel. The contrary, indeed, seems rather indicated,\nbecause they looked _down_ upon the mercy seat, which is an attribute\nnot well adapted to a four-faced creature, like the emblematical\ncherubim seen by Ezekiel.\n\nThe cherubim of the sanctuary were two in number; one at each end of the\nmercy seat; which, with the ark, was placed exactly in the middle,\nbetween the north and south sides of the tabernacle. It was here that\natonement was made, and that God was rendered propitious by the high\npriest sprinkling the blood upon and before the mercy seat, Lev. xvi,\n14, 15. Here the glory of God appeared, and here he met his high priest,\nand by him his people, and from hence he gave forth his oracles; whence\nthe whole holy place was called \u05d3\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8, _the oracle_. These cherubim, it\nmust be observed, had feet whereon they stood, 2 Chron. iii, 13; and\ntheir feet were joined, in one continued beaten work, to the ends of the\nmercy seat which covered the ark: so that they were wholly over or above\nit. Those in the tabernacle were of beaten gold, being but of small\ndimensions, Exod. xxv, 18; but those in the temple of Solomon were made\nof the wood of the olive tree overlaid with gold; for they were very\nlarge, extending their wings to the whole breadth of the oracle, which\nwas twenty cubits, 1 Kings vi, 23\u201328; 2 Chron. iii, 10\u201313. They are\ncalled \u201ccherubim of glory,\u201d not merely or chiefly on account of the\nmatter or formation of them, but because they had the glory of God, or\nthe glorious symbol of his presence, \u201cthe Shekinah,\u201d resting between\nthem. As this glory abode in the inward tabernacle, and as the figures\nof the cherubim represented the angels who surround the manifestation of\nthe divine presence in the world above, that tabernacle was rendered a\nfit image of the court of heaven, in which light it is considered every\nwhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews. See chapters iv, 14; viii, 1; ix,\n8, 9, 23, 24; xii, 22, 23.\n\nThe cherubim, it is true, have been considered by the disciples of Mr.\nHutchinson as designed emblems of Jehovah himself, or rather of the\nTrinity of Persons in the Godhead, with man taken into the divine\nessence. But that God, who is a pure Spirit, without parts or passions,\nperfectly separate and remote from all matter, should command Moses to\nmake material and visible images or emblematical representations of\nhimself, is utterly improbable: especially, considering that he had\nrepeatedly, expressly, and solemnly forbidden every thing of this kind\nin the second commandment of the moral law, delivered from Mount Sinai,\namidst thunder and lightning, \u201cblackness, darkness, and tempest,\u201d\npronouncing with an audible and awful voice, while \u201cthe whole mount\nquaked greatly, and the sound of the trumpet waxed louder and louder,\nThou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor the likeness of any\nthing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water\nunder the earth.\u201d Hence the solemn caution of Moses, Deut. iv, 15, &c:\n\u201cTake ye good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude\non the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the\nfire,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the\nsimilitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, of any beast\nthat is on the earth, of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, of any\nthing that creepeth on the ground, of any fish that is in the waters.\u201d\nHence God\u2019s demand by his prophet: \u201cTo what will ye liken me, or shall I\nbe equal, saith the Holy One?\u201d And hence the censure of the inspired\npenman, Psalm cvi, 20: \u201cThey changed their glory into the similitude of\nan ox that eateth grass.\u201d Add to this, that in most or all of the places\nwhere the cherubim are mentioned in the Scriptures, God is expressly\ndistinguished from them. Thus, \u201cHe,\u201d the Lord, \u201cplaced at the east of\nthe garden cherubim, and a flaming sword,\u201d Gen. iii, 24. \u201cHe rode on a\ncherub and did fly,\u201d Psalm xviii, 10. \u201cHe sitteth between the cherubim,\u201d\nPsalm xcix, 1. \u201cHe dwelleth between the cherubim,\u201d Psalm lxxx, 1. We\nalso read of \u201cthe glory of the God of Israel going up, from the cherub\nwhereupon he was, to the threshold of the house,\u201d Ezek. ix, 3. And\nagain, \u201cThe glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and the court was\nfull of the brightness of the Lord\u2019s glory,\u201d Ezek. x, 4. And again, \u201cThe\nglory of the Lord departed from off the threshold, and stood over the\ncherubim,\u201d Ezek. x, 18. In all these passages the glory of the Lord,\nthat is, the Shekinah, the glorious symbol of his presence, is\ndistinguished from the cherubim; and not the least intimation is given\nin these passages, or any others, of the Scripture, that the cherubim\nwere images or emblematical representations of him. Mr. Parkhurst\u2019s\nlaborious effort to establish Mr. Hutchinson\u2019s opinion on the subject of\nthe cherubim, in his Hebrew Lexicon, _sub voce_, is so obviously\nfanciful and contradictory, that few will be converted to this strange\nopinion. It seems much more probable that, as most eminent divines have\nsupposed, the cherubim represented the angels who surround the divine\npresence in heaven. Accordingly, they had their faces turned toward the\nmercy seat, where God was supposed to dwell, whose glory the angels in\nheaven always behold, and upon which their eyes are continually fixed;\nas they are also upon Christ, the true propitiatory, which mystery of\nredemption they \u201cdesire,\u201d St. Peter tells us, \u201cto look into,\u201d 1 Peter i,\n12: a circumstance evidently signified by the faces of the cherubim\nbeing turned inward, and their eyes fixed on the mercy seat. We may here\nalso observe that, allowing St. Peter in this passage to allude to the\ncherubic figures, which, from his mode of expression, can scarcely be\ndoubted, this amounts to a strong presumption that the cherubim\nrepresented, not so much one order, as \u201cthe angels\u201d in general, all of\nwhom are said to \u201cdesire to look into\u201d the subjects of human redemption,\nand to all whose orders, \u201cthe principalities and powers in heavenly\nplaces, the manifold wisdom of God is made known by the church.\u201d In\nEzekiel, the cherubic figures are evidently connected with the\ndispensations of providence; and they have therefore appropriate forms,\nemblematical of the strength, wisdom, swiftness, and constancy, with\nwhich the holy angels minister in carrying on God\u2019s designs: but in the\nsanctuary they are connected with the administration of grace; and they\nare rather adoring beholders, than actors, and probably appeared under\nforms more simple. As to the living creatures, improperly rendered\n\u201cbeasts\u201d in our translation, Rev. iv, 7, some think them a\nhieroglyphical representation, not of the qualities of angels, but of\nthose of real Christians; especially of those in the suffering and\nactive periods of the church. The first a lion, signifying their\nundaunted courage, manifested in meeting with confidence the greatest\nsufferings; the second a calf or ox, emblematical of unwearied patience;\nthe third with the face of a man representing prudence and compassion;\nthe fourth a flying eagle, signifying activity and vigour. The four\nqualities thus emblematically set forth in these four living creatures,\nnamely, undaunted courage, unwearied patience under sufferings, prudence\nunited with kindness, and vigorous activity, are found, more or less, in\nthe true members of Christ\u2019s church in every age and nation. But others\nhave imagined that this representation might be intended to intimate\nalso that these qualities would especially prevail in succeeding ages of\nthe church, in the order in which they are here placed: that is, that in\nthe first age true Christians would be eminent for the courage,\nfortitude, and success, wherewith they should spread the Gospel; that in\nthe next age they would manifest remarkable patience in bearing\npersecution, when they should be \u201ckilled all the day,\u201d like calves or\noxen appointed for the slaughter; that in the subsequent age or ages,\nwhen the storms of persecution were blown over, and Christianity was\ngenerally spread through the whole Roman empire, knowledge and wisdom,\npiety and virtue, should increase, and the church should wear the face\nof a man, and excel in prudence, humanity, love, and good works; and\nthat in ages still later, being reformed from various corruptions in\ndoctrine and practice, and full of vigour and activity, it should carry\nthe Gospel, as upon the wings of a flying eagle, to the remotest nations\nunder heaven, \u201cto every kindred, and tongue, and people.\u201d This is a\nthought which deserves some consideration. The four great monarchies of\nthe earth had their prophetic emblems, taken both from metals and from\nbeasts and birds; and it is not unreasonable to look for prophetic\nemblems of the one kingdom of Christ, in its varied and successive\nstates. Perhaps, however, the most reasonable conclusion is, that, like\nthe \u201cliving creatures\u201d in the vision of Ezekiel, they are emblematical\nof the ministrations of angels in what pertains to those providential\nevents which more particularly concern the church.\n\nCHESNUT TREE, \u05e2\u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05df. This tree, which is mentioned only in Gen. xxx, 37,\nand Ezek. xxxi, 8, is by the Septuagint and Jerom rendered _plane tree_;\nand Drusius, Hiller, and most of the modern interpreters render it the\nsame. The name is derived from a root which signifies _nakedness_; and\nit is often observed of the plane tree that the bark peels off from the\ntrunk, leaving it naked, which peculiarity may have been the occasion of\nits Hebrew name. The son of Sirach says, \u201cI grew up as a plane tree by\nthe water,\u201d Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 14.\n\nCHILD. Mothers, in the earliest times, suckled their offspring\nthemselves, and that from thirty to thirty-six months. The day when the\nchild was weaned was made a festival, Gen. xxi, 8; Exod. ii, 7, 9; 1\nSam. i, 22\u201324; 2 Chron. xxxi, 16; 2 Mac. vii, 27, 28; Matt, xxi, 16.\nNurses were employed, in case the mother died before the child was old\nenough to be weaned, and when from any circumstances she was unable to\nafford a sufficient supply of milk for its nourishment. In later ages,\nwhen matrons had become more delicate, and thought themselves too infirm\nto fulfil the duties which naturally devolved upon them, nurses were\nemployed to take their place, and were reckoned among the principal\nmembers of the family. They are, accordingly, in consequence of the\nrespectable station which they sustained, frequently mentioned in sacred\nhistory, Gen. xxxv, 8; 2 Kings xi, 2; 2 Chron. xxii, 11. The sons\nremained till the fifth year in the care of the women; they then came\ninto the father\u2019s hands, and were taught not only the arts and duties of\nlife, but were instructed in the Mosaic law, and in all parts of their\ncountry\u2019s religion, Deut, vi, 20\u201325; vii, 19; xi, 19. Those who wished\nto have them farther instructed, provided they did not deem it\npreferable to employ private teachers, sent them away to some priest or\nLevite, who sometimes had a number of other children to instruct. It\nappears from 1 Sam. i, 24\u201328, that there was a school near the holy\ntabernacle, dedicated to the instruction of youth. There had been many\nother schools of this kind, which had fallen into decay, but were\nrestored again by the Prophet Samuel; after whose time, the members of\nthe seminaries in question, who were denominated by way of distinction\n\u201cthe sons of the prophets,\u201d acquired no little notoriety. Daughters\nrarely departed from the apartments appropriated to the females, except\nwhen they went out with an urn to draw water. They spent their time in\nlearning those domestic and other arts, which are befitting a woman\u2019s\nsituation and character, till they arrived at that period in life when\nthey were to be sold, or, by a better fortune, given away in marriage,\nProv. xxxi, 13; 2 Sam. xiii, 7.\n\n2. In Scripture, disciples are often called children or sons, Solomon,\nin his Proverbs, says,to his disciple, \u201cHear, my son.\u201d The descendants\nof a man, how remote soever, are denominated his sons or children; as\n\u201cthe children of Edom,\u201d \u201cthe children of Moab,\u201d \u201cthe children of\nIsrael.\u201d Such expressions as \u201cthe children of light,\u201d \u201cthe children of\ndarkness,\u201d \u201cthe children of the kingdom,\u201d signify those who follow\ntruth, those who remain in error, and those who belong to the church.\nPersons arrived at almost the age of maturity are sometimes called\n\u201cchildren.\u201d Thus, Joseph is termed \u201cthe child,\u201d though he was at least\nsixteen years old, Gen. xxxvii, 30; and Benjamin, even when above\nthirty, was so denominated, xliv, 20. By the Jewish law, children were\nreckoned the property of their parents, who could sell them for seven\nyears to pay their debts. Their creditors had also the power of\ncompelling them to resort to this measure. The poor woman, whose oil\nElisha increased so much as enabled her to pay her husband\u2019s debts,\ncomplained to the prophet, that, her husband being dead, the creditor\nwas come to take away her two sons to be bondmen, 2 Kings iv, 1.\n\u201cChildren, or sons of God,\u201d is a name by which the angels are sometimes\ndescribed: \u201cThere was a day when the sons of God came to present\nthemselves before the Lord,\u201d Job i, 6; ii, 1. Good men, in opposition to\nthe wicked, are also thus denominated; the children of Seth\u2019s family, in\nopposition to those of Cain: \u201cThe sons of God saw the daughters of men,\u201d\nGen. vi, 2. Judges, magistrates, priests, are also termed children of\nGod: \u201cI have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are the children of the\nMost High,\u201d Psa. lxxxii, 6. The Israelites are called \u201csons of God,\u201d in\nopposition to the Gentiles, Hosea i, 10; John xi, 52. In the New\nTestament, believers are commonly called \u201cchildren of God\u201d by virtue of\ntheir adoption. St. Paul, in several places, extols the advantages of\nbeing adopted sons of God, Rom. viii, 14; Gal. iii, 26. \u201cChildren, or\nsons of men,\u201d is a name given to Cain\u2019s family before the deluge, and,\nin particular, to the giants who were violent men, and had corrupted\ntheir ways. Afterward, the impious Israelites were thus called: \u201cO ye\nsons of men, how long will ye love vanity?\u201d Psa. iv, 2. \u201cThe sons of\nmen, whose teeth are spears and arrows,\u201d lvii, 4.\n\nCHILD BIRTH. In oriental countries child birth is not an event of much\ndifficulty; and mothers at such a season were originally the only\nassistants of their daughters, as any farther aid was deemed\nunnecessary, Exod. i, 19. In cases of more than ordinary difficulty,\nthose matrons who had acquired some celebrity for skill and expertness\non occasions of this kind, were invited in; and in this way there\neventually rose into notice that class of women denominated midwives.\nThe child was no sooner born, than it was washed in a bath, rubbed with\nsalt, and wrapped in swaddling clothes, \u05d4\u05d7\u05ea\u05dc, Ezek. xvi, 4. It was the\ncustom at a very ancient period, for the father, while music in the mean\nwhile was heard to sound, to clasp the new born child to his bosom, and\nby this ceremony was understood to declare it to be his own, Gen. l, 23;\nJob iii, 12; Psa. xxii, 11. This practice was imitated by those wives\nwho adopted the children of their maids, Gen. xvi, 2; xxx, 3\u20135. The\nbirth day of a son, especially, was made a festival, and on each\nsuccessive year was celebrated with renewed demonstrations of festivity\nand joy, Gen. xl, 20; Job i, 4; Matt. xiv, 6. The messenger, who brought\nthe news of the birth of a son, was received with joy, and rewarded with\npresents, Job iii, 3; Jer. xx, 15. This is the case at the present day\nin Persia.\n\nCHISLEU, the third month of the Jewish civil year, and the ninth of\ntheir sacred, answering to our November and December, Nehem. i, 1. It\ncontains thirty days.\n\nCHITTIM, the country, or countries, implied by this name in Scripture,\nare variously interpreted by historians and commentators. Chittim has\nbeen taken, by Hales and Lowth, for all the coasts and islands of the\nMediterranean; which appears most consonant with the general use of the\nword by the different inspired writers.\n\nCHRIST, an appellation synonymous with Messiah. The word \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u1f78\u03c2,\nsignifies _anointed_, from \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9, _I anoint_. Sometimes the word Christ\nis used singly, by way of _autonomasis_, to denote a person sent from\nGod, as an anointed prophet, king, or priest. \u201cChrist,\u201d says Lactantius,\n\u201cis no proper name, but one denoting power; for the Jews used to give\nthis appellation to their kings, calling them Christ, or anointed, by\nreason of their sacred unction.\u201d But he adds, \u201cThe Heathens, by mistake,\ncall Jesus Christ, Chrestus.\u201d Accordingly, Suetonius, speaking of\nClaudius, and of his expelling the Jews from Rome, says that \u201che\nbanished them because they were continually promoting tumults, under the\ninfluence of one Chrestus:\u201d \u201c_Jud\u00e6os, impulsore Chresto, assidu\u00e8\ntumultuantes, Rom\u00e2 expulit_,\u201d taking Christ to be a proper name. The\nnames of Messiah and Christ were originally derived from the ceremony of\nanointing, by which the kings and the high priests of God\u2019s people, and\nsometimes the prophets, 1 Kings xix, 16, were consecrated and admitted\nto the exercise of their functions; for all these functions were\naccounted holy among the Israelites. But the most eminent application of\nthe word is to that illustrious personage, typified and predicted from\nthe beginning, who is described by the prophets, under the character of\nGod\u2019s Anointed, the Messiah, or the Christ. As to the use of the term in\nthe New Testament, were we to judge by the common version, or even by\nmost versions into modern tongues, we should receive it rather as a\nproper name, than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of\nit only as our Lord\u2019s surname. To this mistake our translators have\ncontributed, by too seldom prefixing the article before Christ. The word\nChrist was at first as much an appellative as the word Baptist, and the\none was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our\ntranslators, who would always say \u201cthe Baptist,\u201d have, it should seem,\nstudiously avoided saying \u201cthe Christ.\u201d The article, in such expressions\nas occur in Acts xvii, 3; xviii, 5, 28, adds considerable light to them,\nand yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey\nto every reader who understands his language. It should therefore be,\n\u201cPaul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ,\u201d or the Messiah,\n&c. Many other similar instances occur. Should it be asked, Is the word\nChrist never to be understood in the New Testament as a proper name, but\nalways as having a direct reference to the office or dignity? it may be\nreplied, that this word came at length, from the frequency of\napplication to one individual, and only to one, to supply the place of a\nproper name. It would also very much accelerate this effect, that the\nname Jesus was common among the Jews at that time, and this rendered an\naddition necessary for distinguishing the person. To this purpose,\nGrotius remarks, that in process of time the name Jesus was very much\ndropped, and Christ, which had never been used before as the proper name\nof any person, and was, for that reason, a better distinction, was\nsubstituted for it; insomuch that, among the Heathens, our Lord came to\nbe more known by the latter than by the former. This use seems to have\nbegun soon after his ascension. During his life, it does not appear that\nthe word was ever used in this manner; nay, the contrary is evident from\nseveral passages of the Gospels. The evangelists wrote some years after\nthe period above mentioned; and therefore they adopted the practice\ncommon among Christians at that time, which was to employ the word as a\nsurname for the sake of distinction. See Matt. i, 1, 18; Mark i, 1.\n\nCHRISTIAN, a follower of the religion of Christ. It is probable that the\nname Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the\ndisciples of our Lord in reproach or contempt. What confirms this\nopinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts xi, 26, where they\nwere first called Christians, are observed by Zosimus, Procopius, and\nZonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have\nindeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves;\nothers, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of\nwhich cases surely we should have met with it in the subsequent history\nof the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of which were written\nsome years after; whereas it is found but in two more places in the New\nTestament, Acts xxvi, 28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Pet. iv,\n16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed upon them\nby their enemies. The word used, Acts xi, 26, signifies simply to be\ncalled or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take it to _imply_\na divine appointment, they disregard the _usus loquendi_ [established\nacceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The\nwords of Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero,\nare remarkable, \u201c_vulgus Christianos appellabat_,\u201d \u201cthe vulgar called\nthem Christians.\u201d Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans,\neither from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is much more probable,\nfrom the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. They were denominated\nChristians, A. D. 42 or 43; and though the name was first given\nreproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to\nChrist, and they soon generally assumed it.\n\nCHRISTIANITY, the religion of Christians. By Christianity is here meant,\nnot that religious system as it may be understood and set forth in any\nparticular society calling itself Christian; but as it is contained in\nthe sacred books acknowledged by all these societies, or churches, and\nwhich contained the only authorized rule of faith and practice.\n\n2. The lofty profession which Christianity makes as a religion, and the\npromises it holds forth to mankind, entitle it to the most serious\nconsideration of all. For it may in truth be said, that no other\nreligion presents itself under aspects so sublime, or such as are\ncalculated to awaken desires and hopes so enlarged and magnificent. It\nnot only professes to be from God, but to have been taught to men by the\nSon of God incarnate in our nature, the Second Person in the adorable\ntrinity of divine Persons, \u201cthe same in substance, equal in power and\nglory.\u201d It declares that this divine personage is the appointed Redeemer\nof mankind from sin, death, and misery; that he was announced as such to\nour first parents upon their lapse from the innocence and blessedness of\ntheir primeval state; that he was exhibited to the faith and hope of the\npatriarchs in express promises; and, by the institution of sacrifices,\nas a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so that man\nmight be reconciled to God through Him, and restored to his forfeited\ninheritance of eternal life. It represents all former dispensations of\ntrue religion, all revelations of God\u2019s will, and all promises of grace\nfrom God to man, as emanating from the anticipated sacrifice and\nsacerdotal intercession of its Author, and as all preparatory to the\nintroduction of his perfect religion; and that as to the great political\nmovements among the nations of antiquity, the rise and fall of empires\nwere all either remotely or proximately connected with the designs of\nhis advent among men. It professes to have completed the former\nrevelations of God\u2019s will and purposes; to have accomplished ancient\nprophecies; fulfilled ancient types; and taken up the glory of the\nMosaic religion into its own \u201cglory that excelleth;\u201d and to contain\nwithin itself a perfect system of faith, morals, and acceptable worship.\nIt not only exhibits so effectual a sacrifice for sin, that remission of\nall offences against God flows from its merits to all who heartily\nconfide in it; but it proclaims itself to be a remedy for all the moral\ndisorders of our fallen nature; it casts out every vice, implants every\nvirtue, and restores man to \u201cthe image of God in which he was created,\u201d\neven to \u201crighteousness and true holiness.\u201d\n\n3. Its promises both to individuals and to society are of the largest\nkind. It represents its Founder as now exercising the office of the High\nPriest of the human race before God, and as having sat down at his right\nhand, a mediatorial and reconciling government being committed to him,\nuntil he shall come to judge all nations, and distribute the rewards of\neternity to his followers, and inflict its never-terminating punishments\nupon those who reject him. By virtue of this constitution of things, it\npromises pardon to the guilty, of every age and country, who seek it in\npenitence and prayer, comfort to the afflicted and troubled, victory\nover the fear of death, a happy intermediate state to the disembodied\nspirit, and finally the resurrection of the body from the dead, and\nhonour and immortality to be conferred upon the whole man glorified in\nthe immediate presence of God. It holds out the loftiest hopes also as\nto the world at large. It promises to introduce harmony among families\nand nations, to terminate all wars and all oppressions, and ultimately\nto fill the world with truth, order, and purity. It represents the\npresent and past state of society, as in contest with its own principles\nof justice, mercy, and truth; but teaches the final triumph of the\nlatter over every thing contrary to itself. It exhibits the ambition,\nthe policy, and the restlessness of statesmen and warriors, as but the\noverruled instruments by which it is working out its own purposes of\nwisdom and benevolence; and it not only defies the proudest array of\nhuman power, but professes to subordinate it by a secret and\nirresistible working to its own designs. Finally, it exhibits itself as\nenlarging its plans, and completing its designs, by moral suasion, the\nevidence of its truth, and the secret divine influence which accompanies\nit. Such are the professions and promises of Christianity, a religion\nwhich enters into no compromise with other systems; which represents\nitself as the only religion now in the world having God for its author;\nand in his name; and by the hope of his mercy, and the terrors of his\nfrown, it commands the obedience of faith to all people to whom it is\npublished upon the solemn sanction, \u201cHe that believeth shall be saved,\nand he that believeth not shall be damned.\u201d\n\n4. Corresponding with these professions, which throw every other\nreligion that pretends to offer hope to man into utter insignificance,\nit is allowed that the evidences of its truth ought to be adequate to\nsustain the weight of so vast a fabric, and that men have a right to\nknow that they are not deluded with a grand and impressive theory, but\nare receiving from this professed system of truth and salvation \u201cthe\ntrue sayings of God.\u201d Such evidence it has afforded in its splendid\ntrain of miracles; in its numerous appeals to the fulfilment of ancient\nPROPHECIES; in its own powerful INTERNAL EVIDENCE; in the INFLUENCE\nwhich it has always exercised, and continues to exert, upon the\nhappiness of mankind; and in various collateral circumstances. Under the\nheads of _Miracles_ and _Prophecy_, those important branches of evidence\nwill be discussed, and to them the reader is referred. It is only\nnecessary here to say, that the miracles to which Christianity appeals\nas proofs of its divine authority, are not only those which were wrought\nby Christ and his Apostles, but also those which took place among the\npatriarchs, under the law of Moses, and by the ministry of the Prophets;\nfor the religion of those ancient times was but Christianity in its\nantecedent revelations. All these miracles, therefore, must be taken\ncollectively, and present attestations of the loftiest kind, as being\nmanifestly the work of the \u201cfinger of God,\u201d wrought under circumstances\nwhich precluded mistake, and exhibiting an immense variety, from the\nstaying of the very wheels of the planetary system,--as when the sun and\nmoon paused in their course, and the shadow on the dial of Ahaz went\nbackward,--to the supernatural changes wrought upon the elements of\nmatter, the healing of incurable diseases, the expulsion of tormenting\ndemons, and the raising of the dead. Magnificent as this array of\nmiracles is, it is equalled by the prophetic evidence, founded upon the\nacknowledged principle, that future and distant contingencies can only\nbe known to that Being, one of whose attributes is an absolute\nprescience. And here, too, the variety and the grandeur presented by the\nprophetic scheme exhibit attestations to the truth of Christianity\nsuited to its great claims and its elevated character. Within the range\nof prophetic vision all time is included, to the final consummation of\nall things; and the greatest as well as the smallest events are seen\nwith equal distinctness, from the subversion of mighty empires and\ngigantic cities, to the parting of the raiment of our Lord, and the\ncasting of the lot for his robe by the Roman guard stationed at his\ncross.\n\n5. These subjects are discussed under the articles assigned to them; as\nalso the INTERNAL EVIDENCE of the truth of Christianity, which arises\nfrom the excellence and beneficial tendency of its doctrines. Of its\njust and sublime conceptions and exhibitions of the divine character; of\nthe truth of that view of the moral state of man upon which its\ndisciplinary treatment is founded; of the correspondence that there is\nbetween its views of man\u2019s mixed relation to God as a sinful creature,\nand yet pitied and cared for, and that actual mixture of good and evil,\npenalty and forbearance, which the condition of the world presents; of\nthe connection of its doctrine of atonement with hope; of the adaptation\nof its doctrine of divine influence to the moral condition of mankind\nwhen rightly understood, and the affecting benevolence and condescension\nwhich it implies; and of its noble and sanctifying revelations of the\nblessedness of a future life, much might be said:--they are subjects\nindeed on which volumes have been written, and they can never be\nexhausted. But we confine ourselves to the MORAL TENDENCY, and the\nconsequent BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE, of Christianity. No where except in the\nScriptures have we a perfect system of morals; and the deficiencies of\nPagan morality only exalt the purity, the comprehensiveness, the\npracticability of ours. The character of the Being acknowledged as\nsupreme must always impress itself upon moral feeling and practice; the\nobligation of which rests upon his will. The God of the Bible is \u201choly,\u201d\nwithout spot; \u201cjust,\u201d without partiality; \u201cgood,\u201d boundlessly benevolent\nand beneficent; and his law is the image of himself, \u201choly, just, and\ngood.\u201d These great moral qualities are not made known to us merely in\nthe abstract, so as to be comparatively feeble in their influence: but\nin the person of Christ, our God, incarnate, they are seen exemplified\nin action, displaying themselves amidst human relations, and the actual\ncircumstances of human life. With Pagans the authority of moral rules\nwas either the opinion of the wise, or the tradition of the ancient,\nconfirmed, it is true, in some degree, by observation and experience;\nbut to us, they are given as commands immediately issuing from the\nsupreme Governor, and ratified as his by the most solemn and explicit\nattestations. With them many great moral principles, being indistinctly\napprehended, were matters of doubt and debate; to us, the explicit\nmanner in which they are given excludes both: for it cannot be\nquestioned, whether we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves;\nto do to others as we would that they should do to us, a precept which\ncomprehends almost all relative morality in one plain principle; to\nforgive our enemies; to love all mankind; to live righteously and\nsoberly, as well as godly; that magistrates must be a terror only to\nevil doers, and a praise to them that do well; that subjects are to\nrender honour to whom honour, and tribute to whom tribute, is due; that\nmasters are to be just and merciful, and servants faithful and obedient.\nThese, and many other familiar precepts, are too explicit to be\nmistaken, and too authoritative to be disputed; two of the most powerful\nmeans of rendering law effectual. Those who never enjoyed the benefit of\nrevelation, never conceived justly and comprehensively of that moral\nstate of the heart from which right and beneficent conduct alone can\nflow; and therefore when they speak of the same virtues as those\nenjoined by Christianity, they are to be understood as attaching to them\na lower idea. In this the infinite superiority of Christianity displays\nitself. The principle of obedience is not only a sense of duty to God,\nand the fear of his displeasure; but a tender love, excited by his\ninfinite compassions to us in the gift of his Son, which shrinks from\noffending. To this influential motive as a _reason_ of obedience, is\nadded another, drawn from its _end_: one not less influential, but which\nHeathen moralists never knew,--the testimony that we please God,\nmanifested in the acceptance of our prayers, and in spiritual and\nfelicitous communion with him. By Christianity, impurity of thought and\ndesire is restrained in an equal degree as are their overt acts in the\nlips and conduct. Humanity, meekness, gentleness, placability,\ndisinterestedness, and charity are all as clearly and solemnly enjoined\nas the grosser vices are prohibited; and on the unruly tongue itself is\nimpressed \u201cthe law of kindness.\u201d Nor are the injunctions feeble; they\nare strictly LAW, and not mere advice and recommendations: \u201cWithout\nholiness no man shall see the Lord;\u201d and thus our entrance into heaven,\nand our escape from perdition, are made to depend upon this preparation\nof mind. To all this is added possibility, nay certainty, of attainment,\nif we use the appointed means. A Pagan could draw, though not with lines\nso perfect, a _beau ideal_ of virtue, which he never thought attainable;\nbut the \u201cfull assurance of hope\u201d is given by the religion of Christ to\nall who are seeking the moral renovation of their nature; because \u201cit is\nGod that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.\u201d\n\n6. When such is the moral nature of Christianity, how obvious is it that\nits tendency both as to individuals and to society must be in the\nhighest sense beneficial! From every passion which wastes, and burns,\nand frets, and enfeebles the spirit, the individual is set free, and his\ninward peace renders his obedience cheerful and voluntary: and we might\nappeal to infidels themselves, whether, if the moral principles of the\nGospel were wrought into the hearts, and embodied in the conduct, of all\nmen, the world would not be happy; whether if governments ruled, and\nsubjects obeyed, by the laws of Christ; whether if the rules of strict\njustice which are enjoined upon us regulated all the transactions of\nmen, and all that mercy to the distressed which we are taught to feel\nand to practise came into operation; and whether, if the precepts which\ndelineate and enforce the duties of husbands, wives, masters, servants,\nparents, children, did, in fact, fully and generally govern all these\nrelations,--whether a better age than that called _golden_ by the poets,\nwould not then be realized, and Virgil\u2019s\n\n            _Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna_,\n            [Now Astraea returns, and the Saturnian reign,]\n\nbe far too weak to express the mighty change? [It was in the reign of\nSaturn that the Heathen poets fixed the golden age. At that period,\naccording to them, Astraea, (the goddess of justice,) and many other\ndeities lived on earth; but being offended with the wickedness of men,\nthey successively fled to heaven. Astraea staid longest, but at last\nretired to her native seat, and was translated into the sign Virgo, next\nto Libra, who holds her balance. Such is the tendency of Christianity.\nOn immense numbers of individuals it has superinduced these moral\nchanges; all nations, where it has been fully and faithfully exhibited,\nbear, amidst their remaining vices, the impress of its hallowing and\nbenevolent influence: it is now in active exertion in many of the\ndarkest and worst parts of the earth, to convey the same blessings; and\nhe who would arrest its progress, were he able, would quench the only\nhope which remains to our world, and prove himself an enemy, not only to\nhimself, but to all mankind. What then, we ask, does all this prove, but\nthat the Scriptures are worthy of God, and propose the very ends which\nrendered a revelation necessary? Of the whole system of practical\nreligion which it contains we may say, as of that which is embodied in\nour Lord\u2019s sermon on the mount, in the words of one, who, in a course of\nsermons on that divine composition, has entered most deeply into its\nspirit, and presented a most instructive delineation of the character\nwhich it was intended to form: \u201cBehold Christianity in its native form,\nas delivered by its great Author. See a picture of God, as far as he is\nimitable by man, drawn by God\u2019s own hand. What beauty appears in the\nwhole! How just a symmetry! What exact proportion in every part! How\ndesirable is the happiness here described! How venerable, how lovely is\nthe holiness!\u201d \u201cIf,\u201d says Bishop Taylor, \u201cwisdom, and mercy, and\njustice, and simplicity, and holiness, and purity, and meekness, and\ncontentedness, and charity, be images of God, and rays of divinity, then\nthat doctrine, in which all these shine so gloriously, and in which\nnothing else is ingredient, must needs be from God. If the holy Jesus\nhad come into the world with less splendour of power and mighty\ndemonstrations, yet the excellency of what he taught makes him alone fit\nto be the Master of the world;\u201d and agreeable to all this, has been its\nactual influence upon mankind. Although, says Bishop Porteus,\nChristianity has not always been so well understood, or so honestly\npractised, as it ought to have been; although its spirit has been often\nmistaken, and its precepts misapplied, yet, under all these\ndisadvantages, it has gradually produced a visible change in those\npoints which most materially concern the peace and quiet of the world.\nIts beneficent spirit has spread itself through all the different\nrelations and modifications of life, and communicated its kindly\ninfluence to almost every public and private concern of mankind. It has\ninsensibly worked itself into the inmost frame and constitution of civil\nstates. It has given a tinge to the complexion of their governments, to\nthe temper and administration of their laws. It has restrained the\nspirit of the prince, and the madness of the people. It has softened the\nrigours of despotism, and tamed the insolence of conquest. It has, in\nsome degree, taken away the edge of the sword, and thrown even over the\nhorrors of war a veil of mercy. It has descended into families; has\ndiminished the pressure of private tyranny; improved every domestic\nendearment; given tenderness to the parent, humanity to the master,\nrespect to superiors, to inferiors ease; so that mankind are, upon the\nwhole, even in a temporal view, under infinite obligations to the mild\nand pacific temper of the Gospel, and have reaped from it more\nsubstantial worldly benefits than from any other institution upon earth.\nAs one proof of this, among many others, consider only the shocking\ncarnage made in the human species by the exposure of infants, the\ngladiatorial shows, which sometimes cost Rome twenty or thirty lives in\na month; and the exceedingly cruel usage of slaves allowed and practised\nby the ancient Pagans. These were not the accidental and temporary\nexcesses of a sudden fury, but were legal and established, and constant\nmethods of murdering and tormenting mankind. Had Christianity done\nnothing more than brought into disuse, as it confessedly has done, the\ntwo former of these inhuman customs entirely, and the latter to a very\ngreat degree, it has justly merited the title of the benevolent\nreligion. But this is far from being all. Throughout the more\nenlightened parts of Christendom there prevails a gentleness of manners\nwidely different from the ferocity of the most civilized nations of\nantiquity; and that liberality with which every species of distress is\nrelieved, is a virtue peculiar to the Christian name. But we may ask\nfarther, What success has it had on the mind of man, as it respects his\neternal welfare? How many thousands have felt its power, rejoiced in its\nbenign influence, and under its dictates been constrained to devote\nthemselves to the glory and praise of God! Burdened with guilt,\nincapable of finding relief from human resources, the mind has here\nfound peace unspeakable in beholding that sacrifice which alone could\natone for transgression. Here the hard and impenitent heart has been\nsoftened, the impetuous passions restrained, the ferocious temper\nsubdued, powerful prejudices conquered, ignorance dispelled, and the\nobstacles to real happiness removed. Here the Christian, looking round\non the glories and blandishments of this world, has been enabled, with a\nnoble contempt, to despise all. Here death itself, the king of terrors,\nhas lost his sting; and the soul, with a holy magnanimity, has borne up\nin the agonies of a dying hour, and sweetly sung itself away to\neverlasting bliss. In respect to its future spread, we have reason to\nbelieve that all nations shall feel its happy effects. The prophecies\nare pregnant with matter as to this belief. It seems that not only a\nnation, or a country, but the whole habitable globe, shall become the\nkingdom of our God, and of his Christ. And who is there that has ever\nknown the excellency of this system; who is there that has ever\nexperienced its happy efficacy; who is there that has ever been\nconvinced of its divine origin, its delightful nature and peaceful\ntendency, but must join the benevolent and royal poet in saying, \u201cLet\nthe whole earth be filled with its glory? Amen and amen!\u201d\n\n7. Among the collateral proofs of the truth and divine origin of\nChristianity, its rapid and wonderful success justly holds an important\nplace. Of its early triumphs, the history of the Acts of the Apostles is\na splendid record; and in process of time it made a wonderful progress\nthrough Europe, Asia, and Africa. In the third century there were\nChristians in the camp, in the senate, and in the palace; in short,\nevery where, as we are informed, except in the temples and the theatres:\nthey filled the towns, the country, and the islands. Men and women of\nall ages and ranks, and even those of the first dignity, embraced the\nChristian faith; insomuch that the Pagans complained that the revenues\nof their temples were ruined. They were in such great numbers in the\nempire, that, as Tertullian expresses it, if they had retired into\nanother country, they would have left the Romans only a frightful\nsolitude. (See the next article.) For the illustration of this argument,\nwe may observe, that the Christian religion was introduced every where\nin opposition to the sword of the magistrate, the craft and interest of\nthe priests, the pride of the philosophers, the passions and prejudices\nof the people, all closely combined in support of the national worship,\nand to crush the Christian faith, which aimed at the subversion of\nHeathenism and idolatry. Moreover, this religion was not propagated in\nthe dark, by persons who tacitly endeavoured to deceive the credulous;\nnor delivered out by little and little, so that one doctrine might\nprepare the way for the reception of another; but it was fully and\nwithout disguise laid before men all at once, that they might judge of\nthe whole under one view. Consequently mankind were not deluded into the\nbelief of it, but received it upon proper examination and conviction.\nBeside, the Gospel was first preached and first believed by multitudes\nin Judea, where Jesus exercised his ministry, and where every individual\nhad the means of knowing whether the things that were told him were\nmatters of fact; and in this country, the scene of the principal\ntransactions on which its credibility depended, the history of Christ\ncould never have been received, unless it had been true, and known to\nall as truth. Again: the doctrine and history of Jesus were preached and\nbelieved in the most noted countries and cities of the world, in the\nvery age when he is said to have lived. On the fiftieth day after our\nLord\u2019s crucifixion, three thousand persons were converted in Jerusalem\nby a single sermon of the Apostles; and a few weeks after this, five\nthousand who believed were present at another sermon preached also in\nJerusalem, Acts ii, 41; iv, 4; vi, 7; viii, 1; ix, 1, 20. About eight or\nten years after our Lord\u2019s death, the disciples were become so numerous\nat Jerusalem and in the adjacent country, that they were objects of\njealousy and alarm to Herod himself, Acts xii, 1. In the twenty-second\nyear after the crucifixion, the disciples in Judea are said to have been\nmany myriads, Acts xxi, 20. The age in which Christianity was introduced\nand received, was famous for men whose faculties were improved by the\nmost perfect state of social life, but who were good judges of the\nevidence offered in support of the facts recorded in the Gospel history.\nFor it should be recollected, that the success of the Gospel was not\nrestricted to Judea; but it was preached in all the different provinces\nof the Roman empire. The first triumphs of Christianity were in the\nheart of Greece itself, the nursery of learning and the polite arts; for\nchurches were planted at a very early period at Corinth, Ephesus, Ber\u00e6a,\nThessalonica, and Philippi. Even Rome herself, the seat of wealth and\nempire, was not able to resist the force of truth at a time when the\nfacts related were recent, and when they might, if they had been false,\nhave easily been disproved. From Greece and Rome, at a period of\ncultivation and refinement, of general peace, and extensive intercourse,\nwhen one great empire united different nations and distant people, the\nconfutation of these facts would very soon have passed from one country\nto another, to the utter confusion of the persons who endeavoured to\npropagate the belief of them. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the\nreligion to which such numbers were proselyted, was an exclusive one. It\ndenied, without reserve, the truth of every article of Heathen\nmythology, and the existence of every object of their worship. It\naccepted no compromise; it admitted of no comprehension. If it prevailed\nat all, it must prevail by the overthrow of every statue, altar, and\ntemple in the world. It pronounced all other gods to be false, and all\nother worship vain. These are considerations which must have\nstrengthened the opposition to it; augmented the hostility which it must\nencounter; and enhanced the difficulty of gaining proselytes: and more\nespecially when we recollect, that among the converts to Christianity in\nthe earliest age, a number of persons remarkable for their station,\noffice, genius, education, and fortune, and who were personally\ninterested by their emoluments and honours in either Judaism or\nHeathenism, appeared among the Christian proselytes. Its evidences\napproved themselves, not only to the multitude, but to men of the most\nrefined sense and most distinguished abilities; and it dissolved the\nattachments which all powerful interest and authority created and\nupheld. Among the proselytes to Christianity we find Nicodemus, and\nJoseph of Arimathea, members of the senate of Israel; Jairus, a ruler of\nthe synagogue; Zaccheus, the chief of the publicans at Jericho; Apollos,\ndistinguished for eloquence; Paul, learned in the Jewish law; Sergius\nPaulus, governor of the island of Cyprus; Cornelius, a Roman captain;\nDionysius, a judge and senator of the Athenian areopagus; Erastus,\ntreasurer of Corinth; Tyrannus, a teacher of grammar and rhetoric at\nCorinth; Publius, governor of Malta; Philemon, a person of considerable\nrank at Colosse; Simon, a noted sophist in Samaria; Zenas, a lawyer; and\neven the domestics of the emperor himself. These are noticed in the\nsacred writings; and the Heathen historians also mention some persons of\ngreat note who were converted at an early period. To all the preceding\ncircumstances we may add a consideration of peculiar moment, which is,\nthat the profession of Christianity led all, without exception, to\nrenounce the pleasures and honours of the world, and to expose\nthemselves to the most ignominious sufferings. And now, without adding\nany more to this argument, we may ask, How could the Christian religion\nhave thus prevailed had it not been introduced by the power of God and\nof truth? And it has been supported in the world by the same power\nthrough a course of many ages, amidst the treachery of its friends, the\nopposition of its enemies, the dangers of prosperous periods, and the\npersecutions and violence of adverse circumstances; all which must have\ndestroyed it, if it had not been founded in truth, and guarded by the\nprotection of an almighty Providence.\n\nCHRISTIANITY: _Sketch of its History_. The Christian religion was\npublished by its great Author in Judea, a short time before the death of\nHerod the Great, and toward the conclusion of the long reign of\nAugustus. While other religions had been accommodated to the peculiar\ncountries in which they had taken their origin, and had indeed generally\ngrown out of incidents connected with the history of those to whom they\nwere addressed, Christianity was so framed as to be adapted to the whole\nhuman race; and although, for the wisest reasons, it was first announced\nto the Jews, who had peculiar advantages for forming an accurate\njudgment with regard to it, it was early declared that, in conformity to\npredictions which had long been known, and long interpreted, as\nreferring to a new communication of the divine will, it was to be a\nlight to lighten the Gentiles, and was to carry salvation to the ends of\nthe earth. Although Christianity originated in Judea, it was not long\nconfined within the narrow limits of the Holy Land. The open manner in\nwhich it was announced, the length of time during which its Author\npublicly addressed his countrymen, the innumerable miracles which he\nperformed, and, above all, the report of the resurrection under\ncircumstances which must have been communicated to the imperial\ngovernment at Rome, excited the deep attention of the numerous Jews and\nproselytes who, from surrounding nations, regularly went up to\nJerusalem, and of whom vast numbers were actually in that city when the\nresurrection must have been the subject of universal discussion. They\nvery naturally carried to the different countries in which they usually\nresided, the astonishing intelligence with which they had been\nfurnished; and provision was soon made for fulfilling the prediction\nwhich Jesus had uttered, that his Gospel would, before the destruction\nof Jerusalem, be circulated and embraced by many through the wide extent\nof the Roman empire. The Apostle Peter, in consequence of what he knew\nto be a solemn injunction from Heaven, communicated to a Gentile the\ntruths of Christianity. St. Paul, who had distinguished himself by his\nenmity to the Christians, and by the cruelty with which he had\npersecuted them, having been converted, devoted himself to lay the\nfoundations of the Gospel through a large portion of the most\nenlightened part of the world; and the miraculous gift of tongues, by\nwhich humble and illiterate men found themselves at once able to speak\nthe languages of different nations, left no doubt that they were bound\nto preach their faith as extensively as had been marked out to them by\nthe last instructions which they had received from their Master. They\nhad to struggle with the most formidable difficulties in prosecuting\nthis undertaking; for which, had they trusted merely to their own\nstrength, and their own natural endowments, they were wholly\nunqualified.\n\n2. The Roman empire at the period of their commencing the attempt,\ncomprehended almost the whole of the civilized world, and thus included\nwithin it nations whose habits, customs, and sentiments essentially\ndiffered, and whom it required the most dexterous policy to unite in one\ncommunity, or to subject to one government. The most effectual method by\nwhich, during the commonwealth, and at the rise of the empire, this had\nbeen accomplished, was a politic respect to the religious opinions which\nall these nations entertained. Not only were their modes of worship\ntreated with scrupulous reverence, but their gods, in conformity with\nthe genius of Paganism, were incorporated or associated with the deities\nof Rome, and they were thus joined to their conquerors by the strongest\nties by which the affections can be secured. At all times religion had\nbeen an object of prominent interest with the Romans: at the foundation\nof the city, Romulus had professed to be directed by Heaven: during the\nwhole period of the republic, the most sacred attention had been paid to\nthe rites and ceremonies sanctioned by the prevailing superstition, the\nprosperity of the state was invariably ascribed to the protection of the\ngods, and the most impressive solemnities, combined with the richest\nsplendour and magnificence, cast around polytheism a mysterious\nsanctity, which even the philosophers affected to revere. Precautions\naccordingly had been early taken to prevent innovations upon the\nestablished ritual; foreign rites were prohibited till they had obtained\nthe sanction of the senate; and when the solicitation of this sanction\nwas neglected, the persons guilty of the neglect were frequently\npunished. From the nature of Paganism, it was perfectly consistent with\nits spirit to conjoin, with any particular mode of it, the forms which\nelsewhere prevailed. These additions left all which had been previously\nhonoured in unimpaired vigour and influence, and, in fact, only\nincreased the appearance of profound regard for religion, which the\nRomans so long assumed. But this part of the political constitution,\nlightly as it affected other religions, at once struck at the root of\nChristianity, which, unlike the prevailing modifications of idolatry,\nprohibited the worship of all the deities before whose altars mankind\nhad for ages bent, and required, as essential for obtaining the divine\nfavour, that they who believed in it should pay undivided homage to the\none God, whose existence it revealed. The extension of the Gospel thus\nnecessarily carried with it opposition to the most ancient and most\nrevered law of the empire, and it was impossible for those who judged of\nit merely from this circumstance, without investigating its nature and\ntendency, to hesitate in directing against it the statutes which the\nzeal of their fathers had provided, to prevent such a revolution as\nwould be produced by so thorough and so alarming a change in their\nreligious principles. No sooner, however, had the message of salvation\nbeen addressed indiscriminately to all men, and, from the evidence by\nwhich it was accompanied, had brought numbers to acknowledge the\nheavenly source from which it is derived, than the detestation of it\npreviously entertained burst forth in all its violence; and it is\napparent that this had been widely and openly expressed before any\nimperial edicts were directed against the Christians. Tacitus, in the\ncelebrated passage in which he mentions the disciples of Jesus, and\nwhich refers to a period not more than thirty years distant from the\nascension, represents it as notorious in Rome, that Christ, during the\nreign of Tiberius, had been put to death as a criminal; he asserts that\nhis adherents had long been odious on account of their enormities; he\nlaments that their destructive superstition had found its way to the\ncapital of the empire; and he attributes the melancholy fate to which\nthey were condemned to the general persuasion, that they were actuated\nby hatred to the whole human race. It is necessary to keep this fact\nsteadily in view, to form an accurate idea of that opposition which\nChristianity had to encounter. This opposition is not to be estimated\nmerely by reference to particular statutes, or even to be considered as\nfully exhibited when we have gathered together the public proceedings\nwhich have been recorded in history, or deplored in the writings of\nthose who sought to avert them. It is to be remembered that even when\nthe laws which the frantic zeal of some of the emperors had enacted were\nrepealed, the general law of the empire was still in force; that it was\ncompetent for every one who had the cruelty to do so, to turn it against\nthe Christians; and that the firm, though mistaken, conviction that the\nChristian profession involved in it the most revolting impiety, the most\ntremendous guilt, and the most dangerous hostility to the best interests\nof the state, would lead numbers to indulge their antipathy, when little\nnotice was taken of the sufferers, and would keep the disciples of the\nhated faith in a state of unceasing alarm. (See _Persecution_.) What was\nthe effect of this depressing situation? Did it check the dissemination\nof the Gospel, or confine it to the men by whom it was preached? So far\nwas this from being the case, that from the period of the death, and, as\nit must here he termed, the alleged resurrection of Jesus, it was\nembraced by immense numbers in all the countries to which it was\nconveyed; and even while they were contemplating the sacrifices and the\ntrials to which, by attaching themselves to it, they would be exposed,\nthey did not hesitate to relinquish the religion in which they had been\neducated, and to exchange for misery and death all the comforts which\nthe strongest feelings and propensities of our nature lead men to value\nand to pursue. Finally, imperial Rome bowed to the religion it had\npersecuted, and the emperor Constantine became a Christian.\n\n3. The propagation of Christianity assumes a new aspect after it became\nthe religion of the empire, and was guarded by the protection and\nsurrounded by the munificence of imperial power. The causes which, in\nthe first stage of its existence, had most powerfully acted against it,\nwere now turned to its support; and all the motives by which men are\nusually guided led them to enter with, at least, apparent conviction\ninto its sanctuaries. Not only was persecution, after the reign of\nConstantine, at an end, but with the exception of the short reign of\nJulian, who, having apostatized from Christianity, and become\nintoxicated with the fascinating speculations of the Platonic\nphilosophy, was eager to raise the temples which his predecessor had\nlaid in ruins, promotion and wealth and honour could be most effectually\nsecured by transferring to the Gospel the zeal which had been in vain\nexhausted to preserve the sinking fabric of Paganism and idolatry. The\nemperors, who had displayed their zeal and their attachment to the\nreligion of Jesus, by forcing their own subjects to profess it,\nconceived it to be their duty to communicate so great a blessing to all\nthe nations which they could influence; and when they found it necessary\nto declare war against the savage tribes which pressed upon the\nfrontiers, or forced themselves within the precincts of the empire, they\ncarried on hostilities with the view of rendering these instrumental no\nless to the diffusion of their religious tenets, than to the vindication\nof their authority, and the security of their dominions. The vanquished\ninvaders felt little reluctance to purchase the forbearance or the\nclemency of their conquerors, by submitting to receive their religion;\nand this species of conversion, so little connected with the great\nobjects which revelation was designed to accomplish, leaving, in fact,\nall the gross superstitious practices and all the immoral abominations\nwhich had previously existed, was boastfully held forth as a decisive\nproof of the triumph of the Gospel.\n\n4. The foundation of the empire, not long after the days of Constantine,\nbegan to be shaken: and it experienced numberless assaults and\nconvulsions, till it was finally divided into the eastern and western\nempires. The luxury and wealth which had enervated their possessors, and\ndestroyed the heroism and intrepidity by which their ancestors had been\ndistinguished, presented the most powerful temptations to the lawless\nbands which, driven from the sterile regions of the north of Europe, had\npressed forward to seek for new and more favoured habitations. The\nfeeble attempts to turn aside, by bribery, these ferocious barbarians\nincreased the danger which they were intended to remove; and the history\nof Europe presents, for several ages, the disgusting spectacle of war,\nconducted with an atrocity eclipsing the stern virtues which sometimes\nwere strikingly displayed. But although the insubordination of this\nturbulent and sanguinary period was little favourable to the mild\ninfluence of genuine Christianity, it did not prove so fatal to it as\nmight have been apprehended; and it was even instrumental in extending\nits nominal dominion. Mankind, when scarcely emerged from barbarism, and\nattached to no particular country, but seeking wherever it can be found\nthe food necessary for themselves and the flocks upon which they in a\ngreat measure depend, although they entertain those sentiments with\nregard to religion which seem almost interwoven with our nature, feel\nlittle attachment to any one system of superstition, and are open to the\nreception of new doctrines, which an association with what they value\nmay have led them to venerate. When, accordingly, the tribes which\nfinally overran the Roman empire had ceased from the destructive\ncontests by which they got possession of the regions that had long been\nblessed with civilization and enlightened by science, they surveyed with\namazement and with admiration the people whom they had conquered; they\nwere delighted with the luxuries which abounded among them; they were\ncharmed with their manners and customs; and they eagerly conformed to\ninstitutions from which they hoped that they should reap what the\noriginal inhabitants of their settlement had enjoyed. The religion of\nthe vanquished they contemplated with reverence; they connected it with\nthe wealth, the refinement, and the power which they saw spread around\nthem; and they easily exchanged the rude and careless worship of their\nnative deities, for the polished and splendid devotional rites, which,\nwith the most imposing solemnity, were celebrated by the Christians.\nHence, they soon embraced the religion by which it was believed that\nthese rites were prescribed; and they communicated it to the nations\nwith whom they still maintained an alliance. There is no doubt that\nmotives very little connected with the conviction of the understanding\nled to the progress of Christianity now described; and, in fact, that\nprogress was occasioned by causes so different from those which should\nhave produced it, that, had circumstances been changed, and had the\nreligion of Jesus been continued to be persecuted by the most powerful\nstates, multitudes who affected to revere it would, upon the same ground\non which their veneration rested, have exerted themselves to deride its\ntenets, and to exterminate its professors.\n\n5. But it was not the secular arm alone that was stretched forth to lead\nmen to the reception of Christianity. The church, after it had been\nfirmly established, and had, amidst the riches and honours with which it\nwas endowed, forgotten that it should not have been of this world,\nconceived it incumbent, as an evidence of its zeal, or, as was too often\nthe case, for extending its power and its influence, to make attempts to\nsubstitute the cross of Christ for the emblems of Paganism. In\naccomplishing this object, it employed different means. But although the\nconversions which took place, from the establishment of Christianity\ntill the restoration of learning, or the reformation, which forms a new\n\u00e6ra in the dissemination of the Gospel, were often unfortunately very\nfar from planting the word of life in the hearts of those to whom it was\nconveyed, they were very extensive. They reached to almost every country\nin Europe; to Arabia, China, Judea, and many other parts of Asia; and\nthe obscure tribes, to whom no missionaries were despatched, gradually\nconformed to the religion of those more powerful states upon which they\ndepended, or to which they looked with respect or veneration.\n\n6. Mohammedanism, however, arrested the progress of Christianity in some\nof these countries, and humbled it and oppressed it in others; but since\nthe reformation, and especially within the last century, it has been\nextended, not so much by conquest, as by the legitimate means of\ncolonization, and by missions and education, to the most distant and\nimportant parts of the world, to China, India, Africa, the American\nIslands, and those of the Pacific Ocean. The zeal, self-denial, and\nsuccesses, of those missionaries, who have been sent forth within a few\nyears by various Protestant societies, and their great successes form,\nindeed, a splendid section in the modern history of the church. They\nhave sown the seed in almost every land, and the fruit has spread itself\nthroughout the world.\n\nCHRONICLES, _Books of_. This name is given to two historical books of\nScripture, which the Hebrews call _Dibri-Jamim_, \u201cWords of Days,\u201d that\nis, \u201cDiaries,\u201d or \u201cJournals.\u201d They are called in the LXX,\n_Paralipomena_, which signifies, \u201cthings omitted;\u201d as if these books\nwere a supplement of what had been omitted, or too much abridged, in the\nbooks of Kings, and other historical books of Scripture. And, indeed, we\nfind in them many particulars which are not extant elsewhere: but it\nmust not be thought that these are the records, or books of the acts, of\nthe kings of Judah and Israel, so often referred to. Those ancient\nregisters were much more extensive than these are; and the books of\nChronicles themselves refer to those original memoirs, and make long\nextracts from them. They were compiled, and probably by Ezra, from the\nancient chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel just now mentioned,\nand they may be considered as a kind of supplement to the preceding\nbooks of Scripture. The former part of the first book of Chronicles\ncontains a great variety of genealogical tables, beginning with Adam;\nand in particular gives a circumstantial account of the twelve tribes,\nwhich must have been very valuable to the Jews after their return from\ncaptivity. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, from all\nof whom it was predicted that the Saviour of the world should be born,\nare here marked with precision. These genealogies occupy the first nine\nchapters, and in the tenth is recorded the death of Saul From the\neleventh chapter to the end of the book, we have a history of the reign\nof David, with a detailed statement of his preparation for the building\nof the temple, of his regulations respecting the priests and Levites,\nand his appointment of musicians for the public service of religion. The\nsecond book of Chronicles contains a brief sketch of the Jewish history,\nfrom the accession of Solomon to the return from the Babylonian\ncaptivity, being a period of four hundred and eighty years; and in both\nthese books we find many particulars not noticed in the other historical\nbooks of Scripture.\n\nCHRYSOLITE, Rev. xxi, 20, a precious stone of a golden colour. Schroder\nsays it is the gem now called the Indian topaz, which is of a yellowish\ngreen colour, and very beautiful.\n\nCHRYSOPRASUS, Rev. xxi, 20, a precious stone, which Pliny classes among\nthe beryls; the best of which, he says, are of a sea-green colour; after\nthese he mentions the chrysoberyls, which are a little paler, inclining\nto golden colour; and next, a sort still paler, and by some reckoned a\ndistinct species, and called chrysoprasus.\n\nCHURCH. The Greek word \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, so rendered, denotes an assembly met\nabout business, whether spiritual or temporal, Acts xix, 32, 39. It is\nunderstood also of the collective body of Christians, or all those over\nthe face of the earth who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge\nhim to be the Saviour of mankind; this is called the visible church. But\nby the word _church_, we are more strictly to understand the whole body\nof God\u2019s true people, in every period of time: this is the invisible or\nspiritual church. The people of God on earth are called the church\nmilitant, and those in heaven the church triumphant. It has been\nremarked by Dr. John Owen, that sin having entered into the world, God\nwas pleased to found his church (the catholic or universal church) in\nthe promise of the Messiah given to Adam; that this promise contained in\nit something of the nature of a covenant, including the grace which God\ndesigned to show to sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience which he\nrequired from them; and that consequently, from its first promulgation,\nthat promise became the sole foundation of the church and of the whole\nworship of God therein. Prior to the days of Abraham, this church,\nthough scattered up and down the world, and subject to many changes in\nits worship through the addition of new revelations, was still but one\nand the same, because founded in the same covenant, and interested\nthereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had granted, or would\nat any time grant. In process of time, God was pleased to restrict his\nchurch, as far as visible acknowledgment went, in a great measure, to\nthe seed of Abraham. With the latter he renewed his covenant, requiring\nthat he should walk before him and be upright. He also constituted him\nthe father of the faithful, or of all them that believe, and the \u201cheir\nof the world.\u201d So that since the days of Abraham, the church has, in\nevery age, been founded upon the covenant made with that patriarch, and\non the work of redemption which was to be performed according to that\ncovenant. Now wheresoever this covenant made with Abraham is, and with\nwhomsoever it is established, with them is the church of God, and to\nthem all the promises and privileges of the church really belong. Hence\nwe may learn that at the coming of the Messiah, there was not one church\ntaken away and another set up in its room; but the church continued the\nsame, in those that were the children of Abraham, according to the\nfaith. It is common with divines to speak of the Jewish and the\nChristian churches, as though they were two distinct and totally\ndifferent things; but that is not a correct view of the matter. The\nChristian church is not another church, but the very same that was\nbefore the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and\ninterested in the same covenant. Great alterations indeed were made in\nthe outward state and condition of the church, by the coming of the\nMessiah. The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation from\nother nations to give birth to the Messiah, then failed, and with that\nalso their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. The\nordinances of worship suited to that state of things then expired, and\ncame to an end. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suitable to\nthe new light and grace which were then bestowed upon the church. The\nGentiles came into the faith of Abraham along with the Jews, being made\njoint partakers with them in his blessing. But none of these things, nor\nthe whole collectively, did make such an alteration in the church, but\nthat it was still one and the same. The olive tree was still the same,\nonly some branches were broken off, and others grafted into it. The Jews\nfell, and the Gentiles came in their room. And this may enable us to\ndetermine the difference between the Jews and Christians relative to the\nOld Testament promises. They are all made to the church. No individual\nhas any interest in them except by virtue of his membership with the\nchurch. The church is, and always was, one and the same. The Jewish\nplea, is, that the church is with them, because they are the children of\nAbraham according to the flesh. Christians reply, that their privilege\non that ground was of another nature, and ended with the coming of the\nMessiah: that the church of God, unto whom all the promises belong, are\nonly those who are heirs of the faith of Abraham, believing as he did,\nand are consequently interested in his covenant. These are Zion,\nJerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple, or church of God.\n\n2. By a particular church we understand an assembly of Christians united\ntogether, and meeting in one place, for the solemn worship of God. To\nthis agrees the definition given by the compilers of the Thirty-nine\nArticles of the Church of England: \u201cA congregation of faithful men, in\nwhich the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly\nadministered according to Christ\u2019s ordinances, in all those things that\nof necessity are requisite to the same,\u201d Acts ix, 31; xx, 17; Gal. i, 2,\n22; 1 Cor. xiv, 34; Col. iv, 15. The word is now also used to denote any\nparticular denomination of Christians, distinguished by particular\ndoctrines, ceremonies, &c, as the Romish church, the Greek church, the\nEnglish church, &c.\n\n3. On the subject of the church, opinions as opposite or varying as\npossible have been held, from that of the Papists, who contend for its\nvisible unity throughout the world under a visible head, down to that of\nthe Independents, who consider the universal church as composed of\ncongregational churches, each perfect in itself, and entirely\nindependent of every other. The first opinion is manifestly contradicted\nby the language of the Apostles, who, while they teach that there is but\none church, composed of believers throughout the world, think it not at\nall inconsistent with this to speak of \u201cthe churches of Judea,\u201d \u201cof\nAchaia,\u201d \u201cthe seven churches of Asia,\u201d \u201cthe church at Ephesus,\u201d &c.\nAmong themselves the Apostles had no common head; but planted churches\nand gave directions for their government, in most cases without any\napparent correspondence with each other. The Popish doctrine is\ncertainly not found in their writings; and so far were they from making\nprovision for the government of this one supposed church, by the\nappointment of one visible and exclusive head, that they provide for the\nfuture government of the respective churches raised up by them in a\ntotally different manner, that is, by the ordination of ministers for\neach church, who are indifferently called bishops, and presbyters, and\npastors. The only unity of which they speak is the unity of the whole\nchurch in Christ, the invisible head, by faith; and the unity produced\nby \u201cfervent love toward each other.\u201d Nor has the Popish doctrine of the\nvisible unity of the church any countenance from early antiquity. The\nbest ecclesiastical historians have showed, that, through the greater\npart of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of\neach other. \u201cEach Christian assembly,\u201d says Mosheim, \u201cwas a little state\ngoverned by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least\napproved, by the society. But in process of time, all the churches of a\nprovince were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like\nconfederate states, assembled at certain times in order to deliberate\nabout the common interests of the whole.\u201d So far indeed this union of\nchurches appears to have been a wise and useful arrangement, although\nafterward it was carried to an injurious extreme, until finally it gave\nbirth to the assumptions of the bishop of Rome, as universal bishop; a\nclaim, however, which, when most successful, was but partially submitted\nto, the eastern churches having, for the most part, always maintained\ntheir independence. No very large association of churches of any kind\nexisted till toward the close of the second century, which sufficiently\nrefutes the papal argument from antiquity. The independence of the early\nChristian churches does not, however, appear to have resembled that of\nthe churches which, in modern times, are called Independent. During the\nlives of the Apostles and Evangelists they were certainly subject to\ntheir counsel and control, which proves that the independency of\nseparate societies was not the first form of the church. It may, indeed,\nbe allowed, that some of the smaller and more insulated churches might,\nafter the death of the Apostles and Evangelists, retain this form for\nsome considerable time; but the larger churches, in the chief cities,\nand those planted in populous neighbourhoods, had many presbyters, and,\nas the members multiplied, they had several separate assemblies or\ncongregations, yet all under the same common government. And when\nchurches were raised up in the neighbourhood of cities, the appointment\nof _chorepiscopi_, or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, both\nacting under the presbytery of the city, with the bishop at its head, is\nsufficiently in proof, that the ancient churches, especially the larger\nand more prosperous of them, existed in that form which, in modern\ntimes, we should call a religious connection, subject to a common\ngovernment. This appears to have arisen out of the very circumstance of\nthe increase of the church, through the zeal of the first Christians;\nand it was doubtless much more in the spirit of the very first\ndiscipline exercised by the Apostles and Evangelists, (when none of the\nchurches were independent, but remained under the government of those\nwho had been chiefly instrumental in raising them up,) to place\nthemselves under a common inspection, and to unite the weak with the\nstrong, and the newly converted with those who were \u201cin Christ before\nthem.\u201d There was also in this, greater security afforded both for the\ncontinuance of wholesome doctrine, and of godly discipline.\n\n4. Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church.\nAs to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from\nthe world, 2 Cor. vi, 17; who are born again, 1 Peter i, 23; or made new\ncreatures, 2 Cor. v, 17; whose faith works by love to God and all\nmankind, Gal. v, 6; James ii, 14, 26; who walk in all the ordinances of\nthe Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor\nshould any be admitted into any particular church without some evidence\nof their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.\n\n5. Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with\nanother. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and\nexhibition of a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances\nof evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the impartial\nexercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness\nin all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest\nstudy to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another\u2019s burdens, Gal.\nvi, 1, 2; earnest endeavours to prevent each other\u2019s stumbling, 1 Cor.\nx, 23\u201333; Heb. x, 24\u201327; Rom. xiv, 13; steadfast continuance in the\nfaith and worship of the Gospel, Acts ii, 42; praying for and\nsympathizing with each other, 1 Sam. xii, 23; Eph. vi, 18. The\nadvantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some\npromises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God,\nand hold communion with the saints, Psalm xcii, 13; cxxxii, 13, 16;\nxxxvi, 8; Jer. xxxi, 12; the being placed under the watchful eye of\npastors, Heb. xiii, 7; that they may restore each other if they fall,\nGal. vi, 1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion.\n\n6. As to church order and discipline, without entering into the\ndiscussion of the many questions which have been raised on this subject,\nand argued in so many distinct treatises, it may be sufficient generally\nto observe, that the church of Christ being a visible and permanent\nsociety, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey certain rules, the\nexistence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious\nrites suppose order, all order direction and control, and these a\ndirective and controlling power. Again: all laws are nugatory without\nenforcement, in the present mixed and imperfect state of society; and\nall enforcement supposes an executive. If baptism be the door of\nadmission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates,\nand administrators of the rite must be appointed; if the Lord\u2019s Supper\nmust be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the\nqualifications of communicants judged of, and the administration placed\nin suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again\nthere must be an appointment of times, an order, and an administration;\nif the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and\npreachers are necessary; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship\nof Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and\ncredit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing\ndiscipline must be lodged some where. Thus government flows necessarily\nfrom the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and\nsince this institution has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, it\nis not to be supposed, that its government was left unprovided for; and\nif they have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of\nmere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government\nin the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by\nbecoming its members. The nature of this government, and the persons to\nwhom it is committed, are both points which we must briefly examine by\nthe light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly\nspiritual:--\u201cMy kingdom,\u201d says our Lord, \u201cis not of this world.\u201d The\nchurch is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for\nthe personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the\nreligious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus\ndetermined; it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot\nemploy force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the\nchurch is faith; to which there can be no compulsion;--\u201che that\nbelieveth and is baptized\u201d becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and\npenalties upon the disobedient and refractory, like civil governments;\nfor the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is\ncomprised in \u201cadmonition,\u201d \u201creproof,\u201d \u201csharp rebukes,\u201d and, finally,\n\u201cexcision from the society.\u201d The last will be better understood, if we\nconsider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each\nother, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body,\nand are therefore bound to tenderness and sympathy; they are the\nconjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of\n\u201cone judgment;\u201d they are brethren, and they are to love one another as\nsuch, that is, with an affection more special than that general good\nwill which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are therefore\nto seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except\nin the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to\nkeep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good\nunto all men, but \u201cespecially to them that are of the household of\nfaith;\u201d and they are forbidden \u201cto eat\u201d at the Lord\u2019s table with immoral\npersons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian\nprofession, dishonour it by their practice. With these relations of\nChristians to each other and to the world, and their correspondent\nduties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that\nextreme discipline which is vested in the church. \u201cPersons who will not\nhear the church\u201d are to be held \u201cas Heathen men and publicans,\u201d as those\nwho are not members of it; that is, they are to be separated from it,\nand regarded as of \u201cthe world,\u201d quite out of the range of the above\nmentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent\nduties; but still, like \u201cHeathen men and publicans\u201d they are to be the\nobjects of pity, and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline\nto be hastily inflicted before \u201ca first and second admonition,\u201d nor\nbefore those who are \u201cspiritual\u201d have attempted \u201cto restore a brother\novertaken by a fault;\u201d and when the \u201cwicked person\u201d is \u201cput away,\u201d still\nthe door is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The\ntrue excommunication of the Christian church is therefore a merciful and\nconsiderate separation of an incorrigible offender from the body of\nChristians, without any infliction of civil pains or penalties. \u201cNow we\ncommand you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye\nwithdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not\nafter the tradition which ye have received from us,\u201d 2 Thess. iii, 6.\n\u201cPurge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,\u201d 1 Cor.\nv, 7. \u201cBut now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man\nthat is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,\nor a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not\nto eat,\u201d 1 Cor. v, 11. This then is the moral discipline which is\nimperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is criminally\ndefective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the\ndisabilities and penalties which established churches in different\nplaces have connected with these sentences of excommunication, have no\ncountenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the\nspiritual character and ends of the Christian association.\n\n7. As to the _persons_ to whom the government of the church is\ncommitted, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of\nthe primitive church, as stated in the New Testament. A full enunciation\nof these offices we find in Ephesians iv, 11: \u201cAnd he gave some,\nApostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, pastors\nand teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the\nministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.\u201d Of these, the office\nof Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately\ncommissioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles, and of his\nresurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of\nChristian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by\nmiracles wrought by themselves. If by \u201cprophets\u201d we are to understand\npersons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very\nnature extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the\nother miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with\nothers, we understand that these prophets were extraordinary teachers\nraised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified\ninstructors; still the office was temporary. The \u201cEvangelists\u201d are\ngenerally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under\ntheir especial authority and direction. Of this number were Timothy and\nTitus; and as the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain bishops or\npresbyters in the several churches, but gave them no authority to ordain\nsuccessors to themselves in their particular office as Evangelists, it\nis clear that the Evangelists must also be reckoned among the number of\nextraordinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age of\nChristianity. Whether by \u201cpastors and teachers\u201d two offices be meant, or\none, has been disputed. The change in the mode of expression seems to\nfavour the latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerom, and\nSt. Augustine; but the point is of little consequence. A pastor was a\nteacher, although every teacher might not be a pastor; but in many cases\nhis office might be one of subordinate instruction, whether as an\nexpounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a more private instructer of\nthose who as yet were unacquainted with the first principles of the\nGospel of Christ. The term _pastor_ implies the duties both of\ninstruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of\nChrist; and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several\nchurches, both by the Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left by\nSt. Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that these\nare the \u201cpastors\u201d spoken of in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that\nthey were designed to be the permanent ministers of the church; and that\nwith them both the government of the church and the performance of its\nleading religious services were deposited. Deacons had the charge of the\ngifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, it appears from\nJustin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekly\noblations as being deposited with the chief minister, and distributed by\nhim. These pastors appear to have been indifferently called BISHOPS and\nPRESBYTERS, and with them the regulation of the churches was, doubtless,\ndeposited; not without checks and guards, the principal of which,\nhowever, was, in the primitive church, and continues to be in all modern\nchurches which have no support from the magistracy, or are made\nindependent of the people by endowments, the voluntariness of the\nassociation. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the\nApostles to exist among Christians; no compulsion of the civil power is\nany where assumed by them as the basis of their advices or directions;\nno binding of the members to one church, without liberty to join\nanother, by any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of\nsufficient weight, however, to prevent the evils of faction and schism.\nIt was this which created a natural and competent check upon the\nministers of the church; for being only sustained by the opinion of the\nchurches, they could not but have respect to it; and it was this which\ngave to the sound part of a fallen church the advantage of renouncing,\nupon sufficient and well-weighed grounds, their communion with it, and\nof kindling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy discipline, by\nforming a separate association, bearing its testimony against errors in\ndoctrine, and failures in practice. Nor is it to be conceived, that, had\nthis simple principle of perfect religious liberty been left unviolated\nthrough subsequent ages, the church could ever have become so corrupt,\nor with such difficulty and slowness have been recovered from its fall.\nThis ancient Christian liberty has happily been restored in a few parts\nof Christendom. See EPISCOPACY and PRESBYTERIANISM.\n\nCHURCH OF ENGLAND and IRELAND is that established by law in England and\nIreland, where it forms a part of the common law of the land, or\nconstitution of the country.\n\n1. When and by whom Christianity was first introduced into Britain,\ncannot at this distance of time be exactly ascertained. Eusebius,\nindeed, positively declares that it was by the Apostles and their\ndisciples; Bishops Jewel and Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave, and others, insist\nthat it was by St. Paul; and Baronius affirms, on the authority of an\nancient manuscript in the Vatican Library, that the Gospel was planted\nin Britain by Simon Zelotes, the Apostle, and Joseph of Arimathea; and\nthat the latter came over A. D. 35, or about the twenty-first year of\nTiberius, and died in this country. According to Archbishop Usher, the\nBritish churches had a school of learning in the year 182, to provide\nthem with proper teachers; and it would appear that they flourished,\nwithout dependence on any foreign church, till the arrival of Austin the\nmonk, in the latter part of the sixth century.\n\n2. Episcopacy was early established in this country; and it ought to be\nremembered, to the honour of the British bishops and clergy, that during\nseveral centuries they withstood the encroachments of the see of Rome.\nPopery, however, was at length introduced into England, and, as some\nsay, by Austin, the monk; and we find its errors every where prevalent\nduring several ages preceding the reformation, till they were refuted by\nWickliffe. The seed which Wickliffe had sown ripened after his death,\nand produced a glorious harvest. However, it was not till the reign of\nHenry VIII, that the reformation in England in reality commenced. When\nLuther declared war against the pope, Henry wrote his treatise on the\nseven sacraments against Luther\u2019s book, \u201cOf the Captivity of Babylon,\u201d\nand was repaid by the pontiff with the title of \u201cDefender of the Faith.\u201d\nThis title, in a sense diametrically opposite, and by a claim of higher\ndesert, was transmitted by Henry with his crown, and now belongs to his\nsuccessors. Henry\u2019s affections being estranged from his queen Catharine,\nand fixed on Anne Boleyn, he requested a divorce from his wife; but the\npope hesitating, the archbishop of Canterbury annulled his former\nmarriage. The sentence of the archbishop was condemned by the pope,\nwhose authority Henry therefore shook off, and was declared by\nparliament \u201csupreme head of the church.\u201d In the year 1800, when the\nkingdoms of Britain and Ireland were united, the churches of England and\nIreland, which had always been the same in government, faith, and\nworship, became one united church.\n\n3. The acknowledged standards of the faith and doctrines of the united\nchurch are, after the Scriptures, the Book of Homilies and the\nThirty-nine Articles. Her liturgy is also doctrinal, as well as\ndevotional. The homilies were composed by Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley,\nmen of unexceptionable learning and orthodoxy; or, according to others,\nthe first book was written principally by Cranmer, and the second by\nJewel. They were appointed to be read in churches at the beginning of\nthe reformation, when, by reason of the scarcity of learned divines, few\nministers were found who could safely be trusted to preach their own\ncompositions. The first draught of the Articles was composed by\nArchbishop Cranmer, assisted by Bishop Ridley, in the year 1551; and\nafter being corrected by the other bishops, and approved by the\nconvocation, they were published in Latin and English in 1553, and\namounted to forty-two in number. In 1562 they were revised and\ncorrected. Being then reduced to thirty-nine, they were drawn up in\nLatin only; but in 1571 they were subscribed by the members of the two\nhouses of convocation, both in Latin and English; and therefore the\nLatin and English copies are to be considered as equally authentic. The\noriginal manuscripts, subscribed by the houses of convocation, were\nburned in the fire of London; but Dr. Bennet has collated the oldest\ncopies now extant, in which it appears that there are no variations of\nany importance. During the last century, disputes arose among the clergy\nrespecting the propriety of subscribing to any human formulary of\nreligious sentiments. Parliament, in 1772, was applied to for the\nabolition of the subscription, by certain clergymen and others, whose\npetition received the most ample discussion, but was rejected by a large\nmajority. It has been generally held by most, if not all, Calvinists,\nboth in and out of the church, that the doctrinal parts of our Articles\nare Calvinistic. This opinion, however, has been warmly controverted. It\nis no doubt nearer the truth to conclude that the Articles are framed\nwith comprehensive latitude; and that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism\nwas intended to be exclusively established. In this view such liberal\nsentiments as the following, from the _Apology of the Church of\nEngland_, in 1732, are not of uncommon occurrence: \u201cThis, I know, I am\nmyself an Anti-Calvinian; and yet, were I to compile articles for the\nchurch, I would abhor the thoughts of forming them so fully according to\nmy own scheme of thinking, or of descending so minutely into all the\nparticular branches of it, that none but Arminians should be able to\nsubscribe, or that the church should lose the credit and service of such\nvaluable men as the Abbots, Davenant, Usher, and other Calvinists\nundoubtedly were. And since our reformers were men of temper and\nmoderation, it seems but justice, I am sure it is but reasonable, to\nthink they intended such a latitude as I contend for, so that both\nparties, the followers of Arminius as well as of Calvin, might\nsubscribe.\u201d In a subsequent page, however, the same author says, \u201cBut\nwhat, if there was not so entire a harmony among the compilers or\nimposers, as was before supposed? What if several of them were\nAnti-Calvinian? This will incline the balance still more in our favour,\nand enlarge the probability of _the articles being drawn up in a\nmoderate, indefinite way_. The divines who fled for refuge, in Queen\nMary\u2019s reign, to Geneva, Zurich, and other places beyond sea, (where, by\nconceiving a great veneration for Calvin, they were mightily changed in\ntheir sentiments and ways of thinking,) began to propagate his notions\nsoon after their return in the next reign: and this seems to have been\nthe prime occasion of Calvinism taking any considerable root in this\nkingdom. In King Edward\u2019s time it doth not appear to have prevailed,\nexcept among a few \u2018gospelers,\u2019 and how they were reflected on by Bishop\nLatimer and Hooper has been already observed. When the articles were\nformed in 1552, I do not find that any deference was paid to Calvin\u2019s\njudgment or authority: instead of that, the assistance he offered was,\nto his no little grief and dissatisfaction, refused. Next to the\nScriptures and the doctrine of the primitive church, the compilers had\nan eye to the Augustan Confession, as appears from the identity of many\nof the articles; to the writings of Melancthon, whose assistance they\ndesired, and whom King Edward invited over hither; the works of Erasmus;\nand the _Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man_. This\nlast book was published by King Henry\u2019s authority in 1543; and because\nit then had the approbation of most of those who compiled the Articles\nnine years afterward, it will be of consequence to see how it stands\naffected toward Calvinism. It teaches the cardinal point of universal\nredemption in several places; which strikes directly at the root of the\nCalvinian system, and, as Dr. Whitby expresses it, \u2018draws all the rest\nafter it, on which side soever the truth lies.\u2019\u201d This judicious\namplitude has received much elucidation in Dr. Puller\u2019s _Moderation of\nthe Church of England considered_, 1679; and in other works of more\nrecent date.\n\n4. In this church, divine service is conducted by a liturgy, which was\ncomposed in 1547, and has undergone several alterations, the last of\nwhich took place in 1661, in the reign of Charles II. Many applications\nhave been since made for a review; and particular alterations were\nproposed in 1689, by several learned and excellent divines, in the\nnumber of whom were Archbishops Tillotson and Tenison, and Bishops\nPatrick, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Kidder, &c. This subject has been\nrecently revived; and it is believed that some changes are under\nconsideration. To this liturgy every clergyman promises at his\nordination to conform in his public ministrations.\n\n5. Ever since the reign of Henry VIII, the sovereigns of England have\nbeen styled \u201csupreme heads of the church,\u201d as well as \u201cdefenders of the\nfaith;\u201d but this title is said to convey no spiritual meaning; or, in\nother words, it only substitutes the king in place of the pope, with\nrespect to temporalities, and the external economy of the church. The\nchurch of England is governed by two archbishops and twenty-four\nbishops, beside the bishop of Sodor and Man. The benefices of the\nbishops were converted by William the Conqueror into temporal baronies;\nand, therefore, all of them, except the bishop of Man, are barons or\nlords of parliament, and sit and vote in the house of lords, where they\nrepresent the clergy. The bishops\u2019 representatives and assistants are\nthe archdeacons, of whom there are sixty in England. The other\ndignitaries of the church are the deans, prebendaries, canons, &c; and\nthe inferior clergy are the rectors, vicars, and curates. The united\nchurch knows only three orders of ministers; bishops, priests, and\ndeacons: but in these orders are comprehended archbishops, bishops,\ndeans, archdeacons, rectors, vicars, and curates. The church of Ireland\nis governed by four archbishops and eighteen bishops. Since the union of\nBritain and Ireland, one archbishop and three bishops sit alternately in\nthe house of peers, by rotation of sessions.\n\nCILICIA, a country in the south-east of Asia Minor, and lying on the\nnorthern coast, at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea: the capital\ncity thereof was Tarsus, the native city of St. Paul, Acts xxi, 39.\n\nCINNAMON, \u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05df, an agreeable aromatic; the inward bark of the\n_canella_, a small tree of the height of the willow. It is mentioned,\nExodus xxx, 23, among the materials in the composition of the holy\nanointing oil; and in Proverbs vii, 17; Canticles iv, 14; Ecclesiasticus\nxxiv, 15; and Revelation xviii, 13, among the richest perfumes. This\nspice is now brought from the east Indies; but as there was no traffic\nwith India in the days of Moses, it was then brought, probably, from\nArabia, or some neighbouring country. We learn, however, from Pliny,\nthat a species of it grew in Syria.\n\nCINNEROTH, or CINNERETH, a city on the north-western side of the sea of\nGalilee; which, from it, is frequently called in the Old Testament the\nsea of Cinneroth: from which word, that of Genesaret, in the New\nTestament, is conjectured by Dr. Wells to have been framed.\n\nCIRCUMCISION is from the Latin, _circumcidere_, \u201cto cut all round,\u201d\nbecause the Jews, in circumcising their children, cut off after this\nmanner the skin which covers the prepuce. God enjoined Abraham to use\ncircumcision, as a sign of his covenant. In obedience to this order,\nAbraham, at ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised: also his son\nIshmael, and all the males of his property, Gen. xvii, 10. God repeated\nthe precept of circumcision to Moses: he ordered that all who were to\npartake of the paschal sacrifice should receive circumcision; and that\nthis rite should be performed on children, on the eighth day after their\nbirth. The Jews have always been very exact in observing this ceremony,\nand it appears that they did not neglect it when in Egypt. But Moses,\nwhile in Midian with Jethro his father-in-law, did not circumcise his\ntwo sons born in that country; and during the journey of the Israelites\nin the wilderness, their children were not circumcised. Circumcision was\npractised among the Arabians, Saracens, and Ishmaelites. These people,\nas well as the Israelites, sprung from Abraham. Circumcision was\nintroduced with the law of Moses among the Samaritans and Cutheans. The\nIdumeans, though descended from Abraham and Isaac, were not circumcised\ntill subdued by John Hircanus. Those who assert that the Phenicians were\ncircumcised, mean, probably, the Samaritans; for we know, from other\nauthority, that the Phenicians did not observe this ceremony. As to the\nEgyptians, circumcision never was of general and indispensable\nobligation on the whole nation; certain priests only, and particular\nprofessions, were obliged to it. Circumcision is likewise the ceremony\nof initiation into the Mohammedan religion. There is, indeed, no law in\nthe Koran which enjoins it, and they have the precept only in tradition.\nThey say that Mohammed commanded it out of respect to Abraham, the head\nof his race. They have no fixed day for the performance of this rite,\nand generally wait till the child is five or six years of age.\n\nCIRCUMCISION, _Covenant of_. That the covenant with Abraham, of which\ncircumcision was made the sign and seal, Genesis xvii, 7\u201314, was the\ngeneral covenant of grace, and not wholly, or even chiefly, a political\nand national covenant, may be satisfactorily established. The first\nengagement in it was, that God would \u201cgreatly bless\u201d Abraham; which\npromise, although it comprehended temporal blessings, referred, as we\nlearn from St. Paul, more fully to the blessing of his justification by\nthe imputation of his faith for righteousness, with all the spiritual\nadvantages consequent upon the relation which was thus established\nbetween him and God, in time and eternity. The second promise in the\ncovenant was, that he should be \u201cthe father of many nations;\u201d which we\nare also taught by St. Paul to interpret more with reference to his\nspiritual seed, the followers of that faith whereof cometh\njustification, than to his natural descendants. \u201cThat the promise might\nbe sure to all the seed, not only to that which is by the law, but to\nthat also which is by _the faith_ of Abraham, who is the father of _us\nall_,\u201d--of all believing Gentiles as well as Jews. The third stipulation\nin God\u2019s covenant with the patriarch, was the gift to Abraham and to his\nseed of \u201cthe land of Canaan,\u201d in which the temporal promise was\nmanifestly but the type of the higher promise of a heavenly inheritance.\nHence St. Paul says, \u201cBy _faith_ he sojourned in the land of promise,\ndwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the\nsame promise;\u201d but this \u201cfaith\u201d did not respect the fulfilment of the\ntemporal promise; for St. Paul adds, \u201cthey looked for a city which had\nfoundations, whose builder and maker is God,\u201d Heb. xi, 19. The next\npromise was, that God would always be \u201ca God to Abraham and to his seed\nafter him,\u201d a promise which is connected with the highest spiritual\nblessings, such as the remission of sins, and the sanctification of our\nnature, as well as with a visible church state. It is even used to\nexpress the felicitous state of the church in heaven, Rev. xxi, 3. The\nfinal engagement in the Abrahamic covenant was, that in Abraham\u2019s \u201cseed,\nall nations of the earth should be blessed;\u201d and this blessing, we are\nexpressly taught by St. Paul, was nothing less than the justification of\nall nations, that is, of all believers in all nations, by faith in\nChrist: \u201cAnd the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the\nHeathen by faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee\nshall all nations be blessed. So then they who are of faith are blessed\nwith believing Abraham;\u201d they receive the same blessing, justification,\nby the same means, faith, Gal. iii, 8, 9. This covenant with Abraham,\ntherefore, although it respected a natural seed, Isaac, from whom a\nnumerous progeny was to spring; and an earthly inheritance provided for\nthis issue, the land of Canaan; and a special covenant relation with the\ndescendants of Isaac, through the line of Jacob, to whom Jehovah was to\nbe \u201ca God,\u201d visibly and specially, and they a visible and \u201cpeculiar\npeople;\u201d yet was, under all these temporal, earthly, and external\nadvantages, but a higher and spiritual grace embodying itself under\nthese circumstances, as types of a dispensation of salvation and eternal\nlife, to all who should follow the faith of Abraham, whose justification\nbefore God was the pattern of the justification of every man, whether\nJew or Gentile, in all ages. Now, of this covenant, in its spiritual as\nwell as in its temporal provisions, circumcision was most certainly the\nsacrament, that is the \u201csign\u201d and the \u201cseal;\u201d for St. Paul thus explains\nthe case: \u201cAnd he received the SIGN of circumcision, a SEAL of the\nrighteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.\u201d And as\nthis rite was enjoined upon Abraham\u2019s posterity, so that every\n\u201cuncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin was not circumcised\non the eighth day,\u201d was to be \u201ccut off from his people,\u201d by the special\njudgment of God, and that because \u201che had broken God\u2019s _covenant_,\u201d Gen.\nxvii, 14; it therefore follows that this rite was a constant publication\nof God\u2019s covenant of grace among the descendants of Abraham, and its\nrepetition a continual confirmation of that covenant, on the part of\nGod, to all practising it in that faith of which it was the ostensible\nexpression.\n\n2. As the covenant of grace made with Abraham was bound up with temporal\npromises and privileges, so circumcision was a sign and seal of the\ncovenant in both its parts,--its spiritual and its temporal, its\nsuperior and inferior provisions. The spiritual promises of the covenant\ncontinued unrestricted to all the descendants of Abraham, whether by\nIsaac or by Ishmael; and still lower down, to the descendants of Esau as\nwell as to those of Jacob. Circumcision was practised among them all by\nvirtue of its divine institution at first; and was extended to their\nforeign servants, and to proselytes, as well as to their children; and\nwhere-ever the sign of the covenant of grace was by divine appointment,\nthere it was as a _seal_ of that covenant, to all who believingly used\nit; for we read of no restriction of its spiritual blessings, that is,\nits saving engagements, to one line of descent from Abraham only. But\nover the _temporal_ branch of the covenant, and the _external_ religious\nprivileges arising out of it, God exercised a rightful sovereignty, and\nexpressly restricted them first to the line of Isaac, and then to that\nof Jacob, with whose descendants he entered into special covenant by the\nministry of Moses. The temporal blessings and external privileges\ncomprised under general expressions in the covenant with Abraham, were\nexplained and enlarged under that of Moses, while the spiritual\nblessings remained unrestricted as before. This was probably the reason\nwhy circumcision was re\u00ebnacted under the law of Moses. It was a\nconfirmation of the temporal blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, now,\nby a covenant of peculiarity, made over to them, while it was still\nrecognized as a consuetudinary rite which had descended to them from\ntheir fathers, and as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, made\nwith Abraham and with all his descendants without exception. This double\nreference of circumcision, both to the authority of Moses and to that of\nthe patriarchs, is found in the words of our Lord, John vii, 22: \u201cMoses\ntherefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of\nthe fathers;\u201d or, as it is better translated by Campbell, \u201cMoses\ninstituted circumcision among you, (not that it is from Moses, but from\nthe patriarchs,) and ye circumcise on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a\nchild receive circumcision, that the _law of Moses_ may not be\nviolated,\u201d &c.\n\n3. From these observations, the controversy in the Apostolic churches\nrespecting circumcision will derive much elucidation. The covenant with\nAbraham prescribed circumcision as an act of faith in its promises, and\nas a pledge to perform its conditions on the part of his descendants.\nBut the object on which this faith rested, was \u201cthe Seed of Abraham,\u201d in\nwhom the nations of the earth were to be blessed: which Seed, says St.\nPaul, \u201cis Christ,\u201d--Christ as promised, not yet come. When the Christ\nhad come, so as fully to enter upon his redeeming offices, he could no\nlonger be the object of faith, as still to come; and this leading\npromise of the covenant being accomplished, the sign and seal of it\nvanished away. Nor could circumcision be continued in _this view_ by\nany, without an implied denial that Jesus was the Christ, the expected\nSeed of Abraham. Circumcision also as an institution of Moses, who\ncontinued it as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant both in its\nspiritual and temporal provisions, but with respect to the latter made\nit also a sign and seal of the restriction of its temporal blessings and\npeculiar religious privileges to the descendants of Israel, was\nterminated by the entrance of our Lord upon his office of Mediator, in\nwhich office all nations were to be blessed in him. The Mosaic edition\nof the covenant not only guaranteed the land of Canaan, but the\npeculiarity of the Israelites, as the people and visible church of God\nto the exclusion of others, except by proselytism. But when our Lord\ncommanded the Gospel to be preached to \u201call nations,\u201d and opened the\ngates of the \u201ccommon salvation\u201d to all, whether Gentiles or Jews,\ncircumcision, as the sign of a covenant of peculiarity and religious\ndistinction, was also done away. It had not only no reason remaining,\nbut the continuance of the rite involved the recognition of exclusive\nprivileges which had been terminated by Christ. This will explain the\nviews of the Apostle Paul on this great question. He declares that in\nChrist there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; that neither\ncircumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but \u201cfaith that\nworketh by love;\u201d faith in the Seed of Abraham already come and already\nengaged in his mediatorial and redeeming work; faith, by virtue of which\nthe Gentiles came into the church of Christ on the same terms as the\nJews themselves, and were justified and saved. The doctrine of the\nnon-necessity of circumcision, he applies to the Jews as well as to the\nGentiles, although he specially resists the attempts of the Judaizers to\nimpose this rite upon the Gentile converts; in which he was supported by\nthe decision of the Holy Spirit when the appeal upon this question was\nmade to \u201cthe Apostles and elders at Jerusalem,\u201d from the church at\nAntioch. At the same time it is clear that he takes two different views\nof the practice of circumcision, as it was continued among many of the\nfirst Christians. The first is that strong one which is expressed in\nGal. v, 2\u20134, \u201cBehold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,\nChrist shall profit you nothing; for I testify again to every man that\nis circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is made\nof no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are\nfallen from grace.\u201d The second is that milder view which he himself must\nhave had when he circumcised Timothy to render him more acceptable to\nthe Jews; and which also appears to have led him to abstain from all\nallusion to this practice when writing his epistle to the believing\nHebrews, although many, perhaps most of them, continue to circumcise\ntheir children, as did the Jewish Christians for a long time afterward.\nThese different views of circumcision, held by the same person, may be\nexplained by considering the different principles on which circumcision\nmight be practised after it had become an obsolete ordinance.\n\n(1.) It might be taken in the simple view of its first institution, as\nthe sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant; and then it was to be\ncondemned as involving a denial that Abraham\u2019s Seed, the Christ, had\nalready come, since, upon his coming, every old covenant gave place to\nthe new covenant introduced by him.\n\n(2.) It might be practised and enjoined as the sign and seal of the\nMosaic covenant, which was still the Abrahamic covenant with its\nspiritual blessings, but with restriction of its temporal promises and\nspecial ecclesiastical privileges to the line of Jacob, with a law of\nobservances which was obligatory upon all entering that covenant by\ncircumcision. In that case it involved, in like manner, the notion of\nthe continuance of an old covenant, after the establishment of the new;\nfor thus St. Paul states the case in Galatians iii, 19: \u201cWherefore then\nserveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed\nshould come.\u201d After that therefore it had no effect:--it had waxed old,\nand had vanished away.\n\n(3.) Again: circumcision might imply an obligation to observe all the\nceremonial usages and the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, along with a\ngeneral belief in the mission of Christ, as necessary to justification\nbefore God. This appears to have been the view of those among the\nGalatian Christians who submitted to circumcision, and of the Jewish\nteachers who enjoined it upon them; for St. Paul in that epistle\nconstantly joins circumcision with legal observances, and as involving\nan obligation to do \u201cthe whole law,\u201d in order to justification.--\u201cI\ntestify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to\ndo the whole law; whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are\nfallen from grace.\u201d \u201cKnowing that a man is not justified by the works of\nthe law, but by the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d Gal. ii, 16. To all\npersons therefore practising circumcision in this view it was obvious,\nthat \u201cChrist was become of none effect,\u201d the very principle of\njustification by faith alone in him was renounced even while his divine\nmission was still admitted.\n\n(4.) But there are two grounds on which circumcision maybe conceived to\nhave been innocently, though not wisely, practised, among the Christian\nJews. The first was that of preserving an ancient national distinction\non which they valued themselves; and were a converted Jew in the present\nday disposed to perform that rite upon his children for this purpose\nonly, renouncing in the act all consideration of it as a sign and seal\nof the old covenants, or as obliging to ceremonial acts in order to\njustification, no one would censure him with severity. It appears clear\nthat it was under some such view that St. Paul circumcised Timothy,\nwhose mother was a Jewess; he did it because of \u201cthe Jews which were in\nthose quarters,\u201d that is, because of their national prejudices, \u201cfor\nthey knew that his father was a Greek.\u201d The second was a lingering\nnotion, that, even in the Christian church, the Jews who believed would\nstill retain some degree of eminence, some superior relation to God; a\nnotion which, however unfounded, was not one which demanded direct\nrebuke, when it did not proudly refuse spiritual communion with the\nconverted Gentiles, but was held by men who \u201crejoiced that God had\ngranted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.\u201d These considerations may\naccount for the silence of St. Paul on the subject of circumcision in\nhis Epistle to the Hebrews. Some of them continued to practise that\nrite, but they were probably believers of the class just mentioned; for\nhad he thought that the rite was continued among them on any principle\nwhich affected the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, he would no\ndoubt have been equally prompt and fearless in pointing out that\napostasy from Christ which was implied in it, as when he wrote to the\nGalatians.\n\nNot only might circumcision be practised with views so opposite that one\nmight be wholly innocent, although an infirmity of prejudice; the other\nsuch as would involve a rejection of the doctrine of justification by\nfaith in Christ; but some other Jewish observances also stood in the\nsame circumstances. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, a part of\nhis writings from which we obtain the most information on these\nquestions, grounds his \u201cdoubts\u201d whether the members of that church were\nnot seeking to be \u201cjustified by the law\u201d upon their observing \u201cdays, and\nmonths, and times, and years.\u201d Had he done more than \u201cdoubt,\u201d he would\nhave expressed himself more positively. He saw their danger on this\npoint; he saw that they were taking steps to this fatal result, by such\nan observance of these \u201cdays,\u201d &c, as had a strong leaning and dangerous\napproach to that dependence upon them for justification, which would\ndestroy their faith in Christ\u2019s solely sufficient sacrifice; but his\nvery doubting, not of the fact of their being addicted to these\nobservances, but of the _animus_ with which they regarded them, supposes\nit possible, however dangerous this Jewish conformity might be, that\nthey might be observed for reasons which would still consist with their\nentire reliance upon the merits of Christ for salvation. Even he\nhimself, strongly as he resisted the imposition of this conformity to\nJewish customs upon the converts to Christianity as a matter of\nnecessity, yet in practice must have conformed to many of them, when no\nsacrifice of principle was understood; for, in order to gain the Jews,\nhe became \u201cas a Jew.\u201d See ABRAHAM, and BAPTISM.\n\nCISLEU, the ninth month of the ecclesiastical, and the third of the\ncivil, year among the Hebrews. It answers nearly to our November.\n\nCISTERN, a reservoir chiefly for rain water. Numbers of these are still\nto be seen in Palestine, some of which are a hundred and fifty paces\nlong, and sixty broad. The reason of their being so large was, that\ntheir cities were many of them built in elevated situations; and the\nrain falling only twice in the year, namely, spring and autumn, it\nbecame necessary for them to collect a quantity of water, as well for\nthe cattle as for the people. A broken cistern would of course be a\ngreat calamity to a family, or in some cases even to a town; and with\nreference to this we may see the force of the reproof, Jer. ii, 13.\n\nCITIES. By referring to some peculiarities in the building, fortifying,\n&c, of eastern cities we shall the better understand several allusions\nand expressions of the Old Testament. It is evident that the walls of\nfortified cities were sometimes partly constructed of combustible\nmaterials; for the Prophet, denouncing the judgments of God upon Syria\nand other countries, declares, \u201cI will send a fire on the wall of Gaza,\nwhich shall devour the palaces thereof,\u201d Amos i, 7. The walls of Tyre\nand Rabbah seem to have been of the same perishable materials; for the\nProphet adds, \u201cI will send a fire upon the wall of Tyrus, which shall\ndevour the palaces thereof;\u201d and again, \u201cI will kindle a fire in the\nwalls of Rabbah, and it shall devour the palaces thereof with shouting\nin the day of battle,\u201d verses 10, 14. One method of securing the gates\nof fortified places, among the ancients, was to cover them with thick\nplates of iron; a custom which is still used in the east, and seems to\nbe of great antiquity. We learn from Pitts, that Algiers has five gates,\nand some of these have two, some three, other gates within them; and\nsome of them are plated all over with thick iron. The place where the\nApostle was imprisoned seems to have been secured in the same manner;\nfor, says the inspired historian, \u201cWhen they were past the first and\nsecond ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city;\nwhich opened to them of its own accord,\u201d Acts xii, 10. Pococke, speaking\nof a bridge not far from Antioch, called the iron bridge, says, there\nare two towers belonging to it, the gates of which are covered with iron\nplates; which he supposes is the reason of the name it bears. Some of\ntheir gates are plated over with brass; such are the enormous gates of\nthe principal mosque at Damascus, formerly the church of John the\nBaptist. To gates like these, the Psalmist probably refers in these\nwords: \u201cHe hath broken the gates of brass,\u201d Psalm cvii, 16; and the\nProphet, in that remarkable passage, where God promises to go before\nCyrus his anointed, and \u201cbreak in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in\nsunder the bars of iron,\u201d Isa. xlv, 2. But, conscious that all these\nprecautions were insufficient for their security, the orientals employed\nwatchmen to patrol the city during the night, to suppress any disorders\nin the streets, or to guard the walls against the attempts of a foreign\nenemy. To this custom Solomon refers in these words: \u201cThe watchmen that\nwent about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the\nkeepers of the wall took away my veil from me,\u201d Song v, 7. This custom\nmay be traced to a very remote antiquity; so early as the departure of\nIsrael from the land of Egypt, the morning watch is mentioned, certainly\nindicating the time when the watchmen were commonly relieved. In Persia,\nthe watchmen were obliged to indemnify those who were robbed in the\nstreets; which accounts for the vigilance and severity which they\ndisplay in the discharge of their office, and illustrates the character\nof watchman given to Ezekiel, and the duties he was required to perform.\nIf the wicked perished in his iniquities without warning, the Prophet\nwas to be accountable for his blood; but if he duly pointed out his\ndanger, he delivered his own soul, Ezek. xxxiii, 2. They were also\ncharged, as with us, to announce the progress of the night to the\nslumbering city: \u201cThe burden of Dumah; he calls to me out of Seir,\nWatchman, what of the night? watchman, what of the night? The watchman\nsaid, The morning cometh, and also the night,\u201d Isa. xxi, 11. This is\nconfirmed by an observation of Chardin upon these words of Moses: \u201cFor a\nthousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as\na watch in the night:\u201d that \u201cas the people of the east have no clocks,\nthe several parts of the day and of the night, which are eight in all,\nare announced. In the Indies, the parts of the night are made known, as\nwell by instruments of music, in great cities, as by the rounds of the\nwatchmen, who, with cries and small drums, give them notice that a\nfourth part of the night is past. Now, as these cries awaked those who\nhad slept all that quarter part of the night, it appeared to them but as\na moment.\u201d It is evident the ancient Jews knew, by some public notice,\nhow the night watches passed away; but, whether they simply announced\nthe termination of the watch, or made use of trumpets, or other sonorous\ninstruments, in making the proclamation, it may not be easy to\ndetermine; and still less what kind of chronometers the watchmen used.\nThe probability is, that the watches were announced with the sound of a\ntrumpet; for the Prophet Ezekiel makes it a part of the watchman\u2019s duty,\nat least in time of war, to blow the trumpet, and warn the people. The\nwatchman, in a time of danger, seems to have taken his station in a\ntower, which was built over the gate of the city.\n\nThe fortified cities in Canaan, as in some other countries, were\ncommonly strengthened with a citadel, to which the inhabitants fled when\nthey found it impossible to defend the place. The whole inhabitants of\nThebez, unable to resist the repeated and furious assaults of Abimelech,\nretired into one of these towers, and bid defiance to his rage: \u201cBut\nthere was a strong tower within the city, and thither fled all the men\nand women, and all they of the city, and shut it to them, and gat them\nup to the top of the tower.\u201d The extraordinary strength of this tower,\nand the various means of defence which were accumulated within its\nnarrow walls, may be inferred from the violence of Abimelech\u2019s attack,\nand its fatal issue: \u201cAnd Abimelech came unto the tower, and fought\nagainst it, and went hard unto the door of the tower, to burn it with\nfire. And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech\u2019s\nhead, and all to break his skull,\u201d Judges ix, 52. The city of Shechem\nhad a tower of the same kind, into which the people retired, when the\nsame usurper took it and sowed it with salt, Judges ix, 46. These strong\ntowers which were built within a fortified city, were commonly placed on\nan eminence, to which they ascended by a flight of steps. Such was the\nsituation of the city of David, a strong tower upon a high eminence at\nJerusalem; and the manner of entrance, as described by the sacred\nwriter: \u201cBut the gate of the fountain repaired Shallum, unto the stairs\nthat go down from the city of David,\u201d Nehemiah iii, 15.\n\nCITIES OF REFUGE. See REFUGE.\n\nCLAUDIUS, a Roman emperor; he succeeded Caius Caligula, A. D. 41, and\nreigned thirteen years, eight months, and nineteen days, dying A. D. 54.\nKing Agrippa was the principal means of persuading Claudius to accept\nthe empire, which was tendered him by the soldiers. As an acknowledgment\nfor this service, he gave Agrippa all Judea, and the kingdom of Chalcis\nto his brother Herod. He put an end to the dispute which had for some\ntime existed between the Jews of Alexandria and the other freemen of\nthat city, and confirmed the Jews in the possession of their right of\nfreedom, which they had enjoyed from the beginning, and every where\nmaintained them in the free exercise of their religion. But he would not\npermit them to hold any assemblies at Rome. King Agrippa dying A. D. 44,\nthe emperor again reduced Judea into a province, and sent Cuspius Fadus\nto be governor. About the same time the famine happened which is\nmentioned Acts xi, 28\u201330, and was foretold by the Prophet Agabus.\nClaudius, in the ninth year of his reign, published an edict for\nexpelling all Jews out of Rome, Acts xviii, 2. It is very probable that\nthe Christians, who were at that time confounded with the Jews, were\nbanished likewise.\n\n2. CLAUDIUS FELIX, successor of Cumanus in the government of Judea.\nFelix found means to solicit and engage Drusilla, sister of Agrippa the\nYounger, to leave her husband Azizus, king of the Emessenians, and to\nmarry him, A. D. 53. Felix sent to Rome Eleazar, son of Din\u00e6us, captain\nof a band of robbers, who had committed great ravages in Palestine; he\nprocured the death of Jonathan, the high priest, who sometimes freely\nrepresented to him his duty; he defeated a body of three thousand men,\nwhom an Egyptian, a false prophet, had assembled upon the Mount of\nOlives. St. Paul being brought to Cesarea, where Felix usually resided,\nwas well treated by this governor, who permitted his friends to see him,\nand render him services, hoping the Apostle would procure his redemption\nby a sum of money. He however neither condemned Paul, nor set him at\nliberty, when the Jews accused him; but adjourned the determination of\nthis affair till the arrival of Lysias, who commanded the troops at\nJerusalem, where he had taken Paul into custody, and who was expected at\nCesarea, Acts xxiii, 26, 27, &c; xxiv, 1\u20133, &c.\n\nWhile the Apostle was thus detained, Felix, with his wife Drusilla, who\nwas a Jewess, sent for him, and desired him to explain the religion of\nJesus Christ. The Apostle spoke with his usual boldness, and discoursed\nto them on justice, temperance, and the last judgment. Felix trembled\nbefore this powerful exhibition of truths so arousing to his conscience;\nbut he remanded St. Paul to his confinement. He farther detained him two\nyears at Cesarea, in compliance with the wishes of the Jews, and in\norder to do something to propitiate them, because they were extremely\ndissatisfied with his government. Being recalled to Rome, A. D. 60; and\nmany Jews going thither to complain of the extortions and violence\ncommitted by him in Judea, he would have been put to death, if his\nbrother Pallas, who had been Claudius\u2019s slave, and was now his freedman,\nhad not preserved him. Felix was succeeded in the government of Judea by\nPorcius Festus.\n\nCLAY, \u05d7\u05de\u05e8, is often mentioned in Scripture, nor is it necessary to\nexplain the various references to what is so well known. It may be\nremarked, however, that clay was used for scaling doors. Norden and\nPococke observe, that the inspectors of the granaries in Egypt, after\nclosing the door, put their seal upon a handful of clay, with which they\ncover the lock. This may help to explain Job xxxviii, 14, in which the\nearth is represented as assuming form and imagery from the brightness of\nthe rising sun, as rude clay receives a figure from the impression of a\nseal or signet.\n\nCLEOPAS, according to Eusebius and Epiphanius, was brother of Joseph,\nboth being sons of Jacob. He was the father of Simeon, of James the\nLess, of Jude, and Joseph or Joses. Cleopas married Mary, sister to the\nblessed virgin. He was therefore uncle to Jesus Christ, and his sons\nwere first cousins to him. Cleopas, his wife, and sons, were disciples\nof Christ. Having beheld our Saviour expire upon the cross, he, like the\nother disciples, appears to have lost all hopes of seeing the kingdom of\nGod established by him on earth. The third day after our Saviour\u2019s\ndeath, on the day of his resurrection, Cleopas, with another disciple,\ndeparted from Jerusalem to Emmaus; and in the way discoursed on what had\nlately happened. Our Saviour joined them, appearing as a traveller; and,\ntaking up their discourse, he reasoned with them, convincing them out of\nthe Scriptures, that it was necessary the Messiah should suffer death,\npreviously to his being glorified. At Emmaus, Jesus seemed as if\ninclined to go farther; but Cleopas and his companion detained him, and\nmade him sup with them. While they were at table, Jesus took bread,\nblessed it, brake, and gave it to them, and by this action their eyes\nwere opened, and they knew him. Upon his disappearing they instantly\nreturned to Jerusalem, to announce the fact to the Apostles, who in\ntheir turn declared that \u201cthe Lord was risen indeed and had appeared to\nPeter.\u201d In our translation of Luke xxiv, 31, it is said that Jesus\n\u201cvanished out of their sight;\u201d but the original is more properly\nrendered, \u201cHe suddenly went away from them,\u201d the word being often\napplied by the Greek writers to those who in any way, but especially\nsuddenly and abruptly, withdraw from any one\u2019s company. No other actions\nof Cleopas are known. It is the opinion of Jerom, that his residence was\nat Emmaus, and that he invited our Saviour into his own house. Supposing\nCleopas to have been the brother of Joseph, and father of James, &c,\nCalmet thinks it more probable that as he was a Galilean, he dwelt in\nsome city of Galilee.\n\nCLOUD, a collection of vapours suspended in the atmosphere. When the\nIsraelites had left Egypt, God gave them a pillar of cloud to direct\ntheir march, Exod. xiii, 21, 22. According to Jerom, in his Epistle to\nFabiola, this cloud attended them from Succoth; or, according to others,\nfrom Rameses; or, as the Hebrews say, only from Ethan, till the death of\nAaron; or, as the generality of commentators are of opinion, to the\npassage of Jordan. This pillar was commonly in front of the Israelites;\nbut at Pihahiroth, when the Egyptian army approached behind them, it\nplaced itself between Israel and the Egyptians, so that the Egyptians\ncould not come near the Israelites all night, Exod. xiv, 19, 20. In the\nmorning, the cloud moving on over the sea, and following the Israelites\nwho had passed through it, the Egyptians pressing after were drowned.\nFrom that time, this cloud attended the Israelites; it was clear and\nbright during night, in order to afford them light; but in the day it\nwas thick and gloomy, to defend them from the excessive heats of the\ndeserts. \u201cThe angel of God which went before the camp of Israel, removed\nand went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their\nface, and stood behind them,\u201d Exod. xiv, 19. Here we may observe, that\nthe angel and the cloud made the same motion, as it would seem, in\ncompany. The cloud by its motions gave the signal to the Israelites to\nencamp or to decamp. Where, therefore, it stayed, the people stayed till\nit rose again; then they broke up their camp, and followed it till it\nstopped. It was called a pillar, by reason of its form, which was high\nand elevated. Some interpreters suppose that there were two clouds, one\nto enlighten, the other to shade, the camp.\n\nThe Lord appeared at Sinai in the midst of a cloud, Exod. xix, 9; xxiv,\n5; and after Moses had built and consecrated the tabernacle, the cloud\nfilled the court around it, so that neither Moses nor the priests could\nenter, Exodus xl, 34, 35. The same happened at the dedication of the\ntemple of Jerusalem by Solomon, 2 Chronicles v, 13; 1 Kings viii, 10.\nWhen the cloud appeared upon the tent, in front of which were held the\nassemblies of the people in the desert, it was then indicated that God\nwas present; for the tent was a sign of God\u2019s presence. The angel\ndescended in the cloud, and thence spoke to Moses, without being seen by\nthe people, Exod. xvi, 10; Num. xi, 25; xvi, 5. It is common in\nScripture, when mentioning God\u2019s appearing, to represent him as\nencompassed with clouds, which serve as a chariot, and contribute to\nveil his dreadful majesty, Job xxii, 14; Isaiah xix, 1; Matt. xvii, 5;\nxxiv, 30, &c; Psalm xviii, 11, 12; xcvii, 2; civ, 3. Cloud is also used\nfor morning mists: \u201cYour goodness is as a morning cloud; and as the\nearly dew it goeth away,\u201d Hosea vi, 4; xiii, 3. Job, speaking of the\nchaos, says, that God had confined the sea or the water, as it were with\na cloud, and covered it with darkness, as a child is wrapped in its\nblankets. The author of Ecclesiasticus, xxiv, 6, used the same\nexpression. The Son of God, at his second advent, is described as\ndescending upon clouds, Matt. xxiv, 30; Luke xi, 27; Rev. xiv, 14\u201316.\n\nCOCCEIANS, the disciples of John Cocceius, a celebrated Dutch divine,\nborn at Bremen, in 1608, where he was appointed professor of Hebrew, at\nthe age of twenty-seven, and afterward filled the theological chair at\nLeyden, where he died in 1669. His works make ten volumes in folio. He\nwas a man of good learning, and a vivid imagination. He considered the\nOld Testament as a mirror, which held forth figuratively the\ntransactions and events that were to happen in the church under the\ndispensation of the New Testament, and unto the end of the world. He\nmaintained, that by far the greater part of the ancient prophecies\nrelated to Christ\u2019s ministry and mediation, and the rise, progress, and\nrevolutions of the church; not only under the figure of typical persons\nand transactions, but in a more direct manner; and that Christ was,\nindeed, as much the substance of the Old Testament as of the New.\nCocceius also taught, that the covenant made between God and the Jews\nwas of the same nature as the new covenant by Jesus Christ; that the law\nwas promulgated by Moses, not merely as a rule of obedience, but also as\na representation of the covenant of grace; that when the Jews had\nprovoked the Deity by their various transgressions, particularly by the\nworship of the golden calf, the severe yoke of the ceremonial law was\nadded as a punishment; that this yoke, which was painful in itself,\nbecame doubly so on account of its typical signification; since it\nadmonished the Israelites from day to day of the imperfection of their\nstate, filled them with anxiety, and was a perpetual proof that they had\nmerited the righteous judgment of God, and could not expect, before the\ncoming of the Messiah, the entire remission of their iniquities; that\nindeed good men, under the Mosaic dispensation, were, after death, made\npartakers of glory; but that, nevertheless, during the whole course of\ntheir lives they were far removed from that assurance of salvation,\nwhich rejoices the believer under the dispensation of the Gospel; and\nthat their anxiety flowed from this consideration, that their sins,\nthough they remained unpunished, were not yet pardoned; because Christ\nhad not as yet offered himself up to make an atonement for them.\nCocceius was also a millennarian, and expected a personal reign of\nChrist on earth in the last days. Many of his opinions were afterward\nadopted by the Hutchinsonians.\n\nCOCK, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, a well known domestic fowl. Some derive the Greek name\nfrom \u03b1, and \u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, _a bed_, because the crowing of cocks rouses men\nfrom their beds; but Mr. Parkhurst asks, \u201cMay not this name be as\nproperly deduced from the Hebrew \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05ea, _the coming of the light_, of\nwhich this \u2018bird of dawning,\u2019 as Shakspeare calls him, gives such\nremarkable notice, and for doing which he was, among the Heathen, sacred\nto the sun, who in Homer is himself called \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1?\u201d In Matt. xxvi, 34,\nour Lord is represented as saying, that before cock-crow Peter should\ndeny him thrice; so Luke xxii, 34, and John xiii, 39. But according to\nMark xiv, 30, he says, \u201cBefore the cock crow _twice_ thou shalt deny me\nthrice.\u201d These texts may be very satisfactorily reconciled, by\nobserving, that ancient authors, both Greek and Latin, mention two\ncock-crowings, the one of which was soon after midnight, the other about\nthree o\u2019clock in the morning; and this latter being most noticed by men\nas the signal of their approaching labours, was called by way of\neminence, the cock-crowing; and to this alone, Matthew, giving the\ngeneral sense of our Saviour\u2019s warning to Peter, refers; but Mark,\nrecording his very words, mentions the two cock-crowings.\n\nThe rabbies tell us that cocks were not permitted to be kept in\nJerusalem on account of the holiness of the place; and that for this\nreason some modern Jews cavil against this declaration of the\nEvangelists; but the cock is not among the birds prohibited in the law\nof Moses. If there was any restraint in the use and domestication of the\nanimal, it must have been an arbitrary practice of the Jews, and could\nnot have been binding on foreigners, of whom many resided at Jerusalem\nas officers or traders. Strangers would not be willing to forego an\ninnocent kind of food in compliance with a conquered people; and the\ntrafficking spirit of the Jews would induce them to supply aliens, if it\ndid not expressly contradict the letter of their law. This is sufficient\nto account for fowl of this kind being there, even admitting a customary\nrestraint. The celebrated Reland admits that it was not allowed to breed\ncocks in the city, but that the Jews were not prohibited from buying\nthem to eat, and that therefore the cock mentioned in the Gospel might\nbe in the house of a Jew who designed to kill it for his own table; or\nmay have been kept in the precincts of Pilate, or of a Roman officer or\nsoldier.\n\nDuring the time of our Saviour, the night was divided into four watches,\na fourth watch having been introduced among the Jews from the Romans,\nwho derived it from the Greeks. The second and third watches are\nmentioned in Luke xii, 38; the fourth, in Matthew xiv, 25; and the four\nare all distinctly mentioned in Mark xiii, 35: \u201cWatch, therefore; for ye\nknow not when the master of the house cometh; at _even_,\u201d \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72, or the\nlate watch, \u201cor at _midnight_,\u201d \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u201cor at the _cock-crowing_,\u201d\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cor in the _morning_,\u201d \u03d6\u03c1\u03c9\u0390, the early watch. Here, the\nfirst watch was at even, and continued from six till nine; the second\ncommenced at nine, and ended at twelve, or midnight; the third watch,\ncalled by the Romans _gallicinium_, lasted from twelve to three; and the\nmorning watch closed at six.\n\nCOCKATRICE, \u05e6\u05e4\u05e2\u05df, or \u05e6\u05e4\u05e2\u05d9, Proverbs xxiii, 32; Isaiah xi, 8; xiv, 29;\nlix, 5; Jer. viii, 17. A venomous serpent. The original Hebrew word has\nbeen variously rendered, the _aspic_, the _regulus_, the _hydra_, the\n_hemorhoos_, the _viper_, and the _cerastes_. In Isaiah xi, 8, this\nserpent is evidently intended for a proportionate advance in malignity\nbeyond the _peten_ which precedes it; and in xiv, 29, it must mean a\nworse kind of serpent than the _nahash_. In lix, 5, it is referred to as\noviparous. In Jer. viii, 17, Dr. Blayney, after Aquila, retains the\nrendering of basilisk. Bochart, who thinks it to be the regulus or\nbasilisk, says that it may be so denominated by an onomatop\u0153ia from\nits hissing; and accordingly it is hence called in Latin _sibilus_, \u201cthe\nhisser.\u201d So the Arabic _saphaa_ signifies \u201cflatu adurere,\u201d [to scorch\nwith a blast.] The Chaldee paraphrast, the Syriac, and the Arabic,\nrender it the _hurman_ or _horman_; which rabbi Selomo on Gen. xlix, 17,\ndeclares to be the _tziphoni_ of the Hebrews: \u201c_Hurman vocatur species,\ncujus morsus est insanabilis. Is est Hebr\u00e6is_ tziphoni, _et Chaldaic\u00e8\ndicitur_ hurman, _quia omnia facit_ \u05d7\u05e8\u05dd _vastationem; id est, quia omnia\nvastat, et ad internecionem destruit._\u201d [The species is called _hurman_,\nwhose bite is incurable. It is the _tziphoni_ of the Hebrews, and is\ncalled in Chaldee _hurman_, because it makes all things \u05d7\u05e8\u05dd--a waste;\nthat is, because it lays waste and utterly destroys every thing.]\n\nCOCKLE, \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4. This word occurs only in Job xxxi, 40. By the Chaldee it\nis rendered _noxious herbs_; by Symmachus, \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, _plants of\nimperfect fruit_; by the Septuagint, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _the blackberry bush_; by\nCastelio, _ebulus_, \u201cdwarf elder;\u201d by Celsius, _aconite_; and by Bishop\nStock and Dr. Good, _the night-shade_. M. Micha\u00eblis maintains, after\nCelsius, that both this word and \u05bb\u05bc\u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd, Isaiah v, 2, 4, denote the\n_aconite_, a poisonous plant, growing spontaneously and luxuriantly on\nsunny hills, such as are used for vineyards. He says that this\ninterpretation is certain, because, as Celsius had observed, \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9, in\nArabic, denotes the _aconite_; and he intimates that it best suits Job\nxxxi, 40, where it is mentioned as growing instead of barley. The word\nappears to import a weed not only noxious, but of a fetid smell.\n\nC\u0152LO-SYRIA, _hollow_ or _depressed_ Syria, Syria in the vale, 1 Macc.\nxiii, 10. This name imports the hollow land, or region, situated between\ntwo long ridges of mountains; and those mountains have been always\nunderstood to be Libanus and Anti-libanus. As these ridges run parallel\nfor many leagues, they contain between them a long, extensive, and\nextremely fruitful valley.\n\nCOLOSSE, a city of Phrygia Minor, which stood on the river Lyceus, at an\nequal distance between Laodicea and Hierapolis. These three cities, says\nEusebius, were destroyed by an earthquake, in the tenth of Nero, or\nabout two years after the date of St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Colossians.\nLaodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse were at no great distance from each\nother; which accounts for the Apostle Paul, when writing to his\nChristian brethren in the latter of these places, mentioning them all in\nconnection with each other, Col. iv, 13. Of these cities, however,\nLaodicea was the greatest, for it was the metropolis of Phrygia, though\nColosse is said to have been a great and wealthy place. The inhabitants\nof Phrygia, says Dr. Macknight, were famous for the worship of Bacchus,\nand of Cybele the mother of the gods; whence the latter was called\nPhrygia mater, by way of eminence. In her worship, as well as in that of\nBacchus, both sexes practised every species of debauchery in speech and\naction, with a frantic rage which they pretended was occasioned by the\ninspiration of the deities whom they worshipped. These were the orgies,\nfrom \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74, _rage_, of Bacchus and Cybele, so famed in antiquity, the\nlascivious rites of which being perfectly adapted to the corruptions of\nthe human heart, were performed by both sexes without shame or remorse.\nHence as the Son of God came into the world to destroy the works of the\ndevil, it appeared, in the eye of his Apostle, a matter of great\nimportance to carry the light of the Gospel into countries where these\nabominable impurities were not only practised, but even dignified with\nthe honourable appellation of religious worship; especially as nothing\nbut the heaven-descended light of the Gospel could dispel such a\npernicious infatuation. That this salutary purpose might be effectually\naccomplished, Paul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, went at different\ntimes into Phrygia, and preached the Gospel in many cities of that\ncountry with great success; but it is thought by many persons, that the\nEpistle to the Colossians contains internal marks of his never having\nbeen at Colosse when he wrote it. This opinion rests principally upon\nthe following passage: \u201cFor I would that ye knew what great conflict I\nhave for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have _not\nseen my face_ in the flesh,\u201d Col. ii, 1: but these words, if they prove\nany thing upon this question, prove that St. Paul had never been either\nat Laodicea or Colosse; but surely it is very improbable that he should\nhave travelled twice into Phrygia for the purpose of preaching the\nGospel, and not have gone either to Laodicea or Colosse, which were the\ntwo principal cities of that country; especially as in the second\njourney into those parts it is said, that he \u201cwent over all the country\nof Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples;\u201d and moreover,\nwe know that it was the Apostle\u2019s practice to preach at the most\nconsiderable places of every district into which he went. Dr. Lardner,\nafter arguing this point, says, \u201cFrom all these considerations, it\nappears to me very probable that the church at Colosse had been planted\nby the Apostle Paul, and that the Christians there were his friends,\ndisciples, and converts.\u201d\n\nThe Epistle greatly resembles that to the Ephesians, both in sentiment\nand expression. After saluting the Colossian Christians in his own name,\nand that of Timothy, St. Paul assures them, that since he had heard of\ntheir faith in Christ Jesus, and of their love to all Christians, he had\nnot ceased to return thanks to God for them, and to pray that they might\nincrease in spiritual knowledge, and abound in every good work; he\ndescribes the dignity of Christ, and declares the universality of the\nGospel dispensation, which was a mystery formerly hidden, but now made\nmanifest; and he mentions his own appointment, through the grace of God,\nto be the Apostle of the Gentiles; he expresses a tender concern for the\nColossians and other Christians of Phrygia, and cautions them against\nbeing seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel, by the subtlety of\nPagan philosophers, or the superstition of Judaizing Christians; he\ndirects them to set their affections on things above, and forbids every\nspecies of licentiousness; he exhorts to a variety of Christian virtues,\nto meekness, veracity, humility, charity, and devotion; he enforces the\nduties of wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, and masters; he\ninculcates the duty of prayer, and of prudent behaviour toward\nunbelievers; and after adding the salutations of several persons then at\nRome, and desiring that this epistle might be read in the church of\ntheir neighbours the Laodiceans, he concludes with a salutation from\nhimself, written, as usual, with his own hand.\n\nCOMFORTER, one of the titles by which the Holy Spirit is designated in\nthe New Testament, John xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26. The name has no doubt a\nreference to his peculiar office in the economy of redemption; namely,\nthat of imparting consolation to the hearts of Christ\u2019s disciples, which\nhe effects by \u201ctaking of the things that are Christ\u2019s,\u201d and explaining\nthem; or, in other words, by illuminating their minds as to the meaning\nof the Scriptures, assuring them of the Saviour\u2019s love, bringing to\ntheir recollection his consolatory sayings, and filling their souls with\npeace and joy in believing them.--The word has also been rendered\n_Advocate_, _Helper_, _Monitor_, _Teacher_, &c. The first does not apply\nto the office of the Spirit; and the others are not so well supported by\nthe connection of our Lord\u2019s discourse, which favours the translation,\n_Comforter_; because whatever gracious offices the Holy Spirit was to\nperform for the disciples, the great end of all was to remove that\nsorrow which the approach of the departure of Christ had produced, and\nto render their joy full and complete.\n\nCOMMERCE. Merchandise, in its various branches, was carried on in the\neast at the earliest period of which we have any account; and it was not\nlong before the traffic between nations, both by sea and land, was very\nconsiderable. Accordingly, frequent mention is made of public roads,\nfords, bridges, and beasts of burden; also of ships for the\ntransportation of property, of weights, measures, and coin, both in the\noldest books of the Bible, and in the most ancient profane histories.\nThe Phenicians anciently held the first rank as a commercial nation.\nThey were in the habit of purchasing goods of various kinds throughout\nall the east. They then carried them in ships down the Mediterranean, as\nfar as the shores of Africa and Europe, brought back in return\nmerchandise and silver, and disposed of these again in the more eastern\ncountries. The first metropolis of the Phenicians was Sidon: afterward\nTyre became the principal city. Tyre was built two hundred and forty\nyears before the temple of Solomon, or twelve hundred and fifty-one\nbefore Christ. The Phenicians had ports of their own in almost every\ncountry; the most distinguished of which were Carthage and Tarshish, or\nTartessus, in Spain. The ships from the latter place undertook very\ndistant voyages: hence, any vessels that performed distant voyages were\ncalled \u201cships of Tarshish,\u201d \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05ea\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9. Something is said of the\ncommerce of the Phenicians in the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth\nchapters of Ezekiel, and the twenty-third chapter of Isaiah. The\ninhabitants of Arabia Felix carried on a commerce with India. They\ncarried some of the articles which they brought from India through the\nstraits of Babelmandel into Abyssinia and Egypt; some they transported\nto Babylon through the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates; and some by the\nway of the Red Sea to the port of Eziongeber. They thus became rich;\nthough it is possible their wealth may have been too much magnified by\nthe ancients. The eminence of the Egyptians, as a commercial nation,\ncommences with the reign of Necho. Their commerce, nevertheless, was not\ngreat, till Alexander had destroyed Tyre and built Alexandria.\n\n2. The Phenicians sometimes received the goods of India by way of the\nPersian Gulf, where they had colonies in the islands of Dedan, Arad, and\nTyre. Sometimes they received them from the Arabians, who either brought\nthem by land through Arabia, or up the Red Sea to Eziongeber. In the\nlatter case, having landed them at the port mentioned, they transported\nthem through the country by the way of Gaza to Phenicia. The Phenicians\nincreased the amount of their foreign goods by the addition of those\nwhich they themselves fabricated; and were thus enabled to supply all\nparts of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians at first received their goods\nfrom the Phenicians, Arabians, Africans, and Abyssinians; in all of\nwhich countries there are still the remains of large trading towns; but\nin a subsequent age, they imported goods from India in their own\nvessels; and eventually carried on an export trade with various ports on\nthe Mediterranean. Oriental commerce, however, was chiefly carried on by\nland: accordingly, vessels are hardly mentioned in the Bible, except in\nPsalm cvii, 23\u201330, and in passages where the discourse turns upon the\nPhenicians, or upon the naval affairs of Solomon and Jehoshaphat. The\ntwo principal routes from Palestine into Egypt were, the one along the\nshores of the Mediterranean from Gaza to Pelusium, and the other from\nGaza by the way of Mount Sinai and the Elanitic branch of the Red Sea.\n\n3. The merchants transported their goods upon camels; animals which are\npatient of thirst, and are easily supported in the deserts. For the\ncommon purpose of security against depredations, the oriental merchants\ntravelled in company, as is common in the east at the present day. A\nlarge travelling company of this kind is called a _caravan_ or _carvan_,\na smaller one was called _kafile_ or _kafle_, Job vi, 18\u201320; Gen.\nxxxvii, 25; Isa. xxi, 13; Jer. ix, 2; Judges v, 6; Luke ii, 44. The\nfurniture carried by the individuals of a caravan consisted of a\nmattress, a coverlet, a carpet for sitting upon, a round piece of\nleather, which answered the purpose of a table, a few pots and kettles\nof copper covered with tin; also a tin-plated cup, which was suspended\nbefore the breast under the outer garment, and was used for drinking, 1\nSam. xxvi, 11, 12, 16: leathern bags for holding water, tents, lights,\nand provisions in quality and abundance as each one could afford. Every\ncaravan had a leader to conduct it through the desert, who was\nacquainted with the direction of its route, and with the cisterns and\nfountains. These he was able to ascertain, sometimes from heaps of\nstones, sometimes by the character of the soil, and, when other helps\nfailed him, by the stars, Num. x, 29\u201332; Jer. xxxi, 21; Isa. xxi, 14.\nWhen all things are in readiness, the individuals who compose the\ncaravan assemble at a distance from the city. The commander of the\ncaravan, who is a different person from the conductor or leader, and is\nchosen from the wealthiest of its members, appoints the day of their\ndeparture. A similar arrangement was adopted among the Jews, whenever\nthey travelled in large numbers to the city of Jerusalem. The caravans\nstart very early, sometimes before day. They endeavour to find a\nstopping place or station to remain at during the night, which shall\nafford them a supply of water, Job vi, 15\u201320. They arrive at their\nstopping place before the close of the day; and, while it is yet light,\nprepare every thing that is necessary for the recommencement of their\njourney. In order to prevent any one from wandering away from the\ncaravan, and getting lost during the night, lamps or torches are\nelevated upon poles and carried before it. The pillar of fire answered\nthis purpose for the Israelites, when wandering in the wilderness.\nSometimes the caravans lodge in cities; but when they do not, they pitch\ntheir tents so as to form an encampment; and during the night keep watch\nalternately for the sake of security. In the cities there are public\ninns, called _Chan_ and _Carvanserai_, in which the caravans are lodged\nwithout expense. They are large square buildings, in the centre of which\nis an area, or open court. Carvanserais are denominated in the Greek of\nthe New Testament, \u03d6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, Luke ii, 7; x,\n34. The first mention of one in the Old Testament is in Jer. xli, 17,\n\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05de\u05d4\u05dd. It was situated near the city of Bethlehem.\n\n4. Moses enacted no laws in favour of commerce, although there is no\nquestion that he saw the situation of Palestine to be very favourable\nfor it. The reason of this was, that the Hebrews, who were designedly\nset apart to preserve the true religion, could not mingle with foreign\nidolatrous nations without injury. He therefore merely inculcated good\nfaith and honesty in buying and selling, Lev. xix, 36, 37; Deut. xxv,\n13\u201316; and left all the other interests of commerce to a future age. By\nthe establishment, however, of the three great festivals, he gave\noccasion for some mercantile intercourse. At these festivals all the\nadult males of the nation were yearly assembled at one place. The\nconsequence was, that those who had any thing to sell brought it; while\nthose who wished to buy articles came with the expectation of having an\nopportunity. As Moses, though he did not encourage, did not interdict\nforeign commerce, Solomon, at a later period, not only carried on a\ntraffic in horses, as already stated, but sent ships from the port of\nEziongeber through the Red Sea to Ophir, probably the coast of Africa, 1\nKings ix, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 21. This traffic, although a source of\nemolument, appears to have been neglected after the death of Solomon.\nThe attempt made by Jehoshaphat to restore it was frustrated, by his\nships being dashed upon the rocks and destroyed, 1 Kings xxii, 48, 49; 2\nChron. xx, 36. Joppa, though not a very convenient one, was properly the\nport of Jerusalem; and some of the large vessels which went to Spain\nsailed from it, Jonah i, 3. In the age of Ezekiel, the commerce of\nJerusalem was so great, that it gave an occasion of envy even to the\nTyrians themselves, Ezek. xxvi, 2. After the captivity, a great number\nof Jews became merchants, and travelled for the purpose of traffic into\nall countries. About the year 150 B. C. prince Simon rendered the port\nat Joppa more convenient than it had hitherto been. In the time of\nPompey the Great, there were so many Jews abroad on the ocean, even in\nthe character of pirates, that King Antigonus was accused before him of\nhaving sent them out on purpose. A new port was built by Herod at\nCesarea.\n\nCOMMUNION, in a religious sense, refers chiefly to the admission of\npersons to the Lord\u2019s Supper. This is said to be open, when all are\nadmitted who apply, as in the Church of England; to be strict, when\nconfined to the members of a single society, or, at least, to members of\nthe same denomination; and it is mixed, when persons are admitted from\nsocieties of different denominations, on the profession of their faith,\nand evidence of their piety. The principal difficulty on this point\narises between the strict Baptists and P\u00e6do-Baptists.\n\nCONCUBINE, \u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d2\u05e9. This term, in western authors, commonly signifies, a\nwoman, who, without being married to a man, yet lives with him as his\nwife; but, in the sacred writers, the word concubine is understood in\nanother sense; meaning a lawful wife, but one not wedded with all the\nceremonies and solemnities of matrimony; a wife of the second rank,\ninferior to the first wife, or mistress of the house. Children of\nconcubines did not inherit their father\u2019s fortune; but he might provide\nfor, and make presents to, them. Thus Abraham, by Sarah his wife, had\nIsaac, his heir; but, by his two concubines, Hagar and Keturah, he had\nother children, whom he did not make equal to Isaac. As polygamy was\ntolerated in the east, it was common to see in every family, beside\nlawful wives, several concubines. Since the abrogation of polygamy by\nJesus Christ, and the restoration of marriage to its primitive\ninstitution, concubinage is ranked with adultery or fornication.\n\nCONEY, \u05e9\u05e4\u05df, Levit. xi, 5; Deut. xiv, 7; Psalm civ, 8; and Prov. xxx, 26.\nBochart and others have supposed the _shaphan_ of the Scriptures to be\nthe jerboa; but Mr. Bruce proves that the ashkoko is intended. This\ncurious animal is found in Ethiopia, and in great numbers on Mount\nLebanon, &c. Instead of holes, they seem to delight in more airy places,\nin the mouths of caves, or clefts in the rock. They are gregarious, and\nfrequently several dozens of them sit upon the great stones at the\nmouths of caves, and warm themselves in the sun, or come out and enjoy\nthe freshness of the summer evening. They do not stand upright upon\ntheir feet, but seem to steal along as in fear, their belly being nearly\nclose to the ground; advancing a few steps at a time, and then pausing.\nThey have something very mild, feeble-like, and timid, in their\ndeportment; are gentle and easily tamed, though, when roughly handled at\nthe first, they bite very severely. Many are the reasons to believe this\nto be the animal called _saphan_ in Hebrew, and erroneously by our\ntranslators, \u201cthe coney,\u201d or rabbit. The latter are gregarious indeed,\nand so far resemble the other, as also in size; but they seek not the\nsame place of retreat; for the rabbit burrows most generally in the\nsand. Nor is there any thing in the character of rabbits that denotes\nexcellent wisdom, or that they supply the want of strength by any\nremarkable sagacity. The _saphan_, then, is not the rabbit; which last,\nunless it was brought to him by his ships from Europe, Solomon never\nsaw.\n\nLet us now apply the characters of the ashkoko to the _saphan_. \u201cHe is\nabove all other animals so much attached to the rocks, that I never\nonce,\u201d says Mr. Bruce, \u201csaw him on the ground, or from among large\nstones in the mouth of caves, where is his constant residence. He lives\nin families or flocks. He is in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and\nconsequently must have been familiar to Solomon. David describes him\nvery pertinently, and joins him to other animals perfectly known: \u2018The\nhills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the _saphan_:\u2019\nand Solomon says that \u2018they are exceeding wise,\u2019 that they are \u2018but a\nfeeble folk, yet make their houses in the rocks.\u2019 Now this, I think,\nvery obviously fixes the ashkoko to be the _saphan_; for his weakness\nseems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes\nin the rock, where yet, however, he lodges. From their tenderness these\nare very liable to be excoriated or hurt; notwithstanding which, they\nbuild houses in the rocks more inaccessible than those of the rabbit,\nand in which they abide in greater safety, not by exertion of strength,\nfor they have it not, but are truly, as Solomon says, \u2018a feeble folk,\u2019\nbut by their own sagacity and judgment; and are therefore justly\ndescribed as wise. Lastly, what leaves the thing without doubt is, that\nsome of the Arabs, particularly Damir, say that the _saphan_ has no\ntail, that it is less than a cat, that it lives in houses or nests,\nwhich it builds of straw, in contradistinction to the rabbit and the\nrat, and those animals that burrow in the ground.\u201d\n\nCONFESSION signifies a public acknowledgment of any thing as our own:\nthus Christ will confess the faithful in the day of judgment, Luke xii,\n8. 2. To own and profess the truths of Christ, and to obey his\ncommandments, in spite of opposition and danger from enemies, Matt. x,\n32. 3. To utter or speak the praises of God, or to give him thanks. 4.\nTo acknowledge our sins and offences to God, either by private or public\nconfession; or to our neighbour whom we have wronged; or to some pious\npersons from whom we expect to receive comfort and spiritual\ninstruction; or to the whole congregation when our fault is published,\nPsalm xxxii, 5; Matt. iii, 6; James v, 16; 1 John i, 9. 5. To\nacknowledge a crime before a judge, Josh. vii, 19.\n\n2. In the Jewish ceremony of annual expiation, the high priest confessed\nin general his own sins, the sins of other ministers of the temple, and\nthose of all the people. When an Israelite offered a sacrifice for sin,\nhe put his hand on the head of the victim, and confessed his faults,\nLev. iv. On the day of atonement, the Jews still make a private\nconfession of their sins, which is called by them _cippur_, and which is\nsaid to be done in the following manner: Two Jews retire into a corner\nof the synagogue. One of them bows very low before the other, with his\nface turned toward the north. He who performs the office of confessor\ngives the penitent nine-and-thirty blows on the back with a leathern\nstrap, repeating these words, \u201cGod, being full of compassion, forgave\ntheir iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a time turned he his\nanger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.\u201d As there are only\nthirteen words in this verse recited in the Hebrew, he repeats it three\ntimes, and at every word strikes one blow; which makes nine-and-thirty\nwords, and as many lashes. In the meantime, the penitent declares his\nsins, and at the confession of every one beats himself on his breast.\nThis being finished, he who has performed the office of confessor\nprostrates himself on the ground, and receives in turn from his penitent\nnine-and-thirty lashes.\n\n3. The Romish church not only requires confession as a duty, but has\nadvanced it to the dignity of a sacrament. These confessions are made in\nprivate to the priest, who is not to reveal them under pain of the\nhighest punishment. The council of Trent requires \u201csecret confession to\nthe priest alone, of all and every mortal sin, which, upon the most\ndiligent search and examination of our consciences, we can remember\nourselves to be guilty of since our baptism; together with all the\ncircumstances of those sins, which may change the nature of them;\nbecause, without the perfect knowledge of these, the priest cannot make\na judgment of the nature and quality of men\u2019s sins, nor impose fitting\npenance for them.\u201d This is the confession of sins which the same council\nconfidently affirms \u201cto have been instituted by our Lord, and by the law\nof God, to be necessary to salvation, and to have been always practised\nin the catholic church.\u201d It is, however, evident, that such confession\nis unscriptural. St. James, indeed, says, \u201cConfess your faults one to\nanother,\u201d James v, 16; but priests are not here mentioned, and the word\n_faults_ seems to confine the precept to a mutual confession among\nChristians, of those offences by which they may have injured each other.\nCertain it is, that from this passage the necessity of auricular\nconfession, and the power of priestly absolution, cannot be inferred.\nThough many of the early ecclesiastical writers earnestly recommend\nconfession to the clergy, yet they never recommend it as essential to\nthe pardon of sin, or as having connection with a sacrament. They only\nurge it as entitling a person to the prayers of the congregation; and as\nuseful for supporting the authority of wholesome discipline, and for\nmaintaining the purity of the Christian church. Chrysostom condemns all\nsecret confession to men, as being obviously liable to great abuses; and\nBasil, Hilary, and Augustine, all advise confession of sins to God only.\nIt has been proved by M. Daill\u00e9, that private, auricular, sacramental\nconfession of sins was unknown in the primitive church. But, though\nprivate auricular confession is not of divine authority, yet, as\nArchbishop Tillotson properly observes, there are many cases in which\nmen, under the guilt and trouble of their sins, can neither appease\ntheir own minds, nor sufficiently direct themselves, without recourse to\nsome pious and prudent guide. In these cases, men certainly do very\nwell, and many times prevent a great deal of trouble and perplexity to\nthemselves, by a timely discovery of their condition to some faithful\nminister, in order to their direction and satisfaction. To this purpose\na general confession is for the most part sufficient; and where there is\noccasion for a more particular discovery, there is no need of raking\ninto the minute and foul circumstances of men\u2019s sins to give that advice\nwhich is necessary for the cure and ease of the penitent. Auricular\nconfession is unquestionably one of the greatest corruptions of the\nRomish church. It goes upon the ground that the priest has power to\nforgive sins; it establishes the tyrannical influence of the priesthood;\nit turns the penitent from God who only can forgive sins, to man who is\nhimself a sinner; and it tends to corrupt both the confessors and the\nconfessed by a foul and particular disclosure of sinful thoughts and\nactions of every kind without exception.\n\nCONFESSIONS OF FAITH, simply considered, is the same with _creed_, and\nsignifies a summary of the principal articles of belief adopted by any\nindividual or society. In its more common acceptation, it is restricted\nto the summaries of doctrine published by particular Christian churches,\nwith the view of preventing their religious sentiments from being\nmisunderstood or misrepresented, or, by requiring subscription to them,\nof securing uniformity of opinion among those who join their communion.\nExcept a single sentence in one of the Ignatian Epistles, (A. D. 180,)\nwhich relates exclusively to the reality of Christ\u2019s personality and\nsufferings in opposition to the _Docet\u00e6_, the earliest document of this\nkind is to be found in the writings of Iren\u00e6us, who flourished toward\nthe end of the second century of the Christian \u00e6ra. In his treatise\nagainst heresies, this father affirms that \u201cthe faith of the church\nplanted throughout the whole world,\u201d consisted in the belief of \u201cone\nGod, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and sea, and all\nthat are in them; and one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became\nincarnate for our salvation; and one Holy Spirit, who foretold, through\nthe Prophets, the dispensations and advents, and the generation by the\nvirgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the\nascension in the flesh into heaven, of Jesus Christ our beloved Lord,\nand his appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father, to unite\ntogether all things under one head, and to raise every individual of the\nhuman race; that unto Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, and Saviour and\nKing, every knee may bow, and every tongue confess; that he may\npronounce just sentence upon all.\u201d In various parts of Tertullian\u2019s\nwritings similar statements occur, (A. D. 200,) which it is unnecessary\nparticularly to quote. We shall only remark, that in one of them, the\nmiraculous conception of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost is\ndistinctly mentioned; that in another, he declares it to have been the\nuniform doctrine from the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was born\nof the virgin, both man and God, _ex e\u00e2 natum hominem et Deum_; and that\nin each of these, faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, is recognised as\nessential to Christianity. The following passage we cite, for the\npurpose of marking its coincidence with the Apostles\u2019 Creed, to which we\nshall have occasion soon to advert: \u201cThis,\u201d says he, \u201cis the sole,\nimmovable, irreformable rule of faith; namely, to believe in the only\nGod Almighty, maker of the world; and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the\nvirgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third day raised from\nthe dead, received into heaven, now sitting at the right hand of the\nFather, about to come and judge the quick and the dead, by the\nresurrection also of the flesh.\u201d The summaries contained in the works of\nOrigen (A. D. 520) nearly resemble the preceding; any difference between\nthem being easily accounted for, from the tenets of the particular\nheresies against which they were directed. In his \u201cCommentary on St.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel,\u201d he thus writes: \u201cWe believe that there is one God, who\ncreated all things, and framed and made all things to exist out of\nnothing. We must also believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in all the\ntruth concerning his Deity and humanity; and we must likewise believe in\nthe Holy Spirit; and that, being free agents, we shall be punished for\nthe things in which we sin, and rewarded for those in which we do well.\u201d\nAccording to Cyprian, the formula, to which assent was required from\nadults at their baptism, was in these terms: \u201cDost thou believe in God\nthe Father, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, and\neternal life, through the holy church?\u201d This was called by him _symboli\nlex_, \u201cthe law of the creed;\u201d and by Novatian, _regula veritatis_, \u201cthe\nrule of truth.\u201d\n\n2. From these and similar sources, the different clauses of what is\ncommonly called the Apostles\u2019 Creed appear to have sprung. For, though\nit was long believed to be the composition of the Apostles, its claims\nto such an inspired origin are now universally rejected. Of its great\nantiquity, however, there can be no doubt; the whole of it, as it stands\nin the English liturgy, having been generally received as an\nauthoritative confession in the fourth century. Toward the end of that\ncentury, Rufinus wrote a commentary on it, which is still extant, in\nwhich he acknowledges that the clause respecting Christ\u2019s descent into\nhell was not admitted into the creeds either of the western or the\neastern churches. We learn also that the epithet _catholic_ was not at\nthat time applied in it to the church. Its great simplicity and\nconciseness, beside, prove it to have been considerably earlier than the\ncouncil of Nice, when the heretical speculations of various sects led\nthe defenders of the orthodox faith to fence the interests of religion\nwith more complicated and cumbrous barriers.\n\nThis confession of faith was then pre\u00ebminently named _symbolum_; which\nmight be understood in the general acceptation of _sign_, as the\ncharacteristic, representative sign of the Christian faith; or, in a\nmore restricted sense, in reference to the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03d0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03db\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, or\n_tessera militaris_, the watch word of the Christian soldier,\ncommunicated to each man at his first entrance into the service of\nChrist. Perhaps this word, at first, only denoted the formula of\nbaptism, and was afterward transferred to the confession of faith.\n\n3. In the celebrated council of Nice, (A. D. 325,) in which Arianism was\nnot only condemned, but proscribed, the confession established as the\nuniversal standard of truth and orthodoxy runs thus: \u201cI believe in one\nGod, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things\nvisible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus, the only begotten Son of\nGod, begotten of the Father, before all worlds, God of God, Light of\nLight, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance\nwith the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for\nour salvation, descended from heaven, and became incarnate by the Holy\nGhost, of the virgin Mary; and was made man, was crucified for us under\nPontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose\nagain according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth\non the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to\njudge both the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no\nend. And I believe in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets; and one\ncatholic, and Apostolical church. I acknowledge one baptism for the\nremission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the\nlife of the world to come.\u201d\n\nIt were endless to specify the particular shades of difference by which\nthe Arian confessions (the number of which amounted nearly to twenty in\nthe space of a very few years) were distinguished from each other:\nsuffice it to say, that while they agreed generally in substance,\nespecially in rejecting the Nicene term, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, as applied to the\nSon, their variations of expression concerning the nature of his\nsubordination to the Father were so astonishingly minute, as almost to\nbid defiance to any attempt which might be made, at this distance of\ntime, to determine in what their real and essential differences\nconsisted.\n\n4. \u201cThe Book of Armagh,\u201d a very ancient collection of interesting\nnational documents, which have recently been published by Sir William\nBetham in the second part of his curious \u201cIrish Antiquarian Researches,\u201d\ncontains the Confession of St. Patrick; who has been supposed, from\nseveral collateral circumstances, to have flourished some years prior to\nthe time of St. Jerom, or about the commencement of the fourth century.\nThe subjoined are the first two paragraphs in it, and will be admired\nfor the orthodoxy, artlessness, and Christian experience which they\nexhibit:--\u201cI, PATRICK, a sinner, the rudest, the least, and the most\ninsignificant of the faithful, had Calphurnius, a deacon, for my father,\nwho was the son of Potitus, heretofore a priest, the son of Odissus, who\nlived in the village of Banavem Taberni\u00e6. For he had a little farm\nadjacent, where I was captured. I was then almost sixteen years of age;\nbut I knew not God, and was led into captivity by the Irish, with many\nthousand men, as we deserved, because we estranged ourselves from God,\nand did not keep his laws, and were disobedient to our pastors, who\nadmonished us with respect to our salvation: and the Lord brought down\nupon us the anger of his Spirit, and dispersed us among many nations,\neven to the extremity of the earth, where my meanness was conspicuous\namong foreigners, and where the Lord discovered to me a sense of my\nunbelief; that late I should remember my transgressions, and that I\nshould be converted with my whole heart to the Lord my God, who had\nrespect to my humiliation, and pitied my youth and ignorance, even\nbefore I knew him, and before I was wise, or could distinguish between\nright and wrong, and strengthened me, and cherished me, as a father\nwould a son. From which time I could not remain silent; nor, indeed, did\nhe cease to bless me with many acts of kindness; and so great was the\nfavour of which he thought me worthy in the land of my captivity. For\nthis is my retribution, that, after my rebuking, punishment, and\nacknowledgment of God, I should exalt him, and confess his wonderful\nacts before every nation which is under the whole heaven; because there\nis no other God, nor ever was before, nor will be after him, except God,\nthe unbegotten Father, without beginning, possessing all things, as we\nhave said, and his Son Jesus Christ, who, we bear witness, was always\nwith the Father, before the formation of the world, in spirit (or\nspiritually) with the Father, inexpressibly begotten before all\nbeginning, through whom visible things were made: he became man, having\novercome death, and was received into heaven. And God has given to him\nall power \u2018above every name, as well of the inhabitants of heaven as of\nthe earth and of the powers below, that every tongue should confess that\nJesus Christ is Lord and God;\u2019 whom we believe, and whose coming we\nexpect, as presently about to be Judge of the living and dead, who will\nrender unto every man according to his actions, and has poured upon us\nabundantly the gift of his Holy Spirit, and the pledge of immortality;\nwho makes us that believe and are obedient to be the sons of God and\njoint heirs of Christ; whom we believe and adore, one God in the Trinity\nof the sacred name. For he spoke by the Prophet, \u2018Call upon me in the\nday of tribulation, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.\u2019\nAnd again he says, \u2018It is an honourable thing to reveal and confess the\nworks of God.\u2019\u201d\n\n5. Macedonius having denied not only the divinity but the personality of\nthe Holy Spirit, maintaining that he is only a divine energy diffused\nthroughout the universe, a general council was called at Constantinople,\nA. D. 381, in order to crush this rising heresy. The confession\npromulgated on this occasion, and which \u201cgave the finishing touch to\nwhat the council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full and\ndeterminate manner, the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is still received\namong the generality of Christians,\u201d exactly coincides with the Nicene\nconfession, except in the article respecting the Spirit, which it thus\nextends: \u201cAnd I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life,\nwho proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, together with the\nFather and the Son, is worshipped and glorified.\u201d\n\n6. Subsequent to this, and probably toward the middle of the fifth\ncentury, the creed which bears the name of Athanasius appears to have\nbeen composed. That it was not the work of this distinguished opposer of\nArianism is established by the most satisfactory evidence. No traces of\nit are to be found in any of his writings, though they relate chiefly to\nthe very subject of which it is an exposition; and so far from its being\nascribed to him, not the least notice is taken of it by any of his\ncontemporaries. Its language, beside, concerning the Spirit is so\nsimilar to that of the council of Constantinople, but still more precise\nand explicit, that there can be no doubt of its having been written\nposterior to the time of that assembly. Yet Athanasius died in the year\n373. Accordingly, it has been, with great probability of truth,\nattributed, particularly by Dr. Waterland, to Hilary, bishop of Arles,\nwho is said by one of his biographers to have composed an Exposition of\nthe Creed: a title which certainly is more appropriate and\ncharacteristic of it than that of Creed simply, by which it is now so\nuniversally known. The damnatory clauses in this creed have frequently\nbeen made subjects of reprehension; and some clergymen of the church of\nEngland have scrupled to read them as directed by the Rubric. The\nfollowing is an apology for those clauses, by the late venerable\nArchdeacon Dodwell, who seems to have felt none of those misgivings\nwhich troubled his doubting brethren:--\u201cThe form, as well as the\nsubstance, of this creed, and the very introduction to the main article,\nhas been objected to: \u2018Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is\nnecessary that he hold the catholic faith;\u2019 to which is added, \u2018Which\nfaith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he\nshall perish everlastingly.\u2019 This, with a like condemnatory sentence in\nthe conclusion of the creed, wherein a possibility of salvation is\ndenied to him who does not cordially embrace this doctrine, is\npronounced _unreasonable_, _uncharitable_, _unchristian_, with every\nother aggravating appellation that can be used. But the ground of this\ncharge, and the whole of the difficulty suggested in it, from the\nvariety of the circumstances of different persons, depends upon the\ninterpretation of the phrase of \u2018being saved.\u2019 The meaning of this term\nin its primary signification, and as it is applied to common subjects in\ncommon discourse, means a preservation from threatening perils, or from\nthreatened punishment. But, in an evangelical sense, and as it occurs in\nthe New Testament, it includes much more: it means the whole Christian\nscheme of redemption and justification by the Son of God, with all the\nglorious privileges and promises contained in that scheme. It means not\nmerely a hope of deliverance from danger or from vengeance, but a\nfederal title to positive happiness, purchased by the merits, and\ndeclared to mankind by the Gospel of Christ Jesus our Lord. St. Paul\ncalls it \u2018_the obtaining the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with\neternal glory_,\u2019 2 Tim. ii, 10. \u2018Whosoever,\u2019 then, says the creed,\n\u2018will\u2019 thus \u2018be saved,\u2019 will be desirous to secure the glorious promises\nof the Gospel, must pursue it upon the terms which that Gospel proposes,\nand particularly must embrace the doctrines which it reveals. The creed\nspeaks of those only to whom the evidence of the Gospel has been fully\nset forth, and the importance of it fully explained. We are to justify\nit only to professed believers, and of them only. The state and lot of\nthe Heathen world are quite out of the question. Neither common sense\nnor Scripture will permit us to interpret it of those who still \u2018_sit in\ndarkness and the shadow of death_,\u2019 and never had the means of grace and\nthe hope of glory proposed to them. Even with respect to those to whom\nthe Gospel is preached, there is no necessity of interpreting the words\nhere used in the harshest and strictest sense. There are many\ndistinctions and limitations, which are always understood and supposed\nin such cases, though they are not expressly mentioned. General rules\nare laid down as such, are true as such; while excepted cases are\nreferred to the judgment of those who are qualified to judge of them,\nand are not particularly pointed out; as for other reasons, so lest they\nshould be extended too far, and defeat the general rule. Sufficient\ncapacity in the persons to whom it is applied, and sufficient means of\ninformation and conviction, are always presupposed, where faith is\nspoken of as necessary. Where either of these is wanting, the case is\n(where it should be) in the hands of God. The creed is laid down as a\nrule of judgment to men, not to their Maker. We may learn from thence on\nwhat terms alone we can claim a title to the promises of the Gospel; but\nwe do not learn from thence how far uncovenanted favour may be extended\nto particular persons. It is not intended to exclude the mercy of God to\nHeathens or heretics; it being his prerogative, and his alone, to judge\nhow far the error or ignorance of any one is his wilful fault, or his\nunavoidable infirmity. But it is intended to establish the terms on\nwhich WE may now claim acceptance, and, in consequence of his gracious\npromise, may say, that \u2018_God is faithful and just to forgive us our\nsins_.\u2019 The creed relates only to the covenant of salvation; and any\nexpression which, used separately without this view and connection,\nmight be thought to bear a stronger and more absolute sense, yet is\nlimited by this relative coherence, and is to be interpreted by it.\n\u2018Perishing everlastingly,\u2019 in other discourses, may sometimes be\nunderstood of everlasting damnation; but here it means the being for\never excluded from the only stated claim of promised mercy. And \u2018without\ndoubt,\u2019 he who does not embrace the truths proposed by revelation, has\nno title to those hopes which that revelation, and that only, offers to\nmankind. And even when such expressions of terror are used in the\nstrongest sense, and threatened to unbelief or disobedience, they\nuniversally imply such exceptions as these,--\u2018Unless personal\ndisabilities lessen the guilt, or repentance intervene to prevent the\npunishment.\u2019 In short, no objection can be made against this assertion\nin the creed, but what would hold as strongly against that declaration\nof our blessed Lord, \u2018_He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be\nsaved; but he that believeth not shall be damned_,\u2019 Mark xvi, 15.\nIndeed, this condemnatory sentence in this form by human authority is\nplainly founded on and borrowed from that divine authority in the\nGospel; and whatever distinctions and limitations are allowed in that\ncase are equally applicable to this, and will fully justify both. The\nnecessity of a true belief in all whom Providence has blessed with the\nmeans and opportunities of learning it, in order to entitle them\nfederally to eternal salvation, being thus established upon Scripture\nproof, the creed goes on very regularly to declare what is that true\nbelief so indispensably necessary.\u201d This is, perhaps, all that can be\nsaid in favour of these comminations; but few will think it quite\nsatisfactory. The effect of them has doubtless been, to induce many to\nfly to the opposite extreme of laxity on the subject of fundamental\ndoctrines.\n\nBefore leaving the ancient formulas of Christian doctrine, it may be\nstated, that both in the council of Ephesus against the Nestorians, held\nA. D. 431; and in that of Chalcedon, against the Eutychians, in 451; it\nwas solemnly declared and decreed, that \u201cChrist was one divine person,\nin whom two natures, the human and the divine, were most closely united,\nbut without being mixed or confounded together.\u201d\n\n7. Amid the variance and opposition of council to council, and pope to\npope, (A. D. 1553,) which prevailed for centuries in the Romish church,\nit would be no easy task to ascertain the real articles of its\nconfession. The decrees of the council of Trent, however, together with\nthe creed of Pope Pius IV, are now commonly understood to be the\nauthoritative standards of its faith and worship. These, beside\nrecognising the authority of the Apostles\u2019 and the Nicene Creeds,\nembrace a multitude of dogmas which it is unnecessary particularly to\nspecify, relating to traditions, the sacraments of baptism,\nconfirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony,\ntransubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, worshipping of images,\npurgatory, indulgences, &c, &c.\n\n8. The Greek church has no public or established confession; but its\ncreed, so far as can be gathered from its authorized catechisms, admits\nthe doctrines of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, with the exception of\nthe article in each concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, which\nit affirms to be \u201cfrom the Father only, and not from the Father and the\nSon.\u201d It disowns the supremacy and infallibility of the pope, purgatory\nby fire, graven images, and the restriction of the sacrament to one\nkind; but acknowledges the seven sacraments of the catholics, the\nreligious use of pictures, invocation of saints, transubstantiation, and\nmasses and prayers for the dead.\n\n9. Though the Romish church early appropriated to itself the exclusive\ntitle of catholic, or universal; and though, for many centuries, its\nunscriptural tenets pervaded the far greater part of Europe; not only\nwere there always some individuals who adhered to the doctrines of\ngenuine Christianity, but, long before the Protestant reformation, there\nappear to have been whole congregations who maintained, in considerable\npurity, the substance of the faith contained in Scripture. Such were the\nchurches of the Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont, whose confession,\nof so early a date as the beginning of the twelfth century, is still\npreserved. It consists of fourteen articles, of which the following is a\ncopy, taken from the Cambridge MSS, and bearing date A. D. 1120:--\u201c(1.)\nWe believe and firmly hold all that which is contained in the twelve\narticles of the symbol, which is called the Apostles\u2019 Creed, accounting\nfor heresy whatsoever is disagreeing, and not consonant to the said\ntwelve articles. (2.) We do believe that there is one God, Father, Son,\nand Holy Spirit. (3.) We acknowledge for the holy canonical Scriptures\nthe books of the Holy Bible. [Here follows a list of the books of the\nOld and New Testament, exactly the same as those we have in our English\nauthorized version. Then follows a list of \u201cthe books apocryphal,\nwhich,\u201d with admirable simplicity they say, \u201care not received of the\nHebrews. But we read them, as saith St. Jerom in his Prologue to the\nProverbs, \u2018for the instruction of the people, not to confirm the\nauthority of the doctrine of the church.\u2019\u201d] (4.) The books above-said\nteach this, that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and all-good, who\nhas made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his own image\nand likeness, but that by the envy of the devil, and the disobedience of\nthe said Adam, sin has entered into the world, and that we are sinners\nin Adam and by Adam. (5.) That Christ was promised to our fathers who\nreceived the law, that so knowing by the law their sin, unrighteousness,\nand insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ, to satisfy\nfor their sins, and accomplish the law by himself. (6.) That Christ was\nborn in the time appointed by God the Father; that is to say, in the\ntime when all iniquity abounded, and not for the cause of good works,\nfor all were sinners; but that he might show us grace and mercy, as\nbeing faithful. (7.) That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and\nrighteousness; also our pastor, advocate, sacrifice, and priest; who\ndied for the salvation of all those that believe, and is risen for our\njustification. (8.) In like manner, we firmly hold that there is no\nother Mediator and Advocate with God the Father, save only Jesus Christ.\nAnd as for the virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, and full of\ngrace. And in like manner do we believe concerning all the other saints;\nnamely, that, being in heaven, they wait for the resurrection of their\nbodies at the day of judgment. (9.) _Item_, We believe that, after this\nlife, there are only two places, the one for the saved, and the other\nfor the damned; the which two places we call paradise and hell,\nabsolutely denying that purgatory invented by antichrist, and forged\ncontrary to the truth. (10.) _Item_, We have always accounted as an\nunspeakable abomination before God all those inventions of men; namely,\nthe feasts and the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy: as\nlikewise to abstain from flesh upon certain days, and the like; but\nespecially their masses. (11.) We esteem for an abomination, and as\nantichristian, all those human inventions which are a trouble or\nprejudice to the liberty of the spirit. (12.) We do believe that the\nsacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the\ninvisible grace; accounting it good that the faithful sometimes use the\nsaid signs or visible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and\nhold, that the above-said faithful may be saved without receiving the\nsigns aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.\n(13.) We acknowledge no other sacrament than baptism and the Lord\u2019s\nSupper. (14.) We ought to honour the secular powers by submission, ready\nobedience, and paying of tributes.\u201d These churches had, in modern times,\nanother confession imposed upon them, after they began to receive\npastors from Geneva, which is strongly tinged with Calvinism. It bears\ndate A. D. 1655.\n\n10. The first Protestant confession was that presented in 1530, to the\ndiet of Augsburg, by the suggestion and under the direction of John,\nelector of Saxony. This wise and prudent prince, with the view of having\nthe principal grounds on which the Protestants had separated from the\nRomish communion, distinctly submitted to that assembly, entrusted the\nduty of preparing a summary of them to the divines of Wittemberg. Nor\nwas that task a difficult one; for the reformed doctrines had already\nbeen digested into seventeen articles, which had been proposed at the\nconferences both at Sultzbach and Smalcald, as the confession of faith\nto be adopted by the Protestant confederates. These, accordingly, were\ndelivered to the elector by Luther, and served as the basis of the\ncelebrated Augsburg confession, written \u201cby the elegant and accurate pen\nof Melancthon:\u201d a work which has been admired by many even of its\nenemies, for its perspicuity, piety, and erudition. It contains\ntwenty-eight chapters, the leading topics of which are, the true and\nessential divinity of Christ; his substitution and vicarious sacrifice;\noriginal sin; human inability; the necessity, freedom, and efficacy of\ndivine grace; consubstantiation; and particularly justification by\nfaith, to establish the truth and importance of which was one of its\nchief objects. The last seven articles condemn and confute the Popish\ntenets of communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, private masses,\nauricular confession, legendary traditions, monastic vows, and the\nexorbitant power of the church. This confession is silent on the\ndoctrine of predestination. This is the universal standard of orthodox\ndoctrine among those who profess to be Lutherans, in which no\nauthoritative alteration has ever been made.\n\n11. The confession of Basle, originally presented, like the preceding,\nto the diet of Augsburg, but not published till 1534, consists of only\ntwelve articles, which, in every essential point, agree with those of\nthe Augsburg confession, except that it rejects the doctrine of\nconsubstantiation; affirming that Christ is only spiritually present in\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper, _sacramentaliter nimirum, et per memorationem fidei_;\n[that is to say sacramentally, and by faith;] and that it asserts the\ndoctrine of predestination and infant baptism. But the more detailed\ncreed of the whole Swiss Protestant churches is contained in the former\nand latter Helvetic confessions. The first was drawn up in 1536, by\nBullinger, Myconius, and Gryn\u00e6us, in behalf of the churches of Helvetia,\nand presented to an assembly of divines at Wittemberg, by whom it was\ncordially approved. But being deemed too concise, a second was prepared\nin 1556, by the pastors of Zurich; which was subscribed not only by all\nthe Swiss Protestants, but by the churches of Geneva and Savoy, and by\nmany of those in Hungary and Poland. They fully harmonize with each\nother, with only this difference, that the doctrine of predestination,\nand an approbation of the observance of such religious festivals, as the\nnativity, &c, are to be found in the latter confession only.\n\n12. The Bohemic confession was compiled from various ancient confessions\nof the Waldenses who had settled in Bohemia, and approved of by Luther\nand Melancthon in 1532; but it was not published till 1535; when it was\npresented by the barons and other nobles to King Ferdinand. It extends\nto twenty articles, similar to those of the Waldensian confession, with\nthe addition of others on the divinity of Christ, justification by faith\nin him, \u201cwithout any human help or merit,\u201d predestination, and the\nabsolute necessity of sanctification and good works.\n\n13. The confession of the Saxon churches was composed in 1551 by\nMelancthon, at the desire of the pastors of Saxony and Misnia met in\nassembly at Wittemberg, in order to be presented to the council of\nTrent. It is contained in twenty-two articles; and while, like that of\nAugsburg, it is silent on the subject of predestination, it lays equal\nstress on the doctrine of justification by faith; and has a separate\narticle entitled \u201cRewards,\u201d in which the doctrine of human merit,\nparticularly as connected with future blessedness, is condemned and\nrefuted.\n\n14. Some account of the framing of the English Confession of Faith has\nbeen already given under the article _Church of England and Ireland_.\nThe \u201cArticles of Religion\u201d are there said to have been amended and\ncompleted in the year 1571; and the Rev. Henry J. Todd, in his very able\nwork on this subject, has shown their Melancthonian origin and character\nby extracts from the \u201c_Articles of Religion_,\u201d \u201cset out by the\nConvocation, and published by the king\u2019s authority,\u201d in 1536;--from\nthose of 1540;--from Cranmer\u2019s \u201c_Necessary Erudition of any Christian\nMan_,\u201d published in 1543;--from the _Homilies on Salvation, Faith, and\nGood Works_, in 1547, which three were, according to Bishop Woolton\u2019s\nunimpeached testimony (in 1576) composed by Archbishop Cranmer;--from\nthe \u201c_Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum_,\u201d \u201ccomposed under the\nsuperintendence of the same watchful primate, in 1551;\u201d--from the\n\u201c_Articles of Religion_\u201d formed in 1552, almost wholly by\nCranmer;\u201d--from \u201c_Catechismus Brevis, Christian\u00e6 Disciplin\u00e6 Summam\ncontinens_,\u201d in 1553, which was published in English, as well as Latin,\nand commonly called \u201cEdward the Sixth\u2019s Catechism;\u201d and from Bishop\nJewel\u2019s celebrated \u201c_Apologia Ecclesi\u00e6 Anglican\u00e6_,\u201d \u201cpublished in 1562\nby the queen\u2019s authority, thus recognised as a national Confession of\nFaith, and as such has been printed in the _Corpus Confessionum Fidei_.\u201d\n\u201cSuch,\u201d says Mr. Todd, \u201care the several public documents or\ndeclarations, produced or made before the establishment of the\n_Thirty-nine Articles of Religion_, from which I have given extracts, to\nwhich the framers of these Articles directed their attention, with the\nspirit of which they concur, and the words of which they almost\nliterally adopt. There will also be found, as chronologically preceding\nthese, considerable extracts from the _Confession of Augsburg_, the\nwhole article from the Saxon Confession, _De Remissione Peccatorum, et\nJustificatione_, [respecting the forgiveness of sins, and\njustification,] and such passages in our _Liturgy_ as concern the points\nwhich the Articles and Homilies exhibit.\u201d No one who has perused these\ndocuments will require any additional argument to convince him, that, in\nits very foundations, the English Confession of Faith was most\nexplicitly in favour of general redemption. We cannot therefore be\nsurprised at all the old orthodox divines of the church of England, from\n1610 to 1660, refusing to be called ARMINIANS; for they repeatedly\ndeclared that their own church openly professed similar doctrines to\nthose promulgated by the Dutch professor, long before his name was known\nin the world. In this assertion they were perfectly correct; and by\nevery important fact in our ecclesiastical history, as connected with\ndoctrinal matters, their views are confirmed. If the Articles were\nactually of a Calvinistic complexion, as they are now often represented\nto be, what could have induced Whitaker and other learned Calvinists to\nwaste so much valuable time and labour in fabricating the Lambeth\nArticles in 1595? Those worthies avowed, that the original Thirty-nine\nArticles were not doctrinal enough for their purpose.--When four choice\ndivines, two of them professors of divinity at Cambridge, were sent to\nthe synod of Dort as deputies from the English church, and one from the\nchurch of Scotland, though their political instructions went the full\nlength of assisting in the condemnation and oppression of the Arminians,\npersonally considered as a troublesome party in the republic, yet they\nhad different instructions respecting their doctrines. On the second\narticle, discussed in that synod, \u201cthe extent of Christ\u2019s redemption,\u201d\nBalcanqual, the deputy from the church of Scotland, informs the English\nambassador at the Hague, that a difference had arisen among the British\ndeputies: \u201cThe question among us is, whether the words of Scripture,\nwhich are likewise the words of our confession, be to be understood of\nall particular men, or only of the elect who consist of all sorts of\nmen? Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward are of Martinius of Breme his mind, _that\nit is to be understood of all particular men_: the other three [Bishop\nCarleton, Dr. Goad, and Dr. Balcanqual] take the other exposition, which\nis that of the writers of the reformed churches.\u201d The ambassador wrote\nhome for instructions, and received orders for the British deputies \u201cto\nhave those conclusions concerning Christ\u2019s death, and the application of\nit to us, couched in manner and terms as near as possibly may be to\nthose which were used in the primitive church, by the fathers of that\ntime, against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and not in any new\nphrase of the modern age; and that the same may be as agreeable to the\nconfessions of the church of England and other reformed churches, and\nwith as little distaste and umbrage to the Lutheran churches, as may\nbe.\u201d Archbishop Abbott expressed his approbation of their \u201ccautelous\nmoderation\u201d in withholding their \u201chand from pressing in public any\nrigorous exclusive propositions in the doctrine of the extent of our\nSaviour Christ\u2019s oblation.\u201d The history of this affair, which cannot be\nhere detailed, shows, that, however willing the three deputies were to\ncondemn the remonstrants, the resistance of the two more moderate\ndivines was approved by the authorities at home, and their opinions on\nthis subject were recorded in such theses as no true Calvinist could\nconsistently subscribe. During our civil troubles in 1643, the Assembly\nof Divines at Westminster revised the first fifteen of the Thirty-nine\nArticles \u201cwith a design,\u201d as Neal in his \u201c_History of the Puritans_\u201d\ncandidly declares, \u201cto render their sense more express and determinate\nin favour of Calvinism.\u201d This they found to be a hopeless task, as the\nancient creed was too incorrigible to be bent to their views; and they\nfound it much easier to frame one after their own hearts, some account\nof which the reader will find in a subsequent paragraph.--All these\nfacts go to prove, that the best informed Calvinists have always viewed\nthe English articles as not sufficiently high in doctrine, unless, as in\nthe case of the seventeenth, they be allowed to interpret them by\ninterpolations or qualifying epithets.\n\n15. The confession of the reformed Gallican churches was prepared by\norder of a synod at Paris in 1559; and presented to Charles IX. in 1561,\nby the celebrated Beza, in a conference with that monarch at Poissy. It\nwas published for the first time in 1566, with a preface by the French\nclergy to the pastors of all Protestant churches; and afterward, in\n1571, it was solemnly ratified and subscribed in the national synod of\nRochelle. It is extended to forty articles; but they are in general\nconcise, and embrace the usual topics of the other Protestant\nconfessions, including the doctrines of election, and justification by\nfaith only.\n\n16. The Protestants in Scotland having presented a petition to\nparliament in 1560, requesting the public condemnation of Popery, and\nthe legal acknowledgment of the reformed doctrine and worship, they were\nrequired to draw up a summary of the doctrines which they could prove to\nbe consonant with Scripture, and which they were anxious to have\nestablished. The ministers on whom this duty was devolved, being well\nacquainted with the subject, prepared the required summary in the course\nof four days, and laid it before parliament, when, after having been\nread first before the Lords of the Articles, and afterward twice (the\nsecond time article by article) before the whole parliament, it received\ntheir sanction as the established system of belief and worship. It\nconsists of twenty-five articles, and coincides with all the other\nProtestant confessions which affirm the doctrine of election, and reject\nthat of consubstantiation; for although it is not so explicit as some of\nthem respecting the unconditional nature of election, yet a distinct\nrecognition of this doctrine pervades the whole of it; and though it has\nno separate article on justification, it no less plainly recognises this\nfundamental principle of the Protestant faith.\n\n17. The tenets of Arminius having obtained considerable prevalence in\nHolland toward the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Calvinists,\nor Gomarists, as they were then called, appealed to a national synod,\nwhich was convened at Dort in 1618, by order of the states-general; and\nattended by ecclesiastical deputies from England, Switzerland, Bremen,\nHesse, and the Palatinate, beside the clerical and lay representatives\nof the reformed churches in the United Provinces. The canons of this\nsynod, contained in five chapters, relate to what are commonly called\nthe _five points_; namely, particular and unconditional election;\nparticular redemption, or the limitation of the saving effects of\nChrist\u2019s death to the elect only; the total corruption of human nature,\nand the total moral inability of man in his fallen state; the\nirresistibility of divine grace; and the final perseverance of the\nsaints; all of which are declared to be the true and the only doctrines\nof Scripture.\n\n18. The Remonstrants, as the Dutch Arminians are generally called, did\nnot present a confession of faith to the synod of Dort, but only their\nsentiments on the five points enumerated in the preceding paragraph,\nwith corresponding _rejections of errors_ under each of those points.\nHowever, in the first year of their exile, they applied themselves\ndiligently to this task, and soon produced an ample confession,\nprincipally composed by the celebrated Episcopius. In the preface they\ngive copious reasons for such a record of their opinions; which\nCourcelles has thus expressed in a more summary manner:--\u201cThey did not\npublish it for the purpose of making it a standard of schism, by which\nthey might separate themselves from men who held other opinions; nor for\nthe purpose of having it esteemed by those under their pastoral care as\na secondary rule of faith;--which is in these days with many persons a\nmost pernicious abuse of this kind of confessions. But it was published\nsolely with the intention to stop the mouths of those who calumniously\nassert, that the Remonstrants cherish within their bosoms portentous\ndogmas which they dare not divulge. For there is no cause for doubting,\nwhether under such circumstances and for this purpose, it is not lawful\nfor men to publish a confession of their faith, especially as St. Peter\nadmonishes us \u2018always to be ready to give an answer to every man that\nasketh us a reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear.\u2019\u201d\nThis confession is of a more practical character than any of the\npreceding: it inculcates, at great length, all the most important duties\nof Christianity, and, in the words of the preface, \u201cdirects all things\nto the practice of Christian piety. For we believe that true divinity is\nmerely practical, and not either simply or for its greatest or chief\npart speculative; and therefore whatever things are delivered therein\nought to be referred thither only,--that a man may be the more strongly\nand fitly inflamed and encouraged to a diligent performance of his duty,\nand keeping of the commandments of Jesus Christ.\u201d In the English\ntranslator\u2019s address to the reader in 1676, it is said, \u201cTouching the\nworth of this book, as a summary of Christian religion, if Doctor Jeremy\nTaylor\u2019s judgment be of credit with thee, I am credibly informed he\nshould prefer it to be one of those two or three which, next the Holy\nBible, he would have preserved from the supposed total destruction of\nbooks. A high encomium from the mouth of so learned and pious a divine!\u201d\nBut though its contents were chiefly practical, one expression in it,\nrespecting the propriety of tolerating in a Christian community a man\nwho denied the eternal generation of Jesus Christ, produced a\ncontroversy in Holland, as well as in this country, in which the famous\nBishop Bull eminently distinguished himself. See DORT and REMONSTRANTS.\n\n19. The only other confession of which we shall take notice is that of\nthe Westminster assembly, which met in 1643, and at which five ministers\nand three elders as commissioners from the general assembly of the\nchurch of Scotland attended, agreeably to engagements between the\nconvention of estates there, and both houses of parliament in England.\nThis confession is contained in thirty-three chapters, and in every\npoint of doctrine, fully accords with the sentiments of the synod of\nDort; and on some points going rather beyond it, as with respect to a\nsupposed election of angels. It was approved and adopted by the general\nassembly in 1647; and two years after, ratified by act of parliament, as\n\u201cthe public and avowed confession of the church of Scotland.\u201d By act of\nparliament in 1690, it was again declared to be the national standard of\nfaith in Scotland; and subscription to it as \u201cthe confession of his\nfaith,\u201d specially required of every person who shall be admitted \u201ca\nminister or preacher within this church.\u201d Subscription to it was also\nenjoined by the act of union in 1707, on all \u201cprofessors, principals,\nregents, masters, and others bearing office,\u201d in any of the Scottish\nuniversities.\n\nCONFLAGRATION, a general burning of a city, or other considerable place.\nBut the word is more ordinarily restrained to that grand period, or\ncatastrophe of our world, wherein the face of nature is expected to be\nchanged by a deluge of fire, as it was anciently by that of water. The\nancient Chaldeans, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Epicureans, Stoics, Celts,\nand Etrurians, appear to have had a notion of the conflagration; though\nwhence they should derive it, unless from the sacred books, it is\ndifficult to conceive; except, perhaps, from the Phenicians, who\nthemselves had it from the Jews. The Celts, whose opinions resembled\nthose of the eastern nations, held, that after the burning of the world,\na new period of existence would commence. The ancient Etrurians, or\nTuscans, also concurred with other western and northern nations of\nCeltic origin, as well as with the Stoics, in asserting the entire\nrenovation of nature after a long period, or great year, when a similar\nsuccession of events would again take place. The cosmogony of an ancient\nEtrurian, preserved by Suidas, limits the duration of the universe to a\nperiod of twelve thousand years; six thousand of which passed in the\nproduction of the visible world, before the formation of man. The Stoics\nalso maintained that the world is liable to destruction from the\nprevalence of moisture or of drought; the former producing a universal\ninundation, and the latter, a universal conflagration. \u201cThese,\u201d they\nsay, \u201csucceed each other in nature, as regularly as winter and summer.\u201d\nThe doctrine of conflagration is a natural consequence of the general\nsystem of Stoicism; for, since, according to this system, the whole\nprocess of nature is carried on in a necessary series of causes and\neffects, when that operative fire, which at first, bursting from chaos,\ngave form to all things, and which has since pervaded and animated all\nnature, shall have consumed its nutriment; that is, when the vapours,\nwhich are the food of the celestial fires, shall be exhausted, a\ndeficiency of moisture must produce a universal conflagration. This\ngrand revolution in nature is, after the doctrine of the Stoics, thus\nelegantly described by Ovid:--\n\n           \u201c_Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur, affore tempus\n           Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regia c\u0153li\n           Ardeat; et mundi moles operosa laboret._\u201d\n                                  METAMOR. lib. i, 256.\n\nor, as Dryden has translated the passage,--\n\n             \u201cRememb\u2019ring in the fates a time when fire\n             Should to the battlements of heaven aspire;\n             When all his blazing worlds above should burn,\n             And all the inferior globe to cinders turn.\u201d\n\nSeneca, speaking of the same event, says expressly, \u201c_Tempus advenerit\nquo sidera sideribus incurrent, et omni flagrante materia uno igne,\nquicquid nunc ex deposito lucet, ardebit_;\u201d that is, \u201cthe time will come\nwhen the world will be consumed, that it may be again renewed; when the\npowers of nature will be turned against herself, when stars will rush\nupon stars, and the whole material world, which now appears resplendent\nwith beauty and harmony, will be destroyed in one general\nconflagration.\u201d In this grand catastrophe of nature, all animated\nbeings, (excepting the Universal Intelligence,) men, heroes, demons, and\ngods, shall perish together. Seneca, the tragedian, who was of the same\nschool with the philosopher, writes to the same purpose:--\n\n                    \u201c_C\u0153li regia concidens\n                    Certos atque obitus trahet:\n                    Atque omnes pariter deos\n                    Perdet mors aliqua, et chaos._\u201d\n\n                  \u201cThe mighty palace of the sky\n                  In ruin fall\u2019n is doomed to lie;\n                  And all the gods, its wreck beneath,\n                  Shall sink in chaos and in death.\u201d\n\nThe Pythagoreans also maintained the dogma of conflagration. To this\npurpose Hippasus, of Metapontum, taught that the universe is finite, is\nalways changing, and undergoes a periodical conflagration. Philolaus,\nwho flourished in the time of Plato, maintained that the world is liable\nto destruction both by fire and water. Mention of the conflagration is\nalso several times made in the books of the Sibyls, Sophocles, Lucan,\n&c. Dr. Burnet, after F. Tachard and others, relates that the Siamese\nbelieve that the earth will at last be parched up with heat, the\nmountains melted down, and the earth\u2019s whole surface reduced to a level,\nand then consumed with fire. And the Bramins of Siam do not only hold\nthat the world shall be destroyed by fire, but also that a new earth\nshall be made out of the cinders of the old. The sacred Scriptures\nannounce this general destruction of the world by fire in a variety of\npassages.\n\n2. Various are the sentiments of authors on the subject of the\nconflagration; the cause whence it is to arise, and the effects it is to\nproduce. Divines ordinarily account for it metaphysically; and will have\nit take its rise from a miracle, as a fire from heaven. Philosophers\ncontend for its being produced from natural causes; and will have it\neffected according to the laws of mechanics: some think an eruption of a\ncentral fire sufficient for the purpose; and add, that this may be\noccasioned several ways; namely, either by having its intensity\nincreased, (which, again, may be effected either by being driven into\nless space by the encroachments of the superficial cold, or by an\nincrease of the inflammability of the fuel whereon it is fed,) or by\nhaving the resistance of imprisoning earth weakened; which may happen\neither from the diminution of its matter, by the consumption of its\ncentral parts, or by weakening the cohesion of the constituent parts of\nthe mass, by the excess or the defect of moisture. Others look for the\ncause of the conflagration in the atmosphere; and suppose that some of\nthe meteors there engendered in unusual quantities, and exploded with\nunusual vehemence, from the concurrency of various circumstances, may be\nmade to effect it, without seeking any farther. The astrologers account\nfor it from a conjunction of all the planets in the sign Cancer; \u201cas the\ndeluge,\u201d say they, \u201cwas occasioned by their conjunction in Capricorn.\u201d\nThis was an opinion adopted by the ancient Chaldeans. Lastly: others\nhave recourse to a still more effectual and flaming machine; and\nconclude the world is to undergo its conflagration from the near\napproach of a comet, in its return from the sun. It is most natural to\nconclude, that, as the Scriptures represent the catastrophe as the work\nof a moment, no gradually operating natural cause will be employed to\neffect it, but that He who spake and the world was created, will again\ndestroy it by the same word of his power; setting loose at once the\nall-devouring element of fire to absorb all others. Beyond this, all is\nconjecture.\n\nCONFUSION OF TONGUES is a memorable event, which happened in the one\nhundred and first year, according to the Hebrew chronology, after the\nflood, B. C. 2247, at the overthrow of Babel; and which was\nprovidentially brought about, in order to facilitate the dispersion of\nmankind, and the population of the earth. Until this period, there had\nbeen one common language, which formed a bond of union, that prevented\nthe separation of mankind into distinct nations.\n\n2. There has been a considerable difference of opinion as to the nature\nof this confusion, and the manner in which it was effected. Some learned\nmen, prepossessed with the notion that all the different idioms now in\nthe world did at first arise from one original language, to which they\nmay be reduced, and that the variety among them is no more than must\nnaturally have happened in a long course of time by the mere separation\nof the builders of Babel, have maintained, that there were no new\nlanguages formed at the confusion; but that this event was accomplished\nby creating a misunderstanding and variance among the builders, without\nany immediate influence on their language. But this opinion, advanced by\nLe Clerc, &c, seems to be directly contrary to the obvious meaning of\nthe word \u05e9\u05e4\u05d4, _lip_, used by the sacred historian; which, in other parts\nof Scripture signifies _speech_, Psalm lxxxi, 5; Isaiah xxviii, 11;\nxxxiii, 19; Ezekiel iii, 5. It has been justly remarked, that unanimity\nof sentiment, and identity of language, are particularly distinguished\nfrom each other, in the history: \u201cThe people is one, and they have all\none language,\u201d Gen. xi, 6. It has been also suggested, that if\ndisagreement in opinion and counsel were the whole that was intended, it\nwould have had a contrary effect; they would not have desisted from\ntheir project, but strenuously have maintained their respective\nopinions, till the greater number of them had compelled the minority\neither to fly or to submit. Others have imagined, that this was brought\nabout by a temporary confusion of their speech, or rather of their\napprehensions, causing them, while they continued together and spoke the\nsame language, to understand the words differently: Scaliger is of this\nopinion. Others again account for this event, by the privation of all\nlanguage, and by supposing that mankind were under a necessity of\nassociating together, and of imposing new names on things by common\nconsent. Another opinion ascribes the confusion to such an indistinct\nremembrance of the original language which they spoke before, as made\nthem speak it very differently; so that by the various inflections,\nterminations, and pronunciations of divers dialects, they could no more\nunderstand one another, than they who understand Latin can understand\nthose who speak French, Italian, or Spanish, though all these languages\narise out of it. This opinion is adopted by Casaubon, and by Bishop\nPatrick in his Commentary, and is certainly much more probable than\neither of the former: and Mr. Shuckford maintains, that the confusion\narose from small beginnings, by the invention of new words in either of\nthe three families of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, which might contribute to\nseparate them from one another; and that in each family new differences\nof speech might gradually arise, so that each of these families went on\nto divide and subdivide among themselves. Others, again, as Mr. Joseph\nMede and Dr. Wotton, &c, not satisfied with either of the foregoing\nmethods of accounting for the diversity of languages among mankind, have\nrecourse to an extraordinary interposition of divine power, by which new\nlanguages were framed and communicated to different families by a\nsupernatural infusion or inspiration; which languages have been the\nroots and originals from which the several dialects that are, or have\nbeen, or will be, spoken, as long as this earth shall last, have arisen,\nand to which they may with ease be reduced.\n\n3. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose, that the primitive language\nwas completely obliterated, and entire new modes of speech at once\nintroduced. It was quite sufficient, if such changes only were effected,\nas to render the speech of different companies or different tribes\nunintelligible to one another, that their mutual co\u00f6peration in the mad\nattempt in which they had all engaged might be no longer practicable.\nThe radical stem of the first language might therefore remain in all,\nthough new dialects were formed, bearing among themselves a similar\nrelation with what we find in the languages of modern Europe, derived\nfrom the same parent stem, whether Gothic, Latin, or Sclavonian. In the\nmidst of these changes, it is reasonable to suppose that the primitive\nlanguage itself, unaltered, would still be preserved in some one at\nleast of the tribes or families of the human race. Now in none of these\nwas the transmission so likely to have taken place, as among that branch\nof the descendants of Shem, from which the patriarch Abraham proceeded.\nUpon these grounds, therefore, we may probably conclude, that the\nlanguage spoken by Abraham, and by him transmitted to his posterity, was\nin fact the primitive language, modified indeed and extended in the\ncourse of time, but still retaining its essential parts far more\ncompletely than any other of the languages of men. If these conclusions\nare well founded, they warrant the inference, that, in the ancient\nHebrew, there are still to be found the traces of the original speech.\nWhether this ancient Hebrew more nearly resembled the Chaldean, the\nSyrian, or what is now termed the Hebrew, it is unnecessary here to\ninquire; these languages, it has never been denied, were originally and\nradically the same, though, from subsequent modifications, they appear\nto have assumed somewhat different aspects.\n\nCONGREGATIONALISTS, a denomination of Protestants who reject all church\ngovernment, except that of a single congregation under the direction of\none pastor, with their elders, assistants, or managers. In one\nparticular, the Congregationalists differ from the Independents: the\nformer invite councils, which, however, only tender their advice; but\nthe latter are accustomed to decide all difficulties within themselves.\nSee INDEPENDENTS.\n\nCONSCIENCE is that principle, power, or faculty within us, which decides\non the merit or demerit of our own actions, feelings, or affections,\nwith reference to the rule of God\u2019s law. It has been called the _moral\nsense_ by Lord Shaftesbury and Dr. Hutcheson. This appellation has been\nobjected to by some, but has been adopted and defended by Dr. Reid, who\nsays, \u201cThe testimony of our moral faculty, like that of the external\nsenses, is the testimony of nature, and we have the same reason to rely\nupon it.\u201d He therefore considers conscience as an original faculty of\nour nature, which decides clearly, authoritatively, and instantaneously,\non every object that falls within its province. \u201cAs we rely,\u201d says he,\n\u201cupon the clear and distinct testimony of our eyes, concerning the\ncolours and figures of the bodies about us, we have the same reason to\nrely, with security, upon the clear and unbiassed testimony of our\nconscience, with regard to what we ought and ought not to do.\u201d But Dr.\nReid is surely unfortunate in illustrating the power of conscience by\nthe analogy of the external senses. With regard to the intimations\nreceived through the organs of sense, there can be no difference of\nopinion, and there can be no room for argument. They give us at once\ncorrect information, which reasoning can neither invalidate nor confirm.\nBut it is surely impossible to say as much for the power of conscience,\nwhich sometimes gives the most opposite intimations with regard to the\nsimplest moral facts, and which requires to be corrected by an accurate\nattention to the established order of nature, or to the known will of\nGod, before we can rely with confidence on its decisions. It does not\nappear, that conscience can with propriety be considered as a principle\ndistinct from that which enables us to pronounce on the general merit or\ndemerit of moral actions. This principle, or faculty, is attended with\npeculiar feelings, when we ourselves are the agents; we are then too\ndeeply interested to view the matter as a mere subject of reasoning; and\npleasure or pain are excited, with a degree of intensity proportioned to\nthe importance which we always assign to our own interests and feelings.\nIn the case of others, our approbation or disapprobation is generally\nqualified, sometimes suspended, by our ignorance of the motives by which\nthey have been influenced; but, in our own case, the motives and the\nactions are both before us, and when they do not correspond, we feel the\nsame disgust with ourselves that we should feel toward another, whose\nmotives we knew to be vicious, while his actions are specious and\nplausible. But in our own case, the uneasy feeling is heightened in a\ntenfold degree, because self-contempt and disgust are brought into\ncompetition with the warmest self-love, and the strongest desire of\nself-approbation. We have then something of the feelings of a parent,\nwho knows the worthlessness of the child he loves, and contemplates with\nhorror the shame and infamy which might arise from exposure to the\nworld.\n\n2. Conscience, then, cannot be considered as any thing else than the\ngeneral principle of moral approbation or disapprobation applied to our\nown feelings or conduct, acting with increased energy from the knowledge\nwhich we have of our motives and actions, and from the deep interest\nwhich we take in whatever concerns ourselves; nor can we think that they\nhave deserved well of morals or philosophy, who have attempted to deduce\nour notions of right and wrong from any one principle. Various powers\nboth of the understanding and of the will are concerned in every moral\nconclusion; and conscience derives its chief and most salutary influence\nfrom the consideration of our being continually in the presence of God,\nand accountable to him for all our thoughts, words, and actions. A\nconscience well informed, and possessed of sensibility, is the best\nsecurity for virtue, and the most awful avenger of wicked deeds; an\nill-informed conscience is the most powerful instrument of mischief; a\nsqueamish and ticklish conscience generally renders those who are under\nits influence ridiculous.\n\n                      _Hic murus aheneus esto,\n              Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa._\n\n[Let a consciousness of innocence, and a fearlessness of any accusation,\nbe thy brazen bulwark.]\n\n3. The rule of conscience is the will of God, so far as it is made known\nto us, either by the light of nature, or by that of revelation. With\nrespect to the knowledge of this rule, conscience is said to be rightly\ninformed, or mistaken; firm, or wavering, or scrupulous, &c. With\nrespect to the conformity of our actions to this rule when known,\nconscience is said to be good or evil. In a moral view, it is of the\ngreatest importance that the understanding be well informed, in order to\nrender the judgment or verdict of conscience a safe directory of\nconduct, and a proper source of satisfaction. Otherwise, the judgment of\nconscience may be pleaded, and it has actually been pleaded, as an\napology for very unwarrantable conduct. Many atrocious acts of\npersecution have been perpetrated, and afterward justified, under the\nsanction of an erroneous conscience. It is also of no small importance,\nthat the sensibility of conscience be duly maintained and cherished; for\nwant of which men have often been betrayed into criminal conduct without\nself-reproach, and have deluded themselves with false notions of their\ncharacter and state. See MORAL OBLIGATION.\n\nCONSECRATION, a devoting or setting apart any thing to the worship or\nservice of God. The Mosaical law ordained that all the first-born, both\nof man and beast, should be sanctified or consecrated to God. The whole\nrace of Abraham was in a peculiar manner consecrated to his worship; and\nthe tribe of Levi and family of Aaron were more immediately consecrated\nto the service of God, Exod. xiii, 2, 12, 15; Num. iii, 12; 1 Peter ii,\n9. Beside the consecrations ordained by the sovereign authority of God,\nthere were others which depended on the will of men, and were either to\ncontinue for ever or for a time only. David and Solomon devoted the\nNethinims to the service of the temple for ever, Ezra viii, 20; ii, 58.\nHannah, the mother of Samuel, offered her son to the Lord, to serve all\nhis life-time in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. i, 11; Luke i, 15. The Hebrews\nsometimes devoted their fields and cattle to the Lord, and the spoils\ntaken in war, Leviticus xxvii, 28, 29; 1 Chron. xviii, 11. The New\nTestament furnishes us with instances of consecration. Christians in\ngeneral are consecrated to the Lord, and are a holy race, a chosen\npeople, 1 Peter ii, 9. Ministers of the Gospel are in a peculiar manner\nset apart for his service; and so are places of worship; the forms of\ndedication varying according to the views of different bodies of\nChristians; and by some a series of ceremonies has been introduced,\nsavouring of superstition, or at best of Judaism.\n\nCONSUBSTANTIALISTS. This term was applied to the orthodox, or\nAthanasians, who believed the Son to be of the same substance with the\nFather; whereas the Arians would only admit the Son to be of like\nsubstance with the Father.\n\nCONSUBSTANTIATION, a tenet of the Lutheran church respecting the\npresence of Christ in the Lord\u2019s Supper. Luther denied that the elements\nwere changed after consecration, and therefore taught that the bread and\nwine indeed remain; but that together with them, there is present the\nsubstance of the body of Christ, which is literally received by\ncommunicants. As in red-hot iron it may be said two distinct substances,\niron and fire, are united, so is the body of Christ joined with the\nbread. Some of his followers, who acknowledged that similes prove\nnothing, contented themselves with saying that the body and blood of\nChrist are really present in the sacrament in an inexplicable manner.\nSee LORD\u2019S SUPPER.\n\nCONVERSATIONS. These were held by the orientals in the gate of the city.\nAccordingly, there was an open space near the gate, which was fitted up\nwith seats for the accommodation of the people, Gen. xix, 1; Psalm lxix,\n12. Those who were at leisure occupied a position on these seats, and\neither amused themselves with witnessing those who came in and went out,\nand with any trifling occurrences that might offer themselves to their\nnotice, or attended to the judicial trials, which were commonly\ninvestigated at public places of this kind, namely, the gate of the\ncity, Gen. xix, 1; xxxiv, 20; Psalm xxvi, 4, 5; lxix, 12; cxxvii, 5;\nRuth iv, 11; Isaiah xiv, 31; or held intercourse by conversation.\nPromenading, so fashionable and so agreeable in colder latitudes, was\nwearisome and unpleasant in the warm climates of the east, and this is\nprobably one reason why the inhabitants of those climates preferred\nholding intercourse with one another, while sitting near the gate of the\ncity, or beneath the shade of the fig tree and the vine, 1 Samuel xxii,\n6; Micah iv, 4. The formula of assent in conversation was \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05db\u05df, _Thou hast said_, or _Thou hast rightly said_. We are informed\nby the traveller Aryda, that this is the prevailing mode of a person\u2019s\nexpressing his assent or affirmation to this day, in the vicinity of\nMount Lebanon, especially where he does not wish to assert any thing in\nexpress terms. This explains the answer of the Saviour to the high\npriest Caiaphas in Matt. xxvi, 64, when he was asked whether he was the\nChrist, the Son of God, and replied, \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, _Thou hast said_.\n\nThe English word conversation has now a more restricted sense than\nformerly; and it is to be noted that in several passages of our\ntranslation of the Bible it is used to comprehend our whole conduct.\n\nCONVERSION, a change from one state or character to another. Conversion,\nconsidered theologically, consists in a renovation of the heart and\nlife, or a being turned from sin and the power of Satan unto God, Acts\nxxvi, 18; and is produced by the influence of divine grace upon the\nsoul. This is conversion considered as a state of mind; and is opposed\nboth to a careless and unawakened state, and to that state of conscious\nguilt and slavish dread, accompanied with struggles after a moral\ndeliverance not yet attained, which precedes our justification and\nregeneration; both of which are usually understood to be comprised in\nconversion. But this is not the only Scriptural import of the term; for\nthe first _turning_ of the whole heart to God in penitence and prayer is\ngenerally termed conversion. In its stricter sense, as given above, it\nis, however, now generally used by divines.\n\nCONVICTION, in general, is the assurance of the truth of any\nproposition. In a religious sense, it is the first degree of repentance,\nand implies an affecting sense of our guilt before God; and that we\ndeserve and are exposed to his wrath.\n\nCOPPER. \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05ea. Anciently, copper was employed for all the purposes for\nwhich we now use iron. Arms, and tools for husbandry and the mechanic\narts, were all of this metal for many ages. Job speaks of bows of\ncopper, Job xx, 24; and when the Philistines had Samson in their power,\nthey bound him with fetters of copper. Our translators indeed say\n\u201cbrass;\u201d but under that article their mistake is pointed out. In Ezra\nviii, 27, are mentioned \u201ctwo vessels of copper, precious as gold.\u201d The\nSeptuagint renders it \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b7 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03db\u03af\u03bb\u03d0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; the Vulgate and Castellio,\nfollowing the Arabic, \u201c_vasa \u00e6ris fulgentis_;\u201d and the Syriac, \u201cvases of\nCorinthian brass.\u201d It is more probable, however, that this brass was not\nfrom Corinth, but a metal from Persia or India, which Aristotle\ndescribes in these terms: \u201cIt is said that there is in India a brass so\nshining, so pure, so free from tarnish, that its colour differs nothing\nfrom that of gold. It is even said that among the vessels of Darius\nthere were some respecting which the sense of smelling might determine\nwhether they were gold or brass.\u201d Bochart is of opinion that this is the\n_chasmal_ of Ezekiel i, 27, the \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03d0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd of Rev. i, 15, and the\n_electrum_ of the ancients.\n\nMr. Harmer quotes from the manuscript notes of Sir John Chardin a\nreference to a mixed metal in the east, and highly esteemed there; and\nsuggests that this composition might have been as old as the time of\nEzra, and be brought from those more remote countries into Persia, where\nthese two basins were given to be conveyed to Jerusalem. Ezekiel, xxvii,\n13, speaks of the merchants of Javan, Jubal, and Meshech, as bringing\nvessels of _nehesh_ (copper) to the markets of Tyre. According to\nBochart and Micha\u00eblis, these were people situated toward Mount Caucasus,\nwhere copper mines are worked at this day. See BRASS.\n\nCOPTS, a name given to the Christians of Egypt who do not belong to the\nGreek church, but are Monophysites, and in most respects Jacobites.\nScaliger and Father Simon derive the name from Coptos, once a celebrated\ntown of Egypt, and the metropolis of the Thebaid; but Volney and others\nare of opinion, that the name _Copts_ is only an abbreviation of the\nGreek word _Aigouptios_, \u201can Egyptian.\u201d The Copts have a patriarch,\nwhose jurisdiction extends over both Egypts, Nubia, and Abyssinia; who\nresides at Cairo, but who takes his title from Alexandria. He has under\nhim eleven or twelve bishops, beside the abuna, or bishop of the\nAbyssinians, whom he appoints and consecrates. The rest of the clergy,\nwhether secular or regular, are composed of the orders of St. Anthony,\nSt. Paul, and St. Macarius, who have each their monasteries. Their\narch-priests, who are next in degree to bishops, and their deacons, are\nsaid to be numerous; and they often confer the order of deacon even on\nchildren. Next to the patriarch is the bishop, or titular patriarch, of\nJerusalem, who also resides at Cairo, because there are only few Copts\nat Jerusalem. He is, in reality, little more than bishop of Cairo;\nexcept that he goes to Jerusalem every Easter, and visits some other\nplaces in Palestine, which own his jurisdiction. To him belongs the\ngovernment of the Coptic church, during the vacancy of the patriarchal\nsee. The ecclesiastics are said to be, in general, of the lowest ranks\nof the people; and hence that great degree of ignorance which prevails\namong them. They have seven sacraments; baptism, the eucharist,\nconfirmation, ordination, faith, fasting, and prayer. They admit only\nthree \u0153cumenical councils; those of Nice, Constantinople, and\nEphesus. There are three Coptic liturgies; one attributed to St. Basil,\nanother to St. Gregory, and the third to St. Cyril. At present, however,\nlittle more than the mere shadow of Christianity can be seen in Egypt;\nand, in point of numbers, not more than fifty thousand Christians in all\ncan be found in this country. There are not more than three Christian\nchurches at Cairo.\n\nCORAL, \u05e8\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea, Job xxviii, 18; Ezek. xxvii, 16; a hard, cretaceous,\nmarine production, resembling in figure the stem of a plant, divided\ninto branches. It is of different colours,--black, white, and red. The\nlatter is the sort emphatically called coral, as being the most\nvaluable, and usually made into ornaments. This, though no gem, is\nranked by the author of the book of Job, xxviii, 18, with the onyx and\nsapphire. Dr. Good observes, \u201cIt is by no means certain what the words\nhere rendered \u2018corals and pearls,\u2019 and those immediately afterward\nrendered \u2018rubies and topaz,\u2019 really signified. Reiske has given up the\ninquiry as either hopeless or useless; and Schultens has generally\nintroduced the Hebrew words themselves, and left the reader of the\ntranslation to determine as he may. Our common version is, in the main,\nconcurrent with most of the oriental renderings: and I see no reason to\ndeviate from it.\u201d\n\nCORBAN, \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df, Mark vii, 11; from the Hebrew \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1, _to offer_, _to\npresent_. It denotes a gift, a present made to God, or to his temple.\nThe Jews sometimes swore by corban, or by gifts offered to God, Matt.\nxxiii, 18. Theophrastus says that the Tyrians forbad the use of such\noaths as were peculiar to foreigners, and particularly of corban, which,\nJosephus informs us, was used only by the Jews. Jesus Christ reproaches\nthe Jews with cruelty toward their parents, in making a corban of what\nshould have been appropriated to their use. For when a child was asked\nto relieve the wants of his father or mother, he would often say, \u201cIt is\na gift,\u201d corban, \u201cby whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;\u201d that\nis, I have devoted that to God which you ask of me; and it is no longer\nmine to give, Mark vii, 11. Thus they violated a precept of the moral\nlaw, through a superstitious devotion to Pharisaic observances, and the\nwretched casuistry by which they were made binding upon the conscience.\n\nCORIANDER, \u05d2\u05d3, Exod. xvi, 31; Num. xi, 7; a strongly aromatic plant. It\nbears a small round seed, of a very agreeable smell and taste. The manna\nmight be compared to the coriander seed in respect to its form or shape,\nas it was to bdellium in its colour. See MANNA.\n\nCORINTH, a celebrated city, the capital of Achaia, situated on the\nisthmus which separates the Peloponnesus from Attica. This city was one\nof the best peopled and most wealthy of Greece. Its situation between\ntwo seas drew thither the trade of both the east and west. Its riches\nproduced pride, ostentation, effeminacy, and all vices, the consequences\nof abundance. For its insolence to the Roman legates, it was destroyed\nby L. Mummius. In the burning of it, so many statues of different metals\nwere melted together, that they produced the famous Corinthian brass. It\nwas afterward restored to its former splendour by Julius C\u00e6sar.\n\nChristianity was first planted at Corinth by St. Paul, who resided here\neighteen months, between the years 51 and 53; during which time he\nenjoyed the friendship of Aquila and his wife Priscilla, two Jewish\nChristians, who had been expelled from Italy, with other Jews, by an\nedict of Claudius. The church consisted both of Jews and of Gentiles;\nbut St. Paul began, as usual, by preaching in the synagogue, until the\nJews violently opposed him, and blasphemed the name of Christ; when the\nApostle, shaking his garment, and declaring their blood to be upon their\nown heads, left them, and made use afterward of a house adjoining the\nsynagogue, belonging to a man named Justus. The rage of the Jews,\nhowever, did not stop here; but, raising a tumult, they arrested Paul,\nand hurrying him before the tribunal of the pro-consul Gallio, the\nbrother of the famous Seneca, accused him of persuading men to worship\nGod contrary to the law. But Gallio, who was equally indifferent both to\nJudaism and Christianity, and finding that Paul had committed no breach\nof morality, or of the public peace, refused to hear their complaint,\nand drove them all from the judgment seat. The Jews being thus\ndisappointed in their malicious designs, St. Paul was at liberty to\nremain some time longer at Corinth; and after his departure, Apollos, a\nzealous and eloquent Jewish convert of Alexandria, was made a powerful\ninstrument in confirming the church, and in silencing the opposition of\nthe Jews, Acts xviii. How much it stood in need of such support, is\nevident from the Epistles of St. Paul; who cautions the Corinthians\nagainst divisions and party spirit; fornication, incest, partaking of\nmeats offered to idols, thereby giving an occasion of scandal, and\nencouragement to idolatry; abusing the gifts of the Spirit,\nlitigiousness, &c. The Corinthians, indeed, were in great danger: they\nlived at ease, free from every kind of persecution, and were exposed to\nmuch temptation. The manners of the citizens were particularly corrupt:\nthey were, indeed, infamous to a proverb. In the centre of the city was\na celebrated temple of Venus, a part of whose worship consisted in\nprostitution; for there a thousand priestesses of the goddess ministered\nto dissoluteness under the patronage of religion: an example which gave\nthe Corinthians very lax ideas on the illicit intercourse of the sexes.\nCorinth also possessed numerous schools of philosophy and rhetoric; in\nwhich, as at Alexandria, the purity of the faith by an easy and natural\nprocess, became early corrupted.\n\nThere occurs a chronological difficulty in the visits of St. Paul to\nCorinth. In 2 Cor. xii, 14, and xiii, 1, 2, the Apostle expresses his\ndesign of visiting that city a third time; whereas only one visit before\nthe date of the Second Epistle is noticed in the Acts, xviii, 1, about\nA. D. 51; and the next time that he visited Greece, Acts xx, 2, about A.\nD. 57, no mention is made of his going to Corinth. Mr. Horne observes on\nthis subject, \u201cIt has been conjectured by Grotius, and Drs. Hammond and\nPaley, that his First Epistle virtually supplied the place of his\npresence; and that it is so represented by the Apostle in a\ncorresponding passage, 1 Cor. v, 3. Admitting this solution to be\nprobable, it is, however, far-fetched, and is not satisfactory as a\nmatter of fact. Micha\u00eblis has produced another, more simple and natural;\nnamely, that Paul, on his return from Crete, visited Corinth a second\ntime before he went to winter at Nicopolis. This second visit is\nunnoticed in the Acts, because the voyage itself is unnoticed. The third\nvisit, promised in 2 Cor. xii, 14, and xiii, 1, 2, was actually paid on\nthe Apostle\u2019s second return to Rome, when he took Corinth in his way, 2\nTim. iv, 20. \u2018Thus critically,\u2019 says Dr. Hales, \u2018does the book of the\nActs harmonize, even in its omissions, with the epistles; and these with\neach other, in the minute incidental circumstances of the third visit.\u2019\u201d\n\nAbout A. D. 268, the Heruli burned Corinth to ashes. In 525, it was\nagain almost ruined by an earthquake. About 1180, Roger, king of Sicily,\ntook and plundered it. Since 1458, it was till lately under the power of\nthe Turks; and is so decayed, that its inhabitants amount to no more\nthan about fifteen hundred, or two thousand; half Mohammedans, and half\nChristians. A late French writer, who visited this country, observes,\n\u201cWhen the C\u00e6sars rebuilt the walls of Corinth, and the temples of the\ngods rose from their ruins more magnificent than ever, an obscure\narchitect was rearing in silence an edifice which still remains standing\namidst the ruins of Greece. This man, unknown to the great, despised by\nthe multitude, rejected as the offscouring of the world, at first\nassociated himself with only two companions, Crispus and Gaius, and with\nthe family of Stephanas. These were the humble architects of an\nindestructible temple, and the first believers at Corinth. The traveller\nsurveys the site of this celebrated city; he discovers not a vestige of\nthe altars of Paganism, but perceives some Christian chapels rising from\namong the cottages of the Greeks. The Apostle might still, from his\ncelestial abode, give the salutation of peace to his children, and\naddress them in the words, \u2018Paul to the church of God, which is at\nCorinth.\u2019\u201d\n\nCORINTHIANS, _Epistles to_. St. Paul left Corinth A. D. 53 or 54, and\nwent to Jerusalem. From Ephesus he wrote his First Epistle to the\nCorinthians, in the beginning of A. D. 56. In this epistle he reproves\nsome who disturbed the peace of the church, complains of some disorders\nin their assemblies, of law suits among them, and of a Christian who had\ncommitted incest with his mother-in-law, the wife of his father, and had\nnot been separated from the church. This letter produced in the\nCorinthians great grief, vigilance against the vices reproved, and a\nvery beneficial dread of God\u2019s anger. They repaired the scandal, and\nexpressed abundant zeal against the crime committed, 2 Cor. vii, 9\u201311.\n\nTo form an idea of the condition of the Corinthian church, we must\nexamine the epistles of the Apostle. The different factions into which\nthey were divided, exalted above all others the chiefs, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03db\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, [the very chiefest Apostles,] 2 Cor. xi, 5; xii, 11, whose\nnotions they adopted, and whose doctrines they professed to follow, and\nattempted to depreciate those of the opposite party. While, then, some\ncalled themselves disciples of Paul, Cephas, or Apollos, others assumed\nthe splendid appellation of Christ\u2019s party. Probably they affected to be\nthe followers of James, the brother of our Lord, and thought thus to\nenter into a nearer discipleship with Jesus than the other parties. The\ncontroversy, as we shall see from the whole, related to the obligation\nof Judaism. The advocates of it had appealed, even in Galatia, to Cephas\nand James, for the sake of opposing to Paul, who had banished Jewish\nceremonies from Christianity, authorities which were not less admitted\nthan his own. The question itself divided all these various parties into\ntwo principal factions: the partisans of Cephas and James were for the\nlaw; the friends of Paul adopted his opinion, as well as Apollos, who,\nwith his adherents, was always in heart in favour of Paul, and never\nwished to take a part in a separation from him, 1 Cor. xvi, 12. The\nleaders of the party against Paul, these \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03db\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, [false apostles,]\nas Paul calls them, and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03db\u1f78\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u03bf\u1fe6,\n[transformers of themselves into the apostles of Christ,] who declared\nthemselves the promulgators and defenders of the doctrines of Cephas,\nand James, were, as may be easily conceived, converted Jews, 2 Cor. xi,\n22, who had come from different places,--to all appearance from\nPalestine, \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, [the comers,] 2 Cor. xi, 4,--and could therefore\nboast of having had intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem, and of\nan acquaintance with their principles. They were not even of the\northodox Jews, but those who adhered to the doctrines of the Sadducees;\nand though they were even now converted to Christianity, while they\nspoke zealously in favour of the law, they were undermining the hopes of\nthe pious, and exciting doubts against the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 35;\nso that Paul, from regard to the teachers, whose disciples they\nprofessed to be, was obliged to refute them from the testimony of James\nand Cephas, 1 Cor. xv, 5, 7. These, proud of their own opinions, 1 Cor.\ni, 17, not without private views, depreciated Paul\u2019s authority, and\nextolled their own knowledge, 1 Cor. ii, 12; 2 Cor. xi, 16, 17.\nViolently as the contest was carried on, they still did not withdraw\nfrom the same place of assembly for instruction and mutual edification;\nthis, however, was even the cause of too many scandalous scenes and\ndisorders. At the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9, _love feasts_, love and benevolence were no\nwhere to be seen. Instead of eating together, and refreshing their poor\nbrethren out of that which they had brought with them, each one, as he\ncame, ate his own, without waiting for any one else, and feasted often\nto excess, while the needy was fasting, 1 Cor. xi, 17. When also some\nwere preparing for prayers or singing, others raised their voices to\ninstruct, and commenced exercises in _spiritual gifts_, tongues,\nprophesyings, and interpretations, 1 Cor. xii, xiii, xiv; moreover, the\nwomen, to bring confusion to its highest pitch, took their part in\ninterlocutions and proposals of questions, 1 Cor. xiv, 34.\n\nSuch was the state of things as to the interior discipline of the\nassemblies and edification; but the exterior deportment, which the\nmembers of this society had maintained in civil life, soon disappeared\nalso. Formerly, when differences arose among the believers, they were\nadjusted by the intervention of arbitrators from their own communion,\nand terminated quietly. Now, as their mutual confidence in each other\nmore and more decreased, they brought, to the disgrace of Christianity,\ntheir complaints before the Pagan tribunals, 1 Cor. vi, 1. But as to\nwhat concerned the main object, namely, the obligation of Judaism, it\nwas so little confined simply to words and reasons, that each party\nrather strove to display its opposite principles in its conduct. One\nparty gave to the other, as much as possible, motives for ill will and\nreproach. The Jews required circumcision as an indispensable act of\nreligion; while Paul\u2019s disciples attempted to lay the foundation of a\nnew doctrine respecting it, and to extinguish all traces of\ncircumcision, 1 Cor. vii, 18. As the Jewish party observed and\nmaintained a distinction of meats, that of Paul ate without distinction\nany thing sold in the markets, and even meats from the Heathen\nsacrifices, 1 Cor. x, 25, 28; viii, 1. Nor was this enough; they often\nmade no scruple to be present at the sacrificial feasts. Among other\nthings, they also took part in many scandalous practices which were\ncommon there, and fell, by means of their imprudence, into still greater\ncrimes, 1 Cor. x, 20, 21; viii, 10. According to the Jewish custom, the\nwomen were obliged to appear veiled in the synagogues and public\nassemblies. The anti-judaists abolished this custom of the synagogue, 1\nCor. xi, 5, 6, 10; and herein imitated the Heathen practices. From\ndespite to Judaism, which considered matrimonial offspring as a\nparticular blessing of God, some embraced celibacy, which they justified\nby St. Paul\u2019s example, 1 Cor. vii, 7, 8; and this they also recommended\nto others, 1 Cor. vii, 1\u201325. Some went even so far, that, although\nmarried, they resolved to practise a continual continency, 1\nCorinthians, vii, 3\u20135. These were the evils, both in his own party and\nin that of his opponents, which St. Paul had to remedy.\n\nPaul, having understood the good effects of his first letter among the\nCorinthians, wrote a second to them, A. D. 57, from Macedonia, and\nprobably from Philippi. He expresses his satisfaction at their conduct,\njustifies himself, and comforts them. He glories in his suffering, and\nexhorts them to liberality. Near the end of the year 57, he came again\nto Corinth, where he staid about three months, and whence he went to\nJerusalem. Just before his second departure from Corinth, he wrote his\nEpistle to the Romans, probably in the beginning of A. D. 58.\n\nCORMORANT, \u05e9\u05dc\u05da, Levit. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 17; a large sea bird. It is\nabout three feet four inches in length, and four feet two inches in\nbreadth from the tips of the extended wings. The bill is about five\ninches long, and of a dusky colour; the base of the lower mandible is\ncovered with a naked yellowish skin, which extends under the throat and\nforms a kind of pouch. It has a most voracious appetite, and lives\nchiefly upon fish, which it devours with unceasing gluttony. It darts\ndown very rapidly upon its prey; and the Hebrew, and the Greek name,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, [a cataract,] are expressive of its impetuosity. The word\n\u05e7\u05d0\u05ea, which in our version of Isaiah xxxiv, 11, is rendered _cormorant_,\nis the pelican.\n\nCORNER. Amos iii, 12. Sitting in the corner is a stately attitude. The\nplace of honour is the corner of the room, and there the master of the\nhouse sits and receives his visitants.\n\nCOUNCIL sometimes denotes any kind of assembly; sometimes that of the\nsanhedrim; and, at other times, a convention of pastors met to regulate\necclesiastical affairs. It may be reasonably supposed that as\nChristianity spreads, circumstances would arise which would make\nconsultation necessary among those who had embraced the Gospel, or at\nleast among those who were employed in its propagation. A memorable\ninstance of this kind occurred not long after the ascension of our\nSaviour. In consequence of a dispute which had arisen at Antioch\nconcerning the necessity of circumcising Gentile converts, it was\ndetermined that \u201cPaul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should\ngo up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this\nquestion.\u201d--\u201cAnd the Apostles and elders came together for to consider\nof this matter,\u201d Acts xv, 6. After a consultation, they decided the\npoint in question; and they sent their decree, which they declared to be\nmade under the direction of the Holy Ghost, to all the churches, and\ncommanded that it should be the rule of their conduct. This is generally\nconsidered as the first council; but it differed from all others in this\ncircumstance, that its members were under the _especial_ guidance of the\nSpirit of God. The Gospel was soon after conveyed into many parts of\nEurope, Asia, and Africa; but it does not appear that there was any\npublic meeting of Christians for the purpose of discussing any contested\npoint, till the middle of the second century. From that time councils\nbecame frequent; but as they consisted only of those who belonged to\nparticular districts or countries, they were called provincial or\nnational councils. The first general council was that of Nice, convened\nby the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325; the second general council was\nheld at Constantinople, in the year 381, by order of Theodosius the\nGreat; the third, at Ephesus, by order of Theodosius, Junior, A. D. 431;\nand the fourth at Chalcedon, by order of the emperor Marcian, A. D. 451.\nThese, as they were the first four general councils, so they were by far\nthe most eminent. They were caused respectively by the Arian,\nApollinarian, Nestorian, and Eutychian controversies, and their decrees\nare in high esteem both among Papists and orthodox Protestants; but the\ndeliberations of most councils were disgraced by violence, disorder, and\nintrigue, and their decisions were usually made under the influence of\nsome ruling party. Authors are not agreed about the number of general\ncouncils; Papists usually reckon eighteen, but Protestant writers will\nnot allow that nearly so many had a right to that name. The last general\ncouncil was that held at Trent, for the purpose of checking the progress\nof the reformation. It first met by the command of Pope Paul III, A. D.\n1545; it was suspended during the latter part of the pontificate of his\nsuccessor, Julius III, and the whole of the pontificates of Marcellus\nII, and Paul IV, that is, from 1552 to 1562, in which year it met again\nby the authority of Pope Pius IV, and it ended, while he was pope, in\nthe year 1563. Provincial councils were very numerous: Baxter enumerates\nfour hundred and eighty-one, and Dufresnoy many more.\n\n2. Of the eighteen councils denominated \u201cgeneral\u201d by the Papists, four\nhave already been enumerated; and they with the next four constitute the\neight eastern councils, which alone, according to the \u201cBody of Civil\nLaw,\u201d each of the popes of Rome, on his elevation to the pontificate,\nsolemnly professes to maintain. The fifth was convened at\nConstantinople, A. D. 556, by the emperor Justinian; the sixth, also at\nConstantinople, in 681, in which the emperor Constantine IV, himself\npresided; the seventh at Nice, in 787, by the empress Irene; and the\neighth, at Constantinople, in 870, by the emperor Basilius. It is matter\nof historical record, and therefore cannot be denied, that the convening\nof all these councils appertained solely to the respective emperors;\nthat they alone exercised authority on such occasions; that the bishop\nof Rome was never thought to possess any, although his power may be said\nto have been set up between the fifth and sixth general councils; nor\ndid the bishop himself, _pro tempore_, think himself entitled to an\nauthority of the kind. The other councils which the Romish church\ndignifies with the title of \u201cgeneral,\u201d are the ten western ones, which\nare here subjoined:--(9.) The first council of Lateran, held under Pope\nCalixtus, A. D. 1123; (10.) the second of Lateran, under Innocent II, in\n1139; (11.) the third of Lateran, under Alexander III, in 1179, the\ndecrees of which were intended to extirpate the Albigenses, as well as\nthe Waldenses, who were variously called Leonists, or poor men of Lyons;\n(12.) the fourth of Lateran, under Innocent III, in 1215, which incited\nChristian Europe to engage in a crusade for the recovery of the Holy\nLand, and whose canons obtruded on the church the monstrous doctrines of\ntransubstantiation and auricular confession, the latter being ranked\namong the duties prescribed by the law of Christ; (13.) the first of\nLyons, under Innocent IV, in 1245; (14.) the second of Lyons, under\nGregory X, in 1274; (15.) that of Vienne, under Clement V, in 1311;\n(16.) that of Florence, under Eugenius IV, in 1439; (17.) the fifth of\nLateran, under the infamous Julius II; and (18.) the council of Trent,\nof which an account is given in the preceding paragraph, and which\ngrounds its fame on its opposition to the progress of the reformation\nunder Luther. Though, according to Bellarmine, these eighteen alone are\nrecognised by the Romish church \u0153cumenical or universal councils, yet\nsome of them did not deserve even the more restricted appellation of\n\u201cgeneral.\u201d For the council of Trent itself, in some of its sessions,\ncould scarcely number more than forty or fifty ecclesiastics, and, of\nthose, not one eminent for profound theological or classical knowledge.\nThe lawyers who attended, says Father Paul, \u201cknew little of religion,\nwhile the few divines were of less than ordinary sufficiency.\u201d Some of\nthe other councils which are not acknowledged by the Papists to be\n\u201cgeneral\u201d with respect to all their sessions, (as those of Basle and\nConstance,) are in part received by them, and in part rejected.\nBellarmine and other celebrated writers of his church, are dubious about\ndetermining whether or not \u201cthe fifth of Lateran\u201d was really a general\ncouncil, and leave it as a thing discretionary with the faithful either\nto retain or reject it; if it be rejected, the only refuge which they\nhave, is to receive in its place the council of Constance, held under\nJohn XXIII, in 1414, which is disclaimed by the Italian clergy but\nadmitted by those of France, and which is rendered infamous in the\nannals of religion and humanity by its cruel and treacherous conduct\ntoward those two early Protestant martyrs, John Huss and Jerome of\nPrague; \u201cwho went to the stake,\u201d says, \u00c6neas Sylvius, \u201cas if it had been\nto a banquet, without uttering a complaint that could betray the least\nweakness of mind. When they began to burn, they sung a hymn, which even\nthe crackling of the flames could not interrupt. Never did any\nphilosopher suffer death with so much courage, as they endured the\nfire.\u201d But this acknowledgment of Constance as one of the eighteen is\nresisted _vi et armis_, by the crafty Cisalpine ecclesiastics, because\none of the earliest acts of that council declared the representatives of\nthe church in general council assembled to be superior to the sovereign\npontiff, not only when schism prevailed, but at all other times\nwhatsoever.\n\n3. A general council being composed of men every one of whom is\nfallible, they must also be liable to error when collected together; and\nthat they actually have erred is sufficiently evident from this fact,\nthat different general councils have made decrees directly opposite to\neach other, particularly in the Arian and Eutychian controversies, which\nwere upon subjects immediately \u201cpertaining unto God.\u201d Indeed, neither\nthe first general councils themselves, nor those who defended their\ndecisions, ever pretended to infallibility; this was a claim of a much\nmore recent date, suited to the dark ages in which it was asserted and\nmaintained, but now considered equally groundless and absurd in the case\nof general councils as in that of popes. If God had been pleased to\nexempt them from a possibility of error, he would have announced that\nimportant privilege in his written word; but no such promise or\nassurance is mentioned in the New Testament If infallibility belonged to\nthe whole church collectively, or to any individual part of it, it must\nbe so prominent and conspicuous that no mistake or doubt could exist\nupon the subject; and above all, it must have prevented those\ndissensions, contests, heresies, and schisms, which have abounded among\nChristians from the days of the Apostles to the present time; and of\nwhich that very church, which is the asserter and patron of this\ndoctrine, has had its full share.\n\nThe Scriptures being the only source from which we can learn the terms\nof salvation, it follows that things ordained by general councils as\nnecessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, as the\nchurch of England has well said, unless it may be declared that they he\ntaken out of Holy Scripture. It is upon this ground we receive the\ndecisions of the first four general councils, in which we find the\ntruths revealed in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We\nreverence the councils for the sake of the doctrines which they declared\nand maintained, but we do not believe the doctrines upon the authority\nof the councils.\n\nCOVENANT. The Greek word \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 occurs often in the Septuagint, as the\ntranslation of a Hebrew word, which signifies _covenant_: it occurs also\nin the Gospels and the Epistles; and it is rendered in our English\nBibles sometimes _covenant_, sometimes _testament_. The Greek word,\naccording to its etymology, and according to classical use, may denote a\ntestament, a disposition, as well as a covenant; and the Gospel may be\ncalled a testament, because it is a signification of the will of our\nSaviour ratified by his death, and because it conveys blessings to be\nenjoyed after his death. These reasons for giving the dispensation of\nthe Gospel the name of a testament appeared to our translators so\nstriking, that they have rendered \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 more frequently by the word\n_testament_, than by the word _covenant_. Yet the train of argument,\nwhere \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 occurs, generally appears to proceed upon its meaning a\ncovenant; and therefore, although, when we delineate the nature of the\nGospel, the beautiful idea of its being a testament, is not to be lost\nsight of, yet we are to remember that the word _testament_, which we\nread in the Gospels and Epistles, is the translation of a word which the\nsense requires to be rendered _covenant_. A covenant implies two\nparties, and mutual stipulations. The new covenant must derive its name\nfrom something in the nature of the stipulations between the parties\ndifferent from that which existed before; so that we cannot understand\nthe propriety of the name, _new_, without looking back to what is called\nthe _old_, or _first_. On examining the passages in Gal. iii, in 2 Cor.\niii, and in Heb. viii-x, where the old and the new covenant are\ncontrasted, it will be found that the old covenant means the\ndispensation given by Moses to the children of Israel; and the new\ncovenant the dispensation of the Gospel published by Jesus Christ; and\nthat the object of the Apostle is to illustrate the superior excellence\nof the latter dispensation. But, in order to preserve the consistency of\nthe Apostle\u2019s writings, it is necessary to remember that there are two\ndifferent lights in which the former dispensation may be viewed.\nChristians appear to draw the line between the old and the new covenant,\naccording to the light in which they view that dispensation. It may be\nconsidered merely as a method of publishing the moral law to a\nparticular nation; and then with whatever solemnity it was delivered,\nand with whatever cordiality it was accepted, it is not a covenant that\ncould give life. For, being nothing more than what divines call a\ncovenant of works, a directory of conduct requiring by its nature entire\npersonal obedience, promising life to those who yielded that obedience,\nbut making no provision for transgressors, it left under a curse \u201cevery\none that continued not in all things that were written in the book of\nthe law to do them.\u201d This is the essential imperfection of what is\ncalled the covenant of works, the name given in theology to that\ntransaction, in which it is conceived that the supreme Lord of the\nuniverse promised to his creature, man, that he would reward that\nobedience to his law, which, without any such promise, was due to him as\nthe Creator.\n\nNo sooner had Adam broken the covenant of works, than a promise of a\nfinal deliverance from the evils incurred by the breach of it was given.\nThis promise was the foundation of that transaction which Almighty God,\nin treating with Abraham, condescends to call \u201cmy covenant with thee,\u201d\nand which, upon this authority, has received in theology the name of the\nAbrahamic covenant. Upon the one part, Abraham, whose faith was counted\nto him for righteousness, received this charge from God, \u201cWalk before me\nand be thou perfect;\u201d upon the other part, the God whom he believed, and\nwhose voice he obeyed, beside promising other blessings to him and his\nseed, uttered these significant words, \u201cIn thy seed shall all the\nfamilies of the earth be blessed.\u201d In this transaction, then, there was\nthe essence of a covenant; for there were mutual stipulations between\ntwo parties; and there was superadded, as a seal of the covenant, the\nrite of circumcision, which, being prescribed by God, was a confirmation\nof his promise to all who complied with it, and being submitted to by\nAbraham, was, on his part, an acceptance of the covenant.\n\nThe Abrahamic covenant appears, from the nature of the stipulations, to\nbe more than a covenant of works; and, as it was not confined to\nAbraham, but extended to his seed, it could not be disannulled by any\nsubsequent transactions, which fell short of a fulfilment of the\nblessing promised. The law of Moses, which was given to the seed of\nAbraham four hundred and thirty years after, did not come up to the\nterms of that covenant even with regard to them, for, in its form it was\na covenant of works, and to other nations it did not directly convey any\nblessing. But although the Mosaic dispensation did not fulfil the\nAbrahamic covenant, it was so far from setting that covenant aside, that\nit cherished the expectation of its being fulfilled: for it continued\nthe rite of circumcision, which was the seal of the covenant; and in\nthose ceremonies which it enjoined, there was a shadow, a type, an\nobscure representation, of the promised blessing, Luke i, 72, 73.\n\nHere, then, is another view of the Mosaic dispensation. \u201cIt was added,\nbecause of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise\nwas made,\u201d Gal. iii, 19. By delivering a moral law, which men felt\nthemselves unable to obey; by denouncing judgments which it did not of\nitself provide any effectual method of escaping; and by holding forth,\nin various oblations, the promised and expected Saviour; \u201cit was a\nschoolmaster to bring men unto Christ.\u201d The covenant made with Abraham\nretained its force during the dispensation of the law, and was the end\nof that dispensation.\n\nThe views which have been given furnish the ground upon which we defend\nthat established language which is familiar to our ears, that there are\nonly two covenants essentially different, and opposite to one another,\nthe covenant of works, made with the first man, intimated by the\nconstitution of human nature to every one of his posterity, and having\nfor its terms, \u201cDo this and live;\u201d--and the covenant of grace, which was\nthe substance of the Abrahamic covenant, and which entered into the\nconstitution of the Sinaitic covenant, but which is more clearly\nrevealed, and more extensively published in the Gospel. This last\ncovenant, which the Scriptures call _new_ in respect to the mode of its\ndispensation under the Gospel, although it is not new in respect of its\nessence, has received, in the language of theology, the name of the\ncovenant of grace, for the two following obvious reasons: because, after\nman had broken the covenant of works, it was pure grace or favour in the\nAlmighty to enter into a new covenant with him; and, because by the\ncovenant there is conveyed that grace which enables man to comply with\nthe terms of it. It could not be a covenant unless there were\nterms,--something required, as well as something promised or\ngiven,--duties to be performed, as well as blessings to be received.\nAccordingly, the tenor of the new covenant, founded upon the promise\noriginally made to Abraham, is expressed by Jeremiah in words which the\nApostle to the Hebrews has quoted as a description of it: \u201cI will be to\nthem a God, and they shall be to me a people,\u201d Heb. viii, 10:--words\nwhich intimate on one part not only entire reconciliation with God, but\nthe continued exercise of all the perfections of the Godhead in\npromoting the happiness of his people, and the full communication of all\nthe blessings which flow from his unchangeable love; on the other part,\nthe surrender of the heart and affections of his people, the dedication\nof all the powers of their nature to his service, and the willing\nuniform obedience of their lives. But, although there are mutual\nstipulations, the covenant retains its character of a covenant of grace,\nand must be regarded as having its source purely in the grace of God.\nFor the very circumstances which rendered the new covenant necessary,\ntake away the possibility of there being any merit upon our part: the\nfaith by which the covenant is accepted is the gift of God; and all the\ngood works by which Christians continue to keep the covenant, originate\nin that change of character which is the fruit of the operation of his\nSpirit.\n\nCovenants were anciently confirmed by eating and drinking together; and\nchiefly by feasting on a sacrifice. In this manner, Abimelech, the\nPhilistine, confirmed the covenant with Isaac, and Jacob with his father\nLaban, Gen. xxvi, 26\u201331; xxxi, 44\u201346, 54. Sometimes they divided the\nparts of the victim, and passed between them, by which act the parties\nsignified their resolution of fulfilling all the terms of the\nengagement, on pain of being divided or cut asunder as the sacrifice had\nbeen, if they should violate the covenant, Gen. xv, 9, 10, 17, 18; Jer.\nxxxiv, 18. Hence the Hebrew word _charat_, which properly signifies to\ndivide, is applied allusively in Scripture to the making of a covenant.\nWhen the law of Moses was established, the people feasted in their\npeace-offerings on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their\nreconciliation with God, Deut. xii, 6, 7. See CIRCUMCISION.\n\nCOURT, an entrance into a palace or house. (See _House_.) The great\ncourts belonging to the temple of Jerusalem were three; the first called\nthe court of the Gentiles, because the Gentiles were allowed to enter so\nfar, and no farther; the second was the court of Israel, because all the\nIsraelites, provided they were purified, had a right of admission into\nit; the third was that of the priests, where the altar of\nburnt-offerings stood, where the priests and Levites exercised their\nministry. Common Israelites, who were desirous of offering sacrifices,\nwere at liberty to bring their victims as far as the inner part of the\ncourt; but they could not pass a certain line of separation, which\ndivided it into two; and they withdrew as soon as they had delivered\ntheir sacrifices and offerings to the priests, or had made their\nconfession with the ceremony of laying their hands upon the head of the\nvictim, if it were a sin-offering. Before the temple was built, there\nwas a court belonging to the tabernacle, but not near so large as that\nof the temple, and encompassed only with pillars, and veils hung with\ncords.\n\nCRANE. In Isaiah xxxviii, 14, and Jer. viii, 7, two birds are mentioned,\nthe \u05e1\u05d9\u05e1 and the \u05e2\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8. The first in our version is translated _crane_,\nand the second _swallow_; but Bochart exactly reverses them, and the\nreasons he adduces are incontrovertible. Aristophanes curiously\nobserves, that \u201cit is time to sow when the crane migrates clamouring\ninto Africa; she also bids the mariner suspend his rudder and take his\nrest, and the mountaineer to provide himself with raiment;\u201d and Hesiod,\n\u201cWhen thou hearest the voice of the crane, clamouring annually from the\nclouds on high, recollect that this is the signal for ploughing, and\nindicates the approach of showery winter.\u201d\n\n              Where do the cranes or winding swallows go,\n              Fearful of gathering winds and falling snow?\n              Conscious of all the coming ills, they fly\n              To milder regions and a southern sky.\n                                         PRIOR.\n\nThe Prophet Jeremiah mentions this bird, thus intelligent of the seasons\nby an instinctive and invariable observation of their appointed times,\nas a circumstance of reproach to the chosen people of God, who, although\ntaught by reason and religion, \u201cknew not the judgment of the Lord.\u201d\n\nCREATION, in its primary import, signifies the bringing into being\nsomething which did not exist before. The term is therefore most\ngenerally applied to the original production of the materials whereof\nthe visible world is composed. It is also used in a secondary or\nsubordinate sense, to denote those subsequent operations of the Deity\nupon the matter so produced, by which the whole system of nature, and\nall the primitive _genera_ of things, received their forms, qualities,\nand laws. The accounts of the creation of the world which have existed\namong different nations, are called _Cosmogonies_. Moses\u2019s is\nunquestionably the most ancient; and had it no other circumstance to\nrecommend it, its superior antiquity alone would give it a just claim to\nour attention. It is evidently Moses\u2019s intention to give a history of\nman, and of religion, and an account of creation. In the way in which he\nhas detailed it, it would have been foreign to his plan, had it not been\nnecessary to obviate that most ancient and most natural species of\nidolatry, the worship of the heavenly bodies. His first care, therefore,\nis to affirm decidedly, that God created the heavens and the earth; and\nthen he proceeds to mention the order in which the various objects of\ncreation were called into existence. First of all, the materials, of\nwhich the future universe was to be composed, were created. These were\njumbled together in one indigested mass, which the ancients called\nchaos, and which they conceived to be eternal; but which Moses affirms\nto have been created by the power of God. The materials of the chaos\nwere either held in solution by the waters, or floated in them, or were\nsunk under them; and they were reduced into form by the Spirit of God\nmoving upon the face of the waters. Light was the first distinct object\nof creation: fishes were the first living things; man was last in the\norder of creation.\n\n2. The account given by Moses is distinguished by its simplicity. That\nit involves difficulties which our faculties cannot comprehend, is only\nwhat might be expected from a detail of the operations of the omnipotent\nmind, which can never be fully understood but by the Being who planned\nthem. Most of the writers who come nearest to Moses in point of\nantiquity have favoured the world with cosmogonies; and there is a\nwonderful coincidence in some leading particulars between their accounts\nand his. They all have his chaos; and they all state water to have been\nthe prevailing principle before the arrangement of the universe began.\nThe systems became gradually more complicated, as the writers receded\nfarther from the age of primitive tradition; and they increased in\nabsurdity in proportion to the degree of philosophy which was applied to\nthe subject. The problem of creation has been said to be, \u201cMatter and\nmotion being given, to form a world;\u201d and the presumption of man has\noften led him to attempt the solution of this intricate question. But\nthe true problem was, \u201cNeither matter nor motion being given, to form a\nworld.\u201d At first, the cosmogonists contented themselves with reasoning\non the traditional or historical accounts they had received; but it is\nirksome to be shackled by authority; and after they had acquired a\nsmattering of knowledge, they began to think that they could point out a\nmuch better way of forming the world than that which had been\ntransmitted to them by the consenting voice of antiquity. Epicurus was\nmost distinguished in this hopeful work of invention; and produced a\ncosmogony on the principle of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, whose\nextravagant absurdity has hitherto preserved it from oblivion. From his\nday to ours, the world has been annoyed with systems; but these are now\nmodified by the theories of chemists and geologists, whose speculations,\nin so far as they proceed on the principle of induction, have sometimes\nbeen attended with useful results; but, when applied to solve the\nproblem of creation, will serve, like the systems of their forerunners,\nto demonstrate the ignorance and the presumption of man.\n\n3. The early cosmogonies are chiefly interesting from their resemblance\nto that of Moses; which proves that they have either been derived from\nhim, or from some ancient prevailing tradition respecting the true\nhistory of creation. The most ancient author next to Moses, of whose\nwritings any fragments remain, is Sanchoniatho, the Phenician. His\nwritings were translated by Philo Byblius; and portions of this version\nare preserved by Eusebius. These writings come to us rather in an\napocryphal form; they contain, however, no internal evidence which can\naffect their authenticity; they pretty nearly resemble the traditions of\nthe Greeks, and are, perhaps, the parent stock from which these\ntraditions are derived. The notions detailed by Sanchoniatho are almost\ntranslated by Hesiod, who mentions the primeval chaos, and states \u1f14\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\nor _love_, to be its first offspring. Anaxagoras was the first among the\nGreeks who entertained tolerably accurate notions on the subject of\ncreation: he assumed the agency of an intelligent mind in the\narrangement of the chaotic materials. These sentiments gradually\nprevailed among the Greeks; from whom they passed to the Romans, and\nwere generally adopted, notwithstanding the efforts which were made to\nestablish the doctrines of Epicurus by the nervous poetry of Lucretius.\nOvid has collected the orthodox doctrines which prevailed on the\nsubject, both among Greeks and Romans; and has expressed them with\nuncommon elegance and perspicuity in the first chapter of his\n\u201cMetamorphoses.\u201d There is so striking a coincidence between his account\nand that of Moses that one would almost think that he was translating\nfrom the first chapter of Genesis; and there can be no doubt that the\nMosaic writings were well known at that time, both among the Greeks and\nRomans. Megasthenes, who lived in the time of Seleucus Nicanor, affirms,\nthat all the doctrines of the Greeks respecting the creation, and the\nconstitution of nature, were current among the Bramins in India, and the\nJews in Syria. He must, of course, have been acquainted with the\nwritings of the latter, before he could make the comparison. Juvenal\ntalks of the writings of Moses as well known:--\n\n         _Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses._\n         [Whatever Moses has transmitted in his mystic volume.]\n\nWe are therefore inclined to think that Ovid actually copied from the\nBible; for he adopts the very order detailed by Moses. Moses mentions\nthe works of creation in the following order: the separation of the sea\nfrom the dry land; the creation of the heavenly bodies; of marine\nanimals; of fowls and land animals; of man. Observe now the order of the\nRoman poet:--\n\n         _Ante mare et terras, et, quod tegit omnia, c\u0153lum,\n         Unus erat toto natur\u00e6 vultus in orbe,\n         Quem dixere chaos, rudis, indigestaque moles.\n         Hanc Deus, et melior litem natura diremit.\n         Nam c\u0153lo terras, et terras abscidit undis;\n         Et liquidum spisso secrevit ab a\u00ebre c\u0153lum.\n         Neu regio foret ulla suis animalibus orba;\n         Astra tenent c\u0153leste solum, form\u00e6que deorum;\n         Cesserunt nitidis habitand\u00e6 piscibus und\u00e6:\n         Terra feras cepit, volucres agitabilis a\u00ebr.\n         Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius alt\u00e6\n         Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in c\u00e6tera posset:\n         Natus homo est._\n\n         \u201cBefore the seas, and this terrestrial ball,\n          And heav\u2019n\u2019s high canopy, that covers all,\n          One was the face of nature; if a face:\n          Rather, a rude and indigested mass:\n          A lifeless lump, unfashion\u2019d, and unframed,\n          Of jarring seeds; and justly _chaos_ named.\n          But God, or nature, while they thus contend,\n          To these intestine discords put an end;\n          Then earth from air, and seas from earth were driv\u2019n,\n          And grosser air sunk from ethereal heav\u2019n.\n          Thus when the God, whatever god was he,\n          Had form\u2019d the whole, and made the parts agree,\n          That no unequal portions might be found,\n          He moulded earth into a spacious round.\n          Then, every void of nature to supply,\n          With forms of gods he fills the vacant sky:\n          New herds of beasts he sends, the plains to share: }\n          New colonies of birds, to people air;              }\n          And to their oozy beds the finny fish repair.      }\n          A creature of a more exalted kind\n          Was wanting yet, and then was man design\u2019d:\n          Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,\n          For empire form\u2019d, and fit to rule the rest:\n          Whether with particles of heav\u2019nly fire\n          The God of nature did his soul inspire,\u201d &c.\n                                           DRYDEN.\n\nHere we see all the principal objects of creation mentioned exactly in\nthe same order which Moses had assigned to them in his writings; and\nwhen we consider what follows;--the war of the giants; the general\ncorruption of the world; the universal deluge; the preservation of\nDeucalion and Pyrrha; their sacrifices to the gods on leaving the vessel\nin which they had been preserved;--there can scarcely remain a doubt\nthat Ovid borrowed, either directly or at second hand, from Moses. What\nhe says, too, is perfectly consistent with the received notions on the\nsubject, though it is probable that they had never before been so\nregularly methodised. This train of reasoning would lead us to conclude\nthat Ovid, and indeed the whole Heathen world, derived their notions\nrespecting the creation, and the early history of mankind, from the\nsacred Scriptures: and it shows how deficient their own resources were,\nwhen the pride of philosophy was forced to borrow from those whom it\naffected to despise. With regard to the western mythologists, then,\nthere can be little doubt that their cosmogonies, at least such of them\nas profess to be historical, and not theoretical, are derived from\nMoses; and the same may be affirmed with regard to the traditions of the\neast: as they were the same with those of Greece in the time of\nMegasthenes, whose testimony to this effect is quoted both by Clemens\nAlexandrinus and Strabo, we may naturally conclude that they had the\nsame origin.\n\n4. The Hindoo mythology has grown, in the natural uninterrupted progress\nof corruption, to such monstrous and complicated absurdity, that in many\ncases it stands unique in extravagance. In the more ancient Hindoo\nwritings, however, many sublime sentiments occur; and in the \u201cInstitutes\nof Menu,\u201d many passages are found relating to the creation, which bear a\nstrong resemblance to the account given by Moses. They are thus given in\nan advertisement, prefixed to the fifth volume of the \u201cAsiatic\nResearches,\u201d and are intended as a supplement to a former treatise on\nthe Hindoo religion:--\n\n\u201cThis universe existed only in the first divine idea, yet unexpanded, as\nif involved in darkness, imperceptible, undefinable, undiscoverable by\nreason, and undiscovered by revelation, as if it were wholly immersed in\nsleep. When the sole self-existing Power, himself undiscerned, but\nmaking this world discernible, with five elements and other principles\nof nature, appeared with undiminished glory, expanding his idea, or\ndispelling the gloom. He, whom the mind alone can perceive, whose\nessence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists\nfrom eternity, even he, the soul of all beings, whom no being can\ncomprehend, shone forth in person. He, having willed to produce various\nbeings from his own divine substance, first with a thought created the\nwaters. The waters are called _nara_, because they are the production of\n_Nara_, or the Spirit of God; and since they were his first _ayana_, or\nplace of motion, he thence is called _Narayana_, or moving on the\nwaters. From that which is, the first cause, not the object of sense,\nexisting every where in substance, not existing to our perception,\nwithout beginning or end, was produced the divine male. He framed the\nheaven above, and the earth beneath; in the midst he placed the subtile\nether, the eight regions, and the permanent receptacle of waters. He\nframed all creatures. He, too, first assigned to all creatures distinct\nnames, distinct acts, and distinct occupations. He gave being to time,\nand the divisions of time; to the stars also, and the planets; to\nrivers, oceans, and mountains; to level plains, and uneven valleys. For\nthe sake of distinguishing actions, he made a total difference between\nright and wrong. Having divided his own substance, the mighty Power\nbecame half male, half female. He whose powers are incomprehensible,\nhaving created this universe, was again absorbed in the spirit, changing\nthe time of energy for the time of repose.\u201d\n\nIn these passages we have evidently a philosophical comment on the\naccount of creation given by Moses, or as transmitted from the same\nsource of primitive tradition. We also see in these passages the\nrudiments of the Platonic philosophy, the eternal ideas in the divine\nmind, &c; and were any question to arise respecting the original author\nof these notions, we should have little hesitation in giving it against\nthe Greeks. They were the greatest plagiaries both in literature and\nphilosophy, and they have scarcely an article of literary property which\nthey can call their own, except their poetry. Their sages penetrated\ninto Egypt and India, and on their return stigmatized the natives of\nthese countries as barbarians, lest they should be suspected of stealing\ntheir inventions.\n\n5. The Chaldean cosmogony, according to Berosus, when divested of\nallegory, seems to resolve itself into this, that darkness and water\nexisted from eternity; that Belus divided the humid mass, and gave birth\nto creation; that the human mind is an emanation from the divine nature.\nThe cosmogony of the ancient Persians is very clumsy. They introduce two\neternal principles, the one good, called _Oromasdes_, the other evil,\ncalled _Arimanius_; and they make these two principles contend with each\nother in the creation and government of the world. Each has his\nprovince, which he strives to enlarge; and _Mithras_ is the mediator to\nmoderate their contentions. This is the most inartificial plan that has\nbeen devised to account for the existence of evil, and has the least\npretensions to a philosophical basis. The Egyptian cosmogony, according\nto the account given of it by Plutarch, seems to bear a strong\nresemblance to the Phenician, as detailed by Sanchoniatho. According to\nthe Egyptian account, there was an eternal chaos, and an eternal spirit\nunited with it, whose agency at last arranged the discordant materials,\nand produced the visible system of the universe. The cosmogony of the\nnorthern nations, as may be collected from the Edda, supposes an eternal\nprinciple prior to the formation of the world. The Orphic Fragments\nstate every thing to have existed in God, and to proceed from him. The\nnotion implied in this maxim is suspected to be _pantheistic_, that is,\nto imply the universe to be God; which, however, might be a more modern\nperversion. Plato supposed the world to be produced by the Deity,\nuniting eternal, immutable ideas, or forms, to variable matter.\nAristotle had no cosmogony, because he supposed the world to be without\nbeginning and without end. According to the Stoical doctrine, the divine\nnature, acting on matter, first produced moisture, and then the other\nelements, which are reciprocally convertible.\n\nCRETE, an island in the Mediterranean, now called Candia, Titus i, 5.\nNature had endowed this island with all that renders man happy; the\ninhabitants, likewise, had formerly a constitution which was renowned\nand frequently compared with that of the Spartans; but at this time, and\neven long before, all, even laws and morals, had sunk very low. The\ncharacter of this nation was mutable, prone to quarrelling, to civil\ndisturbances and frays, to robberies and violences. Avaricious and base\nto a degree of sordid greediness, they considered nothing as ignoble\nwhich gratified this inclination. Thence arose their treachery, their\nfalse and deceitful disposition, which had passed into a common proverb.\nEven in the times of purer morals they were decidedly addicted to wine;\nand their propensity to incontinence was frequently censured and noticed\nby the ancients. Religion itself was one cause of the many excesses of\nthis nation. Many deities were born among them; they also showed their\ntombs and catacombs, and celebrated the feasts and mysteries of all.\nThey therefore had continually holydays, diversions, and idle times, and\none of their native poets (Diodorus calls him \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) gave them the\ntestimony which Paul found to be so true, Titus i, 12. Jews also had\nestablished themselves among them, who according to all appearance could\nhave improved here but very little in morality. The Apostle seems to\nhave considered them a more dangerous people than the inhabitants\nthemselves.\n\nCRIMSON, \u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u05dc, 2 Chron. ii, 7, iii, 14, the name of a colour. Bochart\nsupposes it to be the _cochlea purpuraria_, or purple from a kind of\nshell-fish taken near Mount Carmel. But as the name of the mount is said\nto mean a vineyard, one may rather suppose the colour to signify that of\ngrapes; like the redness of the vesture of him who trod the wine-press,\nIsa. lxiii, 1, 2. What our version renders _crimson_, Isa. i, 18; Jer.\niv, 30, should be _scarlet_.\n\nCROSS, an ancient instrument of capital punishment. The cross was the\npunishment inflicted by the Romans, on servants who had perpetrated\ncrimes, on robbers, assassins, and rebels; among which last Jesus was\nreckoned, on the ground of his making himself King or Messiah, Luke\nxxiii, 1\u20135, 13\u201315. The words in which the sentence was given were, \u201cThou\nshalt go to the cross.\u201d The person who was subjected to this punishment\nwas then deprived of all his clothes excepting something around the\nloins. In this state of nudity he was beaten, sometimes with rods, but\nmore generally with whips. Such was the severity of this flagellation,\nthat numbers died under it. Jesus was crowned with thorns, and made the\nsubject of mockery; but insults of this kind were not among the ordinary\nattendants of crucifixion. They were owing, in this case, merely to the\npetulant spirit of the Roman soldiers, Matt. xxvii, 29; Mark xv, 17;\nJohn xix, 2, 5. The criminal, having been beaten, was subjected to the\nfarther suffering of being obliged to carry the cross himself to the\nplace of punishment, which was commonly a hill, near the public way, and\nout of the city. The place of crucifixion at Jerusalem was a hill to the\nnorth-west of the city. The cross, \u03db\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, _a post_, otherwise called\nthe unpropitious or infamous tree, consisted of a piece of wood erected\nperpendicularly, and intersected by another at right angles near the\ntop, so as to resemble the letter T. The crime for which the person\nsuffered was inscribed on the transverse piece near the top of the\nperpendicular one.\n\nThere is no mention made in ancient writers of any thing on which the\nfeet of the person crucified rested. Near the middle, however, of the\nperpendicular beam, there projected a piece of wood, on which he sat,\nand which answered as a support to the body, since the weight of the\nbody might otherwise have torn away the hands from the nails driven\nthrough them. The cross, which was erected at the place of punishment,\nbeing there firmly fixed in the ground, rarely exceeded ten feet in\nheight. The victim, perfectly naked, was elevated to the small\nprojection in the middle: the hands were then bound by a rope round the\ntransverse beam, and nailed through the palm.\n\nThe assertion that the persons who suffered crucifixion were not in some\ninstances fastened to the cross by nails through the hands and feet, but\nwere merely bound to it by ropes, cannot be proved by the testimony of\nany ancient writer whatever. That the feet, as well as the hands, were\nfastened to the cross by means of nails, is expressly asserted in the\nplay of Plautus, entitled \u201cMostellaria,\u201d compared with Tertullian\nagainst the Jews, and against Marcion. In regard to the nailing of the\nfeet, it may be farthermore observed, that Gregory Nazianzen has\nasserted, that one nail only was driven through both of them; but\nCyprian, (_de passione_,) who had been a personal witness to\ncrucifixions, and is, consequently, in this case, the better authority,\nstates, on the contrary, that two nails or spikes were driven, one\nthrough each foot. The crucified person remained suspended in this way\ntill he died, and the corpse had become putrid. While he exhibited any\nsigns of life, he was watched by a guard; but they left him when it\nappeared that he was dead. The corpse was not buried, except by express\npermission, which was sometimes granted by the emperor on his birth day,\nbut only to a very few. An exception, however, to this general practice\nwas made by the Romans in favour of the Jews, on account of Deut. xxi,\n22, 23; and in Judea, accordingly, crucified persons were buried on the\nsame day. When, therefore, there was not a prospect that they would die\non the day of the crucifixion, the executioners hastened the extinction\nof life, by kindling a fire under the cross, so as to suffocate them\nwith the smoke, or by letting loose wild beasts upon them, or by\nbreaking their bones upon the cross with a mallet, as upon an anvil. The\nJews, in the times of which we are speaking, namely, while they were\nunder the jurisdiction of the Romans, were in the habit of giving the\ncriminal, before the commencement of his sufferings, a medicated drink\nof wine and myrrh, Prov. xxxi, 6. The object of this was to produce\nintoxication, and thereby render the pains of the crucifixion less\nsensible to the sufferer. This beverage was refused by the Saviour for\nthe obvious reason, that he chose to die with the faculties of his mind\nundisturbed and unclouded, Matt. xxvii, 34; Mark xv, 23. It should be\nremarked, that this sort of drink, which was probably offered out of\nkindness, was different from the vinegar which was subsequently offered\nto the Saviour by the Roman soldiers. The latter was a mixture of\nvinegar and water, denominated _posca_, and was a common drink for the\nsoldiers in the Roman army, Luke xxiii, 36; John xix, 29.\n\n2. Crucifixion was not only the most ignominious, it was likewise the\nmost cruel, mode of punishment: so very much so, that Cicero is\njustified in saying, in respect to crucifixion, \u201c_Ab oculis, auribusque\net omni cogitatione hominum, removendum esse_.\u201d [That it ought neither\nto be seen, heard of, nor even thought of by men.] The sufferings\nendured by a person on whom this punishment is inflicted are narrated by\nGeorge Gottlieb Richter, a German physician, in a \u201cDissertation on the\nSaviour\u2019s Crucifixion.\u201d The position of the body is unnatural, the arms\nbeing extended back, and almost immovable. In case of the least motion,\nan extremely painful sensation is experienced in the hands and feet,\nwhich are pierced with nails, and in the back, which is lacerated with\nstripes. The nails, being driven through the parts of the hands and feet\nwhich abound in nerves and tendons, create the most exquisite anguish.\nThe exposure of so many wounds to the open air brings on an\ninflammation, which every moment increases the poignancy of the\nsuffering. In those parts of the body which are distended or pressed,\nmore blood flows through the arteries than can be carried back in the\nveins. The consequence is, that a greater quantity of blood finds its\nway from the _aorta_ into the head and stomach, than would be carried\nthere by a natural and undisturbed circulation. The blood vessels of the\nhead become pressed and swollen, which of course causes pain, and a\nredness of the face. The circumstance of the blood being impelled in\nmore than ordinary quantities into the stomach is an unfavourable one\nalso, because it is that part of the system which not only admits of the\nblood being stationary, but is peculiarly exposed to mortification. The\naorta, not being at liberty to empty, in the free and undisturbed way as\nformerly, the blood which it receives from the left ventricle of the\nheart, is unable to receive its usual quantity. The blood of the lungs,\ntherefore, is unable to find a free circulation. This general\nobstruction extends its effects likewise to the right ventricle, and the\nconsequence is, an internal excitement, and exertion, and anxiety, which\nare more intolerable than the anguish of death itself. All the large\nvessels about the heart, and all the veins and arteries in that part of\nthe system, on account of the accumulation and pressure of blood, are\nthe source of inexpressible misery. The degree of anguish is gradual in\nits increase; and the person crucified is able to live under it commonly\ntill the third, and sometimes till the seventh, day. Pilate, therefore,\nbeing surprised at the speedy termination of the Saviour\u2019s life,\ninquired in respect to the truth of it of the centurion himself, who\ncommanded the soldiers, Mark xv, 44. In order to bring their life to a\nmore speedy termination, so that they might be buried on the same day,\nthe bones of the two thieves were broken with mallets, John xix, 31\u201337;\nand in order to ascertain this point in respect to Jesus, namely,\nwhether he was really dead, or whether he had merely fallen into a\nswoon, a soldier thrust his lance into his side; but no signs of life\nappeared, John xix, 31\u201337.\n\n3. Our Saviour says, that whosoever will be his disciple must take up\nhis cross and follow him, Matt. xvi, 24: by which is meant, that his\ndisciples must be willing to suffer for him, in any way in which God, in\nthe course of his providence, may call them to suffer; even to endure\nmartyrdom, if called to it. The cross is also often put for the whole of\nChrist\u2019s sufferings, Eph. ii, 16; Heb. xii, 2; and the doctrine of his\nperfect atonement, Gal. vi, 14.\n\nCROWN is a term properly taken for a cap of state worn on the heads of\nsovereign princes, as a mark of regal dignity. In Scripture there is\nfrequent mention made of crowns; and the use of them seems to have been\nvery common among the Hebrews. The high priest wore a crown, which was\ngirt about his mitre, or the lower part of his bonnet, and was tied\nabout his head. On the forepart was a plate of gold, with these words\nengraven on it: \u201cHoliness to the Lord,\u201d Exod. xxviii, 36; xxix, 6.\nNew-married persons of both sexes wore crowns upon their wedding day,\nCant., iii, 11; and, alluding to this custom, it is said that when God\nentered into covenant with the Jewish nation, he put a beautiful crown\nupon their head, Ezekiel xvi, 12. The first crowns were no more than a\nbandelet drawn round the head, and tied behind, as we see it still\nrepresented on medals, &c. Afterward, they consisted of two bandelets;\nby degrees they took branches of trees of divers kinds, &c; at length\nthey added flowers; and Claudius Saturninus says there was not any plant\nof which crowns had not been made.\n\nThere was always a difference, either in matter or form, between the\ncrowns of kings and great men, and those of private persons. The crown\nof a king was generally a white fillet bound about his forehead, the\nextremities whereof being tied behind the head, fell back on the neck.\nSometimes they were made of gold tissue, adorned with jewels. That of\nthe Jewish high priest, which is the most ancient of which we have any\ndescription, was a fillet of gold placed upon his forehead, and tied\nwith a ribbon of a hyacinth colour, or azure blue. The crown, mitre, and\ndiadem, royal fillet and tiara, are frequently confounded. Crowns were\nbestowed on kings and princes, as the principal marks of their dignity.\nDavid took the crown of the king of the Ammonites from off his head: the\ncrown weighed a talent of gold, and was moreover enriched with jewels, 2\nSam. xii, 30; 1 Chron. xx, 2. The Amalekite who valued himself on\nkilling Saul, brought this prince\u2019s crown unto David, 2 Sam. i, 10. The\ncrown was placed upon the head of young King Josiah, when he was\npresented to the people, in order to be acknowledged by them, 2 Chron.\nxxiii, 11. Baruch says that the idols of the Babylonians wore golden\ncrowns, Baruch vi, 9. Queens, too, wore diadems among the Persians. King\nAhasuerus honoured Vashti with this mark of power; and, after her\ndivorce, the same favour was granted to Esther, chap. ii, 17. The\nelders, in Rev. iv, 10, are said to \u201ccast their crowns before the\nthrone.\u201d The allusion is here to the tributary kings dependent upon the\nRoman emperors. Herod took off his diadem in the presence of Augustus,\ntill ordered to replace it. Tiridates did homage to Nero by laying the\nensigns of royalty at the foot of his statue.\n\nPilate\u2019s guard platted a crown of thorns, and placed it on the head of\nJesus Christ, Matt. xxvii, 29, with an intention to insult him, under\nthe character of the king of the Jews. See _Thorn_. In a figurative\nsense, a crown signifies honour, splendour, or dignity, Lam. v, 16;\nPhil. iv, 1; and is also used for reward, because conquerors, in the\nGrecian games, were crowned, 1 Corinthians ix, 25.\n\nCRYSTAL, \u05e7\u05e8\u05d7. This word is translated \u201ccrystal\u201d in Ezek. i, 22; and\n\u201cfrost,\u201d Gen. xxxi, 40; Job xxxvii, 10; Jeremiah xxxvi, 30; and \u201cice,\u201d\nJob vi, 16; xxxviii, 29; Psalm cxlvii, 17; \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03db\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, Rev. iv, 6; xxii,\n1. Crystal is supposed to have its name from its resemblance to ice. The\nGreek word, \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03db\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, is formed from \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2, _ice_, and \u03db\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, _to\nconcrete_. The word, \u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05ea, is translated _crystal_, in Job xxviii, 17.\nDr. Good observes, \u201cWe are not certain of the exact signification,\nfarther than that it denotes some perfectly transparent and hyaline\ngem.\u201d\n\nCUBIT, a measure used among the ancients. The Hebrews call it \u05d0\u05de\u05d0, the\nmother of other measures: in Greek \u03d6\u1fc6\u03c7\u03c5\u03c2. A cubit originally was the\ndistance from the elbow to the extremity of the middle finger: this is\nthe fourth part of a well proportioned man\u2019s stature. The common cubit\nis eighteen inches. The Hebrew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland and\nM. Pelletier, is twenty-one inches; but others fix it at eighteen\ninches. The Talmudists observe, that the Hebrew cubit was larger by one\nquarter than the Roman. Lewis Capellus and others have asserted that\nthere were two sorts of cubits among the Hebrews; one sacred, the other\ncommon; the sacred containing three feet, the common containing a foot\nand a half. Moses assigns to the Levites a thousand sacred cubits of\nland round about their cities, Num. xxxv, 4; and in the next verse he\ngives them two thousand common ones. The opinion, however, is very\nprobable, that the cubit varied in different districts and cities, and\nat different times, &c.\n\nCUCUMBER, \u05e7\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd, \u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2, _cucumis_, Num. xi, 5, the fruit of a plant\nvery common in our gardens. Tournefort mentions six kinds, of which the\nwhite and green are most esteemed. They are very plentiful in the east,\nespecially in Egypt, and much superior to ours. Maillet, in describing\nthe vegetables which the modern Egyptians have for food, tells us, that\nmelons, cucumbers, and onions are the most common; and Celsius and\nAlpinus describe the Egyptian cucumbers as more agreeable to the taste\nand of more easy digestion than the European.\n\nCULDEES, a body of religious, who chiefly resided in Scotland, Ireland,\nand some of the adjacent isles. The name has been also written _Keldees_\nand _Kyldees_. Various etymons have been given of it. Two of these seem\nto have superior claims to attention. It may be deduced either from\nIrish _ceile_, or, _gille_, a servant, and _De_, _Dia_, God; or from\n_cuil_, _ceal_, in Welsh _cel_, a sequestered corner, a retreat. The\nlatter seems to derive support from the established sense of _kil_,\nretained in the names of so many places, which, in an early age, have\nbeen consecrated to religion. It is more than probable that Christianity\nhad found its way into Scotland before the close of the second century;\nand that it continued to be professed by a few scattered individuals\neven before the arrival of Ninian, in the beginning of the fifth. But we\nhave no proof of the existence of any religious societies observing a\nparticular institute, till the year 563, when Columba landed in Hii, or\nIona; which, in honour of him, was afterward called _I-colum-kill_; that\nis, the isle of Colum, or Columba, of the cells. He was born in Ireland,\nA. D. 521; and, after founding many seminaries of religion there,\nprompted by zeal for the propagation of Christianity, set sail for\nScotland with twelve companions. According to Bede, having converted the\nnorthern Picts, he received from Brudi, their king, the island of Hii in\npossession, for the purpose of erecting a monastery. Here he almost\nconstantly resided till the year 597, when he died. He made occasional\nvisits to the mainland, proceeding even as far as to Inverness: also to\nIreland, where he was held in high estimation. As he was himself much\ndevoted to the study of the Holy Scriptures, he taught his disciples to\nconfirm their doctrines by testimonies brought from this unpolluted\nfountain, and declared that only to be the divine counsel which he found\nthere. His followers, faithful to his instructions, \u201cwould receive those\nthings only which are contained in the writings of the Prophets,\nEvangelists, and Apostles, diligently observing the works of piety and\npurity.\u201d They lived, indeed, according to a certain institute, which, it\nis said, was composed by their venerable instructer. But there was this\nremarkable distinction between them and those societies properly called\nmonastic, that they were not associated expressly for the purpose of\nobserving this rule. While they seem to have reckoned something of this\nkind necessary for the preservation of order, and for the attainment of\nhabits of diligence, their great design was, by the instruction of those\ncommitted to their charge, to train them up for the work of the\nministry. Hence it has been justly observed, that the Culdean\nfraternities may more properly be viewed as colleges than as\nmonasteries; as being in fact, the seminaries of the church both in\nNorth Britain and in Ireland. There were also Culdees in Wales; and, for\nmany ages, the Christians of that country held the same doctrines, and\nobserved the same rites, with their Scottish and Irish brethren. The\npresbyters not only acted as the ministers of religion to those in their\nvicinity, but were still instructing others, and sending forth\nmissionaries whenever they had a call, or any prospect of success.\n\n2. In each regular establishment of the Culdees, it would appear that\nthere were twelve brethren, with one who presided over them. Their\necclesiastical government has been viewed as materially the same with\nthe Presbyterian. Their president, or abbot, was not a bishop, but a\npresbyter; to whose authority, as we learn from Bede, even the bishops\nof the district were subject. In their meetings, all matters were\nsettled by plurality of voices. The members of this council had the\ngeneral designation of _seniores_, or elders. To them, collectively,\nbelonged the trial of the gifts of those who had been educated in their\nseminaries, when they were to be employed in the public ministry; from\nthem they received ordination and mission, and to them they were\namenable in the discharge of their office. Those whom they thus employed\nare, by ancient writers, often denominated bishops. But that they\nattached to this designation no dignity superior to that of presbyter,\nappears incontrovertible from their being afterward called to account,\nand sometimes censured by the fraternity. It has been asserted by the\nfriends of diocesan episcopacy, that a bishop _must_ always have resided\nat Iona for the purpose of conferring ordination. But there is not the\nslightest evidence of this. The contrary appears from all the records of\nthese early ages. We learn from the Saxon Chronicle, that \u201cthere was\nalways an abbot at Hii, but no bishop.\u201d It is a singular fact, that\nthose who were first acknowledged as bishops in the northern parts of\nEngland, and were indeed instrumental in the introduction of\nChristianity there, were not only trained up at Iona, but received all\ntheir authority from the council of seniors in that island. This was the\ncase with respect to Corman, the bishop of the Northumbrians, as well as\nAidan, Finan, and Colman, who succeeded each other in this mission. From\nthe testimony of Bede, it is evident that by means of Scottish\nmissionaries, or of those whom they had instructed and ordained, not\nonly the Northumbrians, but the Middle-Angles, the Mercians and\nEast-Saxons, all the way to the river Thames, that is, the inhabitants\nof by far the greatest part of the country now called England, were\nconverted to Christianity; and for some time acknowledged subjection to\nthe ecclesiastical government of the Scots. The latter lost their\ninfluence merely because their missionaries chose rather to give up\ntheir charges than to submit to the prevailing influence of the church\nof Rome, to which the Saxons of the west and of Kent had subjected\nthemselves.\n\n3. Their doctrines were not less unpalatable than their mode of\ngovernment to the friends of the church of Rome. In England, in a very\nearly period, the adherents of the Popish missionary Augustine were\nviewed by the delegates from Iona in the light of heretics. They\naccordingly refused to hold communion with them. Matters were carried so\nhigh in support of the Roman authority in the synod of Stroneschalch,\nnow Whitby, in England, A. D. 662, that Colman, the Scottish bishop of\nLindisfarne, left his bishopric, and with his adherents returned to\nScotland. Thus, as Bede informs us, \u201cthe Catholic institution daily\nincreasing, all the Scots who resided among the Angles, either conformed\nto them or returned to their own country.\u201d It was decreed in the council\nof Cealhythe, A. D. 816, that no Scottish priest should be allowed to\nperform any duty of his function in England. But in Scotland the Culdean\ndoctrine had taken deeper root; and, although equally offensive to the\nvotaries of Rome, kept its ground for several centuries. The Popish\nwriters themselves celebrate the piety, the purity, the humility, and\neven the learning, of the Culdees; but while they were displeased with\nthe simplicity, or what they deemed the barbarism, of their worship,\nthey charged them with various deviations from the faith of the Catholic\nchurch. It was not the least of these, that they did not observe Easter\nat the proper time. They did not acknowledge auricular confession; they\nrejected penance and authoritative absolution; they made no use of\nchrism in baptism; confirmation was unknown; they opposed the doctrine\nof the real presence; they withstood the idolatrous worship of saints\nand angels, dedicating all their churches to the Holy Trinity; they\ndenied the doctrine of works of supererogation; they were enemies to the\ncelibacy of the clergy, themselves living in the married state. One\nsweeping charge brought against them is, that they preferred their own\nopinions to \u201cthe statutes of the holy fathers.\u201d\n\n4. The Scots, having received the Christian faith by the labours of the\nCuldees, long withstood the errors and usurpations of Rome. It was not\ntill the twelfth century that their influence began to decline. The\ndifference between the lower classes of society in England and those of\nthe same description in Scotland, both with respect to religious\nknowledge and moral conduct, is generally considered to be very\nstriking. Some writers, whose attention has been arrested by this\nsingular circumstance, and who could not be influenced by local\nattachments, have ascribed the disparity to the relative influence,\nhowever remote it may seem, of the doctrine and example of the Culdees.\nNotwithstanding their great disinterestedness and diligence in\npropagating the Gospel in England, these good men, it has been remarked,\nwithin thirty years after the commencement of their mission, were\nobliged to give way to the adherents of Rome; whereas the Scots, it is\ncertainly known, enjoyed the benefit of their labours for more than\nseven centuries, and seem to have still retained their predilection for\nthe doctrines and modes which they so early received.\n\nCUMMIN, \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05df, Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27; \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Matt. xxiii, 23. This is\nan umbelliferous plant, in appeara resembling fennel, but smaller. Is\nseeds have a bitterish warm taste, accompanied with an aromatic flavour,\nnot of the most agreeable kind. An essential oil is obtained from them\nby distillation. The Jews sowed it in their fields, and when ripe\nthreshed out the seeds with a rod, Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27. The Maltese\nsow it, and collect the seeds in the same manner.\n\nCUP. This word is taken in a twofold sense; proper, and figurative. In a\nproper sense, it signifies a vessel, such as people drink out of at\nmeals, Gen. xl, 13. It was anciently the custom, at great\nentertainments, for the governor of the feast to appoint to each of his\nguests the kind and proportion of wine which they were to drink, and\nwhat he had thus appointed them it was deemed a breach of good manners\neither to refuse or not to drink up; hence a man\u2019s cup, both in sacred\nand profane authors, came to signify the portion, whether of good or\nevil, which happens to him in this world. Thus, to drink \u201cthe cup of\ntrembling,\u201d or of \u201cthe fury of the Lord,\u201d is to be afflicted with sore\nand terrible judgments, Isaiah li, 17; Jeremiah xxv, 15\u201329; Psalm lxxv,\n8. What Christ means by the expression, we cannot be at a loss to\nunderstand, since in two remarkable passages, Luke xxii, 42, and John\nxviii, 11, he has been his own interpreter. _Lethale poculum bibere_,\n\u201cto drink the deadly cup,\u201d or cup of death, was a common phrase among\nthe Jews; and from them, we have reason to believe, our Lord borrowed\nit.\n\nCUP OF BLESSING, 1 Corinth. x, 16, is that which was blessed in\nentertainments of ceremony, or solemn services; or, rather, a cup over\nwhich God was blessed for having furnished its contents; that is, for\ngiving to men the fruit of the vine. Our Saviour, in the Last Supper,\nblessed the cup, and gave it to each of his Apostles to drink, Luke\nxxii, 20.\n\nCUP OF SALVATION, Psalm cxvi, 13, a phrase of nearly the same import as\nthe former, a cup of thanksgiving, of blessing the Lord for his saving\nmercies. We see, in 2 Macc. vi, 27, that the Jews of Egypt, in their\nfestivals for deliverance, offered cups of salvation. The Jews have at\nthis day cups of thanksgiving, which are blessed, in their marriage\nceremonies, and in entertainments made at the circumcision of their\nchildren. Some commentators think that \u201cthe cup of salvation\u201d was a\nlibation of wine poured on the victim sacrificed on thanksgiving\noccasions, according to the law of Moses, Exod. xxix, 40.\n\nCURSE. To curse, signifies to imprecate, to call for mischief upon, or\nwish evil to, any one. Noah cursed his grandson Canaan, Gen. ix, 25:\nJacob cursed the fury of his two sons, Gen. xlix, 7: Moses enjoins the\npeople of Israel to denounce curses against the violaters of the law,\nDeut. xxvii, 15, 16, &c. Joshua pronounced a curse upon him who should\nundertake to rebuild Jericho. These curses were such as were either\nordained by God himself, and pronounced by men under the influence of\nhis Spirit; or they were predictions of certain evils which would happen\nto individuals, or to a people, uttered in the form of imprecations.\nThey were not the effects of passion, impatience, or revenge; and,\ntherefore, were not things condemned by God in his law, like the cursing\nmentioned, Exodus xxi, 17, xxii, 28, Leviticus xix, 14.\n\nCUSH, the eldest son of Ham, and father of Nimrod, Seba, Havilah,\nSabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecha; and the grandfather of Sheba and Dedan.\nThe posterity of Cush, spread over great part of Asia and Africa, were\ncalled Cushim, or Cushites; and by the Greeks and Romans, and in our\nBible, Ethiopians.\n\nCUSH, CUTHA, CUTHEA, CUSHAN, ETHIOPIA, _Land of Cush_, the country or\ncountries peopled by the descendants of Cush; whose first plantations\nwere on the gulf of Persia, in that part which still bears the name of\nChuzestan, and from whence they spread over India and great part of\nArabia; particularly its western part, on the coast of the Red Sea;\ninvaded Egypt, under the name of Hyc-Sos, or shepherd-kings; and thence\npassed, as well probably as by the straits of Babelmandel, into Central\nAfrica, and first peopled the countries to the south of Egypt, Nubia,\nAbyssinia, and parts farther to the south and west. The indiscriminate\nuse of the term Ethiopia in our Bible, for all the countries peopled by\nthe posterity of Cush, and the almost exclusive application of the same\nterm by the Greek and Roman writers to the before mentioned countries of\nAfrica, have involved some portions of both sacred and profane history\nin almost inextricable confusion. The first country which bore this\nname, and which was doubtless the original settlement, was that which is\ndescribed by Moses as encompassed by the river Gihon, or Gyndes; which\nencircles a great part of the province of Chuzestan in Persia. In\nprocess of time, the increasing family spread over the vast territory of\nIndia and Arabia: the whole of which tract, from the Ganges to the\nborders of Egypt, then became the land of Cush, or Asiatic Ethiopia, the\n_Cusha Dweepa within_, of Hindoo geography. Until dispossessed of this\ncountry, or a great part of it, by the posterity of Abraham, the\nIshmaelites and Midianites, they, by a farther dispersion, passed over\ninto Africa; which, in its turn, became the land of Cush, or Ethiopia,\nthe _Cusha Dweepa without_, of the Hindoos: the only country so\nunderstood after the commencement of the Christian \u00e6ra. Even from this\nlast refuge, they were compelled, by the influx of fresh settlers from\nArabia, Egypt, and Canaan, to extend their migrations still farther\nwestward, into the heart of the African continent; where only in the\nwoolly-headed negro, the genuine Cushite is to be found.\n\nHerodotus relates that Xerxes had, in the army prepared for his Grecian\nexpedition, both Oriental and African Ethiopians: and adds, that they\nresembled each other in every outward circumstance except their hair;\nthat of the Asiatic Ethiopians being long and straight, while the hair\nof those of Africa was curled. This is a very remarkable fact; and leads\nto the question, How came this singular distinction between people of\nthe same stock? Did it arise from change of climate and of habits? or\nfrom some original difference in a particular branch of the great family\nof Cush? The former appears by far the more probable. It is not likely\nthat a people descended from a common parent should naturally be\ndistinguished by such a peculiar difference; but that it might be\nacquired by change of soil and condition, we have every reason to\nbelieve. We have something exactly analogous to it, in the change which\nthe hair of animals undergoes when removed from their native state. But\na modern writer has furnished us with a fact which will go farther than\neither theory or analogy. Dr. Prichard, in his researches into the\nPhysical History of Man, relates, on the authority of Dr. S. S. Smith,\nof the negroes settled in the southern districts of the United States of\nAmerica, that the field-slaves, who live on the plantations, and retain\npretty nearly the rude manners of their African progenitors, preserve in\nthe third generation much of their original structure, though their\nfeatures are not so strongly marked as those of imported slaves. But the\ndomestic servants of the same race, who are treated with lenity, and\nwhose condition is little different from that of the lower class of\nwhite people, in the third generation have the nose raised, the mouth\nand lips of moderate size, the eyes lively and sparkling, and often the\nwhole composition of the features extremely agreeable. \u201cThe hair grows\nsensibly longer in each succeeding race, and extends to three, four, and\nsometimes to six or eight inches.\u201d\n\nAbout four hundred years before Christ, Herodotus, in his second book\nwhich treats of Egypt, makes frequent mention of Ethiopia; meaning\nexclusively the Ethiopia above Egypt. In the time of our Saviour, (and\nindeed from that time forward,) by Ethiopia, was meant, in a general\nsense, the countries south of Egypt, then but imperfectly known: of one\nof which, that Candace was queen whose eunuch was baptized by Philip.\n\nFrom a review of the history of this remarkable people, we may see that\nthose writers must necessarily be wrong who would confine the Ethiopians\nto either Arabia or Africa. Many parts of Scripture history cannot\npossibly be understood, without supposing them to have settlements in\nboth; which Herodotus expressly asserts was the case. In fine, we may\nconclude, that in the times of the prophets, and during the transactions\nrecorded in the second books of Kings and Chronicles, the Cushites,\nstill retaining a part of their ancient territories in Arabia, had\ncrossed the Red Sea in great numbers, and obtained extensive possessions\nin Africa; where, being, in a farther course of time, altogether\nexpelled from the east by the Ishmaelites, &c, their remains are now\nconcentrated. It is to be observed, however, that the Cushites probably\nat the time of their expulsion from Egypt, migrated, or sent colonies\ninto several other parts, particularly to Phenicia, Colchis, and Greece;\nwhere, in process of time, they became blended with the other\ninhabitants of those countries, the families of Javan, Meshek, and\nTubal, and their distinctive character totally lost.\n\nCYPRESS, \u05ea\u05e8\u05d6\u05d4, Isa. xliv, 14; and \u03ba\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, Ecclus. xxiv, 13; l, 10; a\nlarge evergreen tree. The wood is fragrant, very compact, and heavy. It\nscarcely ever rots, decays, or is worm-eaten; for which reason the\nancients used to make the statues of their gods with it. The\nunperishable chests which contain the Egyptian mummies were of cypress.\nThe gates of St. Peter\u2019s church at Rome, which had lasted from the time\nof Constantine to that of Pope Eugene IV, that is to say eleven hundred\nyears, were of cypress, and had in that time suffered no decay. But\nCelsius thinks that Isaiah speaks of the ilex, a kind of oak; and Bishop\nLowth, that the pine is intended. The cypress, however, was more\nfrequently used, and more fit for the purpose which the prophet\nmentions, than either of these trees.\n\nCYPRUS, a large island in the Mediterranean, situated between Cilicia\nand Syria. Its inhabitants were plunged in all manner of luxury and\ndebauchery. Their principal deity was Venus. The Apostles Paul and\nBarnabas landed in the isle of Cyprus, A. D. 44, Acts xiii, 4. While\nthey continued at Salamis, they preached Jesus Christ in the Jewish\nsynagogues; from thence they visited all the cities of the island,\npreaching the Gospel. At Paphos, they found Bar-Jesus, a false prophet,\nwith Sergius Paulus, the governor: Paul struck Bar-Jesus with blindness;\nand the proconsul embraced Christianity. Some time after, Barnabas went\nagain into this island with John, surnamed Mark, Acts xv, 39. Barnabas\nis considered as the principal Apostle, and first bishop, of Cyprus;\nwhere it is said he was martyred, being stoned to death by the Jews of\nSalamis.\n\nCYRENE was a city of Lybia in Africa, which, as it was the principal\ncity of that province, gave to it the name of Cyrenaica. This city was\nonce so powerful as to contend with Carthage for pre\u00ebminence. In profane\nwriters, it is mentioned as the birthplace of Eratosthenes the\nmathematician, and Callimachus the poet; and in holy writ, of Simon,\nwhom the Jews compelled to bear our Saviour\u2019s cross, Matt. xxvii, 32;\nLuke xxiii, 26. At Cyrene resided many Jews, a great part of whom\nembraced the Christian religion; but others opposed it with much\nobstinacy. Among the most inveterate enemies of Christianity, Luke\nreckons those of this province, who had a synagogue at Jerusalem, and\nexcited the people against St. Stephen, Acts xi, 20.\n\nCYRENIUS, governor of Syria, Luke ii, 1, 2. Great difficulties have been\nraised on the history of the taxing under Cyrenius, for the different\nsolutions of which we must refer to the commentators.\n\nIt may be observed on the passage in Luke ii, 1, 2, That the word\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u0223\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, rendered _all the world_, sometimes signifies the whole of a\ncountry, region, or district, as perhaps Acts xi, 28, and certainly Luke\nxxi, 26. The expression, \u201call the country,\u201d is peculiarly proper in this\nplace, because Galilee, as well as Judea, was included, and perhaps all\nother parts in which were Jews. The word \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74, which is rendered\n_taxing_, should have been translated _enrolment_; as a taxation did not\nalways really follow such enrolment, though such enrolment generally\npreceded a taxation. The difficulty of the passage is in the word \u03d6\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7,\n_first_, because, ten or eleven years after, there was actually a\ntaxation, which, as a decisive mark of subjection to the Roman power,\nwas very mortifying to the Jewish nation. To this taxation Gamaliel\nalludes, \u201cJudas of Galilee rose up in the days of the taxing,\u201d Acts v,\n37, when mobs and riots were frequent, under pretence of liberty.\n\nThe narrative of St. Luke may be combined in the following order, which\nis probably not far from its true import: \u201cIn those days C\u00e6sar\nAugustus,\u201d who was displeased with the conduct of Herod, and wished him\nto feel his dependence on the Roman empire, \u201cissued a decree that the\nwhole land\u201d of Judea \u201cshould be enrolled,\u201d as well persons as\npossessions, that the true state of the inhabitants, their families, and\ntheir property, might be known and recorded. Accordingly, \u201call were\nenrolled,\u201d but the taxation did not immediately follow this enrolment,\nbecause Augustus was reconciled to Herod; and this accounts for the\nsilence of Josephus on an assessment not carried into effect. \u201cAnd this\nwas the first assessment (or enrolment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.\nAnd all went to be enrolled, each to his own city;\u201d and, as the\nemperor\u2019s order was urgent, and Cyrenius was known to be active in the\ndespatch of business, even Mary, though far advanced \u201cin her pregnancy,\nwent with Joseph, and while they waited\u201d for their turn to be enrolled,\n\u201cMary was delivered of Jesus.\u201d It is not, however, improbable, that Mary\nhad some small landed estate, for which her appearance was necessary.\nJesus, therefore, was enrolled with Mary and Joseph, as Julian the\nApostate expressly says.\n\nAn officer being sent from Rome to enrol and assess the subjects of a\nking, implied that such king was dependent on the Roman emperor, and\ndemonstrates that the sceptre was departed from Judah. This occurrence,\nadded to the alarm of Herod on the inquiry of the Magi respecting the\nbirthplace of the Messiah, might sufficiently exasperate Herod, not\nmerely to slay the infants of Bethlehem, but to every act of cruelty.\nHence, after such an occurrence, all Jerusalem might well be alarmed\nwith Herod, Matt. ii, 3; and the priests, &c, study caution in their\nanswers to him. This occurrence would quicken the attention of all who\nexpected temporal redemption in Israel, as it would extremely mortify\nevery Jewish national feeling.\n\nThe overruling providence of God appointed, that, at the time of\nChrist\u2019s birth, there should be a public, authentic, and general\nproduction of titles, pedigrees, &c, which should prove that Jesus was\ndescended from the house and direct family line of David; and that this\nshould be proved judicially on such a scrutinizing occasion. This\noccurrence brought about the birth of the Messiah, at the very place\nappointed by prophecy long before, though the usual residence of Joseph\nand Mary was at Nazareth.\n\nCYRUS, son of Cambyses the Persian, and of Mandane, daughter of\nAstyages, king of the Medes. At the age of thirty, Cyrus was made\ngeneral of the Persian troops, and sent, at the head of thirty thousand\nmen, to assist his uncle, Cyaxares, whom the Babylonians were preparing\nto attack. Cyaxares and Cyrus gave them battle, and dispersed them.\nAfter this, Cyrus carried the war into the countries beyond the river\nHalys; subdued Cappadocia; marched against Cr\u0153sus, king of Lydia,\ndefeated him, and took Sardis, his capital. Having reduced almost all\nAsia, Cyrus repassed the Euphrates, and turned his arms against the\nAssyrians: having defeated them, he laid siege to Babylon, which he took\non a festival day, after having diverted the course of the river which\nran through it. On his return to Persia, he married his cousin, the\ndaughter and heiress of Cyaxares; after which he engaged in several\nwars, and subdued all the nations between Syria and the Red Sea. He died\nat the age of seventy, after a reign of thirty years. Authors differ\nmuch concerning the manner of his death.\n\n2. We learn few particulars respecting Cyrus from Scripture; but they\nare more certain than those derived from other sources. Daniel, in the\nremarkable vision in which God showed him the ruin of several great\nempires which preceded the birth of the Messiah, represents Cyrus as \u201ca\nram which had two horns, both high, but one rose higher than the other,\nand the higher came up last. This ram pushed westward, and northward,\nand southward, so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was\nthere any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to\nhis will, and became great,\u201d Daniel viii, 3, 4, 20. The two horns\nsignify the two empires which Cyrus united in his person, that of the\nMedes and that of the Persians. In another place, Daniel compares Cyrus\nto a bear, with three ribs in its mouth, to which it was said, \u201cArise,\ndevour much flesh.\u201d Cyrus succeeded Cambyses in the kingdom of Persia,\nand Darius the Mede (by Xenophon called Cyaxares, and Astyages in the\nGreek of Dan. xiii, 65,) also in the kingdom of the Medes, and the\nempire of Babylon. He was monarch, as he speaks \u201cof all the earth,\u201d Ezra\ni, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 22, 23, when he permitted the Jews to return\ninto their own country, A. M. 3466, B. C. 538. He had always a\nparticular regard for Daniel, and continued him in his great\nemployments.\n\n3. The prophets foretold the exploits of Cyrus. Isaiah, xliv, 28,\nparticularly declares his name, above a century before he was born.\nJosephus says, that the Jews of Babylon showed this passage to Cyrus;\nand that, in the edict which he granted for their return, he\nacknowledged that he received the empire of the world from the God of\nIsrael. The peculiar designation by name, which Cyrus received, must be\nregarded as one of the most remarkable circumstances in the prophetic\nwritings. He was the heir of a monarch who ruled over one of the poorest\nand most inconsiderable kingdoms of Asia, but whose hardy inhabitants\nwere at that time the bravest of the brave; and the providential\ncircumstances in which he was placed precluded him from all knowledge of\nthis oracular declaration in his favour. He did not become acquainted\nwith the sacred books in which it was contained, nor with the singular\npeople in whose possession it was found, till he had accomplished all\nthe purposes for which he had been raised up, except that of saying to\nJerusalem, as the \u201canointed\u201d vicegerent of Heaven, \u201cThou shalt be\ninhabited;\u201d and to the cities of Judah, \u201cYe shall be built, and I will\nraise up their ruins.\u201d The national pride of the Jews during the days of\ntheir unhallowed prosperity, would hinder them from divulging among\nother nations such prophecies as this, which contained the most severe\nyet deserved reflections upon their wicked practices and ungrateful\nconduct; and it was only when they were captives in Babylon that they\nsubmitted to the humiliating expedient of exhibiting, to the mighty\nmonarch whose bondmen they had become, the prophetic record of their own\napostasy and punishment, and of his still higher destination, as the\nrebuilder of Jerusalem. No temptation therefore could be laid before the\nconqueror in early life to excite his latent ambition to accomplish this\nvery full and explicit prophecy; and the facts of his life, as recorded\nby historians of very opposite sentiments and feelings, all concur in\ndeveloping a series of consecutive events, in which he acted no\ninsignificant part; which, though astonishing in their results, differ\ngreatly from those rapid strides perceptible in the hurried career of\nother mighty men of war in the east; and which, from the unbroken\nconnection in which they are presented to us, appear like the common\noccurrences of life naturally following each other, and mutually\ndependent. Yet this consideration does not preclude the presence of a\nmighty Spirit working within him; which, according to Isaiah, said to\nhim, \u201cI will gird thee, though thou hast not known me.\u201d Concerning the\ngenius, or guardian angel, of Socrates many learned controversies have\narisen; but, though a few of the disputants have endeavoured to explain\nit away, the majority of them have left the Greek philosopher in\npossession of a greater portion of inspiration than, with marvellous\ninconsistency, some of them are willing to accord to the Jewish\nprophets. In this view it is highly interesting to recollect that the\nelegant historian who first informed his refined countrymen of this\nmoral prodigy, is he who subsequently introduced them to an acquaintance\nwith the noble and heroic Cyrus. The didactic discourses and the\ncomparatively elevated morality which Xenophon embodied in his \u201cMemoirs\nof Socrates,\u201d are generally admitted to have been purposely illustrated\nin his subsequent admirable production, the _Cyrop\u00e6dia_, or \u201cEducation\nof Cyrus;\u201d the basis of which is true history adorned and refined by\nphilosophy, and exhibiting for universal imitation the life and actions\nof a prince who was cradled in the ancient Persian school of the\nPischdadians, the parent of the Socratic. Isaiah describes, in fine\npoetic imagery, the Almighty going before Cyrus to remove every\nobstruction out of his way:--\n\n           \u201cI will go before thee, and level mountains,\n           I will burst asunder the folding-doors of brass,\n           And split in twain the bars of iron.\n           Even I will give thee the dark treasures,\n           And the hidden wealth of secret places:\n           That thou mayest know, that I THE LORD,\n           Who call thee by thy name, am THE GOD OF ISRAEL.\u201d\n\nAccording to Herodotus, Babylon was famous for its brazen gates and\ndoors; a hundred were in the city walls, beside those which led to the\nriver, and others which belonged to the temple of Belus. When Sardis and\nBabylon were taken by Cyrus, they were the wealthiest cities in the\nworld. Cr\u0153sus gave an exact inventory of his immense treasures to\nCyrus, and they were removed from Sardis in waggons. Pliny gives the\nfollowing account of the wealth which Cyrus obtained by his conquests in\nAsia: \u201cHe found thirty-four thousand pounds\u2019 weight of gold, beside\nvessels of gold, and gold wrought into the leaves of a platanus and of a\nvine; five hundred thousand talents of silver, and the cup of Semiramis,\nwhich weighed fifteen talents. The Egyptian talent, according to Varro,\nwas equal to eighty pounds.\u201d Mr. Brerewood estimates the value of the\ngold and silver in this enumeration at 126,224,000_l._ sterling. Other\nparticulars relating to him, and the accomplishment of prophecy in his\nconquest of that large city, will be found under the article _Babylon_.\nIt is the God of Israel who, in these sublime prophecies, confounds the\nomens and prognostics of the Babylonian soothsayers or diviners, after\nthey had predicted the stability of that empire; and who announces the\nrestoration of Israel, and the rebuilding of the city and temple of\nJerusalem, through Cyrus his \u201cshepherd\u201d and his \u201canointed\u201d messenger.\nChosen thus by God to execute his high behests, he subdued and reigned\nover many nations,--the Cilicians, Syrians, Paphlagonians, Cappadocians,\nPhrygians, Lydians, Carians, Phenicians, Arabians, Egyptians,\nBabylonians, Assyrians, Bactrians, &c.\n\n         \u201cI am He who frustrateth the tokens of the impostors,\n         And maketh the diviners mad; &c.\n         Who saith to the abyss, [Babylon,]\n         \u2018Be desolate, and I will dry up thy rivers:\u2019\n         Who saith to Cyrus, \u2018He is my shepherd,\n         And shall perform all my pleasure.\u2019\n         Thus saith the Lord to his anointed,\n         To Cyrus whom I hold by the right hand,\n         To subdue before him nations,\n         And ungird the loins of kings,\n         To open before him [palace] folding-doors;\n         Even [river] gates shall not be shut:\n         For Jacob my servant\u2019s sake, and Israel my chosen,\n         I have surnamed thee;\u201d &c.\n\n4. Herodotus has painted the portrait of Cyrus in dark colours, and has\nbeen followed in many particulars by Ctesias, Diodorus Siculus,\nDionysius of Halicarnassus, Plato, Strabo, Justin, and others; in\nopposition to the contrary accounts of \u00c6schylus, Xenophon, Josephus, the\nPersian historians, and, apparently, the Holy Scriptures. The motive for\nthis conduct of Herodotus is probably to be found in his aversion to\nCyrus, for having been the enslaver of his country. The Greek historian\nwas a man of free and independent spirit, and could never brook the\nmention of the surrender of his native city, Halicarnassus, to the\ntroops of Cyrus. But, allowing that heartlessness and cruelty are too\noften the accompaniments of mighty conquerors, and that very few escape\ntheir direful contagion; yet, when the worst is told about Cyrus,\nabundance of authentic facts remain to attest his worth, and to elevate\nhis character above the standard of ordinary mortals. Xenophon informs\nus, that the seven last years of his full sovereignty this prince spent\nin peace and tranquillity at home, revered and beloved by all classes of\nhis subjects. In his dying moments he was surrounded by his family,\nfriends, and children; and delivered to them the noblest exhortations to\nthe practice of piety, virtue, and concord. This testimony is in\nsubstance confirmed by the Persian historians, who relate, that, after a\nlong and bloody war, Khosru, or Cyrus, subdued the empire of Turan, and\nmade the city of Balk, in Chorasan, a royal residence, to keep in order\nhis new subjects; that he repaid every family in Persia proper the\namount of their war-taxes, out of the immense spoils which he had\nacquired by his conquests; that he endeavoured to promote peace and\nharmony between the Turanians and Iranians; that he regulated the pay of\nhis soldiery, reformed civil and religious abuses throughout the\nprovinces, and, at length, after a long and glorious reign, resigned the\ncrown to his son Lohorasp, and retired to solitude, confessing that he\nhad lived long enough for his own glory, and that it was then time for\nhim to devote the remainder of his days to God. Saadi, in his Gulistan,\ncopies the wise inscription which Cyrus ordered to be inscribed on his\ncrown: \u201cWhat avails a long life spent in the enjoyment of worldly\ngrandeur, since others, mortal like ourselves, will one day trample\nunder foot our pride! This crown, handed down to me from my\npredecessors, must soon pass in succession upon the head of many\nothers.\u201d In the last book of the \u201cCyrop\u00e6dia\u201d we find the following\ndevout thanksgivings to the gods: \u201cI am abundantly thankful for being\ntruly sensible of your care, and for never being elated by prosperity\nabove my condition. I beseech you to prosper my children, wife, friends,\nand country. And for myself, I ask, that such as is the life ye have\nvouchsafed to me, such may be my end.\u201d The reflections of Dr. Hales on\nthis passage are very judicious: \u201cHere, Xenophon, a polytheist himself,\nrepresents Cyrus praying to the gods in the plural number; but that he\nreally prayed to one only, the patriarchal God, worshipped by his\nvenerable ancestors, the Pischdadians, may appear from the watchword, or\nsignal, which he gave to his soldiers before the great battle, in which\nEvil Merodach was slain:\n\n                    \u0396\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a3\u03a9\u03a4\u0397\u03a1 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u1f29\u0393\u0395\u039c\u03a9\u039d.\n\n                    \u201cJOVE, OUR SAVIOUR AND LEADER.\u201d\n\nWho this god was, we learn from the preamble of his famous proclamation,\npermitting the Jews to return from the Babylonian captivity: \u2018The Lord,\nthe God of heaven, hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he\nhath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem,\u2019 &c, Ezra i, 1, 2.\nBut where did the Lord, (Iahoh, or Jove) so charge him?--In that signal\nprophecy of Isaiah, predicting his name and his actions, about B. C.\n712, above a century before his birth; a prophecy which was undoubtedly\ncommunicated to him by the venerable Prophet Daniel, the Archimagus, who\nsaw the beginning of the Babylonish captivity, and also its end, here\nforetold to be effected by the instrumentality of Cyrus.\u201d\n\n5. Pliny notices the tomb of Cyrus at Passagard\u00e6 in Persia. Arrian and\nStrabo describe it; and they agree with Curtius, that Alexander the\nGreat offered funeral honours to his shade there; that he opened the\ntomb, and found, not the treasures he expected, but a rotten shield, two\nScythian bows, and a Persian scymetar. And Plutarch records the\nfollowing inscription upon it, in his life of Alexander:--\u201cO man,\nwhoever thou art, and whenever thou comest, (for come, I know, thou\nwilt,) I am Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire. Envy me not the\nlittle earth that covers my body.\u201d Alexander was much affected at this\ninscription, which set before him, in so striking a light, the\nuncertainty and vicissitude of worldly things. And he placed the crown\nof gold which he wore, upon the tomb in which the body lay, wondering\nthat a prince so renowned, and possessed of such immense treasures, had\nnot been buried more sumptuously than if he had been a private person.\nCyrus, indeed, in his last instructions to his children, desired that\n\u201chis body, when he died, might not be deposited in gold or silver, nor\nin any other sumptuous monument, but committed, as soon as possible, to\nthe ground.\u201d\n\nThe observation which Dr. Hales here makes, is worthy of record:--\u201cThis\nis a most signal and extraordinary epitaph. It seems to have been\ndesigned as a useful _memento mori_, [memento of death,] for Alexander\nthe Great, in the full pride of conquest, \u201cwhose coming\u201d it predicts\nwith a prophetic spirit, \u201cFor come I know thou wilt.\u201d But how could\nCyrus know of his coming?--Very easily. Daniel the Archimagus, his\nvenerable friend, who warned the haughty Nebuchadnezzar, that \u201chead of\ngold,\u201d or founder of the Babylonian empire, that it should be subverted\nby \u201cthe breast and arms of silver,\u201d Dan. ii, 37, 39, or \u201cthe Mede and\nthe Persian,\u201d Darius and Cyrus, as he more plainly told the impious\nBelshazzar, Dan. v, 28, we may rest assured, communicated to Cyrus also,\nthe founder of the Persian empire, the symbolical vision of the goat,\nwith the notable horn in his forehead, Alexander of Macedon coming\nswiftly from the west, to overturn the Persian empire, Daniel viii, 5,\n8, under the last king Codomannus, the fourth from Darius Nothus, as\nafterward more distinctly explained, Dan. xi, 1, 4. Cyrus, therefore,\ndecidedly addresses the short-lived conqueror, _O man, whoever thou art,\n&c._\n\n\u201cJuvenal, in that noble satire, the tenth, verse 168, has a fine\nreflection on the vanity of Alexander\u2019s wild ambition to conquer worlds,\nsoon destined himself to be confined in a narrow coffin; by a pointed\nallusion to the epitaph on the tomb of Cyrus:--\n\n        _Unus Pell\u00e6o Juveni non sufficit orbis;\n        \u00c6stuat, infelix angusto limite mundi:\n        Cum tamen a figulis munitam intraverit urbem,\n        Sarcophago contentus erit.--Mors sola fatetur\n        Quantula sint hominum corpuscula!_\u201d\n\n      \u2018A single globe suffices not the Pell\u00e6an youth;\n      Discontented, he scorns the scanty limits of the world;\n      As if within a prison\u2019s narrow bounds confined:\n      But when he shall enter the _brick-walled_ city, [Babylon,]\n      A coffin will content him.--_The epitaph alone owns,\n      How small are the diminutive bodies of men!_\u2019\n\n\u201cThe emotion of Alexander, on visiting the tomb, and reading the\ninscription, is not less remarkable. He evidently applied to himself, as\nthe destroyer, the awful rebuke of the founder of the Persian empire,\nfor violating the sanctity of his tomb, from motives of profane\ncuriosity, and perhaps of avarice. And we may justly consider the\nsignificant act of laying down his golden crown upon the tomb itself, as\nan _amende honorable_, a homage due to the offended shade of the pious\nand lowly-minded Cyrus the Great.\u201d These reflections must close our\naccount of one of the most remarkable characters that ever appeared\namong the eastern conquerors.\n\n\nDAGON, \u05d3\u05d2\u05d5\u05df, _corn_, from \u05d3\u05d2\u05df, or \u05d3\u05d2, _a fish_, god of the Philistines.\nIt is the opinion of some that Dagon was represented like a woman, with\nthe lower parts of a fish, like a triton or syren. Scripture shows\nclearly that the statue of Dagon was human, at least, the upper part of\nit, 1 Sam. v, 4, 5. A temple of Dagon at Gaza was pulled down by Samson,\nJudges xvi, 23, &c. In another, at Ashdod, the Philistines deposited the\nark of God, 1 Sam. v, 1\u20133. A city in Judah was called Beth-Dagon; that\nis, the house, or temple, of Dagon, Joshua xv, 41; and another on the\nfrontiers of Asher, Joshua xix, 27.\n\nDALMANUTHA. St. Mark says that Jesus Christ embarked with his disciples\non the lake of Tiberias, and came to Dalmanutha, Mark viii, 10, but St.\nMatthew calls it Magdala, Matt. xv, 39. It seems that Dalmanutha was\nnear to Magdala, on the western side of the lake.\n\nDALMATIA, a part of old Illyria, lying along the gulf of Venice. Titus\npreached here, 2 Tim. iv, 10.\n\nDAMASCUS, a celebrated city of Asia, and anciently the capital of Syria,\nmay be accounted one of the most venerable places in the world for its\nantiquity. It is supposed to have been founded by Ux, the son of Aram;\nand is, at least, known to have subsisted in the time of Abraham, Gen.\nxv, 2. It was the residence of the Syrian kings, during the space of\nthree centuries; and experienced a number of vicissitudes in every\nperiod of its history. Its sovereign, Hadad, whom Josephus calls the\nfirst of its kings, was conquered by David, king of Israel. In the reign\nof Ahaz, it was taken by Tiglath Pileser, who slew its last king, Rezin,\nand added its provinces to the Assyrian empire. It was taken and\nplundered, also, by Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, the generals of\nAlexander the Great, Judas Maccabeus, and at length by the Romans in the\nwar conducted by Pompey against Tigranes, in the year before Christ, 65.\nDuring the time of the emperors, it was one of their principal arsenals\nin Asia, and is celebrated by the emperor Julian as, even in his day,\n\u201cthe eye of the whole east.\u201d About the year 634, it was taken by the\nSaracen princes, who made it the place of their residence, till Bagdad\nwas prepared for their reception; and, after suffering a variety of\nrevolutions, it was taken and destroyed by Tamerlane, A. D. 1400. It was\nrepaired by the Mamelukes, when they gained possession of Syria; but was\nwrested from them by the Turks, in 1506; and since that period has\nformed the capital of one of their pachalics. The modern city is\ndelightfully situated about fifty miles from the sea, in a fertile and\nextensive plain, watered by the river which the Greeks called\nChrysorrhoras, or \u201cGolden River,\u201d but which is known by the name of\nBarrady, and of which the ancient Abana and Pharpar are supposed to have\nbeen branches. The city is nearly two miles in length from its\nnorth-east to its north-west extremity; but of very inconsiderable\nbreadth, especially near the middle of its extent, where its width is\nmuch contracted. It is surrounded by a circular wall, which is strong,\nthough not lofty; but its suburbs are extensive and irregular. Its\nstreets are narrow; and one of them, called Straight, mentioned in Acts\nix, 11, still runs through the city about half a mile in length. The\nhouses, and especially those which front the streets, are very\nindifferently built, chiefly of mud formed into the shape of bricks, and\ndried in the sun; but those toward the gardens, and in the squares,\npresent a more handsome appearance. In these mud walls, however, the\ngates and doors are often adorned with marble portals, carved and inlaid\nwith great beauty and variety; and the inside of the habitation, which\nis generally a large square court, is ornamented with fragrant trees and\nmarble fountains, and surrounded with splendid apartments, furnished and\npainted in the highest style of luxury. The market places are well\nconstructed, and adorned with a rich colonnade of variegated marble. The\nprincipal public buildings are, the castle, which is about three hundred\nand forty paces in length; the hospital, a charitable establishment for\nthe reception of strangers, composing a large quadrangle lined with a\ncolonnade, and roofed in small domes covered with lead; and the mosque,\nthe entrance of which is supported by four large columns of red granite;\nthe apartments in it are numerous and magnificent, and the top is\ncovered with a cupola ornamented with two minarets.\n\nDamascus is surrounded by a fruitful and delightful country, forming a\nplain nearly eighty miles in circumference; and the lands, most adjacent\nto the city, are formed into gardens of great extent, which are stored\nwith fruit trees of every description. \u201cNo place in the world,\u201d says Mr.\nMaundrell \u201ccan promise to the beholder at a distance a greater\nvoluptuousness;\u201d and he mentions a tradition of the Turks, that their\nprophet, when approaching Damascus, took his station upon a certain\nprecipice, in order to view the city; and, after considering its\nravishing beauty and delightful aspect, was unwilling to tempt his\nfrailty by going farther; but instantly took his departure with this\nremark, that there was but one paradise designed for man, and that, for\nhis part, he was resolved not to take his in this world. The air or\nwater of Damascus, or both, are supposed to have a powerful effect in\ncuring the leprosy, or, at least, in arresting its progress, while the\npatient remains in the place.\n\nThe Rev. James Conner visited Damascus in 1820, as an agent of the\nChurch Missionary Society. He had a letter from the archbishop of Cyprus\nto Seraphim, patriarch of Antioch, the head of the Christian church in\nthe east, who resides at Damascus. This good man received Mr. Conner in\nthe most friendly manner; and expressed himself delighted with the\nsystem and operations of the Bible Society. He undertook to encourage\nand promote, to the utmost of his power, the sale and distribution of\nthe Scriptures throughout the patriarchate; and, as a proof of his\nearnestness in the cause, he ordered, the next day, a number of letters\nto be prepared, and sent to his archbishops and bishops, urging them to\npromote the objects of the Bible Society in their respective stations.\n\nDAMN, and DAMNATION, are words synonymous with condemn and condemnation.\nGenerally speaking, the words are taken to denote the final and eternal\npunishment of the ungodly. These terms, however, sometimes occur in the\nNew Testament in what may be termed a less strict, or secondary sense.\nThus, when the Apostle says to the Romans, \u201cHe that doubteth,\u201d namely,\nthe lawfulness of what he is doing, \u201cis _damned_ if he eat,\u201d Rom. xiv,\n23; the meaning is, he stands condemned in his own mind. Again: when St.\nPaul tells the Corinthians, that \u201che that eateth and drinketh\u201d of the\nLord\u2019s Supper \u201cunworthily, eateth and drinketh _damnation_ to himself,\u201d\n1 Cor. xi, 29; the original word, \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03b1, there is thought by many to\nimport no more than temporal judgments, and that the Apostle explains\nhimself in the same sense when he says, \u201cFor this cause many among you\nare weak and sickly, and many sleep,\u201d or die. This is at least one mode\nof interpreting the \u201cdamnation\u201d of which St. Paul here speaks; but\nprobably the true sense is the bringing guilt upon the conscience, and\nthereby a liability, without remission, to future judgment.\n\nDAN, the fifth son of Jacob, Gen. xxx, 1\u20136. Dan had but one son, whose\nname was Hushim, Gen. xlvi, 23; yet he had a numerous posterity; for, on\nleaving Egypt, this tribe consisted of sixty-two thousand seven hundred\nmen able to bear arms, Num. i, 38. Of Jacob\u2019s blessing Dan, see Gen.\nxlix, 16, 17. They took Laish, Judges xviii, 1; Joshua xix, 47. They\ncalled the city Dan, after their progenitor. The city of Dan was\nsituated at the northern extremity of the land of Israel: hence the\nphrase, \u201cfrom Dan to Beersheba,\u201d denoting the whole length of the land\nof promise. Here Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, set up one of his golden\ncalves, 1 Kings xii, 29; and the other at Bethel.\n\nDANCING. It is still the custom in the east to testify their respect for\npersons of distinction by music and dancing. When Baron Du Tott, who was\nsent by the French government to inspect their factories in the Levant,\napproached an encampment of Turcomans, between Aleppo and Alexandretta,\nthe musicians of the different hordes turned out, playing and dancing\nbefore him all the time he and his escort were passing by their camp.\nThus, it will be recollected, \u201cthe women came out of all the cities of\nIsrael, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy,\nand with instruments of music,\u201d when he returned in triumph from the\nslaughter of the Philistines. In the oriental dances, in which the women\nengage by themselves, the lady of highest rank in the company takes the\nlead, and is followed by her companions, who imitate her steps, and if\nshe sings, make up the chorus. The tunes are extremely gay and lively,\nyet with something in them wonderfully soft. The steps are varied\naccording to the pleasure of her who leads the dance, but always in\nexact time. This statement may enable us to form a correct idea of the\ndance, which the women of Israel performed under the direction of\nMiriam, on the banks of the Red Sea. The prophetess, we are told, \u201ctook\na timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her, with\ntimbrels and dances.\u201d She led the dance, while they imitated her steps,\nwhich were not conducted according to a set, well-known form, as in this\ncountry, but extemporaneous. The conjecture of Mr. Harmer is extremely\nprobable, that David did not dance alone before the Lord, when he\nbrought up the ark, but, as being the highest in rank, and more skilful\nthan any of the people, he led the religious dance of the males.\n\nDANIEL was a descendant of the kings of Judah, and is said to have been\nborn at Upper Bethoron, in the territory of Ephraim. He was carried away\ncaptive to Babylon when he was about eighteen or twenty years of age, in\nthe year 606 before the Christian \u00e6ra. He was placed in the court of\nNebuchadnezzar, and was afterward raised to situations of great rank and\npower, both in the empire of Babylon and of Persia. He lived to the end\nof the captivity, but being then nearly ninety years old, it is most\nprobable that he did not return to Judea. It is generally believed that\nhe died at Susa, soon after his last vision, which is dated in the third\nyear of the reign of Cyrus. Daniel seems to have been the only prophet\nwho enjoyed a great share of worldly prosperity; but amidst the\ncorruptions of a licentious court he preserved his virtue and integrity\ninviolate, and no danger or temptation could divert him from the worship\nof the true God. The book of Daniel is a mixture of history and\nprophecy: in the first six chapters is recorded a variety of events\nwhich occurred in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius;\nand, in particular, the second chapter contains Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s\nprophetic dream concerning the four great successive monarchies, and the\neverlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which dream God enabled Daniel to\ninterpret. In the last six chapters we have a series of prophecies,\nrevealed at different times, extending from the days of Daniel to the\ngeneral resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the\nRoman empires, are all particularly described under appropriate\ncharacters; and it is expressly declared that the last of them was to be\ndivided into ten lesser kingdoms; the time at which Christ was to appear\nis precisely fixed; the rise and fall of antichrist, and the duration of\nhis power, are exactly determined; and the future restoration of the\nJews, the victory of Christ over all his enemies, and the universal\nprevalence of true religion, are distinctly foretold, as being to\nprecede the consummation of that stupendous plan of God, which \u201cwas laid\nbefore the foundation of the world,\u201d and reaches to its dissolution.\nPart of this book is written in the Chaldaic language, namely, from the\nfourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter;\nthese chapters relate chiefly to the affairs of Babylon, and it is\nprobable that some passages were taken from the public registers. This\nbook abounds with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout\ngratitude; its style is clear, simple, and concise; and many of its\nprophecies are delivered in terms so plain and circumstantial, that some\nunbelievers have asserted, in opposition to the strongest evidence, that\nthey were written after the events which they describe had taken place.\nWith respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the hook of Daniel,\nthere is abundance both of external and internal evidence; indeed all\nthat can well be had or desired in a case of this nature: not only the\ntestimony of the whole Jewish church and nation, who have constantly\nreceived this book as canonical, but of Josephus particularly, who\nrecommends him as the greatest of the prophets; of the Jewish Targums\nand Talmuds, which frequently cite and appeal to his authority; of St.\nPaul and St. John, who have copied many of his prophecies; and of our\nSaviour himself, who cites his words, and styles him, \u201cDaniel the\nprophet.\u201d Nor is the internal less powerful and convincing than the\nexternal evidence; for the language, the style, the manner of writing,\nand all other internal marks and characters, are perfectly agreeable to\nthat age; and finally he appears plainly and undeniably to have been a\nprophet by the exact accomplishment of his prophecies.\n\nDARIUS was the name of several princes in history, some of whom are\nmentioned in Scripture.\n\n1. DARIUS the Mede, spoken of in Daniel v, 31; ix, 1; xi, 1, &c, was the\nson of Astyages, king of the Medes, and brother to Mandane, the mother\nof Cyrus, and to Amyit, the mother of Evil-merodach, and grandmother of\nBelshazzar. Darius the Mede, therefore, was uncle by the mother\u2019s side\nto Evil-merodach and Cyrus. The Septuagint, in Daniel vii, give him the\nname of Artaxerxes; the thirteenth, or apocryphal chapter of Daniel,\ncalls him Astyages; and Xenophon designates him by the name of Cyaxares.\nHe succeeded Belshazzar, king of Babylon, his nephew\u2019s son, or his\nsister\u2019s grandson, in the year of the world, 3448, according to Calmet,\nor in 3468, according to Usher. Daniel does not inform us of any\nprevious war between them; but the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah supply\nthis deficiency. Isa. xiii, xiv, xlv, xlvi, xlvii; Jer. l, li.\n\n2. DARIUS, the son of Hystaspes, has been supposed by some, on the\nauthority of Archbishop Usher and Calmet, to be the Ahasuerus of\nScripture, and the husband of Esther. But Dr. Prideaux thinks, that\nAhasuerus was Artaxerxes Longimanus. This prince recovered Babylon after\na siege of twenty months. This city, which had been formerly the capital\nof the east, revolted from Persia, taking advantage of the revolutions\nthat happened, first at the death of Cambyses, and afterward on the\nmassacre of the Magi. The Babylonians employed four years in\npreparations, and when they thought that their city was furnished with\nprovisions for a long time, they raised the standard of rebellion.\nDarius levied an army in great haste, and besieged Babylon. The\nBabylonians shut themselves up within their walls, whose height and\nthickness secured them from assault; and as they had nothing to fear but\nfamine, they assembled all their women and children, and strangled them,\neach reserving only his most beloved wife, and one servant. Thus was\nfulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, xlvii, 7\u20139. Some believe that the Jews\nwere either expelled by the Babylonians, as being too much in the\ninterest of Darius; or that, in obedience to the frequent admonitions of\nthe prophets, they quitted that city when they saw the people determined\nto rebel, Isa. xlviii, 20; Jer. l, 8; li, 6\u20139; Zech. xi, 6, 7. Darius\nlay twenty months before Babylon, without making any considerable\nprogress; but, at length, Zopyrus, one of his generals, obtained\npossession of the city by stratagem. Darius ordered the hundred gates of\nbrass to be taken away, according to the prediction of Jeremiah, li, 58,\n\u201cThus saith the Lord, The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly\nbroken, and her high gates shall be burnt with fire, and the people\nshall labour in vain.\u201d This is related in Herodotus.\n\n3. DARIUS CODOMANUS was of the royal family of Persia, but very remote\nfrom the crown. He was in a low condition, when Bagoas, the eunuch, who\nhad procured the destruction of two kings, Ochus and Arses, placed him\non the throne. His true name was Codoman, and he did not take that of\nDarius till he was king. He was descended from Darius Nothus, whose son,\nOstanes, was father to Arsames, that begat Codomanus. He was at first\nonly a courier to the emperor Ochus. But one day when he was at this\nprince\u2019s army, one of their enemies challenged the bravest of the\nPersians. Codomanus offered himself for the combat, and overcame the\nchallenger, and was made governor of Armenia. From this situation,\nBagoas placed him on the throne of Persia. Alexander the Great invaded\nthe Persian empire, and defeated Darius in three successive battles.\nAfter the third battle, Darius fled toward Media, in hopes of raising\nanother army. At Ecbatana, the capital of Media, he gathered the remains\nof his forces, and some new levies. Alexander having wintered at Babylon\nand Persepolis, took the field in search of Darius, who quitted\nEcbatana, with an intention of retreating into Bactria; but, changing\nhis resolution, Darius stopped short, and determined to hazard a battle,\nthough his army at this time consisted only of forty thousand men. While\nhe was preparing for this conflict, Bessus, governor of Bactria, and\nNarbazanes, a grandee of Persia, seized him, loaded him with chains,\nforced him into a covered chariot, and fled, carrying him with them\ntoward Bactria. If Alexander pursued them, they intended to purchase\ntheir peace by delivering Darius into his hands; but if not, to kill\nhim, seize the crown, and renew the war. Eight days after their\ndeparture, Alexander arrived at Ecbatana, and set out in pursuit of\nthem, which he continued for eleven days: at length he stopped at Rages,\nin Media, despairing to overtake Darius. Thence he went into Parthia,\nwhere he learned what had happened to that unfortunate prince. After a\nprecipitate march of many days, he overtook the traitors, who, seeing\nthemselves pressed, endeavoured to compel Darius to get upon horseback,\nand save himself with them; but he refusing, they stabbed him in several\nplaces, and left him expiring in his chariot. He was dead when Alexander\narrived, who could not forbear weeping at so sad a spectacle. Alexander\ncovered Darius with his own cloak, and sent him to Sisygambis his wife,\nthat she might bury him in the tombs of the kings of Persia. Thus were\nverified the prophecies of Daniel, viii, who had foretold the\ndestruction of the Persian monarchy, under the symbol of a ram, which\nbutted with its horns westward, northward, and southward, and which\nnothing could resist; but a goat which had a very large horn between his\neyes, and which denoted Alexander the Great, came from the west, and\noverran the world without touching the earth; springing forward with\nimpetuosity, the goat ran against the ram with all his force, attacked\nhim with fury, struck him, broke his two horns, trampled him under foot,\nand no one could rescue the ram. Nothing can be clearer than these\nprophecies.\n\nDARKNESS, the absence of light. \u201cDarkness was upon the face of the\ndeep,\u201d Gen. i, 2; that is, the chaos was immersed in thick darkness,\nbecause light was withheld from it. The most terrible darkness was that\nbrought on Egypt as a plague; it was so thick as to be, as it were,\npalpable; so horrible, that no one durst stir out of his place; and so\nlasting, that it endured three days and three nights, Exod. x, 21, 22;\nWisdom xvii, 2, 3. The darkness at our Saviour\u2019s death began at the\nsixth hour, or noon, and ended at the third hour, or three o\u2019clock in\nthe afternoon. Thus it lasted almost the whole time he was on the cross;\ncompare Matt. xxvii, 45, with John xix, 14, and Mark xv, 25. Origen,\nMaldonatus, Erasmus, Vatablus, and others, were of opinion that this\ndarkness covered Judea only; which is sometimes called the _whole\nearth_; that is, the whole country. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact,\nand others, thought it extended over a hemisphere. Origen says it was\ncaused by a thick mist, which precluded the sight of the sun. That it\nwas preternatural is certain, for, the moon being at full, a natural\neclipse of the sun was impossible. Darkness is sometimes used\nmetaphorically for death. \u201cThe land of darkness\u201d is the grave, Job x,\n22; Psalm cvii, 10. It is also used to denote misfortunes and\ncalamities: \u201cA day of darkness\u201d is a day of affliction, Esther xi, 8.\n\u201cLet that day be darkness; let darkness stain it,\u201d--let it be reckoned\namong the unfortunate days, Job iii, 4, 5. The expressions, \u201cI will\ncover the heavens with darkness;\u201d \u201cThe sun shall be turned into\ndarkness, and the moon into blood,\u201d &c, signify very great political\ncalamities, involving the overthrow of kings, princes, and nobles,\nrepresented by the luminaries of heaven. In a moral sense, darkness\ndenotes ignorance and vice; hence \u201cthe children of light,\u201d in opposition\nto \u201cthe children of darkness,\u201d are the righteous distinguished from the\nwicked.\n\nDAVID, the celebrated king of Israel, was the youngest son of Jesse, of\nthe tribe of Judah, and was born 1085 years before Christ. The following\nis an abstract of his history: He was chosen of God to be king of\nIsrael, and at his command was anointed to this dignity by the hands of\nSamuel, a venerable prophet, in the room of Saul; who had been rejected\nfor his disobedience to the divine orders, in feloniously seizing, to\nhis own use the prey of an enemy, which God, the supreme King of Israel,\nhad devoted to destruction. He was introduced to court as a man expert\nin music, a singularly valiant man, a man of war, prudent in matters, of\na comely person, and one favoured of the Lord. By his skill in music, he\nrelieved Saul under a melancholy indisposition that had seized him, was\nhighly beloved by his royal master, and made one of his guards. In a war\nwith the Philistines he accepted the challenge of a gigantic champion,\nwho defied the armies of Israel, and being skilful at the sling, he slew\nhim with a stone, returned safely with his head, and thus secured to his\nprince an easy victory over his country\u2019s enemies. The reputation he\ngained, by this glorious action, raised an incurable jealousy and\nresentment against him, in the mind of the king his master; who made two\nunsuccessful attempts to murder him. In his exalted station, and amidst\nthe dangers that encompassed him, he behaved with singular prudence, so\nthat he was in high esteem both in the court and camp. The modesty and\nprudence of his behaviour, and his approved courage and resolution,\ngained him the confidence and friendship of Jonathan, the king\u2019s eldest\nson, \u201cwho loved him as his own soul,\u201d became his advocate with his\nfather, and obtained from him a promise, confirmed by an oath, that he\nwould no more attempt to destroy him. But Saul\u2019s jealousy returned by a\nfresh victory David gained over the Philistines; who, finding the king\nwas determined to seek his life, retired from court, and was dismissed\nin peace by Jonathan, after a solemn renewal of their friendship, to\nprovide for his own safety. In this state of banishment, there resorted\nto him companies of men, who were uneasy in their circumstances,\noppressed by their creditors, or discontented with Saul\u2019s tyrannical\ngovernment, to the number of six hundred men. These he kept in the most\nexcellent order, and by their valour he gained signal advantages for his\ncountry; but never employed them in rebellion against the king, or in a\nsingle instance to distress or subvert his government. On the contrary\nsuch was the veneration he paid him, and such the generosity of his\ntemper, that though it was thrice in his power to have him cut off, he\nspared him, and was determined never to destroy him, whom God had\nconstituted the king of Israel. His friendship with Jonathan, the king\u2019s\nson, was a friendship of strict honour, for he never seduced him from\nhis allegiance and filial duty. Being provoked by a churlish farmer, who\nevil treated and abused his messengers, he, in the warmth of his temper,\nswore he would destroy him and his family; but was immediately pacified\nby the address and prudence of a wife, of whom the wretch was unworthy:\nher he sent in peace and honour to her family, and blessed for her\nadvice, and keeping him from avenging himself with his own hand. Being\nforced to banish himself into an enemy\u2019s country, he was faithful to the\nprince who protected him: and, at the same time, mindful of the interest\nof his own nation, he cut off many of those who had harassed and\nplundered his fellow subjects. When pressed by the king, into whose\ndominions he retired, to join in a war against his own country and\nfather-in-law, he prudently gave him such an answer as his situation\nrequired; neither promising the aid demanded of him, nor tying up his\nhands from serving his own prince, and the army that fought under him;\nonly assuring him in general, that he had never done any thing that\ncould give him just reason to think he would refuse to assist him\nagainst his enemies. Upon the death of Saul, he cut off the Amalekite\nwho came to make a merit of having slain him; and by the immediate\ndirection of God, who had promised him the succession, went up to\nHebron, where, on a free election, he was anointed king over the house\nof Judah; and after about a seven years\u2019 contest, he was unanimously\nchosen king by all the tribes of Israel, \u201caccording to the word of the\nLord by Samuel.\u201d As king of Israel, he administered justice and judgment\nto all his people, was a prince of courage, and great military prudence\nand conduct; had frequent wars with the neighbouring nations, to which\nhe was generally forced by their invading his dominions, and plundering\nhis subjects. Against them he never lost a battle; he never besieged a\ncity without taking it; nor, as for any thing that can be proved, used\nany severities against those he conquered, beyond what the law of arms\nallowed, his own safety required, or the cruelties of his enemies\nrendered just, by way of retaliation; enriching his people by the spoils\nhe took, and providing large stores of every thing necessary for the\nmagnificent temple he intended to erect, in honour of the God of Israel.\nHaving rescued Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jebusites, he made it\nthe capital of his kingdom, and the place of his residence; and being\nwilling to honour it with the presence of the ark of God, he brought it\nto Jerusalem in triumph, and divesting himself of his royal robes, out\nof reverence to God, he clothed himself in the habit of his ministers,\nand with them expressed his joy by dancing and music; contemned only by\none haughty woman; whom, as a just punishment of her insolence, he seems\never after to have separated from his bed. Though his crimes were\nhenious, and highly aggravated, in the affair of Uriah and Bathsheba, he\npatiently endured reproof, humbly submitted to the punishment appointed\nhim, deeply repented, and obtained mercy and forgiveness from God,\nthough not without some severe marks of his displeasure, for the\ngrievous offences of which he had been guilty. A rebellion was raised\nagainst him by his son Absalom. When forced by it to depart from\nJerusalem, a circumstance most pathetically described by the sacred\nhistorian, he prevented the just punishment of Shimei, a wretch who\ncursed and stoned him. When restored to his throne, he spared him upon\nhis submission, and would not permit a single man to be put to death in\nIsrael upon account of this treason. He, with a noble confidence, made\nthe commander of the rebel forces general of his own army, in the room\nof Joab, whom he intended to call to an account for murder and other\ncrimes. After this, when obliged, by the command of God, to give up some\nof Saul\u2019s family to justice, for the murder of the Gibeonites, he spared\nMephibosheth, Micah, and his family, the male descendants of Saul and\nJonathan, who alone could have any pretence to dispute the crown with\nhim, and surrendered only Saul\u2019s bastard children, and those of his\ndaughter by Adriel, who had no right or possible claim to the throne,\nand could never give him any uneasiness in the possession of it; and\nthus showed his inviolable regard for his oaths, his tenderness to Saul,\nand the warmth of his gratitude and friendship to Jonathan. In the close\nof his life, and in the near prospect of death, to demonstrate his love\nof justice, he charged Solomon to punish with death Joab, for the base\nmurder of two great men, whom he assassinated under the pretence of\npeace and friendship. To this catalogue of his noble actions must be\nadded, that he gave the most shining and indisputable proofs of an\nundissembled reverence for, and sincere piety to, God; ever obeying the\ndirection of his prophets, worshipping him alone, to the exclusion of\nall idols, throughout the whole of his life, and making the wisest\nsettlement to perpetuate the worship of the same God, through all\nsucceeding generations.\n\nTo this abstract a few miscellaneous remarks may be added.\n\n1. When David is called \u201cthe man after God\u2019s own heart,\u201d a phrase which\nprofane persons have often perverted, his general character, and not\nevery particular of it, is to be understood as approved by God; and\nespecially his faithful and undeviating adherence to the true religion,\nfrom which he never deviated into any act of idolatry.\n\n2. He was chosen to accomplish to their full extent the promises made to\nAbraham to give to his seed, the whole country from the river of Egypt\nto the great river Euphrates. He had succeeded to a kingdom distracted\nwith civil dissension, environed on every side by powerful and\nvictorious enemies, without a capital, almost without an army, without\nany bond of union between the tribes. He left a compact and united\nstate, stretching from the frontier of Egypt to the foot of Lebanon,\nfrom the Euphrates to the sea. He had crushed the power of the\nPhilistines, subdued or curbed all the adjacent kingdoms: he had formed\na lasting and important alliance with the great city of Tyre. He had\norganized an immense disposable force; for every month 24,000 men,\nfurnished in rotation by the tribes, appeared in arms, and were trained\nas the standing militia of the country. At the head of his army were\nofficers of consummate experience, and, what was more highly esteemed in\nthe warfare of the time, extraordinary personal activity, strength, and\nvalour. The Hebrew nation owed the long peace of Solomon the son\u2019s reign\nto the bravery and wisdom of the father.\n\n3. As a conqueror he was a type of Christ, and the country \u201cfrom the\nriver to the ends of the earth,\u201d was also the prophetic type of Christ\u2019s\ndominion over the whole earth.\n\n4. His inspired psalms not only place him among the most eminent\nprophets; but have rendered him the leader of the devotions of good men,\nin all ages. The hymns of David excel no less in sublimity and\ntenderness of expression than in loftiness and purity of religious\nsentiment. In comparison with them the sacred poetry of all other\nnations sinks into mediocrity. They have embodied so exquisitely the\nuniversal language of religious emotion, that they have entered with\nunquestioned propriety into the ritual of the higher and more perfect\nreligion of Christ. The songs which cheered the solitude of the desert\ncaves of Engedi, or resounded from the voice of the Hebrew people as\nthey wound along the glens or the hill sides of Judea, have been\nrepeated for ages in almost every part of the habitable world, in the\nremotest islands of the ocean, among the forests of America or the sands\nof Africa. How many human hearts have these inspired songs softened,\npurified, exalted! Of how many wretched beings have they been the secret\nconsolation! On how many communities have they drawn down the blessings\nof Divine providence, by bringing the affections into unison with their\ndeep devotional fervour, and leading to a constant and explicit\nrecognition of the government, rights, and mercies of God!\n\nDAY. The Hebrews, in conformity with the Mosaic law, reckoned the day\nfrom evening to evening. The natural day, that is, the portion of time\nfrom sunrise to sunset, was divided by the Hebrews, as it is now by the\nArabians, into six unequal parts. These divisions were as follows:--1.\nThe break of day. This portion of time was, at a recent period, divided\ninto two parts, in imitation of the Persians; the first of which began\nwhen the eastern, the second, when the western, division of the horizon\nwas illuminated. The authors of the Jerusalem Talmud divided it into\nfour parts; the first of which was called in Hebrew \u05d0\u05d9\u05bc\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05e8, which\noccurs in Psalm xxii, 1, and corresponds to the phrase, \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03d6\u03c1\u03c9\u0390, in\nthe New Testament, Mark xvi, 2; John xx, 1. 2. The morning or sunrise.\n3. The heat of the day. This began about nine o\u2019clock, Gen. xviii, 1; 1\nSam. xi, 11. 4. Midday. 5. The cool of the day; literally, the wind of\nthe day. This expression is grounded on the fact, that a wind commences\nblowing regularly a few hours before sunset, and continues till evening,\nGen. iii, 8. 6. The evening. This was divided into two parts, \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd; the\nfirst of which began, according to the Caraites and Samaritans, at\nsunset, the second, when it began to grow dark. But, according to the\nrabbins, the first commenced just before sunset, the second, precisely\nat sunset. The Arabians agree with the Caraites and Samaritans; and in\nthis way the Hebrews appear to have computed, previous to the captivity.\n\nThe mention of \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4, _hours_, occurs first in Daniel iii, 6, 15; v, 5.\nThey were first measured by _gnomons_, which merely indicated the\nmeridian; afterward, by the _hour-watch_, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd; and subsequently\nstill, by the _clepsydra_, or instrument for measuring time by means of\nwater. The hour-watch or dial, otherwise called the sun-dial, is\nmentioned in the reign of King Hezekiah, 2 Kings xx, 9, 10; Isaiah\nxxxviii, 8. Its being called \u201cthe sundial of Ahaz\u201d renders it probable\nthat Ahaz first introduced it from Babylon; whence, also, Anaximenes,\nthe Milesian, brought the first _skiathericon_ into Greece. This\ninstrument was of no use during the night, nor indeed during a cloudy\nday. In consequence of this defect, the _clepsydra_ was invented, which\nwas used in Persia as late as the seventeenth century in its simplest\nform. The _clepsydra_ was a small circular vessel, constructed of\nthinly-beaten copper or brass, and having a small perforation through\nthe bottom. It was placed in another vessel, filled with water. The\ndiameter of the hole in the bottom of the _clepsydra_ was such, that it\nfilled with water in three hours, and sunk. It was necessary that there\nshould be a servant to tend it, who should take it up when it had sunk,\npour out the water, and place it again empty on the surface of the water\nin the vase.\n\nThe hours of principal note in the course of the day were the third, the\nsixth, and the ninth. These hours, it would seem, were consecrated by\nDaniel to prayer, Dan. vi, 10; Acts ii, 15; iii, 1; x, 9. The day was\ndivided into twelve hours, which, of course, varied in length, being\nshorter in the winter and longer in the summer, John xi, 9. In the\nwinter, therefore, the _clepsydras_ were so constructed that the water\nmight sink them more rapidly. The hours were numbered from the rising of\nthe sun, so that, at the season of the equinox, the third corresponded\nto the ninth of our reckoning; the sixth, to our twelfth; and the ninth,\nto three o\u2019clock in the afternoon. At other seasons of the year, it is\nnecessary to observe the time when the sun rises, and reduce the hours\nto our time accordingly. We observe, therefore, that the sun in\nPalestine, at the summer solstice, rises at five of our time, and sets\nabout seven. At the winter solstice, it rises about seven, and sets\nabout five.\n\nBefore the captivity, the night was divided into three watches. The\nfirst, which continued till midnight, was denominated the commencing or\nfirst watch, Lam. ii, 19. The second was denominated the middle watch,\nand continued from midnight till the crowing of the cock. The third,\ncalled the morning watch, extended from the second to the rising of the\nsun. These divisions and names appear to have owed their origin to the\nwatches of the Levites in the tabernacle and temple, Exod. xiv, 24; 1\nSam. xi, 11. In the time of Christ, however, the night, in imitation of\nthe Romans, was divided into four watches. According to the English mode\nof reckoning they were as follows: 1. The evening, from twilight to nine\no\u2019clock. 2. The midnight, from nine to twelve. 3. The cock crowing, from\ntwelve to three. 4. From three o\u2019clock till daybreak. A day is used in\nthe prophetic Scripture for a year: \u201cI have appointed thee each day for\na year,\u201d Ezek. iv, 6. See COCK.\n\nDEACON, from the Greek word \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, in its proper and primitive sense,\ndenotes a _servant_ who attends his master, waits on him at table, and\nis always near his person to obey his orders, which was accounted a more\ncreditable kind of service than that which is imported by the word\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 _a slave_; but this distinction is not usually observed in the\nNew Testament. Our Lord makes use of both terms in Matt. xx, 26, 27,\nthough they are not distinctly marked in our translation: \u201cWhosoever\nwill be great among you, let him be your _deacon_; and whosoever will be\nchief among you, let him be your _servant_.\u201d The appointment of deacons\nin the first Christian church is distinctly recorded, Acts vi, 1\u201316. The\nnumber of disciples having greatly increased in Jerusalem, the Greeks,\nor Hellenistic Jews, began to murmur against the Hebrews, complaining\nthat their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of the\nchurch\u2019s bounty. The twelve Apostles, who hitherto had discharged the\ndifferent offices of Apostle, presbyter, and deacon, upon the principle\nthat the greater office always includes the less, now convened the\nchurch, and said unto them, \u201cIt is not reasonable that we should leave\nthe ministration of the word of God, and serve tables: look ye out,\ntherefore, among yourselves, seven men of good report, full of the Holy\nGhost, and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will\ngive ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.\u201d\nAnd the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they (the multitude)\nchose Stephen, and six others, whom they set before the Apostles, &c.\n\nThe qualifications of deacons are stated by the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim.\niii, 8\u201312. There were also, in the primitive churches females invested\nwith this office, who were termed deaconesses. Of this number was\nPh\u0153be, a member of the church of Cenchrea, mentioned by St. Paul,\nRom. xvi, 1. \u201cThey served the church,\u201d says Calmet, \u201cin those offices\nwhich the deacons could not themselves exercise, visiting those of their\nown sex in sickness, or when imprisoned for the faith. They were persons\nof advanced age, when chosen; and appointed to the office by imposition\nof hands.\u201d It is probably of these deaconesses that the Apostle speaks,\nwhere he describes the ministering widows, 1 Tim. v, 5\u201310.\n\nDEAD. See BURIAL.\n\nDEAD, MOURNINGS FOR THE. The ancient Israelites, in imitation of the\nHeathen, from whom they borrowed the practice, frequently cut themselves\nwith knives and lancets, scratched their faces, or pricked certain parts\nof their bodies with needles. These superstitious practices were\nexpressly forbidden in their law: \u201cYe are the children of the Lord your\nGod: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your\neyes for the dead.\u201d The bereaved Greeks tore, cut off, and sometimes\nshaved, their hair; they reckoned it a duty which they owed to the dead,\nto deprive their heads of the greatest part of their honours, or, in the\nlanguage of Scripture, made a baldness between their eyes. The same\ncustom prevailed among the ancient Persians, and the neighbouring\nstates. When the patriarch Job was informed of the death of his\nchildren, and the destruction of his property, he arose and rent his\nmantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground and\nworshipped; and in the prophecies of Jeremiah, we read of eighty men who\nwere going to lament the desolations of Jerusalem, having their beards\nshaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, in direct\nviolation of the divine law, with offerings and incense in their hand,\nto bring them to the house of the Lord, Jer. xii, 5. Shaving, however,\nwas, on some occasions, a sign of joy; and to let the hair grow long,\nthe practice of mourners, or persons in affliction. Joseph shaved\nhimself before he went into the palace, Gen. xli, 14; and Mephibosheth\nlet his hair grow during the time David was banished from Jerusalem, but\nshaved himself on his return. In ordinary sorrows they only neglected\ntheir hair, or suffered it to hang down loose upon their shoulders; in\nmore poignant grief they cut it off; but in a sudden and violent\nparoxysm, they plucked it off with their hands. Such a violent\nexpression of sorrow is exemplified in the conduct of Ezra, which he\nthus describes: \u201cAnd when I heard this thing I rent my garment and my\nmantle, and plucked off the hair of my head, and of my beard, and sat\ndown astonied,\u201d Ezra ix, 3. The Greeks, and other nations around them,\nexpressed the violence of their sorrow in the same way; for in Homer,\nUlysses and his companions, bewailing the death of Elpenor, howled and\nplucked off their hair. Mourners withdrew as much as possible from the\nworld; they abstained from banquets and entertainments; they banished\nfrom their houses as unsuitable to their circumstances, and even painful\nto their feelings, musical instruments of every kind, and whatever was\ncalculated to excite pleasure, or that wore an air of mirth and gaiety.\nThus did the king of Persia testify his sorrow for the decree, into\nwhich his wily courtiers had betrayed him, and which, without the\nmiraculous interposition of Heaven, had proved fatal to his favourite\nminister: \u201cThen the king went to his palace, and spent the night\nfasting; neither were instruments of music brought before him,\u201d Dan. vi,\n18.\n\n2. Oriental mourners divested themselves of all ornaments, and laid\naside their jewels, gold, and every thing rich and splendid in their\ndress. This proof of humiliation and submission Jehovah required of his\noffending people in the wilderness: \u201cTherefore, now put off thy\nornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the\nchildren of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the Mount\nHoreb,\u201d Exodus xxxiii, 5, 6. Long after the time of Moses, that\nrebellious nation again received a command of similar import: \u201cStrip\nyou, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins,\u201d Isaiah\nxxxii, 11. The garments of the mourner were always black. Progne, having\nnotice of Philomela\u2019s death, lays aside her robes, beaming with a\nprofusion of gold, and appears in sable vestments; and Alth\u00e6a, when her\nbrethren were slain by Meleager, exchanged her glittering robes for\nblack:--\n\n              \u201c_Et auratas mutavit vestibus atris._\u201d OVID.\n\nThese sable vestments differed from their ordinary dress, not only in\ncolour, but also in value, being made of cheap and coarse stuff, as\nappears from these lines of Terence:--\n\n              \u201c_Texentem telam studiose ipsam offendimus\n              Mediocriter vestitam veste lugubri\n              Ejus anus causa, opinor, qu\u00e6 erat mortua._\u201d\n\n\u201cWe found her busy at the loom, in a cheap mourning habit, which she\nwore I suppose for the old woman\u2019s death.\u201d In Judea, the mourner was\nclothed in sackcloth of hair, and by consequence, in sable robes; and\npenitents, by assuming it, seemed to confess that their guilt exposed\nthem to death. Some of the eastern nations, in modern times, bury in\nlinen; but Chardin informs us, that others still retain the use of\nsackcloth for that purpose. To sit in sackcloth and ashes, was a\nfrequent expression of mourning in the oriental regions; and persons\noverwhelmed with grief, and unable to sustain the weight of their\ncalamities, often threw themselves upon the earth, and rolled in the\ndust; and the more dirty the ground was, the better it served to defile\nthem, and to express their sorrow and dejection. In this way Tamar\nsignified her distress, after being dishonoured by Amnon, \u201cShe put ashes\non her head;\u201d and when Mordecai understood that the doom of his nation\nwas sealed, he \u201crent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes.\u201d Our\nLord alludes to the same custom, in that denunciation: \u201cWo unto thee,\nChorazin! wo unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were\ndone in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented\nlong ago, in sackcloth and ashes,\u201d Matt. xi, 21. Intimately connected\nwith this, is the custom of putting dust upon the head. When the armies\nof Israel were defeated before Ai, \u201cJoshua rent his clothes, and fell to\nthe earth upon his face, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon\ntheir heads.\u201d The mourner sometimes laid his hands upon his head; for\nthe prophet, expostulating with his people, predicts their humiliation\nin these words: \u201cYea, thou shalt go forth from him, and thine hands upon\nthine head; for the Lord hath rejected thy confidences, and thou shalt\nnot prosper in them,\u201d Jer. ii, 37. In both these cases, the head of the\nmourner was uncovered; but they sometimes adopted the opposite custom,\nand covered their heads in great distress, or when they were loaded with\ndisgrace and infamy.\n\n3. To cover the lips was a very ancient sign of mourning; and it\ncontinues to be practised among the Jews of Barbary to this day. When\nthey return from the grave to the house of the deceased, the chief\nmourner receives them with his jaws tied up with a linen cloth, in\nimitation of the manner in which the face of the dead is covered; and by\nthis the mourner is said to testify that he was ready to die for his\nfriend. Muffled in this way, the mourner goes for seven days, during\nwhich the rest of his friends come twice every twenty-four hours to pray\nwith him. This allusion is perhaps involved in the charge which Ezekiel\nreceived when his wife died, to abstain from the customary forms of\nmourning: \u201cForbear to cry; make no mourning for the dead; bind the tire\nof thy head upon thee, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover not\nthy lips, and eat not the bread of men,\u201d Ezekiel xxiv, 17.\n\n4. Sitting on the ground was a posture which denoted severe distress.\nThus the prophet represents the elders of Israel, after the destruction\nof Jerusalem, and the captivity of those whom the sword had spared: \u201cThe\nelders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, and keep silence;\nthey have cast up dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves\nwith sackcloth; the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the\nground,\u201d Lam. ii, 10. Judea is represented on several coins of Vespasian\nand Titus, as a solitary female in this very posture of sorrow and\ncaptivity sitting upon the ground. It is remarkable, that we find Judea\nrepresented as a sorrowful woman sitting on the ground, in a passage of\nthe prophet, where the same calamity which was recorded on the medals of\nthese Roman emperors is foretold: \u201cAnd she being desolate shall sit upon\nthe ground,\u201d Isaiah iii, 26.\n\n5. Chardin informs us that when the king of Persia dies, his physicians\nand astrologers lose their places, and are excluded from the court; the\nfirst, because they could not cure their sovereign, and the last,\nbecause they did not give previous notice of his death. This whimsical\ncustom he supposes has descended to modern times from a very remote\nantiquity; and to have been the true reason that Daniel was absent when\nBelshazzar saw the hand writing his doom on the wall. If the conjecture\nof that intelligent traveller be well founded, the venerable prophet had\nbeen forced by the established etiquette of the court to retire from the\nmanagement of public affairs at the death of Nebuchadnezzar; and had\nremained in a private station for twenty-three years, neglected or\nforgotten, till the awful occurrence of that memorable night rendered\nhis assistance necessary, and brought him again into public notice. This\naccounts in a very satisfactory manner, as well for Belshazzar\u2019s\nignorance of Daniel, as for the recollection of Nitocris, the\nqueen-mother, who had long known his character and abilities during the\nreign of her husband. This solution of the difficulty is at least\ningenious.\n\n6. It was a custom among the Jews to visit the sepulchres of their\ndeceased friends three days; for so long they supposed their spirits\nhovered about them; but when once they perceived their visage begin to\nchange, as it would in that time in those warm countries, all hopes of a\nreturn to life were then at an end. But it appears from an incident in\nthe narrative of the raising of Lazarus, that in Judea they were\naccustomed to visit the graves of their deceased relations after the\nthird day, merely to lament their loss, and give vent to their grief. If\nthis had not been a common practice, the people that came to comfort the\nsisters of Lazarus would not so readily have concluded, when Mary, on\nthe fourth day, went hastily out to meet her Saviour, \u201cShe goeth to the\ngrave to weep there.\u201d The Turkish women continue to follow this custom:\nthey go before sunrising on Friday, the stated day of their worship, to\nthe grave of the deceased, where, with many tears and lamentations, they\nsprinkle their monuments with water and flowers.\n\nDEAD SEA. This was anciently called the _Sea of the Plain_, Deut. iii,\n17; iv, 49, from its situation in the great hollow or plain of the\nJordan; the _Salt Sea_, Deut. iii, 17; Joshua xv, 5, from the extreme\nsaltness of its waters; and the _East Sea_, Ezek. xlvii, 18; Joel ii,\n20, from its situation relative to Judea, and in contradistinction to\nthe _West Sea_, or Mediterranean. It is likewise called by Josephus, and\nby the Greek and Latin writers generally, _Lacus Asphaltites_, from the\nbitumen found in it; and the _Dead Sea_, its more frequent modern\nappellation, from a tradition, commonly though erroneously received,\nthat no living creature could exist in its saline and sulphureous\nwaters. It is at present known in Syria by the names of _Almotanah_ and\n_Bahar Loth_: and occupies what may be considered as the southern\nextremity of the vale of Jordan; forming, in that direction, the western\nboundary to the Holy Land. The Dead Sea is about seventy miles in\nlength, and twenty in breadth at its broadest part; having, like the\nCaspian, no visible communication with the ocean. Its depth seems to be\naltogether unknown; nor does it appear that a boat has ever navigated\nits surface. Toward its southern extremity, however, in a contracted\npart of the lake, is a ford, about six miles over, made use of by the\nArabs: in the middle of which they report the water to be warm;\nindicating the presence of warm springs beneath. In general, toward the\nshore, it is shallow; and rises and falls with the seasons, and the\nquantity of water carried into it by seven streams, which fall into this\ntheir common receptacle, the chief of which is the Jordan.\n\nThe water now covering these ruins occupies what was formerly the vale\nof Siddim; a rich and fruitful valley, in which stood the five cities,\ncalled the cities of the plain, namely, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim,\nand Bela or Zoar: the four first of which were destroyed, while the\nlatter, being \u201ca little city,\u201d was preserved at the intercession of Lot;\nto which he fled for refuge from the impending catastrophe, and where he\nremained in safety during its accomplishment.\n\nThe specific gravity of the waters of the Dead Sea is supposed to have\nbeen much exaggerated by the ancient writers, but their statements are\nnow proved to be by no means very wide of the truth. Pliny says, that no\nliving bodies would sink in it; and Strabo, that persons who went into\nit were borne up to their middle. Van Egmont and Heyman state, that, on\nswimming to some distance from the shore, they found themselves, to\ntheir great surprise, lifted up by the water. \u201cWhen I had swam to some\ndistance,\u201d says the latter, \u201cI endeavoured to sink to the bottom, but\ncould not; for the water kept me continually up, and would certainly\nhave thrown me upon my face, had I not put forth all the strength I was\nmaster of, to keep myself in a perpendicular posture; so that I walked\nin the sea as if I had trod on firm ground, without having occasion to\nmake any of the motions necessary in treading fresh water; and when I\nwas swimming, I was obliged to keep my legs the greatest part of the\ntime out of the water. My fellow traveller was agreeably surprised to\nfind that he could swim here, having never learned. But this proceeded\nfrom the gravity of the water, as this certainly does from the\nextraordinary quantity of salt in it.\u201d Mr. Joliffe says, he found it\nvery little more buoyant than other seas, but he did not go out of his\ndepth. \u201cThe descent of the beach,\u201d he says, \u201cis so gently gradual, that\nI must have waded above a hundred yards to get completely out of my\ndepth, and the impatience of the Arabians would not allow of time\nsufficient for this.\u201d Captain Mangles says: \u201cThe water is as bitter and\nas buoyant as the people have reported. Those of our party who could not\nswim, floated on its surface like corks. On dipping the head in, the\neyes smarted dreadfully.\u201d With regard to the agents employed in this\ncatastrophe, there might seem reason to suppose that volcanic phenomena\nhad some share in producing it; but Chateaubriand\u2019s remark is deserving\nof attention. \u201cI cannot,\u201d he says, \u201ccoincide in opinion with those who\nsuppose the Dead Sea to be the crater of a volcano. I have seen\nVesuvius, Solfatara, Monte Nuovo in the lake of Fusino, the peak of the\nAzores, the Mamalif opposite to Carthage, the extinguished volcanoes of\nAuvergne; and remarked in all of them the same characters; that is to\nsay, mountains excavated in the form of a tunnel, lava, and ashes, which\nexhibited incontestable proofs of the agency of fire.\u201d After noticing\nthe very different shape and position of the Dead Sea, he adds:\n\u201cBitumen, warm springs, and phosphoric stones are found, it is true, in\nthe mountains of Arabia; but then, the presence of hot springs, sulphur,\nand asphaltos is not sufficient to attest the anterior existence of a\nvolcano.\u201d The learned Frenchman inclines to adopt the idea of Professors\nMicha\u00eblis and Busching, that Sodom and Gomorrah were built upon a mine\nof bitumen; that lightning kindled the combustible mass, and that the\ncities sunk in the subterraneous conflagration. M. Malte Brun\ningeniously suggests, that the cities might themselves have been built\nof bituminous stones, and thus have been set in flames by the fire of\nheaven. We learn from the Mosaic account, that the Vale of Siddim, which\nis now occupied by the Dead Sea, was full of \u201cslime pits,\u201d or pits of\nbitumen. Pococke says: \u201cIt is observed, that the bitumen floats on the\nwater, and comes ashore after windy weather; the Arabs gather it up, and\nit serves as pitch for all uses, goes into the composition of medicines,\nand is thought to have been a very great ingredient in the bitumen used\nin embalming the bodies in Egypt: it has been much used for cerecloths,\nand has an ill smell when burnt. It is probable that there are\nsubterraneous fires, that throw up this bitumen at the bottom of the\nsea, where it may form itself into a mass, which may be broken by the\nmotion of the water occasioned by high winds; and it is very remarkable,\nthat the stone called the stone of Moses, found about two or three\nleagues from the sea, which burns like a coal, and turns only to a white\nstone, and not to ashes, has the same smell, when burnt, as this pitch;\nso that it is probable, a stratum of the stone under the Dead Sea is one\npart of the matter that feeds the subterraneous fires, and that this\nbitumen boils up out of it.\u201d To give force to this last conjecture,\nhowever, it would be requisite to ascertain, whether bitumen is capable\nof being detached from this stone, in a liquid state, by the action of\nfire. The stone in question is the black feited limestone, used at\nJerusalem in the manufacture of rosaries and amulets, and worn as a\ncharm against the plague. The effluvia which it emits on friction, is\nowing to a strong impregnation of sulphuretted hydrogen. If the\nbuildings were constructed of materials of this description, with\nquarries of which the neighbouring mountains abound, they would be\neasily susceptible of ignition by lightning. The Scriptural account,\nhowever, is explicit, that \u201cthe Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah\nbrimstone and fire from heaven;\u201d which we may safely interpret as\nimplying a shower of inflamed sulphur, or nitre. At the same time it is\nevident, that the whole plain underwent a simultaneous convulsion, which\nseems referable to the consequences of a bituminous explosion. In\nperfect accordance with this view of the catastrophe, we find the very\nmaterials, as it were, of this awful visitation still at hand in the\nneighbouring hills; from which they might have been poured down by the\nagency of thunder storms, directed by the hand of offended Heaven.\nCaptains Irby and Mangles collected, on the southern coast, lumps of\nnitre and fine sulphur, from the size of a nutmeg up to that of a small\nhen\u2019s egg, which, it was evident from their situation, had been brought\ndown by the rain: \u201ctheir great deposit must be sought for,\u201d they say,\n\u201cin the cliff.\u201d These cliffs then were probably swept by the lightnings,\nand their flaming masses poured in a deluge of fire upon the plain.\n\nDEBORAH, a prophetess, wife of Lapidoth, judged the Israelites, and\ndwelt under a palm tree between Ramah and Bethel, Judges iv, 4, 5. She\nsent for Barak, directed him to attack Sisera, and, in the name of God,\npromised him victory; but Barak refusing to go, unless she went with\nhim, she told him, that the honour of this expedition would be given to\na woman, and not to him. After the victory, Deborah and Barak sung a\nfine thanksgiving song, the composition probably of Deborah alone, which\nis preserved, Judges v.\n\nDEBTS. In nothing, perhaps, do the Israelitish laws deviate so far from\nour own, as in regard to matters of debt. Imprisonment was unknown among\nthe Hebrews, who were equally free from those long and expensive modes\nof procedure with which we are acquainted, for the recovery of debts.\nTheir laws in this respect were simple, but efficient. Where pledges\nwere lodged with a creditor for the payment of a debt, which was not\ndischarged, the creditor was allowed to appropriate the pledge to his\nown benefit, without any interposition of a magistrate, and to keep it\nas rightfully as if it had been bought with the sum which had been lent\nfor it. But, beside the pledge, every Israelite had various pieces of\nproperty, on which execution for debt might readily be made; as (1.) His\nhereditary land, the produce of which might be attached till the year of\njubilee: (2.) His houses, which, with the sole exception of those of the\nLevites, might be sold in perpetuity, Lev. xxv, 29, 30: (3.) His cattle,\nhousehold furniture, and ornaments, appear also liable to be taken in\nexecution. See Job xxiv, 3; Proverbs xxii, 27. From Deut. xv, 1\u201311, we\nsee that no debt could be exacted from a poor man in the seventh year;\nbecause the land lying fallow, he had no income whence to pay it: (4.)\nThe person of the debtor, who might be sold, along with his wife and\nchildren, if he had any. See Lev. xxv, 39; Job xxiv, 9; 2 Kings iv, 1;\nIsaiah l, 1; Nehemiah v. We have no intimation, in the writings of\nMoses, that suretyship was practised among the Hebrews in cases of debt.\nIn the Proverbs of Solomon, however, there are many admonitions\nrespecting it. Where this warranty was given, the surety was treated\nwith the same severity as if he had been the actual debtor; and if he\ncould not pay, his very bed might be taken from under him, Prov. xxii,\n27. There is a reference to the custom observed in contracting this\nobligation in Prov. xvii, 18: \u201cA man void of understanding striketh\nhands,\u201d &c; and also in Prov. xxii, 26: \u201cBe not thou one of them that\nstrike hands,\u201d &c. It is to be observed that the hand was given, not to\nthe creditor, but to the debtor, in the creditor\u2019s presence. By this act\nthe surety intimated that he became in a legal sense one with the\ndebtor, and rendered himself liable to pay the debt.\n\n2. We have above noticed the practice of lending on pledge; but as this\nwas liable to considerable abuse, the following judicial regulations\nwere adopted: (1.) The creditor was not allowed to enter the house of\nthe debtor to fetch the pledge, but was obliged to stand without the\ndoor, and wait till it was brought to him, Deut. xxiv, 10, 11. This law\nwas wisely designed to restrain avaricious and unprincipled persons from\ntaking advantage of their poor brethren in choosing their own pledges.\n(2.) The upper garment, which served by night for a blanket, Exod. xxii,\n25, 26; Deut. xxiv, 12, 13, and mills and millstones, if taken in\npledge, were to be restored to the owner before sunset. The reason of\nthis law was, that these articles were indispensable to the comfortable\nsubsistence of the poor; and for the same reason, it is likely that it\nextended to all necessary utensils. Such a restoration was no loss to\nthe creditor; for he had it in his power at last, by the aid of summary\njustice, to lay hold of the whole property of the debtor; and if he had\nnone, of his person: and, in the event of non-payment, as before stated,\nto take him for a bond slave.\n\nDECALOGUE, the ten principal commandments, Exod. xx, 1, &c, from the\nGreek \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u1f70 _ten_, and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 _words_. The Jews call these precepts, _the\nten words_.\n\nDECAPOLIS, a country in Palestine, so called, because it contained ten\nprincipal cities; some situated on the west, and some on the east side\nof Jordan, Matt. iv, 25; Mark v, 20.\n\nDEDICATION, a religious ceremony, whereby any person or thing was set\napart to the service of God, and the purposes of religion. Dedications\nof persons, temples, and houses, were frequent among the Jews. See\nCONSECRATION.\n\nDEFILEMENT. Under the law, many were those blemishes of person and\nconduct, which were considered as defilements: some were voluntary,\nothers involuntary; some were inevitable, and the effect of nature\nitself, others arose from personal transgression. Under the Gospel,\ndefilements are those of the heart, of the mind, the temper, and\nconduct. The ceremonial uncleannesses of the law are superseded as\nreligious rites; though many of them claim attention as usages of\nhealth, decency, and civility.\n\nDEGREES. _Psalms of Degrees_ is a name given to fifteen psalms, from the\ncxx, to the cxxxiv, inclusive. The Hebrew text calls them _a song of\nascents_. Junius and Tremellius translate the Hebrew _a song of\nexcellences, or an excellent song_, from the excellent matter they\ncontain. Some call them _psalms of elevation_, because they were sung\nwith an exalted voice, or because at every psalm the voice was raised;\nbut the translation of _psalms of degrees_ has more generally obtained.\nSome think that they were called psalms of degrees, because they were\nsung upon the fifteen steps of the temple; but they are not agreed where\nthese steps were. Others are of opinion, that they were so denominated,\nbecause sung in a gallery, which was in the court of Israel, where the\nLevites sometimes read the law. Calmet thinks, that they were called\nsongs of degrees, or of ascent, because they were composed on occasion\nof the deliverance of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon, either to\nimplore this deliverance from God, or to return thanks for it after it\nhad been obtained; and that the Hebrews used the term _to go up_, when\nthey spoke of their journeying from Babylon to Jerusalem. Others are of\nopinion, that these psalms were sung during the time of service, while\nthe flesh, &c, were consuming on the altar, and while the fume and smoke\n_ascended_ toward heaven; and that the title _Psalms of Ascent_ seems to\nfavour this supposition. The point is involved in entire obscurity; and,\nafter all, the title of these Psalms may be only a musical direction to\nthe temple choir.\n\nDEISTS. This term appears to have had an honourable origin, being of the\nsame import as _Theists_, designating those who believe in the existence\nof a supreme intelligent cause, in opposition to the Epicureans, and\nother Atheistical philosophers. The name, in modern times, is said to\nhave been first assumed about the middle of the sixteenth century, by\nsome persons on the continent, in order to avoid the imputation of\nAtheism. Peter Viret, a divine of that century, mentions it as a new\nname assumed by those who rejected Christianity. Lord Edw. Herbert,\nbaron of Cherbury, in the seventeenth century, has been regarded as the\nfirst Deistical writer in this country, or at least, the first who\nreduced Deism to a system; affirming the sufficiency of reason and\nnatural religion, and rejecting divine revelation as unnecessary and\nsuperfluous. His system, however, embraced these five articles:--1. The\nbeing of God. 2. That he is to be worshipped. 3. That piety and moral\nvirtue are the chief parts of worship. 4. That God will pardon our\nfaults on repentance. And, 5. That there is a future state of rewards\nand punishment. Some have divided all Deists into two classes--those who\nadmit a future state, and those who deny it. But Dr. S. Clarke, taking\nthe term in the most extensive sense, arranges them under four\nclasses:--1. Those who admit a Supreme Being, but deny that he concerns\nhimself with the conduct or affairs of men; maintaining, with Lucretius,\nthat God\n\n          \u201cNe\u2019er smiles at good, nor frowns at wicked, deeds.\u201d\n\n2. Those who admit not only the being but the providence of God, with\nrespect to the natural world; but who allow no difference between moral\ngood and evil, nor that God takes any notice of our moral conduct. 3.\nSuch as believe in the natural attributes of God, and his all-governing\nprovidence; yet deny the immortality of the soul, or any future state.\n4. Such as admit the existence of God, his providence, and the\nobligations of natural religion; but so far only as these things are\ndiscoverable by the light of nature, without any divine revelation. Some\nof the Deists have attempted to overthrow the Christian dispensation, by\nopposing to it what they call the absolute perfection of natural\nreligion. Others, as Blount, Collins, and Morgan, have endeavoured to\ngain the same purpose, by attacking particular parts of the Christian\nscheme, by explaining away the literal sense and meaning of certain\npassages, or by placing one portion of the sacred canon in opposition to\nthe other. A third class, wherein we meet with the names of Shaftesbury\nand Bolingbroke, advancing farther in their progress, expunge from their\ncreed the doctrine of future existence, deny or controvert all the moral\nperfections of the Deity, and wholly reject the Scriptures.\n\nThe Deists of the present day are distinguished by their zealous efforts\nto diffuse the principles of infidelity among the common people. Hume,\nBolingbroke, and Gibbon, addressed themselves solely to the more\npolished classes of the community; but of late the writings of Paine,\nCarlile, and others, have diffused infidelity among the lower orders of\nsociety, and clothed it in the dress of vulgar ridicule, the more\neffectually to destroy in the common people all reverence for sacred\nthings. Among the disciples of this school, Deism has led to the most\ndisgusting Atheism. Thus \u201cevil men and seducers wax worse and worse.\u201d\n\nDELUGE signifies, in general, any great inundation; but more\nparticularly that universal flood by which the whole inhabitants of this\nglobe were destroyed, except Noah and his family. According to the most\napproved systems of chronology, this remarkable event happened in the\nyear 1656 after the creation, or about 2348 before the Christian \u00e6ra. Of\nso general a calamity, from which only a single family of all who lived\nthen on the face of the earth was preserved, we might naturally expect\nto find some memorials in the traditionary records of Pagan history, as\nwell as in the sacred volume, where its peculiar cause, and the\ncircumstances which attended it, are so distinctly and so fully related.\nIts magnitude and singularity could scarcely fail to make an indelible\nimpression on the minds of the survivors, which would be communicated\nfrom them to their children, and would not be easily effaced from the\ntraditions even of their latest posterity. A deficiency in such traces\nof this awful event, though perhaps it might not serve entirely to\ninvalidate our belief of its reality, would certainly tend considerably\nto weaken its claim to credibility; it being scarcely probable that the\nknowledge of it should be utterly lost to the rest of the world, and\nconfined to the documents of the Jewish nation alone. What we might\nreasonably expect has, accordingly, been actually and completely\nrealized. The evidence which has been brought from almost every quarter\nof the world to bear upon the reality of this event, is of the most\nconclusive and irresistible kind; and every investigation, whether\netymological or historical, which has been made concerning Heathen rites\nand traditions, has constantly added to its force, no less than to its\nextent.\n\nAnd here, it were injustice to the memory of ingenuity and erudition\nalmost unexampled in modern times, were we not to mention the labours of\nBryant, the learned analysist of ancient mythology, whose patience and\nprofoundness of research have thrown such new and convincing light on\nthis subject. Nor must we forget his ardent and successful disciple, Mr.\nFaber, who, in his \u201cDissertation on the Mysteries of the Cabiri,\u201d has in\ntravelling over similar ground with his illustrious master at once\ncorrected some of his statements, and greatly strengthened his general\nconclusions. As the basis of their system, however, rests on a most\nextensive etymological examination of the names of the deities and other\nmythological personages worshipped and celebrated by the Heathen,\ncompared with the varied traditions respecting their histories, and the\nnature of the rites and names of the places that were sacred to them, we\ncannot do more, in the present article, than shortly state the result of\ntheir investigations, referring for the particular details, to the\nhighly original treatises already mentioned. According to them, the\nmemory of the deluge was incorporated with almost every part of the\nGentile mythology and worship; Noah, under a vast multitude of\ncharacters, being one of their first deities, to whom all the nations of\nthe Heathen world looked up as their founder; and to some circumstance\nor other in whose history, and that of his sons and the first\npatriarchs, most, if not all, of their religious ceremonies may be\nconsidered as not indistinctly referring. Traces of these, neither vague\nnor obscure, they conceive to be found in the history and character, not\nonly of Deucalion, but of Atlas, Cronus, or Saturn, Dionusos, Inachus,\nJanus, Minos, Zeus, and others among the Greeks; of Isis, Osiris,\nSesostris, Oannes, Typhon, &c, among the Egyptians; of Dagon, Agruerus,\nSydyk, &c, among the Phenicians; of Astarte, Derceto, &c, among the\nAssyrians; of Buddha, Menu, Vishnu, &c, among the Hindus; of Fohi, and a\ndeity represented as sitting upon the lotos in the midst of waters,\namong the Chinese; of Budo and Iakusi among the Japanese, &c. They\ndiscover allusions to the ark, in many of the ancient mysteries, and\ntraditions with respect to the dove and the rainbow, by which several of\nthese allegorical personages were attended, which are not easily\nexplicable, unless they be supposed to relate to the history of the\ndeluge. By the celebrated Ogdoas of the Egyptians, consisting of eight\npersons sailing together in the sacred _baris_ or ark, they imagine the\nfamily of Noah, which was precisely eight in number, to have been\ndesignated; and in the rites of Adonis or Thammuz, in particular, they\npoint out many circumstances which seem to possess a distinct reference\nto the events recorded in the sixth and seventh chapters of Genesis.\nWith regard to this system, we shall only farther observe, that, after\nevery reasonable deduction is made from it, which the exuberant\nindulgence of fancy occasionally exhibited by its authors appears to\nrender necessary, it contains so much that is relevant and conclusive,\nthat it induces the conviction that it has a solid foundation in truth\nand fact; it being scarcely possible to conceive, that a mere hypothesis\ncould be supported by evidence so varied, so extensive, and in many\nparticulars so demonstrative, as that which its framers have produced.\n\nBeside, however, the allusions to the deluge in the mythology and\nreligious ceremonies of the Heathen, to which we have thus concisely\nadverted, there is a variety of traditions concerning it still more\ndirect and circumstantial, the coincidence of which, with the narrative\nof Moses, it will require no common degree of skeptical hardihood to\ndeny. We are informed by one of the circumnavigators of the world, who\nvisited the remote island of Otaheite, that some of the inhabitants\nbeing asked concerning their origin, answered, that their supreme God\nhaving, a long time ago, been angry, dragged the earth through the sea,\nwhen their island was broken off and preserved. In the island of Cuba,\nthe people are said to believe that the world was once destroyed by\nwater by three persons, evidently alluding to the three sons of Noah. It\nis even related, that they have a tradition among them, that an old man,\nknowing that the deluge was approaching, built a large ship, and went\ninto it with a great number of animals; and that he sent out from the\nship a crow, which did not immediately come back, staying to feed on the\ncarcasses of dead animals, but afterward returned with a green branch in\nits mouth. The author who gives the above account likewise affirms that\nit was reported by the inhabitants of Castella del Oro, in Terra Firma,\nthat during a universal deluge, one man, and his children, were the only\npersons who escaped, by means of a canoe, and that from them the world\nwas afterward peopled. According to the Peruvians, in consequence of a\ngeneral inundation, occasioned by violent and continued rains, a\nuniversal destruction of the human species took place, a few persons\nonly excepted, who escaped into caves on the tops of the mountains, into\nwhich they had previously conveyed a stock of provisions, and a number\nof live animals, lest when the waters abated, the whole race should have\nbecome extinct. Others of them affirm, that only six persons were saved,\nby means of a float or raft, and that from them all the inhabitants of\nthe country are descended. They farther believe, that this event took\nplace before there were any _incas_ or kings among them, and when the\ncountry was extremely populous. The Brazilians not only preserve the\ntradition of a deluge, but believe that the whole race of mankind\nperished in it, except one man and his sister; or, according to others,\ntwo brothers with their wives, who were preserved by climbing the\nhighest trees on their loftiest mountains; and who afterward became the\nheads of two different nations. The memory of this event they are even\nsaid to celebrate in some of their religious anthems or songs. Acosta,\nin his history of the Indies, says, that the Mexicans speak of a deluge\nin their country, by which all men were drowned; and that it was\nafterward peopled by _viracocha_, who came out of the lake Titicaca;\nand, according to Herrera, the Machoachans, a people comparatively in\nthe neighbourhood of Mexico, had a tradition, that a single family was\nformerly preserved in an ark amid a deluge of waters; and that along\nwith them, a sufficient number of animals were saved to stock the new\nworld. During the time that they were shut up in the ark, several ravens\nwere sent out, one of which brought back the branch of a tree. Among the\nIroquois it is reported that a certain spirit, called by them Otkon, was\nthe creator of the world; and that another being, called Messou,\nrepaired it after a deluge, which happened in consequence of Otkon\u2019s\ndogs having one day while he was hunting with them lost themselves in a\ngreat lake, which, in consequence of this, overflowed its banks, and in\na short time covered the whole earth.\n\nPassing from the more remote western to the eastern continent, nearer to\nthe region where Noah is generally supposed to have lived, we find the\ntraditions respecting the deluge still more particular and minute.\nAccording to Josephus, there were a multitude of ancient authors who\nconcurred in asserting that the world had once been destroyed by a\nflood: \u201cThis deluge,\u201d says he, \u201cand the ark are mentioned by all who\nhave written barbaric histories, one of whom is Berosus the Chaldean.\u201d\nEusebius informs us, that Melo, a bitter enemy of the Jews, and whose\ntestimony is on this account peculiarly valuable, takes notice of the\nperson who was saved along with his sons from the flood, having been,\nafter his preservation, driven away from Armenia, whence he retired to\nthe mountainous parts of Syria. Abydenus, after giving an account of the\ndeluge from which Xisuthrus, the Chaldean Noah, was saved, concludes\nwith asserting, in exact concurrence with Berosus, that the ark first\nrested on the mountains of Armenia, and that its remains were used by\nthe natives as a talisman; and Plutarch mentions the Noachic dove being\nsent out of the ark, and returning to it again, as an intimation to\nDeucalion that the storm had not yet ceased.\n\nThis, however, is by no means all: Sir W. Jones, speaking of one of the\nChinese fables, says, \u201cAlthough I cannot insist with confidence, that\nthe rainbow mentioned in it alludes to the Mosaic narrative of the\nflood, nor build any solid argument on the divine person _Niuva_, of\nwhose character, and even of whose sex the historians of China speak\nvery doubtfully; I may nevertheless assure you, after full inquiry and\nconsideration, that the Chinese believe the earth to have been wholly\ncovered with water, which, in works of undisputed authenticity, they\ndescribe as flowing abundantly, then subsiding, and separating the\nhigher from the lower age of mankind.\u201d Still more coincident even than\nthis with the Mosaic account, is the Grecian history of the deluge, as\npreserved by Lucian, a native of Samosata on the Euphrates; and its\nauthority is the more incontrovertible, on account of his being an\navowed derider of all religions. The antediluvians, according to him,\nhad gradually become so hardened and profligate, as to be guilty of\nevery species of injustice. They paid no regard to the obligation of\noaths; were insolent, inhospitable, and unmerciful. For this reason they\nwere visited with an awful calamity. Suddenly the earth poured forth a\nvast quantity of water, the rain descended in torrents, the rivers\noverflowed their banks, and the sea rose to a prodigious height, so that\n\u201call things became water,\u201d and all men were destroyed except Deucalion.\nHe alone, for the sake of his prudence and piety, was reserved to a\nsecond generation. In obedience to a divine nomination, he entered, with\nhis sons and their wives, into a large ark, which they had built for\ntheir preservation; and immediately swine, and horses, and lions, and\nserpents, and all other animals which live on earth, came to him by\npairs, and were admitted by him into the ark. There they became\nperfectly mild and innoxious, their natures being changed by the gods,\nwho created such a friendship between them, that they all sailed\npeaceably together, so long as the waters prevailed over the surface of\nthe globe.\n\nScarcely less remarkable is the Hindoo tradition. It is contained in the\nancient poem of the _Bhavagat_; and forms the subject of the first\nPurana, entitled _Matsya_, or \u201cThe Fish.\u201d The following is Sir William\nJones\u2019s abridgment of it; and the identity of the event which it\ndescribes, with that of the Hebrew historian, is too obvious to require\nany particular illustration: \u201cThe demon Hayagriva, having purloined the\nVedas from the custody of Brahma, while he was reposing at the close of\nthe sixth Manwantara, the whole race of men became corrupt, except the\nseven Rishis, and Satyavrata, who then reigned in Dravira, a maritime\nregion to the south of Carnata. This prince was performing his ablutions\nin the river Critimala, when Vishnu appeared to him in the shape of a\nsmall fish, and after several augmentations of bulk in different waters,\nwas placed by Satyavrata in the ocean, where he thus addressed his\namazed votary: \u2018In seven days all creatures who have offended me shall\nbe destroyed by a deluge, but thou shalt be secured in a capacious\nvessel miraculously formed; take therefore all kinds of medicinal herbs,\nand esculent grain for food, and, together with the seven holy men, your\nrespective wives, and pairs of all animals, enter the ark without fear:\nthen shalt thou know God face to face, and all thy questions shall be\nanswered.\u2019 Saying this, he disappeared; and after seven days the ocean\nbegan to overflow the coasts, and the earth to be flooded by constant\nshowers, when Satyavrata, meditating on the deity, saw a large vessel\nmoving on the waters. He entered it, having in all respects conformed to\nthe instructions of Vishnu; who in the form of a vast fish, suffered the\nvessel to be tied with a great sea serpent, as with a cable, to his\nmeasureless horn. When the deluge had ceased, Vishnu slew the demon, and\nrecovered the Vedas, instructed Satyavrata in divine knowledge, and\nappointed him the seventh Menu, by the name of Vaivaswata.\u201d\n\nWhen we thus meet with some traditions of a deluge in almost every\ncountry, though the persons saved from it are said, in those various\naccounts to have resided in different districts widely separated from\neach other, we are constrained to allow that such a general concurrence\nof belief could never have originated merely from accident. While the\nmind is in this situation, Scripture comes forward, and, presenting a\nnarrative more simple, better connected, and bearing an infinitely\ngreater resemblance to authentic history, than any of those mythological\naccounts which occur in the traditions of Paganism, immediately flashes\nthe conviction upon the understanding, that this must be the true\nhistory of those remarkable facts which other nations have handed down\nto us, only through the medium of allegory and fable. By the evidence\nadduced in this article, indeed, the moral certainty of the Mosaic\nhistory of the flood appears to be established on a basis sufficiently\nfirm to bid defiance to the cavils of skepticism. \u201cLet the ingenuity of\nunbelief first account satisfactorily for this universal agreement of\nthe Pagan world; and she may then, with a greater degree of\nplausibility, impeach the truth of the Scriptural narrative of the\ndeluge.\u201d The fact, however, is not only preserved in the traditions of\nall nations, as we have already seen; but after all the philosophical\narguments which were formerly urged against it, philosophy has at length\nacknowledged that the present surface of the earth must have been\nsubmerged under water. \u201cNot only,\u201d says Kirwan, \u201cin every region of\nEurope, but also of both the old and new continents, immense quantities\nof marine shells, either dispersed or collected, have been discovered.\u201d\nThis and several other facts seem to prove, that at least a great part\nof the present earth was, before the last general convulsion to which it\nhas been subjected, the bed of an ocean which, at that time, was\nwithdrawn from it. Other facts seem also to prove with sufficient\nevidence, that this was not a gradual retirement of the waters which\nonce covered the parts now inhabited by men; but a violent one, such as\nmay be supposed from the brief but emphatic relation of Moses. The\nviolent action of water has left its traces in various undisputed\nphenomena. Stratified mountains of various heights exist in different\nparts of Europe, and of both continents; in and between whose strata,\nvarious substances of marine, and some vegetables of terrestrial,\norigin, repose either in their natural state, or petrified. To\noverspread the plains of the arctic circle with the shells of Indian\nseas, and with the bodies of elephants and rhinoceri, surrounded by\nmasses of submarine vegetation; to accumulate on a single spot, as at La\nBolca, in promiscuous confusion, the marine productions of the four\nquarters of the globe; what conceivable instrument would be efficacious\nbut the rush of mighty waters? These facts, about which there is no\ndispute, and which are acknowledged by the advocates of each of the\nprevailing geological theories, give a sufficient attestation to the\ndeluge of Noah, in which \u201cthe fountains of the great deep were broken\nup,\u201d and from which precisely such phenomena might be expected to\nfollow. To this may be added, though less decisive in proof, yet\ncertainly strong as presumptive evidence, that the very aspect of the\nearth\u2019s surface exhibits interesting marks both of the violent action,\nand the rapid subsidence, of waters; as well as affords a most\ninteresting instance of the divine goodness in converting what was ruin\nitself into utility and beauty. The great frame-work of the varied\nsurface of the habitable earth was probably laid by a more powerful\nagency than that of water; either when on the third day the waters under\nthe heavens were gathered into one place, and the crust of the primitive\nearth was broken down to receive them, so that \u201cthe dry land might\nappear;\u201d by those mighty convulsions which appear to have accompanied\nthe general deluge; but the rounding, so to speak, of what was rugged,\nwhere the substance was yielding, and the graceful undulations of hill\nand dale which so frequently present themselves, were probably effected\nby the retiring waters. The flood has passed away; but the soils which\nit deposited remain; and the valleys through which its last streams were\ndrawn off to the ocean, with many an eddy and sinuous course, still\nexist, exhibiting visible proofs of its agency, and impressed with forms\nso adapted to the benefit of man, and often so gratifying to the finest\ntaste, that, when the flood \u201cturned,\u201d it may be said to have \u201cleft a\nblessing behind it.\u201d\n\nThe objections once made to the _fact_ of a general deluge have, indeed,\nbeen greatly weakened by the progress of philosophical knowledge; and\nmay be regarded as nearly given up, like the former notion of the high\nantiquity of the race of men, founded on the Chinese and Egyptian\nchronologies and pretended histories. Philosophy has even at last found\nout that there is sufficient water in the ocean, if called forth, to\noverflow the highest mountains to the height given by Moses,--a\nconclusion which it once stoutly denied. Keill formerly computed that\ntwenty-eight oceans would be necessary for that purpose; but we are now\ninformed \u201cthat a farther progress in mathematical and physical knowledge\nhas shown the different seas and oceans to contain, at least,\nforty-eight times more water than they were then supposed to do; and\nthat the mere raising of the temperature of the whole body of the ocean\nto a degree no greater than marine animals live in, in the shallow seas\nbetween the tropics, would so expand it as more than to produce the\nheight above the mountains stated in the Mosaic account.\u201d As to the\ndeluge of Noah, therefore, infidelity has almost entirely lost the aid\nof philosophy in framing objections to the Scriptures.\n\nDEMONIAC, a human being possessed with and actuated by some spiritual\nmalignant being of superior power. The word _demon_ is used by Pagan\nwriters often in a good sense, and is applied to their divinities; but\nthe demons of holy writ are malignant spirits. We are not informed very\nparticularly about their origin or destiny; but we find them represented\nas \u03d6\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1, and \u03d6\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03d6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70, _unclean_ and _evil spirits_;\nand we must consider them as in league with the devil, as the subjects\nof his dominion, and the instruments of his will. They were the\nimmediate agents in all possessions; and to expel or restrain them, or\nto cure the diseases which they were supposed to occasion, was one of\nthe miraculous gifts of the early times.\n\n2. On this subject an ardent controversy was agitated about the middle\nand toward the end of the last century, between Dr. Farmer and his\nopponents. In this controversy, of which we shall attempt to give a\nshort view, it was contended, on the one hand, that the demoniacal cases\nrecorded in the books of the New Testament, were instances of real\npossession; and, on the other, that they were merely diseases, set forth\nunder the notion of possessions, in conformity with the belief which was\nprevalent at the time. By the one party, the language of holy writ was\ninterpreted literally; and by the other it was considered as figurative,\nand used in the way of accommodation to the existing opinions. The\nleading asseveration of Dr. Farmer, upon the general question, is, that\nmiracles, or works surpassing the power of men, are never performed\nwithout a divine interposition; and by a divine interposition he means,\neither the immediate agency of the Deity himself, or of beings empowered\nand commissioned by him. And the proof of this asseveration, he tells\nus, may very easily be found, if we consider that, on any other\nsupposition, it is impossible to show that a religion supported by\nmiracles is really from God. For the miracles in question, or works\nsurpassing the power of human beings, may have been performed by evil\nspirits, acting independently of the Divinity, thwarting his purposes,\nand marring the operation of his goodness. Should it be said that, from\nthe tendency of the miracle itself, and _a fortiori_, from the tendency\nof the miracle and religion when taken together, we may easily infer the\ncharacter of the being from whom the whole scheme proceeds,--to this\nalso Dr. Farmer is ready with his answer. \u201cWith regard to doctrines,\u201d\nsays he \u201cof a moral or useful tendency, it is not, in all cases, easy\nfor the bulk of mankind, or even for the wise and learned, to form a\ncertain judgment concerning them. What to men appeared to have a\ntendency to promote virtue and happiness, superior beings, who discerned\nits remotest effects, might know to be a curse rather than a blessing,\nand give it countenance from a motive of malevolence. On the other hand,\na doctrine really subservient to the cause of piety and virtue, men\nmight judge to be prejudicial to it. And were the sanctity of the\ndoctrine ever so apparent, it would not (on the principles of those with\nwhom we are here arguing) certainly follow from hence, that the miracles\nrecommending it were wrought by God; inasmuch as other beings, from\nmotives unknown to us, might interest themselves in favour of such a\ndoctrine.\u201d In one word, according to this author, we do not know whether\nthe tendency of the miracle, or of the religion, be good or not; and\ntherefore we can form no accurate idea of the character really belonging\nto the being from whom the revelation proceeds. To our eyes the system\nmay appear well calculated to promote our happiness, but it may have\nbeen the contrivance of wicked spirits. According to the sense and\ndiscernment of men, the miracle is useful in itself, but we cannot be\nsure whether it may not have been performed by one of the rebellious\nangels \u201cwho kept not their first estate.\u201d In conformity with these\nopinions, Dr. Farmer maintains that there is not an instance recorded in\nsacred Scripture, where a miracle has been wrought, and where there is\nnot sufficient reason to believe that the effect was produced either by\nthe Deity himself, or by agents commissioned and empowered to act in his\nname. Hence he considers the Egyptian magicians as jugglers; the witch\nof Endor, as a ventriloquist; and, completing the system, he has written\nan elaborate dissertation to prove, that when Christ was \u201ctempted of the\ndevil,\u201d as the Evangelist Matthew expresses it, that apostate angel was\nnot really present; and that the whole transaction took place in a\nvision or a dream.\n\nWith regard to the demoniacs of the New Testament, this writer and his\nfollowers contend that, among the Jews, certain diseases, such as\nmadness and epilepsy, were usually ascribed to the agency of evil\nspirits. This was the current notion and belief of the country. Upon\nthis notion the ordinary phraseology was built. Our Lord and his\nApostles adapted their instructions to this prevailing notion, and used\nthe language which had been formed upon it; just as Moses, in his\naccount of the creation, adapts himself to the popular astronomy of his\ntime, instead of laying before us the true system of the heavenly\nbodies. He speaks, not in relation to what is physically correct, but in\nrelation to what was believed. He founds his instructions upon the ideas\nalready entertained by the people to whom the revelation was first\ncommunicated: and Christ and his Apostles do the very same thing. They\nspeak of the demoniacs, not according to the real state of the case, but\naccording to the notions which the Jews entertained of it. Not a few of\nthose demoniacs appear to have been persons of a disordered\nunderstanding, subject to attacks of mania; some of them were afflicted\nwith the epilepsy, or falling sickness, some were deaf, and others were\ndumb. When a demon is said to enter into a man, the meaning is, that his\nmadness is about to show itself in a violent paroxysm; when a demon is\nsaid to speak, it is only the unhappy victim of the disease himself that\nspeaks; and when a demon or devil is expelled, the exact truth of the\ncase, as well as the whole of the miracle, is nothing more than that the\ndisease is cured. Occasionally, too, say those who contend against the\nreality of demoniacal possessions, the language of the sacred books\nconfirms the explanation which has just been given. Thus, in the tenth\nchapter of St. John\u2019s Gospel, we find the Jews saying of Christ, \u201cHe\nhath a devil, and is mad,\u201d as if the expressions were perfectly\nequivalent; and the person who is represented, in the seventeenth\nchapter of Matthew, as a lunatic, is spoken of by St. Mark as vexed with\na dumb spirit. It is farther argued on this side of the question, that\nthe instances of possession recorded in the books of the New Testament\nhave all the features and appearance of ordinary diseases. The madness\nshows itself in these cases, just as it shows itself in the cases which\noccur among ourselves in the present day: it is now melancholy, and the\npatient is silent and sullen, and now it vents itself in bursts of anger\nand ferocious resentment. And the epilepsy of the sacred books is the\nepilepsy of all our systems of nosology: the phenomena of the diseases\nare precisely the same. Nor does this, say they, detract from the very\nhigh character which Christ undoubtedly sustains in the inspired\nwritings, or diminish the value of his miracles as the evidences of our\nreligion; since it must be allowed, that to cure a disease with a word\nor a touch is an effort of power far beyond the reach of any human\nbeing. And let it be remembered, that those who deny the expulsion of\ndemons are ready to admit that diseases were miraculously cured. There\nis a miracle in either case; and, in either case, it is a sufficient\nproof of our Saviour\u2019s mission, and an adequate support of the Christian\nfaith.\n\n3. To these statements and reasonings, the advocates of possessions have\nnot been slow to reply. They call in question the truth of Dr. Farmer\u2019s\nleading asseveration; namely, \u201cthat extraordinary works have never been\nperformed without a divine interposition;\u201d and contend, that as human\nbeings have a certain sphere and agency allotted them, so it is\nreasonable to believe that malignant spirits have a wider sphere, and an\nagency less controlled; and that within this sphere, and in the exercise\nof this agency, they perform actions, the tendency of which is to thwart\nthe purposes of the divine beneficence, and to introduce confusion and\nmisery into the world. They argue, too, that the devil himself, the\nchief of the apostate spirits, is often represented in holy writ as\nexerting his malignity in opposition to the designs of infinite\ngoodness; and in the case of our first parents, as a remarkable example,\nhe tempted them to disobedience, and led them to their fall. It was in\nconsequence of his machinations, that they brought down upon themselves\nthe wrath of Heaven, and were driven from the garden in which \u201cthe Lord\nhad placed them.\u201d The advocates of possessions contend still farther,\nthat the revelation which is made to us in sacred Scripture is addressed\nto our understandings; that it is not only in our power, but that it is\nour indispensable duty, to examine it, and to judge of it; that the\ntendency of any miracle, or system of doctrine, is a sufficient evidence\nof the character belonging to him who performs the miracle, or publishes\nthe doctrine; that good actions are demonstrative of the quality of\ngoodness; and, in short, that a religion calculated to make us happy\nmust have proceeded from a Being who has consulted and provided for our\nhappiness. Nor is this a matter so abstruse and remote from human\napprehension, that we can form no opinion about it. \u201cFor,\u201d say they, \u201cif\nany thing connected with Christianity be plain, it seems to be that the\ntendency of the religion is beneficent; and that it is no less pure in\nits character than blessed in its effects. The very miracles recorded in\nScripture are proofs of goodness. They must have been wrought by a good\nbeing. And,\u201d they continue, \u201cwe think ourselves entitled to hold our\nreligion as true, and to regard it as in the highest degree beneficial,\nthough we must allow, at the same time, that the magicians of Egypt\nperformed many wonderful works by the agency of wicked spirits; that the\nsorceress of Endor was in league with the powers of darkness, and that\nChrist was literally tempted \u2018of the devil,\u2019 in the wilderness of\nJudea.\u201d\n\n4. With regard to the more specific question of demoniacal possessions,\nthey answer, that though God has often been pleased to accommodate\nhimself to our apprehension by adopting the current language of the\ncountries, where the revelation was first published; yet the account of\nthe creation given by Moses is not altogether an instance in point. For,\nsay they, while it is granted that the true system of the universe is\nnot laid before us in the first chapter of Genesis, it ought to be\nremembered that the statements in that chapter are exceedingly general;\nand that, while the whole truth is not told, it being no part of the\nrevelation to tell it, there is, at the same time, no error directly\ninculcated. In the demoniacal cases, however, the conduct of the\ninspired writers, and, indeed, of Christ himself, is widely different.\nThey positively and directly inform us, that a demon \u201centers into\u201d a\nman, and \u201ccomes out\u201d of him; they represent the demons as speaking, and\nreasoning, and hoping, and fearing, as having inclinations and aversions\npeculiar to themselves, and distinct from those of the person who is the\nsubject of the possession; they tell us of one unhappy sufferer who was\nvexed with many devils; and, in the case of the demoniac of Gadara, they\nassure us that the devils were \u201ccast out\u201d of the man, and were\npermitted, at their own request, to \u201center into\u201d a herd of swine which\nwere feeding in the neighbourhood, and that immediately the herd ran\nviolently down a steep place, and were drowned in the sea. Who ever\nheard of swine afflicted with madness as a natural disease? Or, when and\nwhere has the epilepsy, or falling sickness, been predicable of the sow?\nFor, it must be carefully observed that the disease of the man, the\naffection of the human sufferer, whatever that affection might have\nbeen, was clearly transferred from him to the animals in question.\nBeside, as various instances are recorded in Scripture, and as several\ncases are given at considerable length, might we not expect, if\npossessions were really nothing more than ordinary diseases, that the\ntruth would be somewhere told or hinted at? that, within the compass of\nthe sacred canon, something would be said, or something insinuated,\nwhich would lead us to understand that the language, though inaccurate\nand improper, was used in accommodation to the popular belief? Might we\nnot expect that Christ himself would have declared, in one unequivocal\naffirmation, or in some intelligible way, the exact truth of the case?\nOr, at all events, when the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Apostles\non the day of pentecost, and when the full disclosure of the revelation\nappears to have been made, might it not reasonably have been looked for\nthat the popular error would have been rectified, and the language\nreduced from its figurative character to a state of simple correctness?\nWhat conceivable motive could influence our Saviour, or his Apostles, to\nsanction the delusion of the multitude? And does it not strike at the\nroot of the Christian religion itself, to have it thought, for a single\nmoment, that its \u201cAuthor and Finisher,\u201d who came to enlighten and to\nreform the world, should have, on so many occasions, not only\ncountenanced, but confirmed, an opinion which he must have known to be\n\u201cthe reverse of the truth\u201d?\n\nLet us then, say they, beware how we relinquish the literal sense of\nholy writ, in search of allegorical or figurative interpretations. And\nif, upon any occasion, we think it proper to do so, let us consider well\nthe grounds and reasons upon which our determination is built. It is\nevident that the devil and his angels, according to all that we can\nlearn of them in the sacred books, are real beings; that the demons of\nthe New Testament are malignant spirits; and that they act upon the same\nprinciples, and even under the authority of Satan himself, who is\notherwise called Beelzebub, and the prince of the devils. Nay, in these\nvery cases of possession, the chief of the apostate angels is clearly\nset forth as acting either in his own person, or by means of his\ninfernal agents. And it is on this supposition alone that we can explain\nthe language of Christ in that remarkable declaration which he makes to\nthe Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, and which we find recorded in the\ntwelfth chapter of the Gospel by St. Matthew. \u201cThe Pharisees heard it,\u201d\nobserves the Evangelist, \u201cand they said, This fellow doth not cast out\ndevils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their\nthoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is\nbrought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself\nshall not stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against\nhimself: how shall then his kingdom stand?\u201d\n\n5. On this subject of diseases it is also to be observed, that the\ninspired writers uniformly make a distinction between diseases occurring\nin the ordinary course of nature, and diseases occasioned by the agency\nof evil spirits. \u201cThere is every where,\u201d says Bishop Porteus, \u201ca plain\ndistinction made between common diseases and demoniacal possessions,\nwhich shows that they are totally different things. In the fourth\nchapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the very first mention is\nmade of these possessions, it is said that our Lord\u2019s fame went\nthroughout all Syria, and that they brought unto him \u2018all sick people,\nthat were taken with divers diseases and torments,\u2019 and those \u2018which\nwere possessed with devils,\u2019 and he healed them. Here those that were\ntaken with divers diseases and torments, and those possessed with\ndevils, are mentioned as distinct and separate persons: a plain proof\nthat the demoniacal possessions were not natural diseases: and the very\nsame distinction is made in several other passages of holy writ. There\ncan be no doubt, therefore, that the demoniacs were persons really\npossessed with evil spirits; and although it may appear strange to us,\nyet we find, from Josephus and other historians, that it was in those\ntimes no uncommon case.\u201d\n\n6. We may conclude, from the argument on both sides of the question,\nthat the only reason which can be urged for departing from the obvious\nsense of Scripture is, that cases of possession involve a philosophical\nmystery. This, truly, is a very insufficient ground, and especially when\nwe consider that if we better knew the nature of spirits, and of our own\nframe, the philosophy might appear all on the opposite side, and no\ndoubt would do so. But no one who admits the Scriptures to decide this\nquestion, can consistently stand upon that objectionable ground of\ninterpretation to which he is forced by denying the plain and consistent\nsense of innumerable passages. If he admits this error, he must admit\nmany others; for a Bible, so interpreted, may be made to mean any thing.\n\nDESTRUCTIONISTS, a denomination of Christians who believe that the final\npunishment threatened in the Gospel to the wicked and impenitent,\nconsists not in eternal misery, but in a total extinction of being; and\nthat the sentence of annihilation shall be executed with more or less\nprevious torment, in proportion to the greater or less guilt of the\ncriminal. This doctrine is largely maintained in the sermons of the late\nDr. John Taylor, of Norwich; Mr. S. Bourn, of Birmingham; and many\nothers. In defence of the system, Mr. Bourn argues, that there are many\npassages of Scripture, in which the ultimate punishment to which wicked\nmen shall be adjudged is defined, in the most precise and intelligible\nterms, to be an everlasting destruction, proceeding from Him who is\nequally able to destroy as to create; and who, by our Lord himself, is\nsaid to be \u201cable to destroy both soul and body in hell.\u201d By the\n\u201ceverlasting punishment of the wicked,\u201d therefore, Mr. B. understands\n\u201ceverlasting destruction,\u201d literally speaking, \u201cfrom the presence of the\nLord,\u201d which is \u201cthe second death;\u201d from which there can be no\nresurrection, and which is set in opposition to \u201ceternal life.\u201d In\nspeaking of the images used to illustrate this subject, Mr. B. remarks,\nthat the wicked are compared to combustible materials, as brands, tares,\n&c, which the fire utterly consumes: so Sodom and Gomorrah suffer \u201cthe\nvengeance of eternal fire,\u201d that is, they are destroyed for ever; and\nthe phrases, \u201cthe worm that dieth not, and the fire which is not\nquenched,\u201d are placed in opposition to entering into life, and denote\nthe termination of existence, Mark ix, 43.\n\nTo all this it may be answered: 1. That annihilation, as a punishment,\nadmits of no degrees. 2. If we connect with this a previous state of\ntorment, (as Mr. Winchester says, \u201cfor ages of ages,\u201d) annihilation must\nbe rather a relief from punishment, than the punishment itself. 3. That\nannihilation is rather a suspension than an exertion of divine power. 4.\nThat the punishment of impenitent men is described as the same with that\nof the fallen angels, who are not annihilated, Matt. xxv, 41, but remain\nin expectation of future punishment, \u201cArt thou come to torment us before\nthe time?\u201d Matt. viii, 29. 5. In the state of future punishment, there\nis said to be \u201cweeping and gnashing of teeth,\u201d Matt. xxiv, 51. 6. As the\nhappiness of saints in the future state consists not merely in being,\nbut in well being, or happiness; so the punishment of the wicked\nrequires the idea of eternal suffering to support the contrast. It might\nbe added, that annihilation, as far as we know, forms no part of the\ndivine economy. One thing is also certain and indisputable: the strong\nlanguage of Scripture is intended to deter men from sin; and whoever\nattempts to remove the barrier, offers insult to the divine wisdom, and\ntrifles with his own destiny. But the capital argument is, that it is\nunscriptural:--\u201cWhere their worm dieth not, and the fire is not\nquenched,\u201d is, like many others, a declaration, to which no dexterity of\ninterpretation can give any other good sense, than the continuance of\nconscious punishment.\n\nDEVIL, _Diabolus_, an evil angel. The word is formed from the French\n_diable_, of the Latin _diabolus_, which comes from the Greek \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03d0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\nwhich, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies _calumniator_, _traducer_,\nor _false accuser_, from the verb \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03d0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to calumniate_, &c; or\nfrom the ancient British _diafol_. Dr. Campbell observes, that, though\nthe word is sometimes, both in the Old Testament and the New, applied to\nmen and women, as traducers, it is, by way of eminence, employed to\ndenote that apostate angel, who is exhibited to us, particularly in the\nNew Testament, as the great enemy of God and man. In the two first\nchapters of Job, it is the word in the Septuagint by which the Hebrew\n\u05e9\u05d8\u05df, _Satan_, or _adversary_, is translated. Indeed, the Hebrew word in\nthis application, as well as the Greek, has been naturalized in most\nmodern languages. Thus we say, indifferently, _the devil_, or _Satan_;\nonly the latter has more the appearance of a proper name, as it is not\nattended with the article. There is, however, this difference between\nthe import of such terms, as occurring in their native tongues, and as\nmodernized in translations. In the former, they always retain somewhat\nof their primitive meaning, and, beside indicating a particular being,\nor class of beings, they are of the nature of appellatives, and make a\nspecial character or note of distinction in such beings. Whereas, when\nthus Latinized or Englished, they answer solely the first of these uses,\nas they come nearer the nature of proper names. \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03d0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is sometimes\napplied to human beings; but nothing is more easy than to distinguish\nthis application from the more frequent application to the\narch-apostate. One mark of distinction is, that, in this last use of the\nterm, it is never found in the plural. When the plural is used, the\ncontext always shows that it refers to human beings, and not to fallen\nangels. It occurs in the plural only thrice, and that only in the\nepistles of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii, 11; 2 Tim. iii, 3; Titus ii, 3.\nAnother criterion whereby the application of this word to the prince of\ndarkness may be discovered, is its being attended with the article. The\nterm almost invariably is \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03d0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. The excepted instances occur in\nthe address of Paul to Elymas the sorcerer, Acts xiii, 10; and that of\nour Lord to the Pharisees, John viii, 44. The more doubtful cases are\nthose in 1 Peter v, 8, and Rev. xx, 2. These are all the examples in\nwhich the word, though used indefinitely or without the article,\nevidently denotes our spiritual and ancient enemy; and the examples in\nwhich it occurs in this sense with the article, are too numerous to be\nrecited.\n\n2. That there are angels and spirits, good and bad, says an eminent\nwriter; that at the head of these last, there is one more considerable\nand malignant than the rest, who, in the form, or under the name, of a\nserpent, was deeply concerned in the fall of man, and whose head, in the\nlanguage of prophecy, the Son of Man was one day to bruise; that this\nevil spirit, though that prophecy be in part fulfilled, has not yet\nreceived his death\u2019s wound, but is still permitted, for ends to us\nunsearchable, and in ways which we cannot particularly explain, to have\na certain degree of power in this world, hostile to its virtue and\nhappiness,--all this is so clear from Scripture, that no believer,\nunless he be previously \u201cspoiled by philosophy and vain deceit,\u201d can\npossibly entertain a doubt of it. Certainly, among the numerous\nrefinements of modern times, there is scarcely any thing more\nextraordinary than the attempt that has been made, and is still making,\nto persuade us that there really exists no such being in the world as\nthe devil; and that when the inspired writers speak of such a being, all\nthat they mean is, to personify the evil principle! A bold effort\nunquestionably; and could its advocates succeed in persuading men into\nthe universal belief of it, they would do more to promote his cause and\ninterest in the world than he himself has been able to effect since the\nseduction of our first parents. But to be armed against this subtle\nstratagem, let us attend to the plain doctrine of divine revelation\nrespecting this matter. In the Old Testament, particularly in the first\ntwo chapters of Job, this evil spirit is called Satan; and in the New\nTestament, he is spoken of under various titles, which are also\ndescriptive of his power and malignity; as for example, he is called,\n\u201cthe prince of this world,\u201d John xii, 31; \u201cthe prince of the power of\nthe air,\u201d Eph. ii, 2; \u201cthe god of this world,\u201d 2 Cor. iv, 4; \u201cthe\ndragon, that old serpent, the devil,\u201d Rev. xx, 2; \u201cthe wicked one,\u201d 1\nJohn v, 19. He is represented as exercising a sovereign sway over the\nhuman race in their natural state, or previous to their being\nenlightened, regenerated, and sanctified by the Gospel, Eph. ii, 2, 3.\nHis kingdom is described as a kingdom of darkness; and the influence\nwhich he exercises over the human mind is called \u201cthe power,\u201d or energy,\n\u201cof darkness,\u201d Col. i, 13. Hence believers are said to be \u201ccalled out of\ndarkness into marvellous light,\u201d 1 Peter ii, 9. Farther, he is said to\ngo about \u201cas a roaring lion, seeking its prey, that he may destroy men\u2019s\nsouls,\u201d 1 Peter v, 8. Christ says, \u201cHe was a murderer from the\nbeginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him;\nwhen he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of that which is his own, for he is\na liar, and the father of it,\u201d John viii, 44. We are also taught that\nthis grand adversary of God and man has a numerous band of fallen\nspirits under his control; and that both he and they are reserved under\na sentence of condemnation unto the judgment of the great day, Jude 6;\nand that \u201ceverlasting fire,\u201d or perpetual torment, \u201cis prepared for the\ndevil and his angels,\u201d Matt. xxv, 41. In these various passages of\nScripture, and many others which might be added, the existence of the\ndevil is expressly stated; but if, as our modern Sadducees affirm,\nnothing more is intended in them than a personification of the abstract\nquality of evil, the Bible, and especially the New Testament, must be\neminently calculated to mislead us in matters which intimately concern\nour eternal interests. If, in inferring from them the existence of evil\nspirits in this world, we can be mistaken, it will not be an easy matter\nto show what inference deduced from Scripture premises may safely be\nrelied on. It ought not, however, to surprise Christians that attempts\nof this kind should be made. St. Paul tells us, that in his day there\nwere \u201cfalse apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into\nthe apostles of Christ; and no wonder,\u201d says he, \u201cfor Satan himself is\ntransformed into an angel of light,\u201d 2 Cor. xi, 13, 14.\n\n3. To the notion, that the Jews derived their opinions on this subject\nfrom the oriental philosophy, and that like the Persians they set up a\nrival god; it may be replied, that the Jewish notion of the devil had no\nresemblance to what the Persians first, and the Manicheans afterward,\ncalled the evil principle; which they made in some sort co\u00f6rdinate with\nGod, and the first source of all evil, as the other is of good. For the\ndevil, in the Jewish system, is a creature as much as any other being in\nthe universe, and is liable to be controlled by omnipotence,--an\nattribute which they ascribed to God alone.\n\n4. The arguments from philosophy against the existence of evil spirits\nare as frail as that which is pretended to be grounded upon criticism.\nFor that there is nothing irrational in the notion of superior beings,\nis plain from this: that if there be other beings below us, there may be\nothers above us. If we have demonstration of one Being at least who is\ninvisible, there may be many other created invisible and spiritual\nbeings. If we see men sometimes so bad as to delight in tempting others\nto sin and ruin, there may exist a whole order of fallen beings who may\nhave the same business and the same malignant pleasure; and if we see\nsome men furiously bent upon destroying truth and piety, this is\nprecisely what is ascribed to these evil spirits. It is one of the\nserious circumstances of our probation on earth, that we should be\nexposed to this influence of Satan, and we are therefore called to\n\u201cwatch and pray that we enter not into temptation.\u201d\n\n5. The establishment of the worship of devils so general in some form\nthroughout a great part of the Heathen world, is at once a painful and a\ncurious subject, and deserves a more careful investigation than it has\nreceived. In modern times, devil-worship is seen systematized in Ceylon,\nBurmah, and many parts of the East Indies; and an order of devil-priests\nexists, though contrary to the Budhist religion, against the temples of\nwhich it sets up rival altars.\n\nMr. Ives, in his Travels through Persia, gives the following curious\naccount of devil-worship: \u201cThese people (the Sanjacks, a nation\ninhabiting the country about Mosul, the ancient Nineveh) once professed\nChristianity, then Mohammedanism, and last of all devilism. They say it\nis true that the devil has at present a quarrel with God; but the time\nwill come when, the pride of his heart being subdued, he will make his\nsubmission to the Almighty; and, as the Deity cannot be implacable, the\ndevil will receive a full pardon for all his transgressions, and both\nhe, and all those who paid him attention during his disgrace, will be\nadmitted into the blessed mansions. This is the foundation of their\nhope, and this chance for heaven they esteem to be a better one than\nthat of trusting to their own merits, or the merits of the leader of any\nother religion whatsoever. The person of the devil they look on as\nsacred; and when they affirm any thing solemnly, they do it by his name.\nAll disrespectful expressions of him they would punish with death, did\nnot the Turkish power prevent them. Whenever they speak of him, it is\nwith the utmost respect; and they always put before his name a certain\ntitle corresponding to that of highness or lord.\u201d The worshippers of the\ndevil mentioned by Ives were also found by Niebuhr in the same country,\nin a village between Bagdad and Mosul, called Abd-el-asis, on the great\nZab, a river which empties itself into the Tigris. This village, says\nhe, is entirely inhabited by people who are called Isidians, and also\nDau\u00e2sin. As the Turks allow the free exercise of religion only to those\nwho possess sacred books, that is, the Mohammedans, Christians, and\nJews, the Isidians are obliged to keep the principles of their religion\nvery secret. They therefore call themselves Mohammedans, Christians, or\nJews, according to the party of him who inquires what their religion is.\nSome accuse them of worshipping the devil under the name of Tschellebi;\nthat is, Lord. Others say that they show great reverence for the sun and\nfire, that they are unpolished Heathens, and have horrid customs. I have\nalso been assured that the Dau\u00e2sins do not worship the devil; but adore\nGod alone as the Creator and Benefactor of all mankind. They will not\nspeak of Satan, nor even have his name mentioned. They say that it is\njust as improper for men to take a part in the dispute between God and a\nfallen angel, as for a peasant to ridicule and curse a servant of the\npacha who has fallen into disgrace; that God did not require our\nassistance to punish Satan for his disobedience; it might happen that he\nmight receive him into favour again; and then we must be ashamed before\nthe judgment seat of God, if we had, uncalled for, abused one of his\nangels: it was therefore the best not to trouble one\u2019s self about the\ndevil; but endeavour not to incur God\u2019s displeasure ourselves. When the\nIsidians go to Mosul, they are not detained by the magistrates, even if\nthey are known. The vulgar, however, sometimes attempt to extort money\nfrom them. When they offer eggs or butter to them for sale, they\nendeavour first to get the articles into their hands, and then dispute\nabout the price, or for this or other reasons to abuse Satan with all\ntheir might; on which the Dau\u00e2sin is often polite enough to leave every\nthing behind, rather than hear the devil abused. But in the countries\nwhere they have the upper hand, nobody is allowed to curse him, unless\nhe chooses to be beaten, or perhaps even to lose his life.\n\nDEUTERONOMY, from \u03b4\u03ad\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, _second_, and \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, _law_; the last book of\nthe Pentateuch or five books of Moses. As its name imports, it contains\na repetition of the civil and moral law, which was a second time\ndelivered by Moses, with some additions and explanations, as well to\nimpress it more forcibly upon the Israelites in general, as in\nparticular for the benefit of those who, being born in the wilderness,\nwere not present at the first promulgation of the law. It contains also\na recapitulation of the several events which had befallen the Israelites\nsince their departure from Egypt, with severe reproaches for their past\nmisconduct, and earnest exhortations to future obedience. The Messiah is\nexplicitly foretold in this book; and there are many remarkable\npredictions interspersed in it, particularly in the twenty-eighth,\nthirtieth, thirty-second, and thirty-third chapters, relative to the\nfuture condition of the Jews. The book of Deuteronomy finishes with an\naccount of the death of Moses, which is supposed to have been added by\nhis successor, Joshua.\n\nDEW. Dews in Palestine are very plentiful, like a small shower of rain\nevery morning. Gideon filled a basin with the dew which fell on a fleece\nof wool, Judges vi, 38. Isaac, blessing Jacob, wished him the dew of\nheaven, which fattens the fields, Gen. xxvii, 28. In those warm\ncountries where it seldom rains, the night dews supply the want of\nshowers. Isaiah speaks of rain as if it were a dew, Isaiah xviii, 4.\nSome of the most beautiful and illustrative of the images of the Hebrew\npoets are taken from the dews of their country. The reviving influence\nof the Gospel, the copiousness of its blessings, and the multitude of\nits converts, are thus set forth.\n\nDIADEM. See CROWN.\n\nDIAL is not mentioned in Scripture before the reign of Ahaz.\nInterpreters differ concerning the form of the dial of Ahaz, 2 Kings xx.\nThe generality of expositors think that it was a staircase so disposed,\nthat the sun showed the hours upon it by the shadow. Others suppose that\nit was a pillar erected in the middle of a very level and smooth\npavement, on which the hours were engraven. According to these authors,\nthe lines marked in this pavement are what the Scripture calls degrees.\nGrotius describes it as follows: \u201cIt was a concave hemisphere, and in\nthe midst was a globe, the shadow of which fell on the different lines\nengraven in the concavity of the hemisphere; these lines were\ntwenty-eight in number.\u201d This description answers pretty nearly to that\nkind of dial, which the Greeks called _scapha_, a boat or hemisphere,\nthe invention (rather introduction) of which, Vitruvius ascribes to\nBerosus the Chaldean. It would seem, indeed, that the most ancient sun\ndial known is in the form of a half circle, hollowed into the stone, and\nthe stone cut down to an angle. This kind of dial was invented in\nBabylon, and was very probably the same as that of Ahaz.\n\nDIAMOND, \u05d9\u05d4\u05dc\u05dd. Exod. xxviii, 18; xxix, 11; Ezek. xxviii, 13. This has\nfrom remote antiquity been considered as the most valuable, or, more\nproperly, the most costly substance in nature. The reason of the high\nestimation in which it was held by the ancients was its rarity and its\nextreme hardness and brilliancy. It filled the sixth place in the high\npriest\u2019s breastplate, and on it was engraven the name of Naphtali.\n\nDIANA, a celebrated goddess of the Heathens, who was honoured\nprincipally at Ephesus, Acts xix. She was one of the number of the\ntwelve superior deities, and was called by the several names of Hebe,\nTrivia, and Hecate. In the heavens she was the moon, upon earth she was\ncalled Diana, and in hell Hecate. She was worshipped in Palestine,\nJeremiah vii, 18; xliv, 17, 18.\n\nDIONYSIUS, the Areopagite, a convert of St. Paul, Acts xvii, 34.\nChrysostom declares Dionysius to have been a citizen of Athens; which is\ncredible, because the judges of the Areopagus generally were so. After\nhis conversion, Dionysius was made the first bishop of Athens; having\nlaboured, and suffered much in the Gospel, he is said to have been burnt\nat Athens, A. D. 95. The works attributed to Dionysius are generally\nreputed spurious.\n\nDIRECTORY, an ecclesiastical instrument, containing directions for the\nconduct of religious worship, drawn up by the assembly of divines, by\norder of parliament, in 1645. It was intended to supply the use of the\nCommon Prayer Book, which had been abolished. It orders the reverent\nobservation of public worship, prayer, singing of psalms, the reading\nand exposition of the Scriptures, &c. It enjoins no forms, but\nrecommends the Lord\u2019s prayer as a model of devotion; directs that the\nLord\u2019s Supper may be received sitting; that the Sabbath day be strictly\nobserved; but puts down all saints\u2019 days, consecrations of churches, and\nprivate or lay baptisms. This Directory, which was formerly bound with\nthe Westminster confession of faith, is still, in effect, the plan of\nworship among the Dissenters, and especially the Presbyterians.\n\nDISCIPLE. The proper signification of this word is a learner; but it\nsignifies in the New Testament, a believer, a Christian, a follower of\nJesus Christ. Disciple is often used instead of Apostle in the Gospels;\nbut, subsequently, Apostles were distinguished from disciples. The\nseventy-two who followed our Saviour from the beginning, are called\ndisciples; as are others who were of the body of believers and bore no\noffice. In subsequent times, the name disciple, in the sense of learner,\nwas sometimes given to the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u201c_auditores_,\u201d persons who, in\nthe primitive church, were receiving a preparatory instruction in\nChristianity. They were divided into two classes, those who received\nprivate instruction, and those who were admitted to the congregations,\nand were under immediate preparation for baptism. The church readers\nwere, in some places, appointed to instruct the catechumens; and at\nAlexandria, where often learned men presented themselves for\ninstruction, the office of catechist was filled by learned laymen, and\nthese catechists laid the foundation of an important theological school.\n\nDISEASES. In the primitive ages of the world, diseases, in consequence\nof the great simplicity in the mode of living, were but few in number.\nAt a subsequent period the number was increased by the accession of\ndiseases that had been previously unknown. Epidemics also, diseases\nsomewhat peculiar in their character, and still more fearful in their\nconsequences, soon made their appearance, some infesting one period of\nlife, and some another; some limiting their ravages to one country, and\nsome to another. Prosper Alpinus mentions the diseases which are\nprevalent in Egypt, and in other countries in the same climate: they are\nophthalmies, leprosies, inflammations of the brain, pains in the joints,\nthe hernia, the stone in the reins and bladder, the phthisic, hectic,\npestilential and tertian fevers, weakness of the stomach, obstructions\nin the liver, and the spleen. Of these diseases, ophthalmies,\npestilential fevers, and inflammations of the brain, are epidemics; the\nothers are of a different character. The leprosy prevails in Egypt, in\nthe southern part of Upper Asia, and in fact may be considered a disease\nendemic in warm climates generally. Accordingly, it is not at all\nsurprising, if many of the Hebrews, when they left Egypt, were infected\nwith it; but the assertion of Manetho, that they were all thus infected,\nand were in consequence of the infection, driven out by force, in which\nhe is precipitately and carelessly followed by Strabo, Tacitus, by\nJustin Trogus, and others more recent, is a mere dream without any\nfoundation. The appearance of the disease externally is not always the\nsame. The spot is commonly small, and resembling in its appearance the\nsmall red spot that would be the consequence of a puncture from a\nneedle, or the pustules of a ringworm. The spots for the most part make\ntheir appearance very suddenly, especially if the infected person, at\nthe period when the disease shows itself externally, happens to be in\ngreat fear, or to be moved with anger, Num. xii, 10; 2 Chron. xxvi, 19.\nThey commonly exhibit themselves in the first instance on the face,\nabout the nose and eyes; and gradually increase in size for a number of\nyears, till they become, as respects the extent of surface which they\nembrace on the skin, as large as a pea or bean; they are then called\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea. The white spot or pustule, \u05d1\u05d4\u05e8\u05ea, _morphea alba_, and also the dark\nspot, \u05e1\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea, _morphea nigra_, are indications of the existence of the\nreal leprosy, Lev. xiii, 2, 39; xiv, 56. From these it is necessary to\ndistinguish the spot, which, whatever resemblance there may be in form,\nis so different in its effects, called \u05d1\u05d4\u05e7, and also the harmless sort\nof scab, which occurs under the word, \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea, Lev. xiii, 6\u20138, 29. Moses,\nin the thirteenth chapter of Leviticus, lays down very explicit rules\nfor the purpose of distinguishing between those spots which are proofs\nof the actual existence of the leprosy, and those spots which are\nharmless and result from some other cause. Those spots which are the\ngenuine effects and marks of the leprosy gradually dilate themselves,\ntill at length they cover the whole body. Not only the skin is subject\nto a total destruction, but the body is affected in every part. The\npain, it is true, is not very great, but there is a great debility of\nthe system, and great uneasiness and grief, so much so, as almost to\ndrive the victim of the disease to self-destruction.\n\n2. Moses acted the part of a wise legislator in making those laws which\nhave come down to us concerning the inspection and separation of leprous\npersons. The object of these laws will appear peculiarly worthy, when it\nis considered, that they were designed, not wantonly to fix the charge\nof being a leper upon an innocent person, and thus to impose upon him\nthose restraints and inconveniences which the truth of such a charge\nnaturally implies, but to ascertain, in the fairest and most\nsatisfactory manner, and to separate those, and those only, who were\ntruly and really leprous. As this was the prominent object of his laws\nthat have come down to us on this subject, namely, to secure a fair and\nimpartial decision on a question of this kind, he has not mentioned\nthose signs of leprosy which admitted of no doubt, but those only which\nmight be the subject of contention; and left it to the priests, who also\nfulfilled the office of physicians, to distinguish between the really\nleprous, and those who had only the appearance of being such. We find\nmention, in the rules laid down by Moses for the purpose of ascertaining\nthe true tokens of leprosy, of a cutaneous disorder which is denominated\nby him _bohak_. The words of Moses, which may be found in Lev. xiii, 38,\n39, are as follows: \u201cIf a man or woman have white spots on the skin, and\nthe priest see that the colour of these spots is faint and pale, it is,\nin this case, the _bohak_ that has broken out on the skin, and they are\nclean.\u201d A person, accordingly, who was attacked with this disease, the\n_bohak_, was not declared unclean; and the reason of it was, that it is\nnot only harmless in itself, but is free from that infectious and\nhereditary character which belongs to the true leprosy. \u201cThe _bohak_\u201d\nsays Mr. Niebuhr, \u201cis neither infectious nor dangerous. A black boy at\nMocha, who was attacked with this sort of leprosy, had white spots here\nand there on his body. It was said that the use of sulphur had for some\ntime been of service to this boy, but had not altogether removed the\ndisease.\u201d He then adds the following extract from the papers of a Dr.\nFoster: \u201cMay 15th, 1763, I myself saw a case of the _bohak_ in a Jew at\nMocha. The spots in this disease are of unequal size. They have no\nshining appearance, nor are they perceptibly elevated above the skin;\nand they do not change the colour of the hair. Their colour is an\nobscure white or somewhat reddish. The rest of the skin of this patient\nwas blacker than that of the people of the country was in general, but\nthe spots were not so white as the skin of an European when not\nsunburnt. The spots, in this species of leprosy, do not appear on the\nhands, nor about the navel, but on the neck and face; not, however, on\nthat part of the head where the hair grows very thick. They gradually\nspread, and continue sometimes only about two months; but in some cases,\nindeed, as long as two years, and then disappear, by degrees, of\nthemselves. This disorder is neither infectious nor hereditary, nor does\nit occasion any inconvenience.\u201d \u201cThat all this,\u201d remarks Micha\u00eblis,\n\u201cshould still be found exactly to hold at the distance of three thousand\nfive hundred years from the time of Moses, ought certainly to gain some\ncredit to his laws, even with those who will not allow them to be of\ndivine authority.\u201d The pestilence, in its effects, is equally terrible\nwith the leprosy, and is much more rapid in its progress; for it\nterminates the existence of those who are infected with it almost\nimmediately, and at the farthest within three or four days. The Gentiles\nwere in the habit of referring back the pestilence to the agency and\ninterference of that being, whatever it might be, whether idol or\nspirit, whom they regarded as the divinity. The Hebrews, also, every\nwhere attribute it to the agency either of God himself, or of that\nlegate or angel, whom they denominate \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da.\n\n3. The _palsy_ of the New Testament is a disease of very wide import.\nMany infirmities, as Richter has demonstrated, were comprehended under\nthe word which is rendered _palsy_ in the New Testament. 1. The\napoplexy, a paralytic shock, which affected the whole body. 2. The\nhemiplegy, which affects and paralyzes only one side of the body. 3. The\nparaplegy, which paralyzes all the parts of the system below the neck.\n4. The catalepsy, which is caused by a contraction of the muscles in the\nwhole or a part of the body, for example, in the hands, and is very\ndangerous. The effects upon the parts seized are very violent and\ndeadly. For instance: when a person is struck with it, if his hand\nhappens to be extended, he is unable to draw it back. If the hand is not\nextended when he is struck with the disease, he is unable to extend it:\nit appears diminished in size, and dried up in appearance. Hence the\nHebrews were in the habit of calling it \u201ca withered hand,\u201d 1 Kings xiii,\n4\u20136; Zech. xi, 17; Matt. xii, 10\u201313; John v, 3. 5. The cramp, in\noriental countries, is a fearful malady, and by no means unfrequent. It\noriginates from the chills of the night. The limbs, when seized with it,\nremain immovable, sometimes turned in, and sometimes out, in the same\nposition as when they were first seized. The person afflicted resembles\nthose undergoing the torture \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, and experiences nearly the\nsame exquisite sufferings. Death follows the disease in a few days,\nMatt. viii, 6, 8; Luke vii, 2; 1 Macc. ix, 55\u201358.\n\nDISPENSATIONS, DIVINE. These are otherwise called \u201cthe ways of God,\u201d and\ndenote those schemes or methods which are devised and pursued by the\nwisdom and goodness of God, in order to manifest his perfections and\nwill to mankind, for the purpose of their instruction, discipline,\nreformation, and advancement in rectitude of temper and conduct, in\norder to promote their happiness. These are the grand ends of the divine\ndispensations; and in their aptitude to promote these ends consist their\nexcellence and glory. The works or constitutions of nature are, in a\ngeneral sense, divine dispensations, by which God condescends to display\nto us his being and attributes, and thus to lead us to the\nacknowledgment, adoration, and love, of our Creator, Father, and\nBenefactor. The sacred Scriptures reveal and record other dispensations\nof divine providence, which have been directed to the promotion of the\nreligious principles, moral conduct, and true happiness of mankind.\nThese have varied in several ages of the world, and have been adapted by\nthe wisdom and goodness of God to the circumstances of his intelligent\nand accountable creatures. In this sense the various revelations which\nGod has communicated to mankind at different periods, and the means he\nhas used, as occasion has required, for their discipline and\nimprovement, have been justly denominated divine dispensations.\nAccordingly, we read in the works of theological writers of the various\ndispensations of religion; that of the patriarchs, that of Moses, and\nthat of Christ, called the dispensation of grace, the perfection and\nultimate object of every other. All these were adapted to the conditions\nof the human race at these several periods; all, in regular succession,\nwere mutually connected and rendered preparatory one to the other; and\nall were subservient to the design of saving the world, and promoting\nthe perfection and happiness of its rational and moral inhabitants. See\nCOVENANT.\n\nDISPERSION OF MANKIND. See DIVISION OF THE EARTH.\n\nDIVINATION, a conjecture or surmise, formed concerning future events,\nfrom things which are supposed to presage them. The eastern people were\nalways fond of divination, magic, the curious arts of interpreting\ndreams, and of obtaining a knowledge of future events. When Moses\npublished the law, this disposition had long been common in Egypt and\nthe neighbouring countries. To prevent the Israelites from consulting\ndiviners, fortune tellers, interpreters of dreams, &c, he forbade them,\nunder very severe penalties, to consult persons of this description, and\npromised to them the true spirit of prophecy as infinitely superior. He\ncommanded those to be stoned who pretended to have a familiar spirit, or\nthe spirit of divination, Deut. xviii, 9, 10, 15. The writings of the\nprophets are full of invectives against the Israelites who consulted\ndiviners, and against false prophets who by such means seduced the\npeople.\n\n2. Different kinds of divination have passed for sciences, as 1.\nA\u00ebromancy, divining by the air. 2. Astrology, by the heavens. 3. Augury,\nby the flight and singing of birds, &c. 4. Cheiromancy, by inspecting\nthe lines of the hand. 5. Geomancy, by observing cracks or clefts in the\nearth. 6. Haruspicy, by inspecting the bowels of animals. 7. Horoscopy,\na branch of astrology, marking the position of the heavens when a person\nis born. 8. Hydromancy, by water. 9. Physiognomy, by the countenance.\n10. Pyromancy, a divination made by fire.\n\n3. The kinds of divination, to which superstition in modern times has\ngiven belief, are not less numerous, or less ridiculous, than those\nwhich were practised in the days of profound ignorance. The divining\nrod, which is mentioned in Scripture, is still in some repute in the\nnorth of England, though its application is now confined principally to\nthe discovery of veins of lead ore, seams of coal, or springs. In order\nthat it may possess the full virtue for this purpose, it should be made\nof hazel. Divination by Virgilian, Horatian, or Bible lots, was formerly\nvery common; and the last kind is still practised. The works are opened\nby chance, and the words noticed which are covered by the thumb: if they\ncan be interpreted in any respect relating to the person, they are\nreckoned prophetic. Charles I. is said to have used this kind of\ndivination to ascertain his fate. The ancient Christians were so much\naddicted to the _sortes sanctorum_, or divining by the Bible, that it\nwas expressly forbidden by a council. Divination by the speal, or blade\nbone of a sheep, is used in Scotland. In the Highlands it is called\n_sleina-reached_, or reading the speal bone. It was very common in\nEngland in the time of Drayton, particularly among the colony of\nFlemings settled in Pembrokeshire. Camden relates of the Irish, that\nthey looked through the bare blade bone of a sheep; and if they saw any\nspot in it darker than ordinary, they believed that somebody would be\nburied out of the house. The Persians used this mode of divination.\n\n4. Of all attempts to look into futurity by such means, as well as\nresorting to charms and other methods of curing diseases, and\ndiscovering secrets, we may say, that they are relics of Paganism, and\nargue an ignorance, folly, or superstition, dishonourable to the\nChristian name; and are therefore to be reproved and discouraged.\n\nDIVISION OF THE EARTH. The prophecy of Noah, says Dr. Hales, was uttered\nlong after the deluge. It evidently alludes to a divine decree for the\norderly division of the earth among the three primitive families of his\nsons, because it notices the \u201ctents of Shem\u201d and the \u201cenlargement of\nJapheth,\u201d Genesis ix, 20\u201327. This decree was probably promulgated about\nthe same time by the venerable patriarch. The prevailing tradition of\nsuch a decree for this threefold division of the earth, is intimated\nboth in the Old and New Testament. Moses refers to it, as handed down to\nthe Israelites, \u201cfrom the days of old, and the years of many\ngenerations; as they might learn from their fathers and their elders,\u201d\nand farther, as conveying a special grant of the land of Palestine, to\nbe the lot of the twelve tribes of Israel:--\n\n     \u201cWhen the Most High divided to the nations their settlements,\n     When he separated the sons of Adam,\n     He assigned the boundaries of the peoples [of Israel]\n     According to the number of the sons of Israel:\n     For the portion of the Lord is his people,\n     Jacob is the lot of his inheritance,\u201d Deut. xxxii, 7\u20139.\n\nAnd this furnishes an additional proof of the justice of the expulsion\nof the Canaanites, as usurpers, by the Israelites, the rightful\npossessors of the land of Palestine, under Moses, Joshua, and their\nsuccessors, when the original grant was renewed to Abraham, Gen. xv,\n13\u201321. And the knowledge of this divine decree may satisfactorily\naccount for the panic terror with which the devoted nations of Canaan\nwere struck at the miraculous passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites,\nand approach to their confines, so finely described by Moses:--\n\n         \u201cThe nations shall hear [this] and tremble,\n         Sorrow shall seize the inhabitants of Palestine.\n         Then shall the dukes of Edom be amazed,\n         Dismay shall possess the princes of Moab,\n         The inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away:\n         Fear and terror shall fall upon them,\n         By the greatness of thine arm they shall be petrified,\n         Till thy people pass over [Jordan] O Lord,\n         Till the people pass over, whom thou hast redeemed.\u201d\n                                           Exodus xv, 14\u201316.\n\nSt. Paul, also, addressing the Athenians, refers to the same decree, as\na well-known tradition in the Heathen world: \u201cGod made of one blood\nevery nation of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth; having\nappointed the predetermined seasons and boundaries of their dwellings,\u201d\nActs xvii, 26. Here he represents mankind as all of \u201cone blood,\u201d race,\nor stock, \u201cthe sons of Adam\u201d and of Noah in succession; and the seasons\nand the boundaries of their respective settlements, as previously\nregulated by the divine appointment. And this was conformable to their\nown geographical allegory; that Chronus, the god of time, or Saturn,\ndivided the universe among his three sons, allotting the heaven to\nJupiter, the sea to Neptune, and hell to Pluto. But Chronus represented\nNoah, who divided the world among his three sons, allotting the upper\nregions of the north to Japheth, the maritime or middle regions to Shem,\nand the lower regions of the south to Ham. According to the Armenian\ntradition recorded by Abulfaragi, Noah distributed the habitable earth\nfrom north to south between his sons, and gave to Ham the region of the\nblacks, to Shem the region of the tawny, _fuscorum_, and to Japheth the\nregion of the ruddy, _rubrorum_: and he dates the actual division of the\nearth in the hundred and fortieth year of Peleg, B. C. 2614, or five\nhundred and forty-one years after the deluge, and one hundred and\nninety-one years after the death of Noah, in the following order:--\u201cTo\nthe sons of Shem was allotted the middle of the earth, namely,\nPalestine, Syria, Assyria, Samaria, Singar, [or Shinar,] Babel, [or\nBabylonia,] Persia, and Hegiaz; [Arabia;] to the sons of Ham, Teimen,\n[or Idumea, Jer. xlix, 7,] Africa, Nigritia, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia,\nScindia, and India; [or India west and east of the river Indus;] to the\nsons of Japheth, also, Garbia, [the north,] Spain, France, the countries\nof the Greeks, Sclavonians, Bulgarians, Turks, and Armenians.\u201d In this\ncurious and valuable geographical chart, Armenia, the cradle of the\nhuman race, was allotted to Japheth, by right of primogeniture; and\nSamaria and Babel to the sons of Shem; the usurpation of these regions,\ntherefore, by Nimrod, and of Palestine by Canaan, was in violation of\nthe divine decree. Though the migration of the primitive families began\nat this time, B. C. 2614, or about five hundred and forty-one years\nafter the deluge, it was a length of time before they all reached their\nrespective destinations. The \u201cseasons,\u201d as well as the \u201cboundaries\u201d of\ntheir respective settlements were equally the appointment of God; the\nnearer countries to the original settlement being planted first, and the\nremoter in succession. These primitive settlements seem to have been\nscattered and detached from each other according to local convenience.\nEven so late as the tenth generation after the flood in Abraham\u2019s days,\nthere were considerable tracts of land in Palestine unappropriated, on\nwhich he and his nephew, Lot, freely pastured their cattle without\nhinderance or molestation. That country was not fully peopled till the\nfourth generation after, at the exode of the Israelites from Egypt. And\nHerodotus represents Scythia as an uninhabited desert, until Targitorus\nplanted the first colony there, about a thousand years, at most, before\nDarius Hystaspes invaded Scythia, or about B. C. 1508. The orderly\nsettlements of the three primitive families are recorded in that most\nvenerable and valuable geographical chart, the tenth chapter of Genesis,\nin which it is curious to observe how long the names of the first\nsettlers have been preserved among their descendants, even down to the\npresent day:--\n\n1. Japheth, the eldest son of Noah, Gen. x, 21, and his family, are\nfirst noticed, Gen. x, 2\u20135. The name of the patriarch himself was\npreserved among his Grecian descendants, in the proverb, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, _older than Japetus_, denoting the remotest antiquity. The\nradical part of the word \u1f38\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4, evidently expresses _Japheth_. (1.)\nGomer, his eldest son, was the father of the Gomerians. These, spreading\nfrom the regions north of Armenia and Bactriana, Ezek. xxxviii, 6,\nextended themselves westward over nearly the whole continent of Europe;\nstill retaining their paternal denomination, with some slight variation,\nas Cimmerians, in Asia; Cimbri and Umbri, in Gaul and Italy; and Cymri,\nCambri, and Cumbri, in Wales and Cumberland at the present day. They are\nalso identified by ancient authors with the Galat\u00e6 of Asia Minor, the\nGaels, Gauls, and Celt\u00e6, of Europe, who likewise spread from the Euxine\nSea, to the Western Ocean; and from the Baltic to Italy southward, and\nfirst planted the British Isles. Josephus remarks, that the Galat\u00e6 were\ncalled \u0393\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, _Gomariani_, from their ancestor Gomar. See the\nnumerous authorities adduced in support of the identity of the Gomerians\nand Celts, by that learned and ingenious antiquary, Faber, in his\n\u201cOrigin of Pagan Idolatry.\u201d Of Gomer\u2019s sons, Ashkenaz appears to have\nsettled on the coasts of the Euxine Sea, which from him seems to have\nreceived its primary denomination of \u1f0c\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _Axenus_, nearly resembling\nAshkenaz; but forgetting its etymology in process of time, the Greeks\nconsidered it as a compound term in their own language, \u0391-\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nsignifying _inhospitable_; and thence metamorphosed it into \u0395\u1f56-\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n_Eu-xenus_, \u201cvery hospitable.\u201d His precise settlement is represented in\nScripture as contiguous to Armenia, westward; for the kingdoms of\nArarat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, are noticed together, Jer. li, 27. Riphat,\nthe second son of Gomer, seems to have given name to the Riphean\nmountains of the north of Asia; and Togarmah, the third son, may be\ntraced in the Trocmi of Strabo, the Trogmi of Cicero, and Trogmades of\nthe council of Chalcedon, inhabiting the confines of Pontus and\nCappadocia. (2.) Magog, Tubal, and Mesech, sons of Japhet, are noticed\ntogether by Ezekiel, as settled in the north, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 14, 15.\nAnd as the ancestors of the numerous Sclavonic and Tartar tribes, the\nfirst may be traced in the Mongogians, Monguls, and Moguls; the second,\nin the Tobolski, of Siberia; and the third, Mesech, or Mosoc, in the\nMoschici, Moscow, and Muscovites. (3.) Madai was the father of the\nMedes, who are repeatedly so denominated in Scripture, 2 Kings xvii, 6;\nIsa. xiii, 17; Jer. li, 11; Dan. v, 28, &c. (4.) From Javan was\ndescended the Javanians, or \u1f38\u03ac\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 of the Greeks, and the Yavanas of the\nHindus. Greece itself is called Javan by Daniel, xi, 2; and the people\n\u1f38\u03ac\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 by Homer in his \u201cIliad.\u201d These aboriginal \u1f38\u03ac\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 of Greece are\nnot to be confounded, as is usually the case, with the later \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, who\ninvaded and subdued the Javanian territories, and were of a different\nstock. The accurate Pausanias states, that the name of \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, was\ncomparatively modern, while that of \u1f38\u03ac\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 is acknowledged to have been\nthe primitive title of the barbarians who were subdued by the \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\nStrabo remarks that Attica was formerly called both Ionia and Ias, or\nIan; while Herodotus asserts, that the Athenians were not willing to be\ncalled \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2; and he derives the name from \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd, the son of Zuth,\ndescended from Deucalion or Noah. And this Ion is said by Eusebius to\nhave been the ringleader in the building of the tower of Babel, and the\nfirst introducer of idol worship, and Sabianism, or adoration of the\nsun, moon, and stars. This would identify Ion with Nimrod. And the\nIonians appear to have been composed of the later colonists, the Palli,\nPelasgi, or roving tribes from Asia, Phenicia, and Egypt, who, according\nto Herodotus, first corrupted the simplicity of the primitive religion\nof Greece, and who, by the Hindus, were called Yonigas, or worshippers\nof the yoni or dove. This critical distinction between the Iaones and\nthe Iones, the Yavanas, and the Yonigas, we owe to the sagacity of\nFaber. Of Javan\u2019s sons, Elishah and Dodon, may be recognized in Elis and\nDodona, the oldest settlements of Greece; Kittim, in the Citium of\nMacedonia, and Chittim, or maritime coasts of Greece and Italy, Num.\nxxiv, 24; and Tarshish, in the Tarsus of Cilicia, and Tartessus of\nSpain.\n\n2. Ham and his family are next noticed, Gen. x, 6\u201320. The name of the\npatriarch is recorded in the title frequently given to Egypt, \u201cThe land\nof Ham,\u201d Psalm cv, 23, &c. (1.) Of his sons, the first and most\ncelebrated appears to have been Cush, who gave name to the land of Cush,\nboth in Asia and Africa; the former still called Chusistan by the\nArabian geographers, and Susiana by the Greeks, and Cusha Dwipa Within,\nby the Hindus; the other, called Cusha Dwipa Without. And the\nenterprising Cushim or Cuthim, of Scripture, in Asia and Europe, assumed\nthe title of Get\u00e6, Guiths, and Goths; and of Scuths, Scuits, and Scots;\nand of Sacas, Sacasenas, and Saxons. The original family settlement of\nAbraham was \u201cUr of the Chasdim,\u201d or Chaldees, Gen. xi, 28, who are\nrepeatedly mentioned in Scripture, Isa. xiii, 9; Dan. ix, 1, &c.\nAccording to Faber\u2019s ingenious remark, it may more properly be\npronounced Chus-dim, signifying Godlike Cushites. It is highly\nimprobable that they were so named from Chesed, Abraham\u2019s nephew, Gen.\nxxii, 22, who was a mere boy, if born at all, when Abraham left Ur, and\nwas an obscure individual, never noticed afterward. Of Cush\u2019s sons,\nSeba, Havilah, Sabtah, Sabtacha, and Raamah; and the sons of Raamah,\nSheba, and Dedan, seem to have settled in Idumea and Arabia, from the\nsimilar names of places there; and of his descendants, Nimrod, the\nmighty hunter, first founded the kingdom of Babylon, and afterward of\nAssyria, invading the settlements of the Shemites, contrary to the\ndivine decree. His posterity were probably distinguished by the title of\nChusdim, Isaiah xxiii, 13. (2.) The second son of Ham was Misr, or\nMizraim. He settled in Egypt, whence the Egyptians were universally\nstyled in Scripture, Mizraim, or Mizraites, in the plural form. But the\ncountry is denominated in the east, to this day, \u201cthe land of Misr;\u201d\nwhich, therefore, seems to have been the name of the patriarch himself.\nThe children of Misr, like their father, are denominated in Scripture by\nthe plural number. Of these, the Ludim and Lehabim were probably the\nCopto-Libyans, Ezek. xxx, 5; the Naphtuhim occupied the sea coast, which\nby the Egyptians was called Nephthus; whence, probably, originated the\nname of the maritime god Neptune. The Pathrusim occupied a part of Lower\nEgypt, called from them Pathros, Isa. xi, 11. The Caphtorim and the\nCasluhim, whose descendants were the Philistim of Palestine, occupied\nthe district which lies between the delta of the Nile and the southern\nextremity of Palestine, Deut. ii, 23; Amos ix, 7. (3.) Phut is merely\nnoticed, without any mention of his family. But the tribes of Phut and\nLud are mentioned together, with Cush, or Ethiopia, Jer. xlvi, 9; Ezek.\nxxx, 5; and Jerom notices a district in Libya, called Regio Phutensis,\nor the land of Phut. (4.) Canaan has been noticed already; and the\noriginal extent of the land of Canaan is carefully marked by Moses. Its\nwestern border, along the Mediterranean Sea, extended from Sidon,\nsouthward, to Gaza; its southern border from thence, eastward, to Sodom\nand Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, the cities of the plain, afterward\ncovered by the Dead Sea, or Asphaltite Lake; its eastern border\nextending from thence northward, to Laish, Dan, or the springs of the\nJordan; and its northern border, from thence to Sidon, westward. Of\nCanaan\u2019s sons, Sidon, the eldest, occupied the north-west corner, and\nbuilt the town of that name, so early celebrated for her luxury and\ncommerce in Scripture, Judges xviii, 7; 1 Kings v, 6; and by Homer, who\ncalls the Sidonians, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, _skilled in many arts_. And Tyre, so\nflourishing afterward, though boasting of her own antiquity, Isa. xxiii,\n7, is styled, \u201ca daughter of Sidon,\u201d or a colony from thence, Isa. v,\n12. Heth, his second son, and the Hittites, his descendants appear to\nhave settled in the south, near Hebron, Gen. xxiii, 3\u20137; and next to\nthem, at Jerusalem, the Jebusites, or descendants of Jebus, both\nremaining in their original settlements till David\u2019s days; 2 Sam. xi, 3;\nv, 6\u20139. Beyond the Jebusites, were settled the Emorites, or Amorites,\nNum. xiii, 29, who extended themselves beyond Jordan, and were the most\npowerful of the Canaanite tribes, Gen. xv, 16; Num. xxi, 21, until they\nwere destroyed by Moses and Joshua, with the rest of the devoted nations\nof Canaan\u2019s family.\n\n3. Shem and his family are noticed last, Gen. x, 21\u201330. His posterity\nwere confined to middle Asia. (1.) His son Elam appears to have been\nsettled in Elymais, or southern Persia, contiguous to the maritime tract\nof Chusistan, Dan. viii, 2. (2.) His son Ashur planted the land thence\ncalled Assyria, which soon became a province of the Cushite, or Cuthic\nempire, founded by Nimrod. (3.) Arphaxad, through his grandson, Eber,\nbranched out into the two houses of Peleg and Joktan. Peleg probably\nremained in Chaldea, or southern Babylonia, at the time of the\ndispersion; for there we find his grandson, Terah, and his family,\nsettled at \u201cUr of the Chaldees,\u201d Gen. xi, 31. Of the numerous children\nof Joktan, it is said by Moses, that \u201ctheir dwelling was from Mesha, as\nthou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east.\u201d Faber is inclined to\nbelieve that they were the ancestors of the great body of the Hindus,\nwho still retain a lively tradition of the patriarch Shem, Shama, or\nSharma; and that the land of Ophir, abounding in gold, so called from\none of the sons of Joktan, lay beyond the Indus, eastward. (4.) Lud was\nprobably the father of the Ludim or Lydians, of Asia Minor; for this\npeople had a tradition that they were descended from Lud or Lydus,\naccording to Josephus. (5.) The children of Aram planted the fertile\ncountry north of Babylonia, called Aram Naharaim, \u201cAram between the two\nrivers,\u201d the Euphrates and the Tigris, thence called by the Greeks,\nMesopotamis, Gen. xxiv, 10, and Padan Aram, the level country of Aram,\nGen. xxv, 20. This country of Aram is frequently rendered Syria in\nScripture, Judges x, 6; Hosea xii, 12, &c; which is not to be confounded\nwith Palestine Syria, into which they afterward spread themselves, still\nretaining their original name of \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, or Arameans, noticed by Homer\nin his \u201cIliad.\u201d\n\n4. Upon this distribution of Noah\u2019s posterity we shall only observe,\nthat the Deity presided over all their counsels and deliberations, and\nthat he guided and settled all mankind according to the dictates of his\nall-comprehending wisdom and benevolence. To this purpose, the ancients\nthemselves, according to Pindar, retained some idea that the dispersion\nof men was not the effect of chance, but that they had been settled in\ndifferent countries by the appointment of Providence, Gen. xi, 8, 9;\nDeut. xxii, 8. This dispersion, and that confusion of languages with\nwhich it originated, was intended, by the counsel of an all-wise\nProvidence, to counteract and defeat the scheme which had been projected\nby the descendants of Noah, for maintaining their union, implied in\ntheir proposing to make themselves a name, \u05e9\u05dd, which Schultens, in Job\ni, 1, derives from the Arabic verb \u05e9\u05de\u05d4, or \u05e9\u05de\u05e9, _to be high elevated_,\nor _eminent_. By this scheme, which seems to have been a project of\nstate policy, for keeping all men together under the present chiefs and\ntheir successors, a great part of the earth must, for a long time, have\nbeen uninhabited, and overrun with wild beasts. The bad effects which\nthis project would have had upon the minds, the morals, and religion of\nmankind, was, probably, the chief reason why God interposed to frustrate\nit as soon as it was formed. It had manifestly a direct tendency to\ntyranny, oppression, and slavery. Whereas in forming several independent\ngovernments by a small body of men, the ends of government, and the\nsecurity of liberty and property, would be much better attended to, and\nmore firmly established; which, in fact, was really the case; if we may\njudge of the rest by the constitution of one of the most eminent, the\nkingdom of Egypt, Gen. xlvii, 15\u201327. The Egyptians were masters of their\npersons and property, till they sold them to Pharaoh for bread; and then\ntheir servitude amounted to no more than the fifth part of the produce\nof the country, as an annual tax payable to the king. By this event,\nconsidered as a wise dispensation of Providence, bounds were set to the\ncontagion of wickedness; evil example was confined, and could not extend\nits influence beyond the limits of one country; nor could wicked\nprojects be carried on, with universal concurrence, by many small\ncolonies, separated by the natural boundaries of mountains, rivers,\nbarren deserts, and seas, and hindered from associating together by a\nvariety of languages, unintelligible to each other. Moreover, in this\ndispersed state, they could, whenever God pleased, be made reciprocal\nchecks upon each other, by invasions and wars, which would weaken the\npower, and humble the pride, of corrupt and vicious communities. This\ndispensation was, therefore, properly calculated to prevent a second\nuniversal degeneracy; God dealing in it with men as rational agents, and\nadapting his scheme to their state and circumstances.\n\nDIVORCE. As the ancient Hebrews paid a stipulated price for the\nprivilege of marrying, they seemed to consider it the natural\nconsequence of making a payment of that kind, that they should be at\nliberty to exercise a very arbitrary power over their wives, and to\nrenounce or divorce them whenever they chose. This state of things, as\nMoses himself very clearly saw, was not equitable as respected the\nwoman, and was very often injurious to both parties. Finding himself,\nhowever, unable to overrule feelings and practices of very ancient\nstanding, he merely annexed to the original institution of marriage a\nvery serious admonition to this effect, viz. that it would be less\ncriminal for a man to desert his father and mother, than without\nadequate cause to desert his wife, Gen. ii, 14, compared with Malachi\nii, 11\u201316. He also laid a restriction upon the power of the husband as\nfar as this, that he would not permit him to repudiate the wife without\ngiving her a bill of divorce. He farther enacted in reference to this\nsubject that the husband might receive the repudiated wife back, in case\nshe had not in the meanwhile been married to another person; but if she\nhad been thus married, she could never afterward become the wife of her\nfirst husband; a law, which the faith due to the second husband clearly\nrequired, Deut. xxiv, 1\u20134, compare Jer. iii, 1, and Matt. i, 19; xix, 8.\nThe inquiry, \u201cWhat should be considered an adequate cause of divorce,\u201d\nwas left by Moses to be determined by the husband himself. He had\nliberty to divorce her, if he saw in her _any thing naked_, any thing\ndispleasing or improper, any thing so much at war with propriety, and a\nsource of so much dissatisfaction as to be, in the estimation of the\nhusband, sufficient ground for separation. These expressions, however,\nwere sharply contested as to their meaning in the later times of the\nJewish nation. The school of Hillel contended, that the husband might\nlawfully put away the wife for any cause, even the smallest. The mistake\ncommitted by the school of Hillel in taking this ground was, that they\nconfounded moral and civil law. It is true, as far as the Mosaic statute\nor the civil law was concerned, the husband had a right thus to do; but\nit is equally clear, that the ground of just separation must have been,\nnot a _trivial_, but a prominent and important one, when it is\nconsidered, that he was bound to consult the rights of the woman, and\nwas amenable to his conscience and his God. The school of Shammai\nexplained the phrase, _nakedness of a thing_, to mean _actual adultery_.\nOur Lord agreed with the school of Shammai as far as this, that the\nground of divorce should be one of a moral nature, and not less than\nadultery; but he does not appear to have agreed with them in their\nopinion in respect to the Mosaic statute. On the contrary, he denied the\nequity of that statute, and in justification of Moses maintained, that\nhe permitted divorces for causes below adultery, only in consequence of\nthe hardness of the people\u2019s hearts, Matt. v, 31, 32; xviii, 1\u20139; Mark\nx, 2\u201312; Luke xvi, 18. Wives, who were considered the property of their\nhusbands, did not enjoy by the Mosaic statutes a reciprocal right, and\nwere not at liberty to dissolve the matrimonial alliance by giving a\nbill of divorce to that effect. In the latter periods, however, of the\nJewish state, the Jewish matrons, the more powerful of them at least,\nappear to have imbibed the spirit of the ladies of Rome, and to have\nexercised in their own behalf the same power that was granted by the\nMosaic law only to their husbands, Mark vi, 17\u201329; x, 12.\n\nDOCET\u00c6, the advocates of an early heresy, which taught that Christ acted\nand suffered, not in reality, but in appearance. They were so\ndenominated from \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, _to appear_. See GNOSTICS.\n\nDOCTORS, or TEACHERS, of the law, a class of men in great repute among\nthe Jews. They had studied the law of Moses in its various branches, and\nthe numerous interpretations which had been grafted upon it in later\ntimes; and, on various occasions, they gave their opinion on cases\nreferred to them for advice. Nicodemus, himself a doctor (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n_teacher_) of the law, comes to consult Jesus, whom he compliments in\nthe same terms as he was accustomed to receive from his scholars:\n\u201cRabbi, we know that thou art \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, a competent teacher from God.\u201d\nDoctors of the law were chiefly of the sect of the Pharisees; but they\nare sometimes distinguished from that sect, Luke v, 17.\n\nDOG, \u05db\u05dc\u05d1, an animal well known. By the law of Moses, the dog was\ndeclared unclean, and was held in great contempt among the Jews, 1 Sam.\nxvii, 43; xxiv, 14; 2 Sam. ix, 8; 2 Kings viii, 13. Yet they had them in\nconsiderable numbers in their cities. They were not, however, shut up in\ntheir houses or courts, but forced to seek their food where they could\nfind it. The Psalmist compares violent men to dogs, who go about the\ncity in the night, prowl about for their food, and growl, and become\nclamorous if they be not satisfied, Psalm lix, 6, 14, 15. Mr. Harmer has\nillustrated this by quotations from travellers into the east. The Turks\nalso reckon the dog a filthy creature, and therefore drive him from\ntheir houses; so that with them dogs guard rather the streets and\ndistricts, than particular houses, and live on the offals that are\nthrown abroad. In 1 Sam. xxv, 3, Nabal is said to have been \u201cchurlish\nand evil in his manners; and he was of the house of Caleb;\u201d but Caleb\nhere is not a proper name. Literally, it is, \u201cHe was the son of a dog;\u201d\nand so the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic render it,--he was irritable,\nsnappish, and snarling as a dog. The irritable disposition of the dog is\nthe foundation of that saying, \u201cHe that passeth by, and meddleth with\nstrife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears,\u201d\nProv. xxvi, 17; that is, he wantonly exposes himself to danger.\n\nIn 1 Kings xxi, 23, it is said, \u201cThe dogs shall eat Jezebel.\u201d Mr. Bruce,\nwhen at Gondar, was witness to a scene in a great measure similar to the\ndevouring of Jezebel by dogs. He says, \u201cThe bodies of those killed by\nthe sword were hewn to pieces, and scattered about the streets, being\ndenied burial. I was miserable, and almost driven to despair, at seeing\nmy hunting dogs, twice let loose by the carelessness of my servants,\nbringing into the court yard the heads and arms of slaughtered men, and\nwhich I could no way prevent but by the destruction of the dogs\nthemselves.\u201d He also adds, that upon being asked by the king the reason\nof his dejected and sickly appearance, among other reasons, he informed\nhim, \u201cit was occasioned by an execution of three men, which he had\nlately seen; because the hy\u00e6nas, allured into the streets by the\nquantity of carrion, would not let him pass by night in safety from the\npalace; and because the dogs fled into his house, to eat pieces of human\ncarcasses at their leisure.\u201d This account illustrates also the readiness\nof the dogs to lick the blood of Ahab, 1 Kings xxii, 38; in conformity\nto which is the expression of the Prophet Jeremiah, xv, 3, \u201cI will\nappoint over them the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear.\u201d\n\n2. The dog was held sacred by the Egyptians. This fact we learn from\nJuvenal, who complains, in his fifteenth satire,\n\n              _Oppida tota canem vencrantur, nemo Dianam._\n\n              \u201cThousands regard the hound with holy fear,\n              Not one, Diana.\u201d\n                                              GIFFORD.\n\nThe testimony of the Latin poet is confirmed by Diodorus, who, in his\nfirst book, assures us that the Egyptians highly venerate some animals,\nboth during their life and after their death; and expressly mentions the\ndog as one object of this absurd adoration. To these witnesses may be\nadded Herodotus, who says, that when a dog expires, all the members of\nthe family to which he belonged worship the carcass; and that, in every\npart of the kingdom, the carcasses of their dogs are embalmed, and\ndeposited in consecrated ground. The idolatrous veneration of the dog by\nthe Egyptians is shown in the worship of their dog-god Anubis, to whom\ntemples and priests were consecrated, and whose image was borne in all\nreligious ceremonies. Cynopolis, the present Minieh, situated in the\nlower Thebais, was built in honour of Anubis. The priests celebrated his\nfestivals there with great pomp. \u201cAnubis,\u201d says Strabo, \u201cis the city of\ndogs, the capital of the Cynopolitan prefecture. These animals are fed\nthere on sacred aliments, and religion has decreed them a worship.\u201d An\nevent, however, related by Plutarch, brought them into considerable\ndiscredit with the people. Cambyses, having slain the god Apis, and\nthrown his body into the field, all animals respected it except the\ndogs, which alone ate of his flesh. This impiety diminished the popular\nveneration. Cynopolis was not the only city where incense was burned on\nthe altars of Anubis. He had chapels in almost all the temples. On\nsolemnities, his image always accompanied those of Isis and Osiris.\nRome, having adopted the ceremonies of Egypt, the emperor Commodus, to\ncelebrate the Isiac feasts, shaved his head, and himself carried the dog\nAnubis.\n\n3. In Matt. vii, 6, we have this direction of our Saviour: \u201cGive not\nthat which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before\nswine, lest they,\u201d the swine, \u201ctrample them under their feet, and,\u201d the\ndogs, \u201cturn again and tear you.\u201d It was customary, not only with the\nwriters of Greece and Rome, but also with the eastern sages, to denote\ncertain classes of men by animals supposed to resemble them among the\nbrutes. Our Saviour was naturally led to adopt the same concise and\nenergetic method. By _dogs_, which were held in great detestation by the\nJews, he intends men of odious character and violent temper; by _swine_,\nthe usual emblem of moral filth, he means the sensual and profligate;\nand the purport of his admonition is, that as it is a maxim with the\npriests not to give any part of the sacrifices to dogs, so it should be\na maxim with you not to impart the holy instruction with which you are\nfavoured, to those who are likely to blaspheme and to be only excited by\nit to rage and persecution. It is, however, a maxim of _prudence_ not of\n_cowardice_; and is to be taken along with other precepts of our Lord,\nwhich enjoin the publication of truth, at the expense of ease and even\nlife.\n\nDORT, _Synod of_. See SYNODS.\n\nDOVE, \u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4. This beautiful genus of birds is very numerous in the east.\nIn the wild state they generally build their nests in the holes or\nclefts of rocks, or in excavated trees; but they are easily taught\nsubmission and familiarity with mankind; and, when domesticated, build\nin structures erected for their accommodation, called \u201cdove-cotes.\u201d They\nare classed by Moses among the clean birds; and it appears from the\nsacred as well as other writers, that doves were always held in the\nhighest estimation among the eastern nations. Rosenmuller, in a note\nupon Bochart, derives the name from the Arabic, where it signifies\n_mildness_, _gentleness_, &c. The dove is mentioned in Scripture as the\nsymbol of simplicity, innocence, gentleness, and fidelity, Hosea vii,\n11; Matt. x, 16.\n\nThe following extract from Morier\u2019s Persian Travels illustrates a\npassage in Isaiah: \u201cIn the environs of the city, to the westward, near\nthe Zainderood, are many pigeon houses, erected at a distance from\nhabitations, for the sole purpose of collecting pigeons\u2019 dung for\nmanure. They are large round towers, rather broader at the bottom than\nthe top, and crowned by conical spiracles, through which the pigeons\ndescend. Their interior resembles a honey-comb, pierced with a thousand\nholes, each of which forms a snug retreat for a nest. More care appears\nto have been bestowed upon their outside than upon that of the\ngenerality of the dwelling houses; for they are painted and ornamented.\nThe extraordinary flights of pigeons which I have seen alight upon one\nof these buildings afford, perhaps, a good illustration for the passage\nin Isaiah lx, 8: \u2018Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to\ntheir windows?\u2019 Their great numbers, and the compactness of their mass,\nliterally look like a cloud at a distance, and obscure the sun in their\npassage.\u201d\n\nThe first mention of the dove in the Scripture is Genesis viii, 8,\n10\u201312, where Noah sent one from the ark to ascertain if the waters of\nthe deluge had assuaged. She was sent forth thrice. The first time she\nspeedily returned; having, in all probability, gone but a little way\nfrom the ark, as she must naturally be terrified at the appearance of\nthe waters. After seven days, being sent out a second time, she returned\nwith an olive leaf plucked off, whereby it became evident that the flood\nwas considerably abated, and had sank below the tops of the trees; and\nthus relieved the fears and cheered the heart of Noah and his family.\nAnd hence the olive branch has ever been among the forerunners of peace,\nand chief of those emblems by which a happy state of renovation and\nrestoration to prosperity has been signified to mankind. At the end of\nother seven days, the dove, being sent out a third time, returned no\nmore; from which Noah conjectured that the earth was so far drained as\nto afford sustenance for the birds and fowls; and he therefore removed\nthe covering of the ark, which probably gave liberty to many of the\nfowls to fly off; and these circumstances afforded him the greater\nfacility for making arrangements for disembarking the other animals.\nDoves might be offered in sacrifice, when those who were poor could not\nbring a more costly offering.\n\nDOWRY. See BRIDE.\n\nDRACHMA. The value of a common drachma was sevenpence, English. A\ndidrachma, or double drachma, made very near half a shekel; and four\ndrachmas made nearly a shekel.\n\nDRAGON. This word is frequently to be met with in our English\ntranslation of the Bible. It answers generally to the Hebrew \u05ea\u05df, \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df,\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd; and these words are variously rendered _dragons_, _serpents_,\n_sea-monsters_, and _whales_. The Rev. James Hurdis, in a dissertation\nrelative to this subject, observes, that the word translated \u201cwhales,\u201d\nin Gen. i, 21, occurs twenty-seven times in Scripture; and he attempts,\nwith much ingenuity, to prove that it every where signifies the\ncrocodile. That it sometimes has this meaning, he thinks is clear from\nEzekiel xxix, 3: \u201cBehold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the\ngreat dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers.\u201d For, to what could\na king of Egypt be more properly compared than the crocodile? The same\nargument he draws from Isaiah li, 9: \u201cArt thou not he that hath cut\nRahab, [Egypt,] and wounded the dragon?\u201d Among the ancients the\ncrocodile was the symbol of Egypt, and appears so on Roman coins. Some\nhowever have thought the hippopotamus intended; others, one of the\nlarger species of serpents.\n\nDRAUGHTS, stupifying potions. At the time of execution, they gave the\nmalefactor a grain of frankincense in a cup of wine, in order to stupify\nand render him less sensible of pain. This custom is traced to the\ncharge of the wise man: \u201cGive strong drink to him that is ready to\nperish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts,\u201d Prov. xxxiv, 6. The\nprophet makes an allusion to the powerful effects of this stupifying\ndraught, in that prediction which announces the judgments of God upon\nthe empire of Babylon: \u201cTake the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and\ncause all the nations to whom I send thee to drink it. And they shall\ndrink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send\namong them,\u201d Jer. xxv, 15, 16. The Jews, according to the custom of\ntheir country, gave our Lord wine mingled with myrrh at his crucifixion.\nSee CROSS.\n\nDREAMS. The easterns, in particular the Jews, greatly regarded dreams,\nand applied for their interpretation to those who undertook to explain\nthem. The ancient Greeks and Romans had the same opinion of them, as\nappears from their most eminent writers. We see the antiquity of this\nattention to dreams in the history of Pharaoh\u2019s butler and baker, Gen.\nxl. Pharaoh himself, and Nebuchadnezzar, are instances. God expressly\ncondemned to death all who pretended to have prophetic dreams, and to\nforetel futurities, even though what they foretold came to pass, if they\nhad any tendency to promote idolatry, Deut. xiii, 1\u20133. But the people\nwere not forbidden, when they thought they had a significative dream, to\naddress the prophets of the Lord, or the high priest in his ephod, to\nhave it explained. Saul, before the battle of Gilboa, consulted a woman\nwho had a familiar spirit, \u201cbecause the Lord would not answer him by\ndreams, nor by prophets,\u201d 1 Sam. xxviii, 6, 7. The Lord himself\nsometimes discovered his will in dreams, and enabled persons to explain\nthem. He informed Abimelech in a dream, that Sarah was the wife of\nAbraham, Gen. xx, 3, 6. He showed Jacob the mysterious ladder in a\ndream, Gen. xxviii, 12, 13; and in a dream an angel suggested to him a\nmeans of multiplying his flocks, Genesis xxxi, 11, 12, &c. Joseph was\nfavoured very early with prophetic dreams, whose signification was\neasily discovered by Jacob, Gen. xxxvii, 5. God said, that he spake to\nother prophets in dreams, but to Moses face to face. The Midianites gave\ncredit to dreams, as appears from that which a Midianite related to his\ncompanion; and from whose interpretation Gideon took a happy omen,\nJudges vii, 13, 15. The Prophet Jeremiah exclaims against impostors who\npretended to have had dreams, and abused the credulity of the people:\n\u201cThey prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.\nThe prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my\nword, let him tell it faithfully, saith the Lord,\u201d Jer. xxiii, 25, 28,\n29. The Prophet Joel promises from God, that in the reign of the\nMessiah, the effusion of the Holy Spirit should be so copious, that the\nold men should have prophetic dreams, and the young men should receive\nvisions, Joel ii, 28.\n\nDRESS. See HABITS.\n\nDROMEDARY. This name answers to two words in the original, \u05d1\u05db\u05e8, and\nfeminine \u05d1\u05db\u05e8\u05d4, Isa. lx, 6; Jer. ii, 24; and \u05d0\u05d7\u05e9\u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Esther viii, 10,\n\u201cyoung dromedaries;\u201d probably the name in Persian. The dromedary is a\nrace of camels chiefly remarkable for its prodigious swiftness. The most\nobservable difference between it and the camel is, that it has but one\nprotuberance on the back; and instead of the slow solemn walk to which\nthat animal is accustomed, it will go as far in one day as the camel in\nthree. For this reason it is used to carry messengers where haste is\nrequired. The animal is governed by a bridle, which, being usually\nfastened to a ring fixed in the nose, may very well illustrate the\nexpression, 2 Kings xix, 28, of turning back Sennacherib by putting a\nhook into his nose; and may farther indicate his swift retreat.\n\nDUST, or ashes, cast on the head was a sign of mourning, Josh. vii, 6:\nsitting in the dust, a sign of affliction, Lam. iii, 29; Isaiah xlvii,\n1. The dust also denotes the grave, Gen. iii, 19; Job vii, 21; Psalm\nxxii, 15. It is put for a great multitude, Gen. xiii, 16; Numbers xxiii,\n10. It signifies a low or mean condition, 1 Sam. ii, 8; Nahum iii, 18.\nTo shake or wipe off the dust of a place from one\u2019s feet, marks the\nrenouncing of all intercourse with it in future. God threatens the Jews\nwith rain of dust, &c; Deut. xxviii, 24. An extract from Sir T. Roe\u2019s\nembassy may cast light on this: \u201cSometimes, in India, the wind blows\nvery high in hot and dry seasons, raising up into the air a very great\nheight, thick clouds of dust and sand. These dry showers most grievously\nannoy all those among whom they fall; enough to smite them all with\npresent blindness; filling their eyes, ears, nostrils, and mouths too,\nif not well guarded; searching every place, as well within as without,\nso that there is not a little key-hole of any trunk or cabinet, if it be\nnot covered, but receives this dust; add to this, that the fields,\nbrooks, and gardens, suffer extremely from these terrible showers.\u201d\n\n2. In almost every part of Asia, those who demand justice against a\ncriminal throw dust upon him, signifying that he deserves to lose his\nlife, and be cast into the grave; and that this is the true\ninterpretation of the action, is evident from an imprecation in common\nuse among the Turks and Persians, \u201cBe covered with earth!\u201d \u201cEarth be\nupon thy head.\u201d We have two remarkable instances of casting dust\nrecorded in Scripture: the first is that of Shimei, who gave vent to his\nsecret hostility to David, when he fled before his rebellious son, by\nthrowing stones at him, and casting dust, 2 Sam. xvi, 13. It was an\nancient custom, in those warm and arid countries, to lay the dust before\na person of distinction, and particularly before kings and princes, by\nsprinkling the ground with water. To throw dust into the air while a\nperson was passing, was therefore an act of great disrespect; to do so\nbefore a sovereign prince, an indecent outrage. But it is clear that\nShimei meant more than disrespect and outrage to an afflicted king,\nwhose subject he was: he intended to signify by that action, that David\nwas unfit to live, and that the time was at last arrived to offer him a\nsacrifice to the ambition and vengeance of the house of Saul. This view\nof his conduct is confirmed by the behaviour of the Jews to the Apostle\nPaul, when they seized him in the temple, and had nearly succeeded in\nputting him to death: they cried out, \u201cAway with such a fellow from the\nearth, for it is not fit that he should live; and as they cried out and\ncast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, the chief captain\ncommanded him to be brought into the castle,\u201d Acts xxii, 23. A great\nsimilarity appears between the conduct of the Jews on this occasion, and\nthe behaviour of the peasants in Persia, when they go to court to\ncomplain of the governors, whose oppressions they can no longer endure.\nThey carry their complaints against their governors by companies,\nconsisting of several hundreds, and sometimes of a thousand; they repair\nto that gate of the palace nearest to which their prince is most likely\nto be, where they set themselves to make the most horrid cries, tearing\ntheir garments, and throwing dust into the air, and demanding justice.\nThe king, upon hearing these cries, sends to know the occasion of them:\nthe people deliver their complaints in writing, upon which he informs\nthem that he will commit the cognizance of the affair to such a one as\nhe names; and in consequence of this, justice is usually obtained.\n\n\nEAGLE, \u05e0\u05e9\u05e8, Exod. xix, 4; Lev. xi, 13. The name is derived from a verb\nwhich signifies to _lacerate_, or _tear in pieces_. The eagle has always\nbeen considered as the king of birds, on account of its great strength,\nrapidity and elevation of flight, natural ferocity, and the terror it\ninspires into its fellows of the air. Its voracity is so great that a\nlarge extent of territory is requisite for the supply of proper\nsustenance; and providence has therefore constituted it a solitary\nanimal: two pair of eagles are never found in the same neighbourhood,\nthough the genus is dispersed through every quarter of the world. Its\nsight is quick, strong, and piercing, to a proverb. In Job xxxix, 27,\nthe natural history of the eagle is finely drawn up:--\n\n             Is it at thy voice that the eagle soars?\n             And therefore maketh his nest on high?\n             The rock is the place of his habitation.\n             He abides on the crag, the place of strength.\n             Thence he pounces upon his prey.\n             His eyes discern afar off.\n             Even his young ones drink down blood;\n             And wherever is slaughter, there is he.\n\nAlluding to the popular opinion that the eagle assists its feeble young\nin their flight, by bearing them up on its own pinions, Moses represents\nJehovah as saying, \u201cYe have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I\nbore you on eagles\u2019 wings, and brought you unto myself,\u201d Exod. xix, 4.\nScheuchzer has quoted from an ancient poet, the following beautiful\nparaphrase on this passage:--\n\n          _Ac velut alituum princeps, fulvusque tonantis\n          Armiger, implumes, et adhue sine robore natos\n          Sollicita refovet cura, pinguisque ferin\u00e6\n          Indulget pastus: mox ut cum viribus al\u00e6\n          Vesticipes crevere, vocat se blandior aura,\n          Expansa invitat pluma, dorsoque morantes\n          Excipit, attollitque humeris, plausuque secundo\n          Fertur in arva, timens oneri, et tamen impete presso\n          Remigium tentans alarum, incurvaque pinnis\n          Vela legens, humiles tranat sub nubibus oras.\n          Hinc sensim supra alta petit, jam jamque sub astra\n          Erigitur, cursusque leves citus urget in auras,\n          Omnia pervolitans late loca, et agmine f\u0153tus\n          Fertque refertque suos vario, moremque volandi\n          Addocet: illi autem, longa assuetudine docti,\n          Paulatim incipiunt pennis se credere c\u00e6lo\n          Impavidi: tantum a teneris valet addere curam._\n\n[And as the king of birds, and tawny armour-bearer of the Thunderer,\ncherishes with anxious care his unfledged, and as yet feeble young, and\ngratifies their appetite with rich prey: presently when their downy\nwings have increased in strength, a milder air calls them forth, with\nexpanded plumage he invites them, and receives them hesitating on his\nback, and sustains them on his shoulders, and with easy flight is borne\nover the fields, fearing for his burden, and yet with a moderated effort\ntrying the rowing of their wings, and furling with his pinions his\ncurved sails, he glides through the low regions beneath the clouds.\nHence by degrees he soars aloft, and now he mounts to the starry heaven,\nand swiftly urges his rapid flight through the air, sweeping widely over\nspace, and in his gyrations bearing his offspring to and fro, teaches\nthem the art of flying:--but they, taught by long practice, gradually\nbegin to trust themselves fearlessly on their wings: So much does it\navail to train the young with care.]\n\n2. When Balaam delivered his predictions respecting the fate that\nawaited the nations which he then particularized, he said of the\nKenites, \u201cStrong is thy dwelling, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock,\u201d\nNum. xxiv, 21; alluding to that princely bird, the eagle, which not only\ndelights in soaring to the loftiest heights, but chooses the highest\nrocks, and most elevated mountains, as desirable situations for erecting\nits nest, Hab. ii, 9; Obad. 4. What Job says concerning the eagle, which\nis to be understood in a literal sense, \u201cWhere the slain are, there is\nhe,\u201d our Saviour turns into a fine parable: \u201cWheresoever the carcass is,\nthere will the eagles be gathered together,\u201d Matt. xxiv, 28; that is,\nWherever the Jews are, who have corruptly fallen from God, there will be\nthe Romans, who bore the eagle as their standard, to execute vengeance\nupon them, Luke xvii, 37.\n\n3. The swiftness of the flight of the eagle is alluded to in several\npassages of Scripture; as, \u201cThe Lord shall bring a nation against thee\nfrom afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth,\u201d\nDeut. xxviii, 49. In the affecting lamentation of David over Saul and\nJonathan, their impetuous and rapid career is described in forcible\nterms: \u201cThey were swifter than eagles; they were stronger than lions,\u201d 2\nSam. i, 23. Jeremiah when he beheld in vision the march of\nNebuchadnezzar, cried, \u201cBehold, he shall come up as clouds, and his\nchariots shall be as a whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles. Wo\nunto us, for we are spoiled,\u201d Jer. iv, 13. To the wide-expanded wings of\nthe eagle, and the rapidity of his flight, the same prophet beautifully\nalludes in a subsequent chapter, where he describes the subversion of\nMoab by the same ruthless conqueror: \u201cBehold, he shall fly as an eagle,\nand spread his wings over Moab,\u201d Jer. xlviii, 40. In the same manner he\ndescribes the sudden desolations of Ammon in the next chapter; but, when\nhe turns his eye to the ruins of his own country, he exclaims, in still\nmore energetic language, \u201cOur persecutors are swifter than the eagles of\nthe heavens,\u201d Lament. iv, 19. Under the same comparison the patriarch\nJob describes the rapid flight of time: \u201cMy days are passed away, as the\neagle that hasteth to the prey,\u201d Job ix, 26. The surprising rapidity\nwith which the blessings of common providence sometimes vanish from the\ngrasp of the possessor is thus described by Solomon: \u201cRiches certainly\nmake themselves wings: they fly away as an eagle toward heaven,\u201d Prov.\nxxiii, 5. The flight of this bird is as sublime as it is rapid and\nimpetuous. None of the feathered race soar so high. In his daring\nexcursions he is said to leave the clouds of heaven, and regions of\nthunder, and lightning, and tempest, far beneath him, and to approach\nthe very limits of ether. There is an allusion to this lofty soaring in\nthe prophecy of Obadiah, concerning the pride of Moab: \u201cThough thou\nexalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the\nstars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord,\u201d Obad. 4. The\nprophet Jeremiah pronounces the doom of Edom in similar terms: \u201cO thou\nthat dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the\nhill; though thou shouldest make thy nest high as the eagle, I will\nbring thee down from thence, saith the Lord,\u201d Jer. xlix, 16. The eagle\nlives and retains its vigour to a great age; and, after moulting, renews\nits vigour so surprisingly, as to be said, hyperbolically, to become\nyoung again, Psalm ciii, 5, and Isaiah xl, 31. It is remarkable that\nCyrus, compared, in Isaiah xlvi, 11, to an eagle, (so the word\ntranslated \u201cravenous bird\u201d should be rendered,) had an eagle for his\nensign according to Xenophon, who uses, without knowing it, the\nidentical word of the prophet, with only a Greek termination to it: so\nexact is the correspondence between the prophet and the historian, the\nprediction and the event. Xenophon and other ancient historians inform\nus that the golden eagle with extended wings was the ensign of the\nPersian monarchs long before it was adopted by the Romans; and it is\nvery probable that the Persians borrowed the symbol from the ancient\nAssyrians, in whose banners it waved, till imperial Babylon bowed her\nhead to the yoke of Cyrus. If this conjecture be well founded, it\ndiscovers the reason why the sacred writers, in describing the\nvictorious march of the Assyrian armies, allude so frequently to the\nexpanded eagle. Referring to the Babylonian monarch, the prophet Hosea\nproclaimed in the ears of all Israel, the measure of whose iniquities\nwas nearly full, \u201cHe shall come as an eagle against the house of the\nLord,\u201d Hosea viii, 1. Jeremiah predicted a similar calamity: \u201cThus saith\nthe Lord, Behold, he shall fly as an eagle, and spread his wings over\nMoab,\u201d Jer. xlviii, 40; and the same figure was employed to denote the\ndestruction that overtook the house of Esau: \u201cBehold, he shall come up\nand fly as the eagle, and spread his wings over Bozrah,\u201d xlix, 22. The\nwords of these prophets received a full accomplishment in the\nirresistible impetuosity and complete success with which the Babylonian\nmonarchs, and particularly Nebuchadnezzar, pursued their plans of\nconquest. Ezekiel denominates him, with great propriety, \u201ca great eagle\nwith great wings,\u201d because he was the most powerful monarch of his time,\nand led into the field more numerous and better appointed armies, (which\nthe prophet calls, by a beautiful figure, \u201chis wings,\u201d the wings of his\narmy,) than perhaps the world had ever seen. The Prophet Isaiah,\nreferring to the same monarch, predicted the subjugation of Judea in\nthese terms: \u201cHe shall pass through Judah. He shall overflow, and go\nover. He shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his\nwings\u201d (the array of his army) \u201cshall fill the breadth of thy land, O\nImmanuel,\u201d Isaiah viii, 8. The king of Egypt is also styled by Ezekiel,\n\u201ca great eagle, with great wings, and many feathers;\u201d but he manifestly\ngives the preference to the king of Babylon, by adding, that he had\n\u201clong wings, full of feathers, which had divers colours;\u201d that is,\ngreater wealth, and a more numerous army.\n\nEAR, the organ of hearing. The Scripture uses the term figuratively.\nUncircumcised ears are ears inattentive to the word of God. To signify\nGod\u2019s regard to the prayers of his people, the Psalmist says, \u201cHis ears\nare open to their cry,\u201d Psalm xxxiv, 15. Among the Jews, the slave, who\nrenounced the privilege of being made free from servitude in the\nsabbatical year, submitted to have his ear bored through with an awl;\nwhich was done in the presence of some judge, or magistrate, that it\nmight appear a voluntary act. The ceremony took place at his master\u2019s\ndoor, and was the mark of servitude and bondage. The Psalmist says, in\nthe person of the Messiah, \u201cSacrifice and offering thou didst not\ndesire; mine ears hast thou opened.\u201d Heb. \u201cThou hast digged my ears.\u201d\nThis either means, Thou hast opened them, removed impediments, and made\nthem attentive; or, thou hast pierced them, as those of such servants\nwere pierced, who chose to remain with their masters; and therefore\nimports the _absolute_ and _voluntary_ submission of Messiah to the will\nof the Father. \u201cMake the ears of this people heavy,\u201d Isaiah vi, 10; that\nis, render their minds inattentive and disobedient; the prophets being\nsaid often to do that of which they were the innocent occasion.\n\nEAR-RINGS and nose-jewels were favourite ornaments among the eastern\nfemales. Both are frequently mentioned in Scripture. Thus the Prophet\nEzekiel: \u201cAnd I put a jewel on thy forehead,\u201d or, as it should have been\nrendered, on thy nose. This ornament was one of the presents which the\nservant of Abraham gave to Rebecca, in the name of his master: \u201cI put,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cthe ear-ring upon her face;\u201d more literally, I put the ring on\nher nose. They wore ear-rings beside; for the household of Jacob, at his\nrequest, when they were preparing to go up to Bethel, gave him all the\near-rings which were in their ears, and he hid them under the oak which\nwas by Shechem. Sir John Chardin says, \u201cIt is the custom in almost all\nthe east for the women to wear rings in their noses, in the left\nnostril, which is bored low down in the middle. These rings are of gold,\nand have commonly two pearls and one ruby between them, placed in the\nring; I never saw a girl, or young woman in Arabia, or in all Persia,\nwho did not wear a ring after this manner in her nostril.\u201d Some writers\ncontend, that by the nose-jewel, we are to understand rings, which women\nattached to their forehead, and let them fall down upon their nose; but\nChardin, who certainly was a diligent observer of eastern customs, no\nwhere saw this frontal ring in the east, but every where the ring in the\nnose. His testimony is supported by Dr. Russel, who describes the women\nin some of the villages about Aleppo, and all the Arabs and Chinganas,\n(a sort of gipsies,) as wearing a large ring of silver or gold, through\nthe external cartilage of their right nostril. It is worn, by the\ntestimony of Egmont, in the same manner by the women of Egypt. Two words\nare used in the Scriptures to denote these ornamental rings, \u05e0\u05d6\u05dd and\n\u05e2\u05d2\u05d9\u05dc. Mr. Harmer seems to think they properly signified ear-rings; but\nthis is a mistake; the sacred writers use them promiscuously for the\nrings both of the nose and of the ears. That writer, however, is\nprobably right in supposing that _nezem_ is the name of a much smaller\nring than _agil_. Chardin observed two sorts of rings in the east; one\nso small and close to the ear, that there is no vacuity between them;\nthe other so large, as to admit the fore finger between it and the ear;\nthese last are adorned with a ruby and a pearl on each side, strung on\nthe ring. Some of these ear-rings had figures upon them, and strange\ncharacters, which he believed were talismans or charms; but which were\nprobably the names and symbols of their false gods. We know from the\ntestimony of Pliny, that rings with the images of their gods were worn\nby the Romans. The Indians say, they are preservatives against\nenchantment; upon which Chardin hazards a very probable conjecture, that\nthe ear-rings of Jacob\u2019s family were perhaps of this kind, which might\nbe the reason of his demanding them, that he might bury them under the\noak before they went up to Bethel.\n\nEARTH is used for that gross element which sustains and nourishes us by\nproducing plants and fruits; for the continent as distinguished from the\nsea, \u201cGod called the dry land earth,\u201d Gen. i, 10; for the terraqueous\nglobe, and its contents, men, animals, plants, metals, waters, &c. \u201cThe\nearth is the Lord\u2019s, and the fulness thereof\u201d, Psalm xxiv, 1; for the\ninhabitants of the earth, or continent, \u201cThe whole earth was of one\nlanguage,\u201d Genesis xi, 1; for Judea, or the whole empire of Chaldea and\nAssyria. Thus Cyrus says, Ezra i, 2, \u201cThe Lord God of heaven hath given\nme all the kingdoms of the earth.\u201d The restriction of the term \u201cearth\u201d\nto Judea is more common in Scripture than is usually supposed; and this\nacceptation of it has great effect on several passages, in which it\nought to be so understood.\n\nEarth in a moral sense is opposed to heaven, and to what is spiritual.\n\u201cHe that is of the earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth; he that\ncometh from above is above all,\u201d John iii, 31. \u201cIf ye then be risen with\nChrist, set your affections on things above, not on things on the\nearth,\u201d Col. iii, 1, 2.\n\nEARTHQUAKE. The Scripture speaks of several earthquakes. One happened in\nthe twenty-seventh year of Uzziah, king of Judah, in the year of the\nworld 3221. This is mentioned in Amos i, 1, and in Zechariah xiv, 5.\nJosephus says that its violence divided a mountain, which lay west of\nJerusalem, and drove one part of it four furlongs. A very memorable\nearthquake is that which happened at our Saviour\u2019s death, Matt. xxvii,\n51. Many have thought that this was perceived throughout the world.\nOthers are of opinion that it was felt only in Judea, or even in the\ntemple at Jerusalem. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, that the rocks upon\nmount Calvary were shown in his time, which had been rent asunder by\nthis earthquake. Maundrell and Sandys testify the same, and say that\nthey examined the breaches in the rock, and were convinced that they\nwere the effects of an earthquake. It must have been terrible, since the\ncenturion and those with him were so affected by it, as to acknowledge\nthe innocence of our Saviour, Luke xxiii, 47. Phlegon, Adrian\u2019s\nfreedman, relates that, together with the eclipse, which happened at\nnoon day, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, or\nA. D. 33, a very great earthquake was also felt, principally in\nBythynia. The effects of God\u2019s power, wrath, and vengeance are compared\nto earthquakes, Psalm xviii, 7; xlvi, 2; cxiv, 4. An earthquake\nsignifies also, in prophetic language, the dissolution of governments\nand the overthrow of states.\n\nEAST, one of the four cardinal points of the world; namely, that\nparticular point of the horizon in which the sun is seen to rise. The\nHebrews express the east, west, north, and south by words which signify\nbefore, behind, left, and right, according to the situation of a man who\nhas his face turned toward the east. By the east, they frequently\ndescribe, not only Arabia Deserta, and the lands of Moab and Ammon,\nwhich lay to the east of Palestine, but also Assyria, Mesopotamia,\nBabylonia, and Chaldea, though they are situated rather to the north\nthan to the east of Judea. Balaam, Cyrus, and the wise men who visited\nBethlehem at the time Christ was born, are said to come from the east,\nNum. xxiii, 7; Isaiah xlvi, 11; Matt. ii, 1.\n\nEASTER, the day on which the Christian church commemorates our Saviour\u2019s\nresurrection. Easter is a word of Saxon origin, and imports a goddess of\nthe east. This goddess was Astarte, in honour of whom sacrifices were\nannually offered about the passover time of the year, the spring; and\nhence the Saxon name \u201c\u00e6aster\u201d became attached by association of ideas to\nthe Christian festival of the resurrection.\n\nEATING. The ancient Hebrews did not eat indifferently with all persons:\nthey would have esteemed themselves polluted and dishonoured by eating\nwith people of another religion, or of an odious profession. In Joseph\u2019s\nday they neither ate with the Egyptians, nor the Egyptians with them,\nGen. xliii, 32; nor, in our Saviour\u2019s time, with the Samaritans, John\niv, 9. The Jews were scandalized at Christ\u2019s eating with publicans and\nsinners, Matt. ix, 11. As there were several sorts of meats, the use of\nwhich was prohibited, they could not conveniently eat with those who\npartook of them, fearing to receive pollution by touching such food, or\nif by accident any particles of it should fall on them. The ancient\nHebrews, at their meals, had each his separate table. Joseph,\nentertaining his brethren in Egypt, seated them separately, each at his\nparticular table; and he himself sat down separately from the Egyptians,\nwho ate with him; but he sent to his brethren portions out of the\nprovisions which were before him, Gen. xliii, 31, &c. Elkanah, Samuel\u2019s\nfather, who had two wives, distributed their portions to them\nseparately, 1 Sam. i, 4, 5. In Homer, each guest has his little table\napart; and the master of the feast distributes meat to each. We are\nassured that this is still practised in China; and that many in India\nnever eat out of the same dish, nor on the same table, with another\nperson, believing that they cannot do so without sin; and this, not only\nin their own country, but when travelling, and in foreign lands.\n\nThe ancient manners which we see in Homer we see likewise in Scripture,\nwith regard to eating, drinking, and entertainments: we find great\nplenty, but little delicacy; and great respect and honour paid to the\nguests by serving them plentifully. Joseph sent his brother Benjamin a\nportion five times larger than those of his other brethren. Samuel set a\nwhole quarter of a calf before Saul. The women did not appear at table\nin entertainments with the men: this would have been an indecency; as it\nis at this day throughout the east. The present Jews, before they sit\ndown to table, carefully wash their hands: they speak of this ceremony\nas essential and obligatory. After meals they wash them again. When they\nsit down to table, the master of the house, or the chief person in the\ncompany, taking bread, breaks it, but does not wholly separate it; then,\nputting his hand on it, he recites this blessing: \u201cBlessed be thou, O\nLord our God, the King of the world, who producest the bread of the\nearth.\u201d Those present answer, \u201cAmen.\u201d Having distributed the bread among\nthe guests, he takes the vessel of wine in his right hand, saying,\n\u201cBlessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who hast produced\nthe fruit of the vine.\u201d They then repeat the twenty-third Psalm.\nBuxtorf, and Leo of Modena, who have given particular accounts of the\nJewish ceremonies, differ in some circumstances: the reason is, Buxtorf\nwrote principally the ceremonies of the German Jews, and Leo, those of\nthe Italian Jews. They take care that, after meals, there shall be a\npiece of bread remaining on the table; the master of the house orders a\nglass to be washed, fills it with wine, and, elevating it, says, \u201cLet us\nbless Him of whose benefits we have been partaking:\u201d the rest answer,\n\u201cBlessed be He who has heaped his favours on us, and by his goodness has\nnow fed us.\u201d Then he recites a pretty long prayer, wherein he thanks God\nfor his many benefits vouchsafed to Israel; beseeches him to pity\nJerusalem and his temple, to restore the throne of David, to send Elias\nand the Messiah, to deliver them out of their long captivity, &c. All\npresent answer, \u201cAmen;\u201d and then recite Psalm xxxiv, 9, 10. Then, giving\nthe glass with the little wine in it to be drunk round, he drinks what\nis left, and the table is cleared. See BANQUETS.\n\nPartaking of the benefits of Christ\u2019s passion by faith is also called\neating, because this is the support of our spiritual life, John vi, 53,\n56. Hosea reproaches the priests of his time with eating the sins of the\npeople, Hosea iv, 8; that is, feasting on their sin offerings, rather\nthan reforming their manners. John the Baptist is said to have come\n\u201cneither eating nor drinking,\u201d Matt. xi, 18; that is, as other men did;\nfor he lived in the wilderness, on locusts, wild honey, and water, Matt.\niii, 4; Luke i, 15. This is expressed, in Luke vii, 33, by his neither\neating \u201cbread,\u201d nor drinking \u201cwine.\u201d On the other hand, the Son of Man\nis said, in Matt. xi, 19, to have come \u201ceating and drinking;\u201d that is,\nas others did; and that too with all sorts of persons, Pharisees,\npublicans, and sinners.\n\nEBAL, a celebrated mountain in the tribe of Ephraim, near Shechem, over\nagainst Mount Gerizim. These two mountains are within two hundred paces\nof each other, and separated by a deep valley, in which stood the town\nof Shechem. The two mountains are much alike in magnitude and form,\nbeing of a semi-circular figure, about half a league in length, and, on\nthe sides nearest Shechem, nearly perpendicular. One of them is barren;\nthe other, covered with a beautiful verdure. Moses commanded the\nIsraelites, as soon as they should have passed the river Jordan, to go\ndirectly to Shechem, and divide the whole multitude into two bodies,\neach composed of six tribes; one company to be placed on Ebal, and the\nother on Gerizim. The six tribes that were on Gerizim were to pronounce\nblessings on those who should faithfully observe the law of the Lord,\nand the six others on Mount Ebal were to pronounce curses against those\nwho should violate it, Deut. xi, 29, &c; xxvii, and xxviii; Joshua viii,\n30, 31.\n\nThis consecration of the Hebrew commonwealth is thought to have been\nperformed in the following manner: The heads of the first six tribes\nwent up to the top of Mount Gerizim, and the heads of the other six\ntribes to the top of Mount Ebal. The priests, with the ark, and Joshua\nat the head of the elders of Israel, took their station in the middle of\nthe valley which lies between the two mountains. The Levites ranged\nthemselves in a circle about the ark; and the elders, with the people,\nplaced themselves at the foot of the mountain, six tribes on a side.\nWhen they were thus disposed in order, the priests turned toward Mount\nGerizim, on the top of which were the six heads of the six tribes who\nwere at the foot of the same mountain, and pronounced, for example,\nthese words:--\u201cBlessed be the man that maketh not any graven images.\u201d\nThe six princes who were upon the top of the mountain, and the six\ntribes who were below at its foot, answered, \u201cAmen.\u201d Afterward, the\npriests, turning toward Mount Ebal, upon which were the princes of the\nother six tribes, cried, with a loud voice, \u201cCursed be the man that\nmaketh any graven image;\u201d and were answered by the princes opposite to\nthem and their tribes, \u201cAmen.\u201d The Scripture, at first view, seems to\nintimate that there were six tribes upon one mountain, and six on the\nother; but beside that it is by no means probable that the tribes of the\nIsraelites, who were so numerous, should be able to stand on the summits\nof these two mountains, it would not have been possible for them to have\nseen the ceremony, nor to have heard the blessings and curses in order\nto answer them. Moreover, the Hebrew particle, in the original,\nsignifies, _near_, _over against_, as well as _at the top_, Joshua viii,\n33. Accordingly, we may say, that neither Joshua, nor the priests or\ntribes, went up to the top of the mountains, but the heads only, who in\ntheir persons might represent all the tribes.\n\nEBENEZER, the name of that field wherein the Israelites were defeated by\nthe Philistines, when the ark of the Lord was taken, 1 Sam. iv, 1; also\na memorial stone set up by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the\nPhilistines. The word signifies _the stone of help_; and it was erected\nby the prophet, saying, \u201cHitherto the Lord hath helped us.\u201d\n\nEBIONITES, a sect of the first two or three centuries; but it is not\ncertain whether they received their name from a leader of the name of\nEbion, (whom Dr. Lardner considers as a disciple of Cerinthus,) or from\nthe meaning of the Hebrew word _ebion_, which implies poverty; and if\nthe latter, whether they assumed the name, as affecting to be poor, like\nthe Founder of Christianity; or whether it was conferred on them by way\nof reproach, as being of the lower orders. The use of the term, also,\naccording to Dr. Horsley, was various and indefinite. Sometimes it was\nthe peculiar name of those sects that denied both the divinity of our\nLord, and his miraculous conception. Then its meaning was extended, to\ntake in another party; who admitted the miraculous conception of Jesus,\nbut still denied his divinity, and questioned his previous existence. At\nlast, it seems, the Nazarites, whose error was rather a superstitious\nseverity in their practice, than any deficiency in their faith, were\nincluded by Origen in the infamy of the appellation. Dr. Priestley,\nclaiming the Ebionites as Jewish Unitarians, considers the ancient\nNazarenes, that is, the first Jewish converts, as the true Ebionites;\nthese, he thinks, were called Nazarenes, from their attachment to Jesus\nof Nazareth; and Ebionites, from their poor and mean condition, just as\nsome of the reformers were called Beghards, or beggars. The Doctor cites\nthe authorities of Origen and Epiphanius, to prove that both these\ndenominations related to the same people, differing only, like the\nSocinians, in receiving or rejecting the fact of the miraculous\nconception; and neither, as he assures us, were reckoned heretics by any\nwriters of the two first centuries. To this Dr. Horsley replies, that\nboth Jews and Heathens called the first Christians Nazarenes, in\nallusion to the mean and obscure birthplace of their Master, Jesus of\nNazareth, Matthew ii, 23; Acts x, 38; but insists, and answers every\npretended proof to the contrary, that the term Nazarenes was never\napplied to any distinct sect of Christians before the final destruction\nof Jerusalem by Adrian. Dr. Semler, a German writer, gives the following\nopinion: \u201cThose who more rigidly maintained the Mosaic observances, and\nwho were numerous in Palestine, are usually called Ebionites and\nNasar\u00e6ans. Some believe that they ought not to be reckoned heretics;\nothers think that they were united in doctrine, differing only in name;\nothers place them in the second century. It is of little consequence\nwhether we distinguish or not the Nazarenes, or Nazar\u00e6ans from the\nEbionites. It is certain that both these classes were tenacious of the\nMosaic ceremonies, and more inclined to the Jews than to the Gentiles,\nthough they admitted the Messiahship of Jesus in a very low and\nJudaizing manner. The Ebionites held in execration the doctrine of the\nApostle Paul.\u201d Dr. J. Pye Smith, who quotes this passage from Dr.\nSemler, adds, \u201cSuch, it is apprehended, on grounds of reasonable\nprobability, was the origin of Unitarianism; the child of Judaism\nmisunderstood, and of Christianity imperfectly received.\u201d\n\n2. On this controversy great light has, however, been since thrown by\nDr. Burton. It is well known to those who have studied the Unitarian\ncontroversy, that it has been often asserted that the Cerinthians and\nEbionites were the teachers of genuine Christianity, and that the\ndoctrine of Christ\u2019s divinity, and of universal redemption through his\nblood, were the inventions of those who corrupted the preaching of the\nApostles. If this were so, we must convict all the fathers, not merely\nof ignorance and mistake, but of deliberate and wilful falsehood. To\nsuppose that the fathers of the second century were ignorant of what was\ngenuine and what was false in Christianity, would be a bold hypothesis;\nbut if Iren\u00e6us, the disciple of Polycarp, asserted, as a matter of fact,\nthat St. John wrote his Gospel to refute the errors of Cerinthus, it is\nidle, or something worse, to say that Iren\u00e6us did not know for certain\nif the fact was really so. As far, then, as the testimony of the fathers\nis concerned, the Cerinthians and Ebionites were decidedly heretics. The\nUnitarians, on the other hand, maintain that the Ebionites were the true\nand genuine believers; and it is easy to see that the preference was\ngiven to these teachers, because they held that Jesus was born of human\nparents. Never, I conceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal\nalliance formed than that between the Ebionites and modern Unitarians.\nWe find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed in every point with\nthe Socinian or Unitarian creed; and yet it may almost be asserted, that\nin not one single point do their sentiments exactly coincide. If a real\nEbionite will declare himself, we are not afraid to meet him. Let him\navow his faith; let him believe of Christ as Ebion or Cerinthus taught;\nlet him adopt the ravings of the Gnostics; we shall then know with whom\nwe have to combat; we may gird on the sword of Iren\u00e6us, and meet him in\nthe field. But let him not select a few ingredients only from the\npoison; let him not take a part only of their infatuated system. If he\nwill lean on that broken reed, let him talk no more of Ebion or\nCerinthus only; but let him say boldly, either that the Gnostics agreed\nwith the Apostles, or that the Gnostics preached the true Gospel, while\nthe Apostles were in error.\n\n3. We can hardly suppose the Unitarians to be ignorant that the\nEbionites and Cerinthians were a branch of the Gnostics. If the fact be\ndenied, the whole of this discussion might as well at once be closed. We\nknow nothing of Cerinthus and Ebion, but from the writings of the\nfathers. If it had not been for them, we should never have known that\nthese persons believed Jesus to be born of human parents: the same\nfathers unanimously add, that in this point they differed from the\npreceding Gnostics, though agreeing with them on other points. If we are\nto receive the testimony of the fathers in one particular, but to reject\nit in every other, I need not say that argument is useless. But the fact\ncan never be denied nor evaded. The Cerinthians, to whom some Unitarians\nhave appealed, did not ascribe the creation of the world to God, but to\nan inferior being. Like the rest of the Gnostics, who engrafted that\nphilosophy on Judaism, the Cerinthians and Ebionites retained some of\nthe Jewish ceremonies, though they rejected some of the Jewish\nScriptures. Many of them taught that the restraints of morality were\nuseless; and the Cerinthians, it is well known, promised to their\nfollowers a millennium of sensual indulgence. With respect to their\nnotions concerning Christ, it is true that they believed Jesus to be\nborn of human parents; and this fact is referred to, as if it proved the\nfalsehood of what is called the miraculous conception of Jesus. But it\nis plain that this tenet is mentioned by the fathers, as being opposed\nto that of the other Gnostics, who held that the body of Jesus was an\nillusive phantom. Such had hitherto been the belief of all the Gnostics.\nBut Cerinthus and Ebion, who were perhaps more rational in their\nspeculations, and who lived after the publication of the three first\nGospels, could not resist the evidence that Jesus was actually born, and\nthat he had a real, substantial body. This is the meaning of the\nstatement, that Cerinthus and Ebion believed Jesus to be born of human\nparents. It shows that they were not _Docet\u00e6_. But because there were\nother Gnostics who were more irrational and visionary than themselves,\nwe are not immediately to infer that their own notion concerning the\nbirth of Christ was the true one. They believed, at least, many of them\nbelieved, that Jesus was born in the ordinary way; that Joseph was his\nparent as well as Mary. But they could hardly help believing so; for\nthey agreed with all the Gnostics in thinking (though it might seem as\nif this point had been forgotten) that Jesus and Christ were separate\npersons: they believed, as I have already stated, that Christ descended\nupon Jesus at his baptism, and quitted him before his crucifixion. They\nwere therefore almost compelled to believe that Jesus, who was wholly\ndistinct from Christ, had nothing divine in his nature, and nothing\nmiraculous in his birth; in the same manner that they believed that the\ndeath of Jesus, from whom Christ had then departed, was like the death\nof any ordinary mortal, and that no atonement was made by it. But are we\non these grounds to reject the miraculous conception and the atonement\nof Christ? Or are the Unitarians to quote these Gnostics as holding the\nhuman nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person\nwholly different from Christ?\n\n4. We are told, indeed, that the first part of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel is\nspurious, because the Ebionites rejected it. Undoubtedly they did. They\nread in it that Jesus Christ was born, not Jesus only; and that he was\nborn of a virgin. They therefore rejected this part of St. Matthew\u2019s\nGospel; or rather, by mutilating and altering the whole of it, they\ncomposed a new gospel of their own to suit their purpose; and yet this\nis the only authority which is quoted for rejecting the commencement of\nSt. Matthew\u2019s Gospel. The fact, that some even of the Ebionites believed\nthe miraculous conception, speaks infinitely more in favour of the\ngenuineness of that part of the Gospel, and of the truth of the doctrine\nitself, than can be inferred on the contrary side from those who denied\nthe doctrine, and mutilated the Gospel. Those other Ebionites appear in\nthis respect to have agreed with the first Socinians, and to have held\nthat Jesus was born of a virgin, though they did not believe in his\npre\u00ebxistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely\ncontrary to all preconceived opinions, and the more simple doctrine of\nthe other Ebionites and Cerinthians was so much more suited to the\nGnostic system, which separated Jesus from Christ, that the evidence\nmust have been almost irresistible, which led one part of the Ebionites\nto embrace a doctrine contrary to all experience, contrary to the\nsentiments of their brethren, and hardly reconcilable with other parts\nof their own creed. The testimony, therefore, of these Ebionites, in\nfavour of the miraculous conception, is stronger, perhaps, than even\nthat of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no\npoints from the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Apostles had preached,\naccording to the statement of the Unitarians, that Jesus Christ was a\nmere human being, born in the ordinary way, what could possibly have led\nthe Gnostics to rank him immediately with their \u00c6ons, whom they believed\nto have been produced by God, and to have dwelt with him from endless\nages in the pleroma? There literally was not one single heretic in the\nfirst century, who did not believe that Christ came down from heaven:\nthey invented, it is true, various absurdities to account for his union\nwith the man Jesus; but the fair and legitimate inference from this fact\nwould be, that the Apostles preached that in some way or other the human\nnature was united to the divine. So far from the Socinian or Unitarian\ndoctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites, I\nhave no hesitation in saying, that not one single person is recorded in\nthe whole of the first century who ever imagined that Christ was a mere\nman. It has been observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled\nthe first Socinians, that is, they believed in the miraculous conception\nof Jesus, though they denied his pre\u00ebxistence; but this was because they\nheld the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two\nseparate persons; and they believed in the pre\u00ebxistence and divine\nnature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.\n\nECBATANA, a city of Media, which, according to Herodotus, was built by\nDejoces, king of the Medes. It was situated on a gentle declivity,\ndistant twelve stadia from Mount Orontes, and was in compass one hundred\nand fifty stadia, and, next to Nineveh and Babylon, was one of the\nstrongest and most beautiful cities of the east. After the union of\nMedia with Persia, it was the summer residence of the Persian kings. Sir\nR. K. Porter, in his Travels, says, \u201cHaving for a few moments gazed at\nthe venerable mountain, (Orontes, at the foot of which Ecbatana was\nbuilt,) and at the sad vacuum at its base; what had been Ecbatana, being\nnow shrunk to comparative nothingness; I turned my eye on the still busy\nscene of life which occupied the adjacent country; the extensive plain\nof Hamadan, and its widely extending hills. On our right, the receding\nvale was varied, at short distances, with numberless castellated\nvillages rising from amidst groves of the noblest trees; while the great\nplain itself stretched northward and eastward to such far remoteness,\nthat its mountain boundaries appeared like clouds upon the horizon. This\nwhole tract seemed one carpet of luxuriant verdure, studded with\nhamlets, and watered by beautiful rivulets. On the south-west, Orontes,\nor Elwund, (by whichever name we may designate this most towering\ndivision of the mountain,) presents itself, in all the stupendous\ngrandeur of its fame and form. Near to its base, appear the dark\ncoloured dwellings of Hamadan, crowded thickly on each other; while the\ngardens of the inhabitants with their connecting orchards and woods,\nfringe the entire slope of that part of the mountain.\u201d \u201cThe site of the\nmodern town, like that of the ancient, is on a gradual ascent,\nterminating near the foot of the eastern side of the mountain; but there\nall trace of its past appearance would cease, were it not for two or\nthree considerable elevations, and overgrown irregularities on and near\nthem, which may have been the walls of the royal fortress, with those of\nthe palaces, temples, and theatres, seen no more. I passed one of these\nheights, standing to the south-west, as I entered the city, and observed\nthat it bore many vestiges of having been strongly fortified. The sides\nand summit are covered with large remnants of ruined walls of a great\nthickness, and also of towers, the materials of which were sun-dried\nbricks. It has the name of the Inner Fortress, and certainly holds the\nmost commanding station near the plain.\u201d Of the interior of the city,\nthe same author says, \u201cThe mud alleys, which now occupy the site of the\nancient streets or squares, are narrow, interrupted by large holes or\nhollows in the way, and heaps of the fallen crumbled walls of deserted\ndwellings. A miserable bazaar or two are passed through in traversing\nthe town; and large lonely spots are met with, marked by broken low\nmounds over older ruins; with here and there a few poplars, or willow\ntrees, shadowing the border of a dirty stream, abandoned to the meanest\nuses; which, probably, flowed pellucid and admired, when these places\nwere gardens, and the grass-grown heap some stately dwelling of\nEcbatana. In one or two spots I observed square platforms, composed of\nlarge stones; the faces of many of which were chiselled all over into\nthe finest arabesque fretwork, while others had, in addition, long\ninscriptions in the Arabic character. They had evidently been\ntomb-stones of the inhabitants, during the caliph rule in Persia. But\nwhen we compare relics of the seventh century, with the deep antiquity\nof the ruins on which they lie, these monumental remains seem but the\nregister of yesterday.\u201d Here is shown the tomb of Mordecai and Esther;\nas well as that of Avicenna, the celebrated Arabian physician. The\nsepulchre of the former stands near the centre of the city of Hamadan:\nthe tombs are covered by a dome, on which is the following inscription\nin Hebrew: \u201cThis day, 15th of the month Adar, in the year 4474 from the\ncreation of the world, was finished the building of this temple over the\ngraves of Mordecai and Esther, by the hands of the good-hearted\nbrothers, Elias and Samuel, the sons of the deceased Ismael of Kashan.\u201d\nThis inscription, the date of which proves the dome to have been built\neleven hundred years, was sent by Sir Gore Ouseley to Sir John Malcolm,\nwho has given it in his History of Persia; who also says that the tombs,\nwhich are of a black coloured wood, are evidently of very great\nantiquity, but in good preservation, as the wood has not perished, and\nthe inscriptions are still very legible. Sir R. K. Porter has given a\nmore particular description of this tomb. He says, \u201cI accompanied the\npriest through the town, over much ruin and rubbish, to an enclosed\npiece of ground, rather more elevated than any in its immediate\nvicinity. In the centre was the Jewish tomb; a square building of brick,\nof a mosque-like form, with a rather elongated dome at the top. The\nwhole seems in a very decaying state, falling fast to the mouldering\ncondition of some wall fragments around, which, in former times, had\nbeen connected with, and extended the consequence of, the sacred\nenclosure. The door that admitted us into the tomb, is in the ancient\nsepulchral fashion of the country, very small; consisting of a small\nstone of great thickness, and turning on its own pivots from one side.\nIts key is always in possession of the head of the Jews resident at\nHamadan.\u201d \u201cOn passing through the little portal, which we did in an\nalmost doubled position, we entered a small arched chamber, in which are\nseen the graves of several rabbies: probably, one may cover the remains\nof the pious Ismael; and, not unlikely, the others may contain the\nbodies of the first rebuilders after the sacrilegious destruction by\nTimour. Having \u2018trod lightly by their graves,\u2019 a second door of such\nvery confined dimensions presented itself at the end of this vestibule,\nwe were constrained to enter it on our hands and knees, and then\nstanding up, we found ourselves in a larger chamber, to which\nappertained the dome. Immediately under its concave, stand two\nsarcophagi, made of a very dark wood, carved with great intricacy of\npattern, and richness of twisted ornament, with a line of inscription in\nHebrew running round the upper ledge of each. Many other inscriptions,\nin the same language, are cut on the walls; while one of the oldest\nantiquity, engraved on a slab of white marble, is let into the wall\nitself.\u201d This inscription is as follows: \u201cMordecai, beloved and honoured\nby a king, was great and good. His garments were as those of a\nsovereign. Ahasuerus covered him with this rich dress, and also placed a\ngolden chain around his neck. The city of Susa rejoiced at his honours,\nand his high fortune became the glory of the Jews.\u201d The inscription\nwhich encompasses the sarcophagus of Mordecai, is to this effect: \u201cIt is\nsaid by David, Preserve me, O God! I am now in thy presence. I have\ncried at the gate of heaven, that thou art my God; and what goodness I\nhave received from thee, O Lord! Those whose bodies are now beneath in\nthis earth, when animated by thy mercy were great; and whatever\nhappiness was bestowed upon them in this world, came from thee, O God!\nTheir grief and sufferings were many, at the first; but they became\nhappy, because they always called upon thy holy name in their miseries.\nThou liftedst me up, and I became powerful. Thine enemies sought to\ndestroy me, in the early times of my life; but the shadow of thy hand\nwas upon me, and covered me, as a tent, from their wicked\npurposes!--MORDECAI.\u201d The following is the corresponding inscription on\nthe sarcophagus of Esther: \u201cI praise thee, O God, that thou hast created\nme! I know that my sins merit punishment, yet I hope for mercy at thy\nhands; for whenever I call upon thee, thou art with me; thy holy\npresence secures me from all evil. My heart is at ease, and my fear of\nthee increases. My life became, through thy goodness, at the last, full\nof peace. O God, do not shut my soul out from thy divine presence! Those\nwhom thou lovest, never feel the torments of hell. Lead me, O merciful\nFather, to the life of life; that I may be filled with the heavenly\nfruits of paradise!--ESTHER.\u201d The Jews at Hamadan have no tradition of\nthe cause of Esther and Mordecai having been interred at that place; but\nhowever that might be, there are sufficient reasons for believing the\nvalidity of their interment in this spot. The strongest evidence we can\nhave of the truth of any historical fact, is, its commemoration by an\nannual festival. It is well known, that several important events in\nJewish history are thus celebrated; and among the rest, the feast of\nPurim is kept on the 13th and 14th of the month Adar, to commemorate the\ndeliverance obtained by the Jews, at the intercession of Esther, from\nthe general massacre ordered by Ahasuerus, and the slaughter they were\npermitted to make of their enemies. Now on this same festival, in the\nsame day and month, Jewish pilgrims resort from all quarters to the\nsepulchre of Mordecai and Esther; and have done so for centuries,--a\nstrong presumptive proof that the tradition of their burial in this\nplace rests on some authentic foundation.\n\nECCLESIASTES, a canonical book of the Old Testament, of which Solomon\nwas the author, as appears from the first sentence. The design of this\nbook is to show the vanity of all sublunary things; and from a review of\nthe whole, the author draws this pertinent conclusion, \u201cFear God, and\nkeep his commandments, for this is the whole of man;\u201d--his whole wisdom,\ninterest, and happiness, as well as his whole duty. Ecclesiastes,\naccording to a modern author, is a dialogue, in which a man of piety\ndisputes with a libertine who favoured the opinion of the Sadducees. His\nreason is, that there are passages in it which seem to contradict each\nother, and could not, he thinks, proceed from the same person. But this\nmay be accounted for by supposing that it was Solomon\u2019s method to\npropose the objections of infidels and sensualists, and then to reply to\nthem.\n\nECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, the rules by which churches are governed, as to\ntheir spiritual concerns. The reformers having renounced the pope as\nantichrist, and having laid it down as their fundamental principle, that\nScripture is the only rule of faith, and that it is the privilege of\nevery man to interpret it according to his own judgment, had to consider\nin what manner the churches which they had formed were to be regulated;\nand there soon arose among them upon this point diversity of sentiment.\nMelancthon and the earliest reformers viewed with veneration the\nhierarchy which had so long subsisted, as also many of the ceremonies\nwhich for ages had been observed; and they expressed their readiness to\ncontinue that distinction of pastors which their researches into the\nhistory of the church had enabled them to trace back to the early ages\nof Christianity. But while they declared in favour of this form of\necclesiastical polity, they did so, not upon the ground that it was of\ndivine institution, or positively required by the author of Christianity\nas inseparable from a church; but on the ground, that taking into\nestimation every thing connected with it, it appeared to them eminently\nadapted to carry into effect that renovation of piety, and that\nreligious influence, which they were so eager to promote. They thus made\necclesiastical polity a matter of expediency, or of prudential\nregulation; the one thing in their view, binding upon all Christians,\nbeing to strengthen the practical power of religion. That this is a just\nrepresentation of the state of opinion among the first Protestants, will\nbe placed beyond a doubt by a few quotations from the confession of\nAugsburg, and from the works of some of the most eminent divines who\nthen flourished. Speaking of this subject, the compilers of the\nconfession declare, \u201cthat they were most desirous to preserve the\necclesiastical polity, and those degrees in the church which had been\nintroduced by human authority, knowing that, for wise and good purposes,\nthe discipline, as described in the canons, had been introduced by the\nfathers.\u201d \u201cWe wish,\u201d they add, \u201cto testify that we would willingly\npreserve the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, if the bishops would\ncease to act with cruelty against our churches.\u201d And once again they\nremark, that they had often declared that they venerated not only the\necclesiastical power which was instituted in the Gospel, but that they\napproved of the ecclesiastical polity which had subsisted, and wished,\nas much as was in their power, to preserve it. It is quite plain from\nthese passages, that the framers of that confession, and those who\nadhered to it as the standard of their faith, viewed ecclesiastical\npolity as a matter of human appointment; and that, although they\nvenerated that form of it which had long existed, they looked upon\nthemselves as at liberty, under peculiar circumstances, to depart from\nit. The truth, accordingly, is, that a great part of the Lutheran\nchurches, as we shall afterward find, did introduce many deviations from\nthat model for which their founders had expressed respect and\nadmiration; although episcopacy was in several places continued.\n\n2. In consequence, however, of the exertions of Calvin, what were\ndenominated the reformed churches deemed it expedient wholly to change\nthis form of polity, and to introduce again the equality among pastors\nwhich had existed in the primitive times. That celebrated theologian,\nresting upon the undisputed fact, that in the Apostolic age no\ndistinction subsisted between bishops and presbyters, thought himself at\nliberty to frame a system of polity upon this principle, persuaded that,\nby doing so, he would most effectually guard against those abuses that\nhad given rise to the Papal tyranny which Protestants had abjured. He\naccordingly introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so; and\nhe employed all the vigour of his talents in pressing upon distant\nchurches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his sentiments,\ntheir ecclesiastical government. But, while he was firmly persuaded that\nan equality among pastors was agreeable to the Apostolic practice, he\nhas shown that he did not conceive this equality to be so absolutely\nrequired by Scripture, that there could in no case be a departure from\nit. He was, in fact, convinced that all the purposes of religion might\nbe accomplished under a form of polity in which it was not recognised:\n\u201cWherever,\u201d he says, \u201cthe preaching of the Gospel is heard with\nreverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time\nthere is a church.\u201d Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to\nbe \u201cthose who by the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who\nproperly administer the sacred mysteries, and who preserve and exercise\nright discipline.\u201d In tracing the progress of the hierarchy, he\nobserves, that \u201cthose to whom the office of teaching was assigned were\ndenominated presbyters; that to avoid the dissensions often arising\namong equals, they chose one of their number to preside, to whom the\ntitle of bishop was exclusively given; and that the practice, as the\nancients admitted, was introduced by human consent, from the necessity\nof the times.\u201d That this exaltation of the bishop, and, of course, this\ndeparture from parity, did not, in his estimation, render the church\nunchristian, is apparent from what he says of it after the change was\nintroduced: \u201cSuch was the severity of these times, that all the\nministers were led to discharge their duty as the Lord required of\nthem.\u201d Even after archbishops and patriarchs had arisen, he merely says,\nin recording their introduction, \u201cThis arrangement was calculated to\npreserve discipline.\u201d\n\n3. What Calvin thus taught in his \u201cInstitutes,\u201d he confirmed in many of\nthe interesting letters which he wrote to various eminent persons. In\nthese letters he speaks with the highest respect of the church of\nEngland, where the distinction of clerical orders was preserved. He\ncorresponds with the highest dignitaries of that church in a style which\nhe assuredly would not have adopted, had he considered them as upholding\nan antichristian polity; and he repeatedly avows the principle, that, in\nregulating the government of the church, attention must be paid to the\ncircumstances in which its members were placed. Beza, who was warmly\nattached to presbytery, and who upon every occasion, strenuously\ndefended it, still admits that the human order of episcopacy was useful,\nas long as the bishops were good; and he professes all reverence for\nthose modern bishops who strive to imitate the primitive ones in the\nreformation of the church according to the word of God: adding that it\nwas a calumny against him, and those who entertained his sentiments, to\naffirm, as some had done, that they wished to prescribe their form of\ngovernment to all other churches. In the excellent letter which he\naddressed to Grindal, bishop of London, and in which he pleads the cause\nof those ministers who scrupled to use the ceremonies which their\nbrethren approved, he bears his testimony to the conformity of the\nchurch of England in doctrine with his church, expresses himself with\nthe highest respect of the prelate to whom he was writing, and concludes\nby asking his prayers in his own behalf, and in that of the church of\nGeneva; all of which is quite inconsistent with the tenet, that\npresbytery is absolutely prescribed by divine authority.\n\n4. The same general principle was avowed by the most eminent English\ndivines. Cranmer explicitly declared, that bishops and priests were of\nthe same order at the commencement of Christianity; and this was the\nopinion of several of his distinguished contemporaries. Holding this\nmaxim, their support of episcopacy must have proceeded from views of\nexpediency, or, in some instances, from a conviction which prevailed\nvery generally at this early period, that it belonged to the supreme\ncivil magistrate to regulate the spiritual no less than the political\ngovernment; an idea involving in it that no one form of ecclesiastical\npolity is of divine institution. At a later period, during the reign of\nQueen Elizabeth, we find the same conviction, that it was no violation\nof Christianity to choose different modes of administering the church.\nArchbishop Whitgift, who distinguished himself by the zeal with which he\nsupported the English hierarchy, frequently maintains, that the form of\ndiscipline is not particularly, and by name, set down in Scripture; and\nhe also plainly asserts, \u201cthat no form of church government is, by the\nScriptures, prescribed or commanded to the church of God.\u201d This\nprinciple is admirably illustrated and confirmed by the venerable\nHooker, in the third book of his work on ecclesiastical polity; and\nanother divine of the English church, who lived about the same period,\nhas laid down what he conceives to be an unquestionable position, \u201cthat\nall churches have not the same form of discipline; neither is it\nnecessary that they should, because it cannot be proved that any\nparticular form of church government is enjoined by the word of God.\u201d We\nhave, indeed, a succession of testimonies from the introduction of the\nreformation down through the reign of Elizabeth,--testimonies given by\nthe primates, and bishops, and theologians, who have been venerated as\nthe luminaries of the church of England, that the divine right or\ninstitution of episcopacy constituted no part of their faith; and this\nis confirmed by their correspondence with reformed divines, who did not\nlive under the episcopal model, but who, notwithstanding, were often\nconsulted as to the ecclesiastical arrangements which the convocation\nshould adopt. The same general sentiment is to be traced in those\nchurches which had reverted to the primitive equality among the\nministers of Christ. In the second Helvetic confession, which was\napproved by many churches, it is taught, that bishops and presbyters in\nthe beginning governed the church with equal power, none exalting\nhimself above another; the inequality which soon was introduced\noriginating from the desire of preserving order. Various passages from\nCyprian and Jerom are quoted in confirmation of this; and the article\nthus concludes: \u201cWherefore no one can be lawfully hindered from\nreturning to the ancient constitution of the church of God, and to adopt\nit in preference to what custom has introduced.\u201d Had the compilers\nbelieved that this ancient constitution was of divine obligation, they\nwould have expressed themselves much more strongly with respect to it;\nand instead of representing the return to it as what ought not to be\nhindered, they would have enjoined it, as what it was a violation of the\nlaw of God to neglect.\n\n5. The reformation in Scotland, conducted by Knox, who had spent a\nconsiderable part of his life at Geneva, and who had imbibed the\nopinions of Calvin, proceeded upon those views of polity which that\nreformer had adopted. Still, however, he authorized a modification of\nthese opinions, accommodated to the state of his native country; for\nalthough the title of bishop was not used, superintendents, with powers\nlittle inferior to those committed to prelates in England, were\nsanctioned by the first Book of Discipline; and these superintendents\nwere classed, in the acts of different general assemblies, among the\nnecessary ministers of the church. The necessity must have arisen out of\nthe circumstances of the period when the book was framed; for the polity\nwhich it prescribed was said to be only for a time; and the office of\nsuperintendent, as has been strenuously urged by some of the most\nzealous defenders of presbytery, was not intended to be permanent. The\nLutheran church, with the exception of those branches of it established\nin Denmark and Sweden, has adopted a kind of intermediate constitution\nbetween episcopacy and presbytery. While it holds that there is no\ndivine law creating a distinction among ministers, it yet contends that\nsuch a distinction is on many accounts expedient; and accordingly a\ndiversity in point of rank and privileges has been universally\nintroduced, approaching in different places, more or less, to the\nhierarchy which subsisted before the reformation. But, although it has\nthus regulated its own practice, it unambiguously admits, that as the\nGospel is silent as to any particular form of polity, different forms\nmay be chosen, without any breach of Christian union.\n\n6. It appears from the statement which has now been given, that all\nProtestants immediately after the reformation, while they abjured the\npapal supremacy, were united in holding that the mode of administering\nthe church might be varied, some of them being attached to episcopacy,\nothers to presbytery; but all founding this attachment upon the judgment\nwhich they had formed as to the tendency or utility of either of these\nmodes of government. An idea soon was avowed by some of the reformers,\nthat the whole regulation of the church pertained to the magistrate;\nthis branch of power being vested in him no less than that of\nadministering the civil government; and to this opinion the name of\nErastianism, from Erastus, who first defended it, was given. Cranmer, in\nan official reply which he made to certain questions that had been\nsubmitted for his consideration, declared, \u201cthat the civil ministers\nunder the king\u2019s majesty be those that shall please his highness for the\ntime to put in authority under him; as, for example, the lord\nchancellor, lord great master, &c; the ministers of God\u2019s word under his\nmajesty be the bishops, parsons, vicars, and such other priests as be\nappointed by his highness to that ministration; as, for example, the\nbishop of Canterbury, &c. All the said officers and ministers, as well\nof the one sort as the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in\nevery place by the laws and orders of kings and princes.\u201d By the great\nmajority of Protestants, however, the tenets of Erastus were condemned;\nfor they maintained that the Lord Jesus had conveyed to his church a\nspiritual power quite distinct from the temporal; and that it belonged\nto the ministers of religion to exercise it, for promoting the spiritual\nwelfare of the Christian community. But, while they disputed as to this\npoint, they agreed in admitting there was no model prescribed in the New\nTestament for a Christian church, as there had been in the Mosaical\neconomy for the Jewish church; and that it was a branch of the liberty\nof the disciples of Christ, or one of their privileges, to choose the\npolity which seemed to them best adapted for extending the power and\ninfluence of religion.\n\nECLECTICS, a sect of ancient philosophers, who professed to select\nwhatever was good and true from all the other philosophical sects. The\nEclectic philosophy was in a flourishing state at Alexandria when our\nSaviour was upon earth. Its founders formed the design of selecting from\nthe doctrines of all former philosophers such opinions as seemed to\napproach nearest the truth, and of combining them into one system. They\nheld Plato in the highest esteem; but did not scruple to join with his\ndoctrines whatever they thought conformable to reason in the tenets of\nother philosophers. Potamon, a Platonist, appears to have been the\nprojector of this plan. The Eclectic system was brought to perfection by\nAmmonius Saccas, who blended Christianity with his philosophy, and\nfounded the sect of the Ammonians, or New Platonists, in the second\ncentury. The moral doctrine of the Alexandrian school was as\nfollows:--The mind of man, originally a portion of the Divine Being,\nhaving fallen into a state of darkness and defilement, by its union with\nthe body, is to be gradually emancipated from the chains of matter, and\nrise by contemplation to the knowledge and vision of God. The end of\nphilosophy, therefore, is the liberation of the soul from its corporeal\nimprisonment. For this purpose, the Eclectic philosophy recommends\nabstinence, with other voluntary mortifications, and religious\nexercises. In the infancy of the Alexandrian school, not a few of the\nprofessors of Christianity were led, by the pretensions of the Eclectic\nsect, to imagine that a coalition might, with great advantage, be formed\nbetween its system and that of Christianity. This union appeared the\nmore desirable, when several philosophers of this sect became converts\nto the Christian faith. The consequence was, that Pagan ideas and\nopinions were by degrees mixed with the pure and simple doctrines of the\nGospel. See PLATONISM.\n\nECLIPSE. The word _eclipse_, \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, signifies _failure_, namely, of\nlight. An eclipse of the sun is caused by the intervention of the moon,\nat new, or in conjunction with the sun, intercepting his light from the\nearth, either totally or partially. An eclipse of the moon is caused by\nthe intervention of the earth, intercepting the sun\u2019s light from the\nmoon, when full, or in opposition to the sun, either totally or\npartially. The reason why the sun is not eclipsed every new moon, nor\nthe moon at every full, is owing to the inclination of the moon\u2019s orbit\nto the plane of the ecliptic, or earth\u2019s orbit, in an angle of about\nfive degrees and a half; in consequence of which, the moon is generally\ntoo much elevated above the plane of the ecliptic, or too much depressed\nbelow it, for her disk to touch the earth\u2019s shadow at full, or for her\nshadow, or her penumbra, to touch the earth\u2019s disk at new. An eclipse,\ntherefore, of either luminary can only take place when they are within\ntheir proper limits, or distances, from the nodes or intersections of\nboth orbits. And because the limits of solar eclipses are wider than\nthose of lunar, in general there will be more eclipses of the sun than\nof the moon. In any year, the number of eclipses of both luminaries\ncannot be less than two, and these will both be of the sun, nor more\nthan seven: the usual number is four; and it is very rare to have more\nthan six. But though solar eclipses happen oftener, lunar are more\nfrequently observed in any particular place. For an eclipse of the moon\nis visible to the inhabitants of half the globe at the same instant;\nwhereas, an eclipse of the sun is visible only within that part of the\nearth\u2019s surface, traversed by the moon\u2019s total shadow, and by her\npenumbra, or partial shadow. But her total shadow, when she is nearest\nto the earth, cannot cover a space of more than a hundred and\nfifty-eight geographical miles in diameter, nor at her mean distance\nmore than seventy-nine, and at her greatest distance may not touch the\nearth at all. In the two former cases, the sun will be eclipsed in the\nplaces covered by the shadow totally, or by the penumbra partially: in\nthe last it may be annular, but not total. Without the reach of the\nshadow, and within the limits of the penumbra, which cannot cover more\nthan four thousand five hundred and fifty-two miles of the earth\u2019s\nsurface, there will be a partial eclipse of the sun, and without these\nlimits no eclipse at all. Hence lunar eclipses are more frequently\nnoticed by historians than solar; and Diogenes Laertius may be credited\nwhen he relates, that, during the period in which the Egyptians had\nobserved eight hundred and thirty-two eclipses of the moon, they had\nonly observed three hundred and seventy-three of the sun. In the midst\nof a total lunar eclipse, the moon\u2019s disk is frequently visible, and of\na deep red or copperish colour. This, in the poetic language of sacred\nprophecy, is expressed by \u201cthe moon\u2019s being turned into blood,\u201d Joel ii,\n31. This remarkable phenomenon is caused by the sun\u2019s lateral rays in\ntheir passage through the dense atmosphere of the earth, being inflected\ninto the shadow by refraction, and falling pretty copiously upon the\nmoon\u2019s disk, are reflected from thence to the eye of the spectator. If\nthe earth had no atmosphere, the moon\u2019s disk would then be as black as\nin a solar eclipse. A total eclipse of the moon may occasion a privation\nof her light for an hour and a half, during her total immersion in the\nshadow; whereas, a total eclipse of the sun can never last in any\nparticular place above four minutes, when the moon is nearest to the\nearth, and her shadow thickest. Hence it appears, that the darkness\nwhich \u201coverspread the whole land of Judea,\u201d at the time of our Lord\u2019s\ncrucifixion, was preternatural, \u201cfrom the sixth until the ninth hour,\u201d\nor from noon till three in the afternoon, in its duration, and also in\nits time, about full moon, when the moon could not possibly eclipse the\nsun. It was accompanied by an earthquake, which altogether struck the\nspectators, and among them the centurion and Roman guard, with great\nfear, and a conviction, that Jesus was the Son of God, Matt, xxvii,\n51\u201354.\n\nEclipses, says Dr. Hales, are justly reckoned among the surest and most\nunerring characters of chronology; for they can be calculated with great\nexactness backward as well as forward; and there is such a variety of\ndistinct circumstances of the time when, and the place where, they were\nseen; of the duration, or beginning, middle, or end of every eclipse,\nand of the quantity, or number of digits eclipsed; that there is no\ndanger of confounding any two eclipses together, when the circumstances\nattending each are noticed with any tolerable degree of precision. Thus,\nto an eclipse of the moon incidentally noticed by the great Jewish\nchronologer, Josephus, shortly before the death of Herod the Great, we\nowe the determination of the true year of our Saviour\u2019s nativity. During\nHerod\u2019s last illness, and not many days before his death, there happened\nan eclipse of the moon on the very night that he burned alive Matthias,\nand the ringleaders of a sedition, in which the golden eagle, which he\nhad consecrated and set up over the gate of the temple, was pulled down\nand broken to pieces by these zealots. This eclipse happened, by\ncalculation, March 13, U. C. 750, B. C. 4. But it is certain from\nScripture, that Christ was born during Herod\u2019s reign; and from the visit\nof the magi to Jerusalem \u201cfrom the east,\u201d \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, from the\nParthian empire, to inquire for the true \u201cborn King of the Jews,\u201d whose\nstar they had seen \u201cat its rising,\u201d \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7, and also from the age\nof the infants massacred at Bethlehem, \u201cfrom two years old and under,\u201d\nMatt, ii, 1\u201316. It is no less certain, that Jesus could not have been\nborn later than B. C. 5, which is the year assigned to the nativity by\nChrysostom, Petavius and Prideaux.\n\nEDEN, _Garden of_, the residence of our first parents in their state of\npurity and blessedness. The word _Eden_ in the Hebrew denotes \u201cpleasure\u201d\nor \u201cdelight:\u201d whence the name has been given to several places which,\nfrom their situation, were pleasant or delightful. Thus the Prophet\nAmos, i, 5, speaks of an Eden in Syria, which is generally considered to\nhave been in the valley of Damascus, where a town called Eden is\nmentioned by Pliny and Ptolemy, and where the tomb of Abel is pretended\nto be shown. This has in consequence been selected by some as the site\nof the garden of Eden. By others, the garden has been placed on the\neastern side of mount Libanus; and by others again, in Arabia Felix,\nwhere traces of the word _Eden_ are found. But the opinion which has\nbeen most generally received on this subject is that which places the\ngarden on the Lower Euphrates; between the junction of that river with\nthe Tigris and the gulf of Persia. This is Dr. Well\u2019s opinion; in which\nhe is supported by Huetius, Grotius, Marinus, and Bochart. To this it is\nreplied, that, according to this scheme, the garden was intersected by a\ngreat branch of the Euphrates, in the lower and broadest part of its\ncourse; which will give it an extent absolutely irreconcilable with the\nidea of Adam\u2019s \u201cdressing\u201d it by his own manual labour, or even of\noverlooking it: beside that all communication would be cut off between\nits different parts by a stream half a mile in width. Its local\nfeatures, too, if in this situation, must have been of the most\nuninteresting kind; the whole of that region, as far as the sight can\nreach, being a dead, monotonous, sandy, or marshy flat, without a single\nundulation to relieve the eye, or give any of the beauties which the\nimagination involuntarily paints to itself as attendant on a spot\nfinished by the hand of God as the residence of his creatures in a state\nof innocence; whose minds may be supposed to be tuned to the full\nenjoyment of the grand and beautiful in nature. How different will be\nthe aspect and arrangement of this favoured spot, if it be placed where\nonly, according to the words of Moses, it can be placed; namely, at the\nheads or fountains of the rivers described, instead of their mouths.\n\nThe country of Eden, therefore, according to others, was some where in\nMedia, Armenia, or the north of Mesopotamia; all mountainous tracts, and\naffording, instead of the sickening plains of Babylonia, some of the\ngrandest, as well as the richest scenery in the world. A river or stream\nrising in some part of this country, entered the garden; where it was\nparted into four others, in all probability, by first falling into a\nbasin or lake, from which the other streams issued at different points,\ntaking different directions, and growing into mighty rivers; although at\ntheir sources in the garden, they would be like all other rivers, mere\nbrooks, and forming no barrier to a free communication between the parts\nof the garden. Dr. Wells, in order to support his hypothesis of the\nsituation of Eden on the lower parts of the Euphrates and Tigris, after\ngiving these rivers a distribution which has now no existence, makes the\nPison and Gihon to be parts of the Tigris and Euphrates themselves: an\narrangement at perfect disagreement with the particular description of\nMoses; beside, that the Gihon thus called, instead of compassing the\nwhole land of Cush, can only be said to skirt an extreme corner of it.\nIt appears, indeed, that in the time of Alexander, the Euphrates pursued\na separate course to the sea; or, at least, that a navigable branch of\nit was carried in that direction: in the mouth of which, at Diridotis,\nNearchus anchored with his fleet. But what reliance can be placed on the\never shifting channels of a river flowing through an alluvial soil, and\nover a perfect level divertible at the pleasure of the people inhabiting\nits banks? Or, what theory can be founded on their distribution, which\nwill not be as unstable as the streams themselves? This very channel, so\nessential to the hypothesis which places Eden in this situation, was\nannihilated by the Orcheni, a neighbouring people; who directed the\nstream to water their own land, and thus gave it a shorter course into\nthe Tigris, which it has ever since preserved. But it is only the lower\nparts of the Euphrates and Tigris, as they creep through the plains of\nBabylonia, which are thus inconstant: higher up in their courses, they\nflow over more solid strata, and in deeper valleys, unchanged by time.\nIt is here that their conformity with the Mosaic account is to be\nsought; and it is here that they may be found, in the exact condition in\nwhich they were left by the deluge, and, indeed, according to Moses, in\nwhich they existed before that event. It is true, that the heads of the\nfour rivers, above described, cannot now be found sufficiently near, to\nrecognise thence the exact situation of paradise; but they all arise\nfrom the same mountainous region; and the springs of the Euphrates and\nTigris, as already mentioned, are even now nearly interwoven. Mr. Faber\nsupposes the lake Arsissa to cover the site of Eden; and that the change\nwhich carried the heads of the rivers to a greater distance from it, was\noccasioned by the deluge. But it is far more probable that this change,\nif we may infer from the account given by Moses that the courses of all\nthe streams remained unaltered by the flood, may have taken place at\nman\u2019s expulsion from the garden: when God might choose to obliterate\nthis fair portion of his works, unfitted for any thing but the residence\nof innocence; and to blot at once from the face of the earth, like the\nguilty cities of the plain, both the site and the memorial of man\u2019s\ntransgression,--an awful event, which would add tenfold horrors to the\npunishment.\n\nEDOM, a province of Arabia, which derives its name from Edom, or Esau,\nwho there settled in the mountains of Seir, in the land of the Horites,\nsouth-east of the Dead Sea. His descendants afterward extended\nthemselves throughout Arabia Petrea, and south of Palestine, between the\nDead Sea and the Mediterranean. During the Babylonish captivity, and\nwhen Judea was almost deserted, they seized the south of Judah, and\nadvanced to Hebron. Hence that tract of Judea, which they inhabited,\nretained the name of Idumea in the time of our Saviour, Mark iii, 8.\nUnder Moses and Joshua, and even under the kings of Judah, the Idumeans\nwere confined to the east and south of the Dead Sea, in the land of\nSeir; but afterward they extended their territories more to the south of\nJudah. The capital of east Edom was Bozrah; and that of south Edom,\nPetra, or Jectael. The Edomites, or Idumeans, the posterity of Esau, had\nkings long before the Jews. They were first governed by dukes or\nprinces, and afterward by kings, Gen. xxxvi, 31. They continued\nindependent till the time of David, who subdued them, in completion of\nIsaac\u2019s prophecy, that Jacob should rule Esau, Gen. xxvii, 29, 30. The\nIdumeans bore this subjection with great impatience; and at the end of\nSolomon\u2019s reign, Hadad, the Edomite, who had been carried into Egypt\nduring his childhood, returned into his own country, where he procured\nhimself to be acknowledged king, 1 Kings xi, 22. It is probable,\nhowever, that he reigned only in east Edom; for Edom south of Judea\ncontinued subject to the kings of Judah, till the reign of Jehoram, son\nof Jehoshaphat, against whom it rebelled, 2 Chron. xxi, 8. Jehoram\nattacked Edom, but did not subdue it. Amaziah king of Judah, took Petra,\nkilled a thousand men, and compelled ten thousand more to leap from the\nrock, upon which stood the city of Petra, 2 Chron. xxv, 11, 12. But\nthese conquests were not permanent. Uzziah took Elath on the Red Sea, 2\nKings xiv, 22; but Rezin, king of Syria, retook it. Some think that\nEsarhaddon, king of Syria, ravaged this country, Isaiah xxi, 11\u201317;\nxxxiv, 6. Holofernes subdued it, as well as other nations around Judea,\nJudith iii, 14. When Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, the Idumeans\njoined him, and encouraged him to rase the very foundations of that\ncity. This cruelty did not long continue unpunished. Five years after\nthe taking of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar humbled all the states around\nJudea, and in particular Idumea. John Hyrcanus entirely conquered the\nIdumeans, whom he obliged to receive circumcision and the law. They\ncontinued subject to the later kings of Judea till the destruction of\nJerusalem by the Romans. They even came to assist that city when\nbesieged, and entered it in order to defend it. However, they did not\ncontinue there till it was taken, but returned into Idumea loaded with\nbooty. The prophecies respecting Edom are numerous and striking; and the\npresent state of the country as described by modern travellers has given\nso remarkable an attestation to the accuracy of their fulfilment, that a\nfew extracts from Mr. Keith\u2019s work, in which this is pointed out, may be\nfitly introduced:--\n\n2. There are numerous prophecies respecting Idumea, that bear a literal\ninterpretation, however hyperbolical they may appear. \u201cMy sword shall\ncome down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.\nFrom generation to generation it shall lie waste, none shall pass\nthrough it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall\npossess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall\nstretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.\nThey shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom; but none shall be\nthere, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in\nher palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof; and it\nshall be a habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. Seek ye out of\nthe book of the Lord and read; no one of these shall fail, none shall\nwant her mate; for my mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath\ngathered them. And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath\ndivided it unto them by line; they shall possess it for ever, from\ngeneration to generation shall they dwell therein,\u201d Isa. xxxiv, 5,\n10\u201317. \u201cI have sworn by myself, saith the Lord, that Bozrah\u201d (the strong\nor fortified city) \u201cshall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and\na curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes. Lo, I\nwill make thee small among the Heathen, and despised among men. Thy\nterribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart, O thou\nthat dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the\nhill: though thou shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle, I will\nbring thee down from thence, saith the Lord. Also Edom shall be a\ndesolation; every one that goeth by shall be astonished, and shall hiss\nat all the plagues thereof. As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah,\nand the neighbour cities thereof, saith the Lord, no man shall abide\nthere, neither shall a son of man dwell in it,\u201d Jer. xlix, 13\u201318. \u201cThus\nsaith the Lord God, I will stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and will cut\noff man and beast from it, and I will make it desolate from Teman.\u201d \u201cI\nlaid the mountains of Esau and his heritage waste for the dragons of the\nwilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return\nand build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall\nbuild, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of\nwickedness,\u201d Malachi i, 3, 4.\n\nIs there any country once inhabited and opulent, so utterly desolate?\nThere is, and that land is Idumea. The territory of the descendants of\nEsau affords as miraculous a demonstration of the inspiration of the\nScriptures as the fate of the children of Israel. A single extract from\nthe Travels of Volney will be found to be equally illustrative of the\nprophecy and of the fact: \u201cThis country has not been visited by any\ntraveller, but it well merits such an attention; for, from the report of\nthe Arabs of Bakir, and the inhabitants of Gaza, who frequently go to\nMaan and Karak, on the road of the pilgrims, there are, to the\nsouth-east of the lake Asphaltites, (Dead Sea,) within three days\u2019\njourney, upward of thirty ruined towns absolutely deserted. Several of\nthem have large edifices, with columns that may have belonged to the\nancient temples, or at least to Greek churches. The Arabs sometimes make\nuse of them to fold their cattle in; but in general avoid them on\naccount of the enormous scorpions with which they swarm. We cannot be\nsurprised at these traces of ancient population, when we recollect that\nthis was the country of the Nabatheans, the most powerful of the Arabs,\nand of the Idumeans, who, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem,\nwere almost as numerous as the Jews, as appears from Josephus, who\ninforms us, that on the first rumour of the march of Titus against\nJerusalem, thirty thousand Idumeans instantly assembled, and threw\nthemselves into that city for its defence. It appears that, beside the\nadvantages of being under a tolerably good government, these districts\nenjoyed a considerable share of the commerce of Arabia and India, which\nincreased their industry and population. We know that as far back as the\ntime of Solomon, the cities of Astioum Gaber (Ezion Geber) and Ailah\n(Eloth) were highly frequented marts. These towns were situated on the\nadjacent gulf of the Red Sea, where we still find the latter yet\nretaining its name, and perhaps the former in that of El Akaba, or \u2018the\nend of the sea.\u2019 These two places are in the hands of the Bedouins, who,\nbeing destitute of a navy and commerce, do not inhabit them. But the\npilgrims report that there is at El Akaba a wretched fort. The Idumeans,\nfrom whom the Jews only took their ports at intervals, must have found\nin them a great source of wealth and population. It even appears that\nthe Idumeans rivalled the Tyrians, who also possessed a town, the name\nof which is unknown, on the coast of Hedjaz, in the desert of Tih, and\nthe city of Faran, and, without doubt, El-Tor, which served it by way of\nport. From this place the caravans might reach Palestine and Judea,\n(through Idumea,) in eight or ten days. This route, which is longer than\nthat from Suez to Cairo, is infinitely shorter than that from Aleppo to\nBassorah.\u201d Evidence, which must have been undesigned, which cannot be\nsuspected of partiality, and which no illustration can strengthen, and\nno ingenuity pervert, is thus borne to the truth of the most wonderful\nprophecies. That the Idumeans were a populous and powerful nation long\nposterior to the delivery of the prophecies; that they possessed a\ntolerably good government, even in the estimation of Volney; that Idumea\ncontained many cities; that these cities are now absolutely deserted;\nand that their ruins swarm with enormous scorpions; that it was a\ncommercial nation, and possessed highly frequented marts; that it forms\na shorter route than the ordinary one to India; and yet that it had not\nbeen visited by any traveller; are facts all recorded, and proved by\nthis able but unconscious commentator.\n\n3. A greater contrast cannot be imagined than the ancient and present\nstate of Idumea. It was a kingdom previous to Israel, having been\ngoverned first by dukes or princes, afterward by eight successive kings,\nand again by dukes, before there reigned any king over the children of\nIsrael, Gen. xxxvi, 31, &c. Its fertility and early cultivation are\nimplied not only in the blessings of Esau, whose dwelling was to be the\nfatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; but also in\nthe condition proposed by Moses to the Edomites, when he solicited a\npassage for the Israelites through their borders, that \u201cthey would not\npass through the fields nor through the vineyards;\u201d and also in the\ngreat wealth, especially in the multitudes of flocks and herds, recorded\nas possessed by an individual inhabitant of that country, at a period,\nin all probability even more remote, Gen. xxvii, 39; Num. xx, 17; Job\nxlii, 12. The Idumeans were, without doubt, both an opulent and a\npowerful people. They often contended with the Israelites, and entered\ninto a league with their other enemies against them. In the reign of\nDavid they were indeed subdued and greatly oppressed, and many of them\neven dispersed throughout the neighbouring countries, particularly\nPhenicia and Egypt. But during the decline of the kingdom of Judah, and\nfor many years previous to its extinction, they encroached upon the\nterritories of the Jews, and extended their dominion over the\nsouth-western part of Judea.\n\n4. There is a prediction which, being peculiarly remarkable as\napplicable to Idumea, and bearing reference to a circumstance\nexplanatory of the difficulty of access to any knowledge respecting it,\nis entitled, in the first instance, to notice: \u201cNone shall pass through\nit for ever and ever. I will cut off from Mount Seir him that passeth\nout, and him that returneth,\u201d Isa. xxxiv, 10; Ezek. xxxv, 7. The ancient\ngreatness of Idumea must, in no small degree, have resulted from its\ncommerce. Bordering with Arabia on the east, and Egypt on the southwest,\nand forming from north to south the most direct and most commodious\nchannel of communication between Jerusalem and her dependencies on the\nRed Sea, as well as between Syria and India, through the continuous\nvalleys of El Ghor, and El Araba, which terminated on the one extremity\nat the borders of Judea, and on the other at Elath and Ezion Geber on\nthe Elanitic gulf of the Red Sea, Idumea may be said to have formed the\nemporium of the commerce of the east. A Roman road passed directly\nthrough Idumea, from Jerusalem to Akaba, and another from Akaba to Moab;\nand when these roads were made, at a time long posterior to the date of\nthe predictions, the conception could not have been formed, or held\ncredible by man, that the period would ever arrive when none would pass\nthrough it. Above seven hundred years after the date of the prophecy,\nStrabo relates that many Romans and other foreigners were found at Petra\nby his friend Athenodorus, the philosopher, who visited it. The\nprediction is yet more surprising when viewed in conjunction with\nanother, which implies that travellers would \u201cpass by\u201d Idumea: \u201cEvery\none that goeth by shall be astonished.\u201d And the Hadj routes (routes of\nthe pilgrims) from Damascus and from Cairo to Mecca, the one on the east\nand the other toward the south of Idumea, along the whole of its extent,\ngo by it, or touch partially on its borders, without passing through it.\nThe truth of the prophecy, though hemmed in thus by apparent\nimpossibilities and contradictions, and with extreme probability of its\nfallacy in every view that could have been visible to man, may yet be\ntried.\n\n5. \u201cEdom shall be a desolation. From generation to generation it shall\nlie waste,\u201d &c. Judea, Ammon, and Moab, exhibit so abundantly the\nremains and the means of an exuberant fertility, that the wonder arises\nin the reflecting mind, how the barbarity of man could have so\neffectually counteracted for so many generations the prodigality of\nnature. But such is Edom\u2019s desolation, that the first sentiment of\nastonishment on the contemplation of it is, how a wide extended region,\nnow diversified by the strongest features of desert wildness, could ever\nhave been adorned with cities, or tenanted for ages by a powerful and\nopulent people. Its present aspect would belie its ancient history, were\nnot that history corroborated by \u201cthe many vestiges of former\ncultivation,\u201d by the remains of walls and paved roads, and by the ruins\nof cities still existing in this ruined country. The total cessation of\nits commerce; the artificial irrigation of its valleys wholly neglected;\nthe destruction of all the cities, and the continued spoliation of the\ncountry by the Arabs, while aught remained that they could destroy; the\npermanent exposure, for ages, of the soil unsheltered by its ancient\ngroves, and unprotected by any covering from the scorching rays of the\nsun; the unobstructed encroachments of the desert, and of the drifted\nsands from the borders of the Red Sea; the consequent absorption of the\nwater of the springs and streamlets during summer,--are causes which\nhave all combined their baneful operation in rendering Edom \u201cmost\ndesolate, the desolation of desolations.\u201d Volney\u2019s account is\nsufficiently descriptive of the desolation which now reigns over Idumea;\nand the information which Seetzen derived at Jerusalem respecting it is\nof similar import. He was told, that at the distance of two days\u2019\njourney and a half from Hebron, he would find considerable ruins of the\nancient city of Abde, and that for all the rest of the journey he would\nsee no place of habitation; he would meet only with a few tribes of\nwandering Arabs. From the borders of Edom, Captains Irby and Mangles\nbeheld a boundless extent of desert view, which they had hardly ever\nseen equalled for singularity and grandeur. And the following extract,\ndescriptive of what Burckhardt actually witnessed in the different parts\nof Edom, cannot be more graphically abbreviated than in the words of the\nprophet. Of its eastern boundary, and of the adjoining part of Arabia\nPetrea, strictly so called, Burckhardt writes: \u201cIt might, with truth, be\ncalled Petrea, not only on account of its rocky mountains, but also of\nthe elevated plain already described, which is so much covered with\nstones, especially flints, that it may with great propriety be called a\nstony desert, although susceptible of culture; in many places it is\novergrown with wild herbs, and must once have been thickly inhabited;\nfor the traces of many towns and villages are met with on both sides of\nthe Hadj road between Maan and Akaba, as well as between Maan and the\nplains of the Hauran, in which direction are also many springs. At\npresent all this country is a desert, and Maan (Teman) is the only\ninhabited place in it: \u2018I will stretch out my hand against thee, O Mount\nSeir, and will make thee most desolate. I will stretch out my hand upon\nEdom, and will make it desolate from Teman.\u2019\u201d In the interior of Idumea,\nwhere the ruins of some of its ancient cities are still visible, and in\nthe extensive valley which reaches from the Red to the Dead Sea, the\nappearance of which must now be totally and sadly changed from what it\nwas, \u201cthe whole plain presented to the view an expanse of shifting\nsands, whose surface was broken by innumerable undulations and low\nhills. The sand appears to have been brought from the shores of the Red\nSea, by the southern winds; and the Arabs told me that the valleys\ncontinue to present the same appearance beyond the latitude of Wady\nMousa. In some parts of the valley the sand is very deep, and there is\nnot the slightest appearance of a road, or of any work of human art. A\nfew trees grow among the sand hills, but the depth of sand precludes all\nvegetation of herbage.\u201d \u201cIf grape gatherers come to thee, would not they\nleave some gleaning grapes? If thieves by night, they will destroy till\nthey have enough; but I have made Esau bare. Edom shall be a desolate\nwilderness.\u201d \u201cOn ascending the western plain,\u201d continues Mr. Burckhardt,\n\u201con a higher level than that of Arabia, we had before us an immense\nexpanse of dreary country, entirely covered with black flints, with here\nand there some hilly chain rising from the plain.\u201d \u201cI will stretch out\nupon Idumea the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.\u201d Such is\nthe present desolate aspect of one of the most fertile countries of\nancient times! So visibly even now does the withering curse of an\noffended God rest upon it!\n\nEGG, \u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd, Deut. xxii, 6; Job xxxix, 14; Isaiah x, 14; lix, 5; \u1f60\u1f78\u03bd,\nLuke xi, 12. Eggs are considered as a very great delicacy in the east,\nand are served up with fish and honey at their entertainments. As a\ndesirable article of food, the egg is mentioned, Luke xi, 12: \u201cIf a son\nask for an egg, will his father offer him a scorpion?\u201d It has been\nremarked that the body of the scorpion is very like an egg, as its head\ncan scarcely be distinguished, especially if it be of the white kind,\nwhich is the first species mentioned by \u00c6lian, Avicenna, and others.\nBochart has produced testimonies to prove that the scorpions in Judea\nwere about the bigness of an egg. So the similitude is preserved between\nthe thing asked, and the thing given.\n\nEGLON, a king of Moab, who oppressed the Israelites, and was slain by\nEhud, Judges iii, 14, 21. It is thought to have been a common name of\nthe kings of Moab, as Abimelech was of the Philistines.\n\nEGYPT, a country of Africa, called also in the Hebrew Scriptures the\nland of Mizraim, and the land of Ham; by the Turks and Arabs, Masr and\nMisr; and by the native Egyptians, Chemi, or the land of Ham. Mr. Faber\nderives the name from Ai-Capht, or the land of the Caphtorim; from\nwhich, also, the modern Egyptians derive their name of Cophts. Egypt was\nfirst peopled after the deluge by Mizraim, or Mizr, the son of Ham, who\nis supposed to be the same with Menes, recorded in Egyptian history as\nthe first king. Every thing relating to the subsequent history and\ncondition of this country, for many ages, is involved in fable. Nor have\nwe any clear information from Heathen writers, until the time of Cyrus,\nand his son Cambyses, when the line of Egyptian princes ceased in\nagreement with prophecies to that effect. Manetho, the Egyptian\nhistorian, has given a list of thirty dynasties, which, if successive,\nmake a period of five thousand three hundred years to the time of\nAlexander, or three thousand two hundred and eighty-two years more than\nthe real time, according to the Mosaic chronology. But this is a\nmanifest forgery, which has, nevertheless, been appealed to by infidel\nwriters, as authority against the veracity of the Mosaic history. The\ntruth is, that this pretended succession of princes, if all of them can\nbe supposed to have existed at all, constituted several distinct\ndynasties, ruling in different cities at the same time: thus these were\nthe kingdoms of Thebes, Thin, Memphis, and Tanis. See WRITING.\n\n2. In the time of Moses we find Egypt renowned for learning; for he was\ninstructed \u201cin all its wisdom;\u201d and it is one of the commendations of\nSolomon, at a later period, that he excelled in knowledge \u201call the\nwisdom of the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of\nEgypt.\u201d Astronomy, which probably, like that of the Chaldeans,\ncomprehended also judicial astrology, physics, agriculture,\njurisprudence, medicine, architecture, painting, and sculpture, were the\nprincipal sciences and arts; to which were added, and that by their\nwisest men, the study of divination, magic, and enchantments. They had\nalso their consulters with familiar spirits, and necromancers, those who\nhad, or pretended to have, intercourse with the infernal deities, and\nthe spirits of the dead, and delivered responses to inquirers. Of all\nthis knowledge, good and evil, and of a monstrous system of idolatry,\nEgypt was the polluted fountain to the surrounding nations; but in that\ncountry itself it appears to have degenerated into the most absurd and\ndebased forms. Among nations who are not blessed by divine revelation,\nthe luminaries of heaven are the first objects of worship. Diodorus\nSiculus, mentioning the Egyptians, informs us, that \u201cthe first men,\nlooking up to the world above them, and, struck with admiration at the\nnature of the universe, supposed the sun and moon to be the principal\nand eternal gods.\u201d This, which may be called the natural superstition of\nmankind, we can trace in the annals of the west, as well as of the east;\namong the inhabitants of the new world, as well as of the old. The sun\nand moon, under the names of Isis and Osiris, were the chief objects of\nadoration among the Egyptians. But the earliest times had a purer faith.\nThe following inscription, engraven in hieroglyphics in the temple of\nNeith, the Egyptian Minerva, conveys the most sublime idea of the Deity\nwhich unenlightened reason could form: \u201cI am that which is, was, and\nshall be: no mortal hath lifted up my veil: the offspring of my power is\nthe sun.\u201d A similar inscription still remains at Capua, on the temple of\nIsis: \u201cThou art one, and from thee all things proceed.\u201d Plutarch also\ninforms us, that the inhabitants of Thebais worshipped only the immortal\nand supreme God, whom they called Eneph. According to the Egyptian\ncosmogony, all things sprung from _athor_, or night, by which they\ndenoted the darkness of chaos before the creation. Sanchoniathon\nrelates, that, \u201cfrom the breath of gods and the void were mortals\ncreated.\u201d This theology differs little from that of Moses, who says,\n\u201cThe earth was without form, and void; darkness was upon the face of the\ndeep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.\u201d\n\n3. A superstitious reverence for certain animals, as propitious or\nhurtful to the human race, was not peculiar to the Egyptians. The cow\nhas been venerated in India from the most remote antiquity. The serpent\nhas been the object of religious respect to one half of the nations of\nthe known world. The Romans had sacred animals, which they kept in their\ntemples, and distinguished with peculiar honours. We need not therefore\nbe surprised that a nation so superstitious as the Egyptians should\nhonour, with peculiar marks of respect, the ichneumon, the ibis, the\ndog, the falcon, the wolf, and the crocodile. These they entertained at\ngreat expense, and with much magnificence. Lands were set apart for\ntheir maintenance; persons of the highest rank were employed in feeding\nand attending them; rich carpets were spread in their apartments; and\nthe pomp at their funerals corresponded to the profusion and luxury\nwhich attended them while alive. What chiefly tended to favour the\nprogress of animal worship in Egypt, was the language of hieroglyphics.\nIn the hieroglyphic inscriptions on their temples, and public edifices,\nanimals, and even vegetables, were the symbols of the gods whom they\nworshipped. In the midst of innumerable superstitions, the theology of\nEgypt contained the two great principles of religion, the existence of a\nsupreme Being, and the immortality of the soul. The first is proved by\nthe inscription on the temple of Minerva; the second, by the care with\nwhich dead bodies were embalmed, and the prayer recited at the hour of\ndeath, by an Egyptian, expressing his desire to be received to the\npresence of the deities.\n\n4. The opulence of Egypt was for ages increased by the large share it\nhad in the commerce with the east; by its own favourable position,\nmaking it the connecting link of intercourse between the eastern and\nwestern nations; and especially by its own remarkable fertility,\nparticularly in corn, so that it was, in times of scarcity, the granary\nof the world. Its extraordinary fertility was owing to the periodical\ninundation of the Nile; and sufficient proofs of the ancient accounts\nwhich we have of its productiveness are afforded to this day. The Rev.\nMr. Jowett has given a striking example of the extraordinary fertility\nof the soil of Egypt, which is alluded to in Genesis xli, 47: \u201cThe earth\nbrought forth by handfuls.\u201d \u201cI picked up at random,\u201d says Mr. Jowett, \u201ca\nfew stalks out of the thick corn fields. We counted the number of stalks\nwhich sprouted from single grains of seed; carefully pulling to pieces\neach root, in order to see that it was but one plant. The first had\nseven stalks, the next three, the next nine, then eighteen, then\nfourteen. Each stalk would have been an ear.\u201d\n\n5. The architecture of the early Egyptians, at least that of their\ncities and dwellings, was rude and simple: they could indeed boast of\nlittle in either external elegance or internal comfort, since Herodotus\ninforms us that men and beasts lived together. The materials of their\nstructure were bricks of clay, bound together with chopped straw, and\nbaked in the sun. Such were the bricks which the Israelites were\nemployed in making, and of which the cities of Pithom and Rameses were\nbuilt. Their composition was necessarily perishable, and explains why it\nis that no remains of the ancient cities of Egypt are to be found. They\nwould indeed last longer in the dry climate of this country than in any\nother; but even here they must gradually decay and crumble to dust, and\nthe cities so constructed become heaps. Of precisely the same materials\nare the villages of Egypt built at this day. \u201cVillage after village,\u201d\nsays Mr. Jowett, speaking of Tentyra, \u201cbuilt of unburnt brick, crumbling\ninto ruins, and giving place to new habitations, have raised the earth,\nin some parts, nearly to the level of the summit of the temple. In every\npart of Egypt, we find the towns built in this manner, upon the ruins,\nor rather the rubbish, of the former habitations. The expression in\nJeremiah xxx, 18, literally applies to Egypt, in the meanest sense: \u2018The\ncity shall be builded upon her own heap.\u2019 And the expression in Job xv,\n28, might be illustrated by many of these deserted hovels: \u2018He dwelleth\nin desolate cities, and in houses which no man inhabiteth, which are\nready to become heaps.\u2019 Still more touching is the allusion, in Job iv,\n19, where the perishing generations of men are fitly compared to\nhabitations of the frailest materials, built upon the heap of similar\ndwelling-places, now reduced to rubbish: \u2018How much less in them that\ndwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust!\u2019\u201d\n\n6. The splendid temples of Egypt were not built, in all probability,\ntill after the time of Solomon; for the recent progress made in the\ndecyphering of hieroglyphics has disappointed the antiquaries as to the\nantiquity of these stupendous fabrics. It is well observed by Dr.\nShuckford, that temples made no great figure in Homer\u2019s time. If they\nhad, he would not have lost such an opportunity of exerting his genius\non so grand a subject, as Virgil has done in his description of the\ntemple built by Dido at Carthage. The first Heathen temples were\nprobably nothing more than mean buildings, which served merely as a\nshelter from the weather: of which kind was, probably, the house of the\nPhilistine god Dagon. But when the fame of Solomon\u2019s temple had reached\nother countries, it excited them to imitate its splendour; and nation\nvied with nation in the structures erected to their several deities. All\nwere, however, outdone, at least in massiveness and durability, by the\nEgyptians; the architectural design of whose temples, as well as that of\nthe Grecian edifices, was borrowed from the stems and branches of the\ngrove temples.\n\n7. It appears to be an unfounded notion, that the pyramids were built by\nthe Israelites: they were, probably, Mr. Faber thinks, the work of the\n\u201cShepherds,\u201d or Cushite invaders, who, at an early period, held\npossession of Egypt for two hundred and sixty years, and reduced the\nEgyptians to bondage, so that \u201ca shepherd was an abomination to the\nEgyptians\u201d in Joseph\u2019s time. The Israelites laboured in making bricks,\nnot in forming stones such as the pyramids are constructed with; and a\npassage in Mr. Jowett\u2019s \u201cResearches,\u201d before referred to, will throw\nlight upon this part of their history. Mr. Jowett saw at one place the\npeople making bricks, with straw cut into small pieces, and mingled with\nthe clay, to bind it. Hence it is, that when villages built of these\nbricks fall into rubbish, which is often the case, the roads are full of\nsmall particles of straws, extremely offensive to the eyes in a high\nwind. They were, in fact, engaged exactly as the Israelites used to be,\nmaking bricks with straw; and for a similar purpose, to build extensive\ngranaries for the bashaw; \u201ctreasure-cities for Pharaoh.\u201d The same\nintelligent missionary also observes: \u201cThe mollems transact business\nbetween the bashaw and the peasants. He punishes them if the peasants\nprove that they oppress; and yet he requires from them that the work of\nthose who are under them shall be fulfilled. They strikingly illustrate\nthe case of the officers placed by the Egyptian task-masters over the\nchildren of Israel; and, like theirs, the mollems often find their case\nis evil, Exodus v.\u201d\n\n8. It is not necessary to go over those parts of the Egyptian history\nwhich occur in the Old Testament. The prophecies respecting this haughty\nand idolatrous kingdom, uttered by Jeremiah and Ezekiel when it was in\nthe height of its splendour and prosperity, were fulfilled in the\nterrible invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, Cambyses, and the Persian\nmonarchs. It comes, however, again into an interesting connection with\nthe Jewish history under Alexander the Great, who invaded it as a\nPersian dependence. So great, indeed, was the hatred of the Egyptians\ntoward their oppressors, that they hailed the approach of the\nMacedonians, and threw open their cities to receive them. Alexander,\nmerciless as he was to those who opposed his progress or authority, knew\nhow to requite those who were devoted to his interests; and the\nEgyptians, for many centuries afterward, had reason to recollect with\ngratitude his protection and foresight. It was he who discerned the\nlocal advantages of the spot on which the city bearing his name\nafterward stood, who projected the plan of the town, superintended its\nerection, endowed it with many privileges, and peopled it with colonies\ndrawn from other places for the purpose, chiefly Greeks. But, together\nwith these, and the most favoured of all, were the Jews, who enjoyed the\nfree exercise of their religion, and the same civil rights and liberties\nas the Macedonians themselves. Kindness shown to the people of Israel\nhas never, in the providence of God, brought evil on any country; and\nthere can be no doubt but that the encouragement given to this\nenterprising and commercial people, assisted very much to promote the\ninterests of the new city, which soon became the capital of the kingdom,\nthe centre of commerce, of science, and the arts, and one of the most\nflourishing and considerable cities in the world. Egypt, indeed, was\nabout to see better days; and, during the reigns of the Ptolemies,\nenjoyed again, for nearly three hundred years, something of its former\nrenown for learning and power. It formed, during this period, and before\nthe rapid extension of the Roman empire toward the termination of these\nyears, one of the only two ancient kingdoms which had survived the\nAssyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian empires: the other was the\nSyrian, where the Seleucid\u00e6, another family of one of the successors of\nAlexander, reigned; who, having subdued Macedonia and Thrace, annexed\nthem to the kingdom of Syria, and there remained out of the four\nkingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided these two only;\ndistinguished, in the prophetic writings of Daniel, by the titles of the\nkings or kingdoms of the north and the south.\n\n9. Under the reign of the three first Ptolemies, the state of the Jews\nwas exceedingly prosperous. They were in high favour, and continued to\nenjoy all the advantages conferred upon them by Alexander. Judea was, in\nfact, at this time, a privileged province of Egypt; the Jews being\ngoverned by their own high priest, on paying a tribute to the kings of\nEgypt. But in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, the fifth of the race, it\nwas taken by Antiochus, king of Syria; which was the beginning of fresh\nsufferings and persecutions; for although this Antiochus, who was the\none surnamed the Great, was a mild and generous prince, and behaved\nfavourably toward them, their troubles began at his death; his\nsuccessor, Seleucus, oppressing them with taxes; and the next was the\nmonster, Antiochus Epiphanes, whose impieties and cruelties are recorded\nin the two books of Maccabees. But still, in Egypt, the Jews continued\nin the enjoyment of their privileges, so late as the reign of the sixth\nPtolemy, called Philometor, who committed the charge of his affairs to\ntwo Jews, Onias and Dositheus; the former of whom obtained permission to\nbuild a temple at Heliopolis. The introduction of Christianity into\nEgypt is mentioned under the article ALEXANDRIA.\n\n10. The prophecies respecting Egypt in the Old Testament have had a\nwonderful fulfilment. The knowledge of all its greatness and glory\ndeterred not the Jewish prophets from declaring, that Egypt would become\n\u201ca base kingdom, and never exalt itself any more among the nations.\u201d And\nthe literal fulfilment of every prophecy affords as clear a\ndemonstration as can possibly be given, that each and all of them are\nthe dictates of inspiration. Egypt was the theme of many prophecies,\nwhich were fulfilled in ancient times; and it bears to the present day,\nas it has borne throughout many ages, every mark with which prophecy had\nstamped its destiny: \u201cThey shall be a base kingdom. It shall be the\nbasest of kingdoms. Neither shall it exalt itself any more among the\nnations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the\nnations. The pride of her power shall come down; and they shall be\ndesolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and her cities\nshall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted. I will make the\nland of Egypt desolate, and the country shall be desolate of that\nwhereof it was full. I will sell the land into the hand of the wicked. I\nwill make the land waste and all that is therein, by the hand of\nstrangers. I the Lord have spoken it. And there shall be no more a\nprince of the land of Egypt,\u201d Ezek. xxx, 5, 7, 12, 13. \u201cThe sceptre of\nEgypt shall depart away,\u201d Zech. x, 11.\n\n11. Egypt became entirely subject to the Persians about three hundred\nand fifty years previous to the Christian \u00e6ra. It was afterward subdued\nby the Macedonians, and was governed by the Ptolemies for the space of\ntwo hundred and ninety-four years; until, about B. C. 30, it became a\nprovince of the Roman empire. It continued long in subjection to the\nRomans,--tributary first to Rome, and afterward to Constantinople. It\nwas transferred, A. D. 641, to the dominion of the Saracens. In 1250 the\nMamelukes deposed their rulers, and usurped the command of Egypt. A mode\nof government, the most singular and surprising that ever existed on\nearth, was established and maintained. Each successive ruler was raised\nto supreme authority, from being a stranger and a slave. No son of the\nformer ruler, no native of Egypt, succeeded to the sovereignty; but a\nchief was chosen from among a new race of imported slaves. When Egypt\nbecame tributary to the Turks in 1517, the Mamelukes retained much of\ntheir power; and every pasha was an oppressor and a stranger. During all\nthese ages, every attempt to emancipate the country, or to create a\nprince of the land of Egypt, has proved abortive, and has often been\nfatal to the aspirant. Though the facts relative to Egypt form too\nprominent a feature in the history of the world to admit of\ncontradiction or doubt, yet the description of the fate of that country,\nand of the form of its government, may be left, says Keith, to the\ntestimony of those whose authority no infidel will question, and whom no\nman can accuse of adapting their descriptions to the predictions of the\nevent. Volney and Gibbon are our witnesses of the facts: \u201cSuch is the\nstate of Egypt. Deprived, twenty-three centuries ago, of her natural\nproprietors, she has seen her fertile fields successively a prey to the\nPersians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the\nGeorgians, and, at length, the race of Tartars distinguished by the name\nof Ottoman Turks. The Mamelukes, purchased as slaves, and introduced as\nsoldiers, soon usurped the power and elected a leader. If their first\nestablishment was a singular event, their continuance is not less\nextraordinary. They are replaced by slaves brought from their original\ncountry. The system of oppression is methodical. Every thing the\ntraveller sees or hears reminds him he is in the country of slavery and\ntyranny.\u201d \u201cA more unjust and absurd constitution cannot be devised than\nthat which condemns the natives of a country to perpetual servitude,\nunder the arbitrary dominion of strangers and slaves. Yet such has been\nthe state of Egypt above five hundred years. The most illustrious\nsultans of the Baharite and Borgite dynasties were themselves promoted\nfrom the Tartar and Circassian bands; and the four-and-twenty beys, or\nmilitary chiefs, have ever been succeeded, not by their sons, but by\ntheir servants.\u201d These are the words of Volney and of Gibbon; and what\ndid the ancient prophets foretel?--\u201cI will lay the land waste, and all\nthat is therein, by the hands of _strangers_. I the Lord have spoken it.\nAnd there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt. The sceptre of\nEgypt shall depart away.\u201d The prophecy adds: \u201cThey shall be a base\nkingdom: it shall be the basest of kingdoms.\u201d After the lapse of two\nthousand and four hundred years from the date of this prophecy, a\nscoffer at religion, but an eye witness of the facts, thus describes the\nself-same spot: \u201cIn Egypt,\u201d says Volney, \u201cthere is no middle class,\nneither nobility, clergy, merchants, landholders. A universal air of\nmisery, manifest in all the traveller meets, points out to him the\nrapacity of oppression, and the distrust attendant upon slavery. The\nprofound ignorance of the inhabitants equally prevents them from\nperceiving the causes of their evils, or applying the necessary\nremedies. Ignorance, diffused through every class, extends its effects\nto every species of moral and physical knowledge. Nothing is talked of\nbut intestine troubles, the public misery, pecuniary extortions,\nbastinadoes, and murders. Justice herself puts to death without\nformality.\u201d Other travellers describe the most execrable vices as\ncommon, and represent the moral character of the people as corrupted to\nthe core. As a token of the desolation of the country, mud-walled\ncottages are now the only habitations where the ruins of temples and\npalaces abound. Egypt is surrounded by the dominions of the Turks and of\nthe Arabs; and the prophecy is literally true which marked it in the\nmidst of desolation: \u201cThey shall be desolate in the midst of the\ncountries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the\ncities that are wasted.\u201d The systematic oppression, extortion, and\nplunder, which have so long prevailed, and the price paid for his\nauthority and power by every Turkish pasha, have rendered the country\n\u201cdesolate of that whereof it was full,\u201d and still show both how it has\nbeen \u201cwasted by the hands of strangers,\u201d and how it has been \u201csold into\nthe hand of the wicked.\u201d\n\n12. Egypt has, indeed, lately somewhat risen, under its present spirited\nbut despotic pasha, to a degree of importance and commerce. But this\npasha is still a _stranger_, and the dominion is foreign. Nor is there\nany thing like a general advancement of the people to order,\nintelligence and happiness. Yet this fact, instead of militating against\nthe truth of prophecy, may, possibly at no distant period, serve to\nillustrate other predictions. \u201cThe Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall\nsmite and heal it; and they shall return to the Lord, and he shall be\nentreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall Israel be the\nthird with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the\nland,\u201d &c, Isaiah xix, 22\u201325.\n\nELAM, the eldest son of Shem, who settled in a country to which he gave\nhis name, Gen. x, 22. It is frequently mentioned in Scripture, as lying\nto the south-east of Shinar. Susiana, in later times, seems to have been\na part of this country, Daniel viii, 2; and before the captivity the\nJews seem always to have intended Persia by the name of Elam. Stephanus\ntakes it to be a part of Assyria, but Pliny and Josephus, more properly,\nof Persia, whose inhabitants, this latter tells us, sprung from the\nElamites.\n\nELATH, or ELOTH, a part of Idumea, situate upon the Red Sea, the\nemporium of Syria in Asia. It was taken by David, 2 Sam. viii, 14, who\nthere established an extensive trade. There Solomon built ships, 2\nChron. viii, 17, 18. The Israelites held possession of Elath one hundred\nand fifty years, when the Edomites, in the reign of Joram, recovered it,\n2 Kings viii, 20. It was again taken from them by Azariah, and by him\nleft to his son, 2 Kings xiv, 22. The king of Syria took it from his\ngrandson, 2 Kings xvi, 6. In process of time it fell to the Ptolemies,\nand lastly to the Romans. The branch of the Red Sea on which this city\nstood, obtained among Heathen writers the name of _Sinus Elaniticus_ or\nElanitic Gulf, from a town built on its site called Elana, and\nsubsequently Ala; which, as we are informed by Eusebius and Jerom, was\nused as a port in their time. The modern Arabian town of Akaba stands\nupon or near the site either of Elath or Ezion-Geber; which of the two\nit is impossible to determine, as both ports, standing at the head of\nthe gulf, were probably separated from each other by a creek or small\nbay only.\n\nELDAD and Medad were appointed by Moses among the seventy elders of\nIsrael who were to assist in the government. Though not present in the\ngeneral assembly, they were, notwithstanding, filled with the Spirit of\nGod, equally with those who were in that assembly, and they began to\nprophesy in the camp. Joshua would have had Moses forbid them, but Moses\nreplied, \u201cEnviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord\u2019s people\nwere prophets, and that God would pour forth his Spirit upon them!\u201d\nNumbers xi, 24\u201329.\n\nELDERS, a name given to certain laymen in the Presbyterian discipline,\nwho are ecclesiastical officers, and in conjunction with the ministers\nand deacons compose the kirk sessions in Scotland. The number of elders\nis proportioned to the extent and population of the parish, and is\nseldom less than two or three, but sometimes exceeds fifty. They are\nlaymen in this respect, that they have no right to teach, or to dispense\nthe sacraments; and on this account they form an office in the\nPresbyterian church inferior in rank and power to that of pastors. They\ngenerally discharge the office which originally belonged to the deacons,\nof attending to the interests of the poor. But their peculiar business\nis expressed by the name ruling elders; for in every jurisdiction within\nthe parish they are the spiritual court, of which the minister is\nofficially moderator; and in the presbytery, of which the pastors of all\nthe parishes within its bounds are officially members, lay elders sit as\nthe representatives of the several sessions or consistories.\n\nELDERS OF ISRAEL. By this name we understand the heads of tribes, or\nrather of the great families in Israel, who, before the settlement of\nthe Hebrew commonwealth, had a government and authority over their own\nfamilies, and the people. When Moses was sent into Egypt to deliver\nIsrael, he assembled the elders of Israel, and told them that the God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had appeared to him, Exod. iii, 15; iv, 29,\n&c. Moses and Aaron treat the elders of Israel as the representatives of\nthe nation. When God gave the law to Moses, he said, \u201cTake Aaron, Nadab,\nand Abihu, his sons, and the seventy elders of Israel, and worship ye\nafar off,\u201d Exod. xxiv, 1, 9, 10. They advanced only to the foot of the\nmountain. On all occasions afterward, we find this number of seventy\nelders. But it is credible, that as there were twelve tribes, there were\nseventy-two elders, six from each tribe, and that seventy is set down,\ninstead of seventy-two; or rather, that Moses and Aaron should be added\nto the number seventy, and that, exclusive of them, there were but four\nelders from the tribe of Levi. After Jethro\u2019s arrival in the camp of\nIsrael, Moses made a considerable change in the governors of the people.\nHe established over Israel heads of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and\ntens, that justice might be readily administered to applicants; only\ndifficult cases were referred to himself, Exod. xviii, 24, 25, &c. But\nthis constitution did not continue long; for on the murmuring of the\npeople at the encampment called the Graves of Lust, Num. xi, 24\u201335,\nMoses appointed seventy elders of Israel, to whom God communicated part\nof that legislator\u2019s spirit; they began to prophesy, and ceased not\nafterward. This, according to the generality of interpreters, was the\nbeginning of the sanhedrim; but, to support this opinion, many things\nmust be supposed, whereby to infer, that this court of justice was\nconstantly in being during the Scripture history. It seems that the\nestablishment of the seventy elders by Moses continued, not only during\nhis life, but under Joshua likewise, and under the judges. The elders of\nthe people and Joshua swore to the treaty with the Gibeonites, Josh, ix,\n15. A little before his death, Joshua renewed the covenant with the\nLord, in company with the elders, the princes, the heads, and officers\nof Israel, Joshua xxiii; xxiv, 1, 28. After the death of Joshua, and the\nelders who survived him, the people were several times brought into\nbondage, and were delivered by their judges. We do not see distinctly\nwhat authority the elders had during this time, and still less under the\nkings who succeeded the judges.\n\nELEAZAR, the third son of Aaron, and his successor in the dignity of\nhigh priest, Exod. vi, 23. He entered into the land of Canaan with\nJoshua, and is supposed to have lived there upward of twenty years. The\nhigh priesthood continued in his family till the time of Eli. He was\nburied in a hill that belonged to the son of Phineas, Joshua xxiv.\n\n2. ELEAZAR, the son of Aminadab, to whose care the ark was committed\nwhen it was sent back by the Philistines, 1 Samuel vii. He is thought to\nhave been a priest, or at least a Levite, though he is not mentioned in\nthe catalogue of the sons of Levi.\n\nELECTION. Of a divine election, a choosing and separating from others,\nwe have three kinds mentioned in the Scriptures. The first is the\nelection of _individuals_ to perform some particular and special\nservice. Cyrus was \u201celected\u201d to rebuild the temple; the twelve Apostles\nwere \u201cchosen,\u201d elected, to their office by Christ; St. Paul was a\n\u201cchosen,\u201d or elected \u201cvessel,\u201d to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. The\nsecond kind of election which we find in Scripture, is the election of\n_nations, or bodies of people_, to eminent religious privileges, and in\norder to accomplish, by their superior illumination, the merciful\npurposes of God, in benefiting other nations or bodies of people. Thus\nthe descendants of Abraham, the Jews, were _chosen_ to receive special\nrevelations of truth; and to be \u201cthe people of God,\u201d that is, his\nvisible church, publicly to observe and uphold his worship. \u201cThe Lord\nthy God hath _chosen_ thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above\nall people that are upon the face of the earth.\u201d \u201cThe Lord had a delight\nin thy fathers to love them, and he _chose_ their seed after them, even\nyou, above all people.\u201d It was especially on account of the application\nof the terms _elect_, _chosen_, and _peculiar_, to the Jewish people,\nthat they were so familiarly used by the Apostles in their epistles\naddressed to the believing Jews and Gentiles, then constituting the\nchurch of Christ in various places. For Christians were the subjects,\nalso, of this second kind of election; the election of bodies of men to\nbe the visible people and church of God in the world, and to be endowed\nwith peculiar privileges. Thus they became, though in a more special and\nexalted sense, the chosen people, the elect of God. We say \u201cin a more\nspecial sense,\u201d because as the entrance into the Jewish church was by\nnatural birth, and the entrance into the Christian church, properly so\ncalled, is by faith and a spiritual birth, these terms, although many\nbecame Christians by mere profession, and enjoyed various privileges in\nconsequence of their people or nation being chosen to receive the\nGospel, have generally respect, in the New Testament, to bodies of true\nbelievers, or to the whole body of true believers as such. They are not,\ntherefore, to be interpreted according to the scheme of Dr. Taylor of\nNorwich, by the constitution of the Jewish, but by the constitution of\nthe Christian, church.\n\n2. To understand the nature of this \u201celection,\u201d as applied sometimes to\nparticular bodies of Christians, as when St. Peter says, \u201cThe church\nwhich is at Babylon, _elected together_ with you,\u201d and sometimes to the\nwhole body of believers every where; and also the reason of the frequent\nuse of the term _election_, and of the occurrence of allusions to the\nfact; it is to be remembered, that a great religious revolution, so to\nspeak, had occurred in the age of the Apostles; with the full import of\nwhich we cannot, without calling in the aid of a little reflection, be\nadequately impressed. This change was no other than the abrogation of\nthe _church state_ of the Jews, which had continued for so many ages.\nThey had been the only visibly acknowledged people of God in all the\nnations of the earth; for whatever pious people might have existed in\nother nations, they were not, in the sight of men, and collectively,\nacknowledged as \u201cthe people of Jehovah.\u201d They had no written\nrevelations, no appointed ministry, no forms of authorized initiation\ninto his church and covenant, no appointed holy days, or sanctioned\nritual. All these were peculiar to the Jews, who were, therefore, an\nelected and peculiar people. This distinguished honour they were about\nto lose. They might have retained it as Christians, had they been\nwilling to admit the believing Gentiles of all nations to share it with\nthem; but the great reason of their peculiarity and election, _as a\nnation_, was terminated by the coming of the Messiah, who was to be \u201ca\nlight to lighten the Gentiles,\u201d as well as \u201cthe glory of his people\nIsrael.\u201d Their pride and consequent unbelief resented this, which will\nexplain their enmity to the believing part of the Gentiles, who, when\nthat which St. Paul calls \u201cthe fellowship of the mystery\u201d was fully\nexplained, chiefly by the glorious ministry of that Apostle himself,\nwere called into that church relation and visible acknowledgment as the\npeople of God, which the Jews had formerly enjoyed, and that with even a\nhigher degree of glory, in proportion to the superior spirituality of\nthe new dispensation. It was this doctrine which excited that strong\nirritation in the minds of the unbelieving Jews, and in some partially\nChristianized ones, to which so many references are made in the New\nTestament. They were \u201cprovoked,\u201d were made \u201cjealous;\u201d and were often\nroused to the madness of persecuting opposition by it. There was then a\n_new election_ of a _new people_ of God, to be composed of Jews, not by\nvirtue of their _natural descent_, but through their faith in Christ,\nand of Gentiles of all nations, also believing, and put as believers, on\nan equal ground with the believing Jews: and there was also a\n_rejection_, a reprobation, but not an absolute one; for _the election_\nwas offered to the Jews first, in every place, by offering them the\nGospel. Some embraced it, and submitted to be the elect people of God,\non the new ground of faith, instead of the old one of natural descent;\nand therefore the Apostle, Rom. xi, 7, calls the believing part of the\nJews, \u201cthe _election_,\u201d in opposition to those who opposed this\n\u201celection of grace,\u201d and still clung to their former and now repealed\nelection as Jews and the descendants of Abraham: \u201cBut the election hath\nobtained it, and the rest were blinded.\u201d The offer had been made to the\nwhole nation; all might have joined the one body of believing Jews and\nbelieving Gentiles; but the major part of them refused: they would not\n\u201ccome into the supper;\u201d they made \u201clight of it;\u201d light of an election\nfounded on faith, and which placed the relation of \u201cthe people of God\u201d\nupon spiritual attainments, and offered to them only spiritual\nblessings. They were, therefore, deprived of election and church\nrelationship of every kind: their temple was burned; their political\nstate abolished; their genealogies confounded; their worship annihilated\nand all visible acknowledgment of them; by God as a church withdrawn,\nand transferred to a church henceforward to be composed chiefly of\nGentiles: and thus, says St. Paul, \u201cwere fulfilled the words of Moses, I\nwill provoke you to jealousy by them that are _no people_, and by a\nfoolish,\u201d ignorant and idolatrous, \u201cpeople I will anger you.\u201d It is\neasy, therefore, to see what is the import of the \u201ccalling\u201d and\n\u201celection\u201d of the Christian church, as spoken of in the New Testament.\nIt was not the calling and the electing of one nation in particular to\nsucceed the Jews; but it was the calling and the electing of believers\nin all nations, wherever the Gospel should be preached, to be in reality\nwhat the Jews typically, and therefore in an inferior degree, had\nbeen,--the visible church of God, \u201chis people,\u201d under Christ \u201cthe Head;\u201d\nwith an authenticated revelation; with an appointed ministry, never to\nbe lost; with authorized worship; with holy days and festivals; with\ninstituted forms of initiation; and with special protection and favour.\n\n3. The _third_ kind of election is personal election; or the election of\nindividuals to be the children of God, and the heirs of eternal life.\nThis is not a choosing to particular offices and service, which is the\nfirst kind of election we have mentioned; nor is it that collective\nelection to religious privileges and a visible church state, of which we\nhave spoken. For although \u201cthe elect\u201d have an individual interest in\nsuch an election as parts of the collective body, thus placed in\npossession of the ordinances of Christianity; yet many others have the\nsame advantages, who still remain under the guilt and condemnation of\nsin and practical unbelief. The individuals properly called \u201cthe elect,\u201d\nare they who have been made partakers of the grace and saving efficacy\nof the Gospel. \u201cMany,\u201d says our Lord, \u201care _called_, but few _chosen_.\u201d\nWhat true personal election is, we shall find explained in two clear\npassages of Scripture. It is explained by our Lord, where he says to his\ndisciples, \u201cI have chosen you out of the world:\u201d and by St. Peter, when\nhe addresses his First Epistle to the \u201celect according to the\nforeknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit,\nunto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.\u201d To be elected,\ntherefore, is to be separated from \u201cthe world,\u201d and to be sanctified by\nthe Spirit, and by the blood of Christ. It follows, then, not only that\nelection is an act of God done in _time_, but also that it is subsequent\nto the administration of the means of salvation. The \u201ccalling\u201d goes\nbefore the \u201celection;\u201d the publication of the doctrine of \u201cthe Spirit,\u201d\nand the atonement, called by Peter \u201cthe sprinkling of the blood of\nChrist,\u201d before that \u201csanctification\u201d through which they become \u201cthe\nelect\u201d of God. In a word, \u201cthe elect\u201d are the body of true believers;\nand personal election into the family of God is through personal faith.\nAll who truly believe are elected; and all to whom the Gospel is sent\nhave, through the grace that accompanies it, the power to believe placed\nwithin their reach; and all such might, therefore, attain to the grace\nof personal election.\n\nELEMENTS, \u03db\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, the elements or first principles of any art, whence\nthe subsequent parts proceed. The elements or first principles of the\nChristian doctrine, Heb, v, 12. St. Paul calls the ceremonial ordinances\nof the Mosaic law, \u201cworldly elements,\u201d Gal. iv, 3; Col. ii, 8, 20; \u201cweak\nand beggarly elements,\u201d Gal. iv, 9. Elements, as containing the\nrudiments of the knowledge of Christ, to which knowledge the law, as a\npedagogue, Gal. iii, 24, was intended, by means of those ordinances, to\nbring the Jews; worldly, as consisting in outward worldly institutions,\nHeb. ix, 1; weak and beggarly, when considered in themselves, and set up\nin opposition to the great realities to which they were designed to\nlead. But, in Col. ii, 8, the elements or rudiments of the world are so\nclosely connected with philosophy and vain deceit, or an empty and\ndeceitful philosophy, that they must be understood there to include the\ndogmas of Pagan philosophy; to which, no doubt, many of the Colossians\nwere in their unconverted state attached, and of which the Judaizing\nteachers, who also were probably themselves infected with them, took\nadvantage to withdraw the Colossian converts from the purity of the\nGospel, and from Christ their living head. And from the general tenor of\nthis chapter, and particularly from verses 18\u201323, it appears, that these\nphilosophical dogmas, against which the Apostle cautioned his converts,\nwere partly Platonic, and partly Pythagorean; the former teaching the\nworship of angels, or demons, as mediators between God and man; the\nlatter enjoining such abstinence from particular kinds of meats and\ndrinks, and such severe mortifications of the body, as God had not\ncommanded.\n\nELI, a high priest of the Hebrews, of the race of Ithamar, who succeeded\nAbdon, and governed the Hebrews, both as priest and judge, during forty\nyears. How Eli came to the high priesthood, and how this dignity was\ntransferred from Eleazar\u2019s family to that of Ithamar, who was Aaron\u2019s\nyoungest son, we know not. This much, however, is certain, that it was\nnot done without an express declaration of God\u2019s will, 1 Sam. ii, 27,\n&c. In the reign of Solomon, the predictions in relation to Eli\u2019s family\nwere fulfilled; for the high priesthood was taken from Abiathar, a\ndescendant of Eli, and given to Zadok, who was of the race of Eleazar, 1\nKings ii, 26. Eli appears to have been a pious, but indolent man,\nblinded by paternal affection, who suffered his sons to gain the\nascendancy over him; and for want either of personal courage, or zeal\nfor the glory of God sufficient to restrain their licentious conduct, he\npermitted them to go on to their own and his ruin. Thus he carried his\nindulgence to cruelty; while a more dignified and austere conduct on his\npart might have rendered them wise and virtuous, and thereby have\npreserved himself and family. A striking lesson for parents! God\nadmonished him by Samuel, then a child; and Eli received those awful\nadmonitions with a mind fully resigned to the divine will. \u201cIt is the\nLord,\u201d said he, \u201clet him do what seemeth him good.\u201d God deferred the\nexecution of his vengeance many years. At length, however, Hophni and\nPhineas, the sons of Eli, were slain by the Philistines, the ark of the\nLord was taken, and Eli himself, hearing this melancholy news, fell\nbackward from his chair and broke his neck, in the ninety-eighth year of\nhis age, 1 Sam. iv, 12, 18.\n\nELIEZER, a native of Damascus, and the steward of Abraham\u2019s house. It\nseems that Abraham, before the birth of Isaac, intended to make him his\nheir:--\u201cOne born in my house,\u201d a domestic slave, \u201cis mine heir,\u201d Gen.\nxv, 1\u20133. He was afterward sent into Mesopotamia, to procure a wife for\nIsaac, Gen. xxiv, 2, 3, &c; which business he accomplished with fidelity\nand expedition. \u201cIt is still the custom in India,\u201d says Forbes,\n\u201cespecially among the Mohammedans, that in default of children, and\nsometimes where there are lineal descendants, the master of a family\nadopts a slave, frequently a Haffshee Abyssinian, of the darkest hue,\nfor his heir. He educates him agreeably to his wishes, and marries him\nto one of his daughters. As the reward of superior merit, or to suit the\ncaprice of an arbitrary despot, this honour is also conferred on a slave\nrecently purchased, or already grown up in the family; and to him he\nbequeaths his wealth, in preference to his nephews, or any collateral\nbranches. This is a custom of great antiquity in the east, and prevalent\namong the most refined and civilized nations. In the earliest period of\nthe patriarchal history, we find Abraham complaining for want of\nchildren; and declaring that either Eliezer of Damascus, or probably one\nborn from him in his house, was his heir, to the exclusion of Lot, his\nfavourite nephew, and all the other collateral branches of his family.\u201d\n\nELIHU, one of Job\u2019s friends, a descendant of Nahor, Job xxxii, 2. See\nJOB.\n\nELIJAH. Elijah or Elias, a prophet, was a native of Tishbe beyond Jordan\nin Gilead. Some think that he was a priest descended from Aaron, and say\nthat one Sabaca was his father; but this has no authority. He was raised\nup by God, to be set like a wall of brass, in opposition to idolatry,\nand particularly to the worship of Baal, which Jezebel and Ahab\nsupported in Israel. The Scripture introduces Elijah saying to Ahab, 1\nKings xvii, 1, 2, A. M. 3092, \u201cAs the Lord God of Israel liveth, before\nwhom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according\nto my word.\u201d It is remarkable, that the number of years is not here\nspecified; but in the New Testament we are informed that it was three\nyears and six months. By the prohibition of dew as well as rain, the\nwhole vegetable kingdom was deprived of that moisture, without which\nneither the more hardy, nor more delicate kinds of plants could shoot\ninto herbage, or bring that herbage to maturity. The Lord commanded\nElijah to conceal himself beyond Jordan, near the brook Cherith. He\nobeyed, and God sent ravens to him morning and evening, which brought\nhim flesh and bread. Scheuzer observes, that he cannot think that the\n_orebim_ of the Hebrew, rendered \u201cravens,\u201d means, as some have thought,\nthe inhabitants of a town called _Oreb_, nor a troop of Arabs called\n_orbhim_; and contends that the bird called the raven, or one of the\nsame genus is intended. Suppose that Elijah was concealed from Ahab in\nsome rocky or mountainous spot, where travellers never came; and that\nhere a number of voracious birds had built their nests upon the trees\nwhich grew around it, or upon a projecting rock, &c. These flying every\nday to procure food for their young, the prophet availed himself of a\npart of what they brought; and while they, obeying the dictates of\nnature, designed only to provide for their offspring, Divine providence\ndirected them to provide at the same time for the wants of Elijah. What,\ntherefore, he collected, whether from their nests, from what they\ndropped, or under a supernatural influence, brought to him, or\noccasionally from all these means, was enough for his daily support.\n\u201cAnd the _orebim_ furnished him bread or flesh in the morning, and bread\nor flesh in the evening.\u201d But as there were probably several of them,\nsome might furnish bread and others flesh, as it happened; so that a\nlittle from each formed his solitary but satisfactory meal. To such\nstraits was the exiled prophet driven! perhaps these _orebim_ were not\nstrictly ravens, but rooks. The word rendered _raven_, includes the\nwhole genus, among which are some less impure than the raven, as the\nrook. Rooks living in numerous societies are supposed by some to be the\nkind of birds employed on this occasion rather than ravens, which fly\nonly in pairs. But upon all these explanations we may observe, that when\nan event is evidently miraculous, it is quite superfluous, and often\nabsurd, to invent hypotheses to make it appear more easy. After a time\nthe brook dried up, and God sent Elijah to Zarephath, a city of the\nSidonians. At the city gate he met with a widow woman gathering sticks,\nfrom whom he desired a little water, adding, \u201cBring me, I pray thee,\nalso a morsel of bread.\u201d She answered, \u201cAs the Lord liveth, I have no\nbread, but only a handful of meal, and a little oil in a cruse; and I am\ngathering some sticks, that I may dress it for me and my son, that we\nmay eat it, and die.\u201d Elijah said, \u201cMake first a little cake, and bring\nit me, and afterward make for thee and thy son: for thus saith the Lord,\nthe barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail,\nuntil the day the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.\u201d His prediction was\nfully accomplished, and he dwelt at the house of this widow. Some time\nafter, the son of this woman fell sick, and died. The mother,\noverwhelmed with grief, intreated the assistance and interposition of\nElijah, who taking the child in his arms laid him on his own bed, and\ncried to the Lord for the restoration of the child\u2019s life. The Lord\nheard the prophet\u2019s petition, and restored the child.\n\n2. After three years of drought the Lord commanded Elijah to show\nhimself to Ahab. The famine being great in Samaria, Ahab sent the people\nthroughout the country, to inquire after places where they might find\nforage for the cattle. Obadiah, an officer of the king\u2019s household,\nbeing thus employed, Elijah presented himself, and directed him to tell\nAhab, \u201cBehold, Elijah is here!\u201d Ahab came to meet the prophet, and\nreproached him as the cause of the famine. Elijah retorted the charge\nupon the king, and his iniquities, and challenged Ahab to gather the\npeople together, and the prophets of Baal, that it might be determined\nby a sign from heaven, the falling of fire upon the sacrifice, who was\nthe true God. In this the prophet obeyed the impulse of the Spirit of\nGod; and Ahab, either under an influence of which he was not conscious,\nor blindly confident in the cause of idolatry, followed Elijah\u2019s\ndirection, and convened the people of Israel, and four hundred prophets\nof Baal. The prophets of Baal prepared their altar, sacrificed their\nbullock, placed it on the altar, and called upon their gods. They leaped\nupon the altar, and cut themselves after their manner, crying with all\ntheir might. Elijah ridiculed them, and said, \u201cCry aloud, for he is god;\neither he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or\nperadventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.\u201d When midday was past,\nElijah repaired the altar of the Lord; and with twelve stones, in\nallusion to the twelve tribes of Israel, he built a new altar. He then\nlaid his bullock upon the wood, poured a great quantity of water three\ntimes upon the sacrifice and the wood, so that the water filled the\ntrench which was dug round the altar. After this he prayed, and, in\nanswer to his prayer, the Lord sent fire from heaven, and consumed the\nwood, the burnt sacrifice, the stones, and dust of the place, and even\ndried up the water in the trench. Upon this, all the people fell on\ntheir faces, and exclaimed, \u201cThe Lord, he is the God.\u201d Elijah then,\nhaving excited the people to slay the false prophets of Baal, said to\nAhab, \u201cGo home, eat and drink, for I hear the sound of abundance of\nrain;\u201d which long-expected blessing descended from heaven according to\nhis prediction, and gave additional proof to the truth of his mission\nfrom the only living and true God.\n\n3. Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, threatened Elijah for having slain her\nprophets. He therefore fled to Beersheba, in the south of Judah, and\nthence into Arabia Petrea. In the evening, being exhausted with fatigue,\nhe laid himself down under a juniper tree, and prayed God to take him\nout of the world. An angel touched him, and he arose, and saw a cake\nbaked on the coals, and a cruse of water; and he ate and drank, and\nslept again. The angel again awakened him, and said, \u201cRise and eat, for\nthe journey is too great for thee;\u201d and he ate and drank, and went in\nthe strength of that meat forty days and forty nights, unto Horeb, the\nmount of God. Here he had visions of the glory and majesty of God, and\nconversed with him; and was commanded to return to the wilderness of\nDamascus, to anoint Hazael king over Syria, and Jehu king over Israel,\nand to appoint Elisha his successor in the prophetic office. Some years\nafter, Ahab having seized Naboth\u2019s vineyard, the Lord commanded Elijah\nto reprove Ahab for the crime he had committed. Elijah met him going to\nNaboth\u2019s vineyard to take possession of it, and said, \u201cIn the place\nwhere dogs licked the blood of Naboth, shall they lick thy blood, even\nthine. And the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.\u201d Both of\nwhich predictions were fulfilled in the presence of the people. Ahaziah,\nking of Israel, being hurt by a fall from the platform of his house,\nsent to consult Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, whether he should recover.\nElijah met the messengers, and said to them, \u201cIs it because there is no\nGod in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron? Now,\ntherefore, saith the Lord, Thou shalt surely die.\u201d The messengers of\nAhaziah returned, and informed the king, that a stranger had told them\nhe should certainly die; and Ahaziah knew that this was the Prophet\nElijah. The king, therefore, sent a captain with his company of fifty\nmen, to apprehend him; and when the officer was come to Elijah, who was\nsitting upon a hill, he said, \u201cThou man of God, the king commands thee\nto come down.\u201d Elijah answered, \u201cIf I be a man of God, let fire come\ndown from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty.\u201d The prophet\u2019s words\nwere followed with the effect predicted. The king sent another captain,\nwho was also consumed; but a third captain going to Elijah intreated him\nto save him and his people\u2019s lives, and Elijah accompanied him to the\nking. By these fearful miracles he was accredited to this successor of\nAhab as a prophet of the true God, and the destruction of these\ncompanies of armed men was a demonstration of God\u2019s anger against the\npeople at large. Elijah could not in this case act from any other\nimpulse than that of the Spirit of God.\n\n4. Elijah, understanding by revelation that God would soon translate him\nout of this world, was desirous of concealing this fact from Elisha, his\ninseparable companion. He therefore said to Elisha, \u201cTarry thou here,\nfor the Lord hath sent me to Bethel.\u201d But Elisha answered, \u201cI will not\nleave thee.\u201d At Bethel, Elijah said, \u201cTarry thou here, the Lord hath\nsent me to Jericho;\u201d but Elisha replied, he would not forsake him. At\nJericho Elijah desired him to stay; but Elisha would not leave him. They\nwent therefore together to Jordan, and fifty of the sons of the prophets\nfollowed them at a distance. When they were come to the Jordan, Elijah\ntook his mantle, and with it struck the waters, which divided, and they\nwent over on dry ground. Elijah then said to Elisha, \u201cAsk what I shall\ndo for thee before I be taken away from thee.\u201d \u201cI pray thee,\u201d said\nElisha, \u201clet a double portion of thy spirit be upon me;\u201d that is, obtain\nthe gift of prophecy from God for me, in the same measure that thou\npossessest it. Double may signify like; or the gift of prophecy, and of\nmiracles, in a degree double to what thou dost possess, or to what I now\npossess. Elijah answered, \u201cThou hast asked me a very hard thing; yet, if\nthou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if\nnot, it shall not be so.\u201d As they journeyed, a fiery chariot, with\nhorses of fire, suddenly separated them, and Elijah was carried in a\nwhirlwind to heaven; while Elisha exclaimed, \u201cMy father, my father, the\nchariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!\u201d\n\n5. Elijah was one of the most eminent of that illustrious and singular\nrace of men, the Jewish prophets. Every part of his character is marked\nby a moral grandeur, which is heightened by the obscurity thrown around\nhis connections, and his private history. He often wears the air of a\nsupernatural messenger suddenly issuing from another world, to declare\nthe commands of heaven, and to awe the proudest mortals by the menace of\nfearful judgments. His boldness in reproof; his lofty zeal for the\nhonour of God; his superiority to softness, ease, and suffering, are the\ncharacters of a man filled with the Holy Spirit; and he was admitted to\ngreat intimacy with God, and enabled to work miracles of a very\nextraordinary and unequivocal character. These were called for by the\nstupid idolatry of the age, and were in some instances equally\ncalculated to demonstrate the being and power of Jehovah, and to punish\nthose who had forsaken him for idols. The author of Ecclesiasticus has\nan encomium to his memory, and justly describes him as a prophet \u201cwho\nstood up as fire, and whose word burned as a lamp.\u201d In the sternness and\npower of his reproofs he was a striking type of John the Baptist, and\nthe latter is therefore prophesied of, under his name. Malachi, iv, 5,\n6, has this passage: \u201cBehold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before\nthe coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.\u201d Our Saviour also\ndeclares that Elijah had already come in spirit, in the person of John\nthe Baptist. At the transfiguration of our Saviour, Elijah and Moses\nboth appeared and conversed with him respecting his future passion,\nMatt. xvii, 3, 4; Mark ix, 4; Luke ix, 30. Many of the Jews in our\nLord\u2019s time believed him to be Elijah, or that the soul of Elijah had\npassed into his body, Matt. xvi, 14; Mark vi, 15; Luke ix, 8. In\nconclusion, we may observe, that to assure the world of the future\nexistence of good men in a state of glory and felicity, and that in\nbodies changed from mortality to immortality, each of the three grand\ndispensations of religion had its instance of translation into heaven;\nthe patriarchal in the person of ENOCH, the Jewish in the person of\nELIJAH, and the Christian in the person of CHRIST.\n\nELISHA, the son of Shaphat, Elijah\u2019s disciple and successor in the\nprophetic office, was of the city of Abelmeholah, 1 Kings xix, 16, &c.\nElijah having received God\u2019s command to anoint Elisha as a prophet, came\nto Abelmeholah; and finding him ploughing with oxen, he threw his mantle\nover the shoulders of Elisha, who left the oxen, and accompanied him.\nUnder the article _Elijah_, it has been observed that Elisha was\nfollowing his master, when he was taken up to heaven; and that he\ninherited Elijah\u2019s mantle, with a double portion of his spirit. Elisha\nsmote the waters of Jordan, and divided them; and he rendered wholesome\nthe waters of a rivulet near Jericho. The kings of Israel, Judah, and\nEdom, having taken the field against the king of Moab, who had revolted\nfrom Israel, were in danger of perishing for want of water. Elisha was\nat that time in the camp; and seeing Jehoram, the king of Israel, he\nsaid, \u201cWhat have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy\nfather, and to the prophets of thy mother. As the Lord liveth, were it\nnot out of respect to Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, who is here\npresent, I would not so much as look on thee. But now send for a\nminstrel; and while this man played, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon\nElisha, and he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make several ditches along\nthis valley; for ye shall see neither wind nor rain, yet this valley\nshall be filled with water, and you and your cattle shall drink of it.\u201d\nThe widow of one of the prophets having told Elisha, that her husband\u2019s\ncreditor was determined to take her two sons and sell them for slaves,\nElisha multiplied the oil in the widow\u2019s house, in such quantity that\nshe was enabled to sell it and to discharge the debt. Elisha went\nfrequently to Shunem, a city of Manasseh, on this side Jordan, and was\nentertained by a certain matron at her house. As she had no children,\nElisha promised her a son; and his prediction was accomplished. Some\nyears after, the child died. Elisha, who was then at Mount Carmel, was\nsolicited by the mother to come to her house. The prophet went, and\nrestored the child. At Gilgal, during a great famine, one of the sons of\nthe prophets gathered wild gourds, which he put into the pot, and they\nwere served up to Elisha and the other prophets. It was soon found that\nthey were mortal poison; but Elisha ordering meal to be thrown into the\npot, corrected the quality of the pottage. Naaman, general of the king\nof Syria\u2019s forces, having a leprosy, was advised to visit Elisha in\norder to be cured. Elisha appointed him to wash himself seven times in\nthe Jordan; and by this means Naaman was perfectly healed. He returned\nto Elisha, and offered him large presents, which the man of God\nresolutely refused. But Gehazi, Elisha\u2019s servant, did not imitate the\ndisinterestedness of his master. He ran after Naaman, and in Elisha\u2019s\nname begged a talent of silver, and two changes of garments. Naaman gave\nhim two talents. Elisha, to whom God had discovered Gehazi\u2019s action,\nreproached him with it, and declared, that the leprosy of Naaman should\ncleave to him and his family for ever. This is a striking instance of\nthe disinterestedness of the Jewish prophets. Elisha, like his master\nElijah, had learned to contemn the world. The king of Syria being at war\nwith the king of Israel, could not imagine how all his designs were\ndiscovered by the enemy. He was told, that Elisha revealed them to the\nking of Israel. He therefore sent troops to seize the prophet at Dothan;\nbut Elisha struck them with blindness, and led them in that condition\ninto Samaria. When they were in the city, he prayed to God to open their\neyes; and after he had made them eat and drink, he sent them back unhurt\nto their master. Some time after, Benhadad, king of Syria, having\nbesieged Samaria, the famine became so extreme, that a certain woman ate\nher own child. Jehoram, king of Israel, imputing to Elisha these\ncalamities, sent a messenger to cut off his head. Elisha, who was\ninformed of this design against his life, ordered the door to be shut.\nThe messenger was scarcely arrived, when the king himself followed, and\nmade great complaints of the condition to which the town was reduced.\nElisha answered, \u201cTo-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine\nflour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in\nthe gate of Samaria.\u201d Upon this, one of the king\u2019s officers said, \u201cWere\nthe Lord to open windows in heaven, might this thing be.\u201d This unbelief\nwas punished; for the prophet answered, \u201cThou shalt see it with thine\neyes, but shalt not eat thereof,\u201d which happened according to Elisha\u2019s\nprediction, for he was trodden to death by the crowd in the gate. At the\nend of the seven years\u2019 famine, which the prophet had foretold, he went\nto Damascus, to execute the command which God had given to Elijah many\nyears before, of declaring Hazael king of Syria. Benhadad being at that\ntime indisposed, and hearing that Elisha was come into his territories,\nsent Hazael, one of his principal officers, to the prophet to consult\nhim, and inquire of him whether it were possible for him to recover. The\nprophet told Hazael, that he might recover, but that he was very well\nassured that he should not; and then looking steadfastly upon him, he\nbroke out into tears upon the prospect, as he told him, of the many\nbarbarous calamities which he would bring upon Israel, when once he was\nadvanced to power, as he would soon be, because he was assured by divine\nrevelation that he was to be king of Syria. Hazael, though offended at\nthe time at being thought capable of such atrocities, did but too\nclearly verify these predictions; for at his return, having murdered\nBenhadad, and procured himself to be declared king, he inflicted the\ngreatest miseries upon the Israelites.\n\n2. Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to anoint Jehu, the son\nof Jehoshaphat, and grandson of Nimshi, to be king, in pursuance of an\norder given to Elijah some years before; and Jehu having received the\nroyal unction, executed every thing that had been foretold by Elijah\nagainst Ahab\u2019s family, and against Jezebel. Elisha falling sick, Joash,\nking of Israel, came to visit him, and said, \u201cO my father, my father,\nthe chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.\u201d Elisha desired the\nking to bring him a bow and arrows. Joash having brought them, Elisha\nrequested him to put his hands on the bow, and at the same time the\nprophet put his own hand upon the king\u2019s, and said, Open the window\nwhich looks east, and let fly an arrow. The king having done this,\nElisha said, This is the arrow of the Lord\u2019s deliverance: thou shalt be\nsuccessful against Syria at Aphek. Elisha desired him again to shoot,\nwhich he did three times, and then stopped. But Elisha with vehemence\nsaid, \u201cIf thou hadst smitten five or six times, then thou hadst smitten\nSyria until thou hadst consumed it; whereas now thou shalt smite Syria\nonly thrice.\u201d This is the last prediction of Elisha of which we read in\nScripture, for soon after he died; but it was not his last miracle: for,\nsome time after his interment, a company of Israelites, as they were\ngoing to bury a dead person, perceiving a band of Moabites making toward\nthem, put the corpse for haste into Elisha\u2019s tomb, and, as soon as it\nhad touched the prophet\u2019s body, it immediately revived; so that the man\nstood upon his feet: a striking emblem of the life-giving effect of the\nlabours of the servants of God, after they themselves are gathered to\ntheir fathers.\n\nELUL, the sixth month of the Hebrew ecclesiastical year, and the twelfth\nof the civil year, answering to our August and part of September,\ncontaining twenty-nine days.\n\nEMBALMING, the art of preserving dead bodies from putrefaction. It was\nmuch practised by the Egyptians of ancient times, and from them seems to\nhave been borrowed by the Hebrews. It consisted in opening the body,\ntaking out the intestines, and filling the place with odoriferous drugs\nand spices of a desiccative quality. Joseph gave orders for the\nembalming of the body of his father Jacob, Gen. l, 1, 2; and Moses\ninforms us that the process took up forty days. Joseph himself also was\nembalmed, Gen. l, 26. Asa, king of Israel, seems to have been embalmed,\n2 Chron. xvi, 13, 14. See BURIAL.\n\nEMERALD, \u05e0\u05e4\u05da, Exod. xxviii, 19; Ezek. xxvii, 16; xxviii, 13; \u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2,\nRev. xxi, 19; Eccles. xxxii, 6; Tobit xiii, 16; Judith x, 21. This is\ngenerally supposed to be the same with the ancient _smaragdus_. It is\none of the most beautiful of all the gems, and is of a bright green\ncolour, without the admixture of any other. Pliny thus speaks of it:\n\u201cThe sight of no colour is more pleasant than green; for we love to view\ngreen fields and green leaves; and are still more fond of looking at the\nemerald, because all other greens are dull in comparison with this.\nBeside, these stones seem larger at a distance, by tinging the\ncircumambient air. Their lustre is not changed by the sun, by the shade,\nnor by the light of lamps; but they have always a sensible moderate\nbrilliancy.\u201d From the passage in Ezekiel we learn that the Tyrians\ntraded in these jewels in the marts of Syria. They probably had them\nfrom India, or the south of Persia. The true oriental emerald is very\nscarce, and is only found at present in the kingdom of Cambay.\n\nEMERODS. The disease of the Philistines, which is mentioned in 1 Sam. v,\n6, 12; vi, 17, is denominated, in the Hebrew, \u05e2\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd. This word occurs,\nlikewise, in Deut. xxviii, 27; and it is worthy of remark, that it is\nevery where explained in the _keri_, or marginal readings, by the\nAram\u00e6an word, \u05d8\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd; an expression which, in the Syriac dialect, where\nit occurs under the forms, \u05d8\u05d4\u05e8\u05d0 and \u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0, means _the fundament_, and\nlikewise the effort which is made in an evacuation of the system. The\nauthors, therefore, of the reading in the _keri_ appear to have assented\nto the opinion of Josephus, and to have understood by this word the\ndysentery. The corresponding Arabic words mean a swelling, answering\nsomewhat in its nature to the hernia in men: a disease, consequently,\nvery different from the hemorrhoids, which some persons understand to be\nmeant by the word \u05e2\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd. Among other objections, it may also be\nobserved, that the mice, which are mentioned, not only in the Hebrew\ntext, 1 Sam. vi, 5, 12; xvi, 18, but also in the Alexandrine and Vulgate\nversions, 1 Sam. v, 6; vi, 5, 11, 18, are an objection to understanding\nthe hemorrhoids by the word under consideration, since if that were in\nfact the disease, we see no reason why mice should have been presented\nas an offering to avert the anger of the God of Israel. Lichtenstein has\ngiven this solution: The word, \u05e2\u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, which is rendered _mice_, he\nsupposes to mean _venomous solpugas_, which belong to the spider class,\nand yet are so large, and so similar in their form to mice, as to admit\nof their being denominated by the same word. These venomous animals\ndestroy and live upon scorpions. They also bite men, whenever they can\nhave an opportunity, particularly in the fundament and the verenda.\nTheir bite causes swellings, which are fatal in their consequences,\ncalled, in Hebrew, \u05e2\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd. The probable supposition, then, is, that\nsolpugas were at this time multiplied among the Philistines by the\nspecial providence of God; and that, being very venomous, they were the\nmeans of destroying many individuals.\n\nEMIMS, ancient inhabitants of the land of Canaan, beyond Jordan, who\nwere defeated by Chedorlaomer and his allies, Gen. xiv, 5. Moses tells\nus that they were beaten at Shaveh-Kirjathaim, which was in the country\nof Sihon, conquered from the Moabites, Josh. xiii, 19\u201321. The Emims were\na warlike people, of a gigantic stature, great and numerous, tall as the\nAnakims, and were accounted giants as well as they, Deut. ii, 10, 11.\n\nEMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL, \u201cGod with us.\u201d It answers both in the LXX, and\nMatt. i, 23, to the Hebrew \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc, from \u05e2\u05dd, _with_, \u05e0\u05d5, _us_, and \u05d0\u05dc,\n_God_, Isa. vii, 14; viii, 8.\n\nEMMAUS, a village about eight miles north-west of Jerusalem; on the road\nto which, two of the disciples were travelling in sorrow and\ndisappointment after the resurrection, when our Lord appeared to them,\nand held that memorable conversation with them which is recorded by St.\nLuke, xxiv.\n\nENDOR, a city in the tribe of Manasseh, where the witch resided whom\nSaul consulted a little before the battle of Gilboa, Joshua xvii, 11; 1\nSam. xxviii, 13. Mr. Bryant derives Endor from En-Ador, signifying _fons\npythonis_, \u201cthe fountain of light,\u201d or oracle of the god Ador: which\noracle was probably founded by the Canaanites, and had never been\ntotally suppressed. The ancient world had many such oracles: the most\nfamous of which were that of Jupiter-Ammon in Lybia, and that of Delphi\nin Greece: and in all of them, the answers to those who consulted them\nwere given from the mouth of a female; who, from the priestess of Apollo\nat Delphi, has generally received the name of Pythia. That many such\noracles existed in Canaan, is evident from the number which Saul himself\nis said to have suppressed; and such a one, with its Pythia, was this at\nEndor. At these shrines, either as mock oracles, contrived by a crafty\nand avaricious priesthood, to impose on the credulity and superstition\nof its followers; or, otherwise, as is more generally supposed, as the\nreal instruments of infernal power, mankind, having altogether departed\nfrom the true God, were permitted to be deluded. That, in this case, the\nreal Samuel appeared is plain both from the affright of the woman\nherself, and from the fulfilment of his prophecy. It was an instance of\nGod\u2019s overruling the wickedness of men, to manifest his own supremacy\nand justice.\n\nENGEDI. It is also called Hazazon-Tamar, or _city of palm trees_, 2\nChron. xx, 2, because there was a great quantity of palm trees in the\nterritory belonging to it. It abounded with Cyprus vines, and trees that\nproduced balm. Solomon speaks of the \u201cvineyards of Engedi,\u201d Cant. i, 14.\nThis city, according to Josephus, stood near the lake of Sodom, three\nhundred furlongs from Jerusalem, not far from Jericho, and the mouth of\nthe river Jordan, through which it discharged itself into the Dead Sea.\nThere is frequent mention of Engedi in the Scriptures. It was in the\ncave of Engedi that David had it in his power to kill Saul, 1 Sam. xxiv.\nThe spot where this transaction took place, was a cavern in the rock,\nsufficiently large to contain in its recesses the whole of David\u2019s men,\nsix hundred in number, unperceived by Saul when he entered. Many similar\ncaves existed in the Holy Land. Such were those at Adullam and Makkedah,\nand that in which Lot and his daughters dwelt after the destruction of\nSodom. Such also is that described by Mr. Maundrell, near Sidon, which\ncontained two hundred smaller caverns. Many of these were natural\ncavities in the limestone rock, similar to those in Yorkshire and\nDerbyshire, and in the Mendip hills in Somersetshire; and others,\nexcavations made by the primeval inhabitants, for defence, or for\nshelter from the sun; and which subsequently served as retreats for\nrobbers, as they are at this day. Josephus has given an interesting\naccount of these caves, and the manner in which the robbers were taken\nby Herod. And Dr. E. D. Clarke has described similar retreats in the\nrocks near Bethlehem; others, between Jerusalem and Jericho, are\nmentioned by Mr. Wilson. Into such caves the Israelites frequently\nretired for shelter from their enemies, Judg. vi, 2; 1 Sam. xiii, 6;\nxiv, 11; a circumstance which has afforded some striking and terrific\nimages to the prophets, Isaiah ii, 19; Hosea x, 8; Rev. vi, 15, 16.\n\nENOCH, the son of Cain, Gen. iv, 17, in honour of whom the first city\nnoticed in Scripture was called Enoch, by his father Cain, who was the\nbuilder. It was situated on the east of the province of Eden.\n\n2. ENOCH, the son of Jared, and father of Methuselah. He was born A. M.\n622, and being contemporary with Adam, he had every opportunity of\nlearning from him the story of the creation, the circumstance of the\nfall, the terms of the promise, and other important truths. An ancient\nauthor affirms, that he was the father of astronomy; and Eusebius hence\ninfers, that he is the same with the Atlas of the Grecian mythology.\nEnoch\u2019s fame rests upon a better basis than his skill in science. The\nencomium of Enoch is, that he \u201cwalked with God.\u201d While mankind were\nliving in open rebellion against Heaven, and provoking the divine\nvengeance daily by their ungodly deeds, he obtained the exalted\ntestimony, \u201cthat he pleased God.\u201d This he did, not only by the exemplary\ntenor of his life, and by the attention which he paid to the outward\nduties of religion, but by the soundness of his faith, and the purity of\nhis heart and life: see Heb. xi, 5, 6. The intent of the Apostle, in the\ndiscourse containing this passage, is, to show that there has been but\none way of obtaining the divine favour ever since the fall, and that is,\nby faith, or a firm persuasion and confidence in the atonement to be\nmade for human transgressions by the obedience, sufferings, death, and\nresurrection of the promised Messiah. The cloud of witnesses which the\nApostle has produced of Old Testament worthies, all bore, in their\nrespective generations, their testimony to this great doctrine, in\nopposition to the atheism or theism, and gross idolatry, which prevailed\naround them. All the patriarchs are celebrated for their faith in this\ngreat truth, and for preserving this principle of religion in the midst\nof a corrupt generation. Enoch, therefore, is said, by another\nevangelical writer, to have spoken of the coming of Christ to judgment\nunto the antediluvian sinners. See Jude 14, 15. This prophecy is a\nclear, and it is also an awful, description of the day of judgment, when\nthe Messiah shall sit upon his throne of justice, to determine the final\ncondition of mankind, according to their works; and it indicates that\nthe different offices of Messiah both to save and to judge, or as\nProphet, Priest, and King, were known to the holy patriarchs. On what\nthe Apostle founded this prediction has been matter of much speculation\nand inquiry. Some, indeed, have produced a treatise, called \u201cThe Book of\nEnoch,\u201d which, as they pretend, contains the cited passage; but its\nauthority is not proved, and internal evidence sufficiently marks its\nspurious origin. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that the\nprophecy cited by St. Jude was either traditionally handed down, or had\nbeen specially communicated to that Apostle. In the departure of Enoch\nfrom this world of sin and sorrow, the Almighty altered the ordinary\ncourse of things, and gave him a dismissal as glorious to himself, as it\nwas instructive to mankind. To convince them how acceptable holiness is\nto him, and to show that he had prepared for those that love him a\nheavenly inheritance, he caused Enoch to be taken from the earth without\npassing through death. See ELIJAH.\n\nENOS, or ENOSH, the son of Seth, and father of Cainan. He was born A. M.\n235. Moses tells us that then \u201cmen began to call upon the name of the\nLord,\u201d Gen iv, 26; that is, such as abhorred the impiety and immorality\nwhich prevailed among the progeny of Cain, began to worship God in\npublic, and to assemble together at stated times for that purpose. Good\nmen, to distinguish themselves from the wicked, began to take the name\nof sons or servants of God; for which reason Moses, Gen. vi, 1, 2, says\nthat \u201cthe sons of God,\u201d or the descendants of Enos, \u201cseeing the\ndaughters of men,\u201d &c. The eastern people make the following additions\nto his history:--that Seth, his father, declared him sovereign prince\nand high priest of mankind, next after himself; that Enos was the first\nwho ordained public alms for the poor, established public tribunals for\nthe administration of justice, and planted, or rather cultivated, the\npalm tree.\n\nEPHAH, the eldest son of Midian, who gave his name to a city and small\nextent of land in the country of Midian, situated on the eastern shore\nof the Dead Sea, Genesis xxv, 4. This country abounded with camels and\ndromedaries, Isaiah lx, 6, &c.\n\n2. EPHAH, a measure both for things dry and liquid, in use among the\nHebrews. The ephah for the former contained three pecks and three pints.\nIn liquid measure it was of the same capacity as the bath.\n\nEPHESUS, a much celebrated city of Ionia, in Asia Minor, situated upon\nthe river Cayster, and on the side of a hill. It was the metropolis of\nthe Proconsular Asia, and formerly in great renown among Heathen authors\non account of its famous temple of Diana. This temple was seven times\nset on fire: one of the principal conflagrations happened on the very\nday that Socrates was poisoned, four hundred years before Christ; the\nother, on the same night in which Alexander the Great was born, when a\nperson of the name of Erostratus set it on fire, according to his own\nconfession, to get himself a name! It was, however, rebuilt and\nbeautified by the Ephesians, toward which the female inhabitants of the\ncity contributed liberally. In the times of the Apostles it retained\nmuch of its former grandeur; but, so addicted were the inhabitants of\nthe city to idolatry and the arts of magic, that the prince of darkness\nwould seem to have, at that time, fixed his throne in it. Ephesus is\nsupposed to have first invented those obscure mystical spells and charms\nby means of which the people pretended to heal diseases and drive away\nevil spirits; whence originated the \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, or _Ephesian\nletters_, so often mentioned by the ancients.\n\n2. The Apostle Paul first visited this city, A. D. 54; but being then on\nhis way to Jerusalem, he abode there only a few weeks, Acts xviii,\n19\u201321. During his short stay, he found a synagogue of the Jews, into\nwhich he went, and reasoned with them upon the interesting topics of his\nministry, with which they were so pleased that they wished him to\nprolong his visit. He however declined that, for he had determined, God\nwilling, to be at Jerusalem at an approaching festival; but he promised\nto return, which he did a few months afterward, and continued there\nthree years, Acts xix, 10; xx, 31. While the Apostle abode in Ephesus\nand its neighbourhood, he gathered a numerous Christian church, to\nwhich, at a subsequent period, he wrote that epistle, which forms so\nimportant a part of the Apostolic writings. He was then a prisoner at\nRome, and the year in which he wrote it must have been 60 or 61 of the\nChristian \u00e6ra. It appears to have been transmitted to them by the hands\nof Tychicus, one of his companions in travel, Ephesians vi, 21. The\ncritics have remarked that the style of the Epistle to the Ephesians is\nexceedingly elevated; and that it corresponds to the state of the\nApostle\u2019s mind at the time of writing. Overjoyed with the account which\ntheir messenger brought him of the steadfastness of their faith, and the\nardency of their love to all the saints, Eph. i, 15; and, transported\nwith the consideration of the unsearchable wisdom of God displayed in\nthe work of man\u2019s redemption, and of his amazing love toward the\nGentiles, in introducing them, as fellow-heirs with the Jews, into the\nkingdom of Christ, he soars into the most exalted contemplation of those\nsublime topics, and gives utterance to his thoughts in language at once\nrich and varied. The epistle, says Macknight, is written as it were in a\nrapture. Grotius remarks that it expresses the sublime matters contained\nin it in terms more sublime than are to be found in any human language;\nto which Macknight subjoins this singular but striking observation, that\nno real Christian can read the doctrinal part of the Epistle to the\nEphesians, without being impressed and roused by it, as by the sound of\na trumpet.\n\n3. Ephesus was one of the seven churches to which special messages were\naddressed in the book of Revelation. After a commendation of their first\nworks, to which they were commanded to return, they were accused of\nhaving left their first love, and threatened with the removal of their\ncandlestick out of its place, except they should repent, Rev. ii, 5. The\ncontrast which its present state presents to its former glory, is a\nstriking fulfilment of this prophecy. Ephesus was the metropolis of\nLydia, a great and opulent city, and, according to Strabo, the greatest\nemporium of Asia Minor. Its temple of Diana, \u201cwhom all Asia worshipped,\u201d\nwas adorned with one hundred and twenty-seven columns of Parian marble,\neach of a single shaft, and sixty feet high, and which formed one of the\nseven wonders of the world. The remains of its magnificent theatre, in\nwhich it is said that twenty thousand people could easily have been\nseated, are yet to be seen. But a few heaps of stones, and some\nmiserable mud cottages, occasionally tenanted by Turks, without one\nChristian residing there, are all the remains of ancient Ephesus. It is,\nas described by different travellers, a solemn and most forlorn spot.\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians is read throughout the world; but there is\nnone in Ephesus to read it now. They left their first love, they\nreturned not to their first works. Their \u201ccandlestick has been removed\nout of its place;\u201d and the great city of Ephesus is no more. Dr.\nChandler says, \u201cThe inhabitants are a few Greek peasants, living in\nextreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility; the representatives\nof an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck of their greatness;\nsome, in the substructions of the glorious edifices which they raised;\nsome, beneath the vaults of the stadium, once the crowded scene of their\ndiversions; and some, by the abrupt precipice, in the sepulchres which\nreceived their ashes. Its streets are obscured and overgrown. A herd of\ngoats was driven to it for shelter from the sun at noon; and a noisy\nflight of crows from the quarries seemed to insult its silence. We heard\nthe partridge call in the area of the theatre and the stadium. The\nglorious pomp of its Heathen worship is no longer remembered; and\nChristianity, which was here nursed by Apostles, and fostered by general\ncouncils, until it increased to fulness of stature, barely lingers on in\nan existence hardly visible.\u201d \u201cI was at Ephesus,\u201d says Mr. Arundell, \u201cin\nJanuary, 1824; the desolation was then complete: a Turk, whose shed we\noccupied, his Arab servant, and a single Greek, composed the entire\npopulation; some Turcomans excepted, whose black tents were pitched\namong the ruins. The Greek revolution, and the predatory excursions of\nthe Samiotes, in great measure accounted for this total desertion. There\nis still, however, a village near, probably the same which Chishull and\nVan Egmont mention, having four hundred Greek houses.\u201d\n\nSt. John passed the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and\nprincipally at Ephesus, where he died.\n\nEPHOD, \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05d3. This article of dress was worn by laymen as well as by the\nhigh priest. The sacred ephod, the one made for the high priest,\ndiffered from the others, in being fabricated of cotton, which was\ncoloured with crimson, purple, and blue, and in being ornamented with\ngold. In the time of Josephus, it was a cubit of the larger size in\nlength, and was furnished with sleeves. The high priest\u2019s ephod had a\nvery rich button upon each shoulder, made of a large onyx stone set in\ngold. This stone was so large, that the names of the twelve tribes of\nIsrael were engraven, six on each stone, Exod. xxviii, 9\u201312. The word\n_shoham_, which we render onyx, is translated, by the Septuagint\n_smaragdos_, an emerald; but as we have no certain knowledge either of\nthis, or of any of the twelve stones of the breastplate, we may as well\nbe satisfied with our translation as with any other. To the ephod\nbelonged a curious girdle, of the same rich fabric as the ephod itself.\nThis girdle is said to be upon the ephod, Exod. xxviii, 8; that is,\nwoven with the ephod, as Maimonides understands; and, coming out from\nthe ephod on each side, it was brought under the arms like a sash, and\ntied upon the breast. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a\nlinen ephod, 1 Sam. ii, 18. And David, in the ceremony of removing the\nark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen\nephod, 2 Sam. vi, 14. The Levites were not generally allowed to wear the\nephod; but in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little\nbefore the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, they obtained of that\nprince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests.\nSpencer and Cun\u00e6us are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to\nwear the ephod, because David, coming to Ziklag, and finding that the\nAmalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people\u2019s\nwives, ordered Abiathar, the high priest, to bring him the ephod, which\nbeing done, David inquired of the Lord, saying, \u201cShall I pursue after\nthis troop?\u201d 1 Sam. xxx, 8. Whence they infer, that David consulted God\nby urim and thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. But it is\nprobable the text only means that he ordered the priest to do what he is\nhimself said to have done. The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having\nbecome the occasion of a new kind of idolatry to the Israelites, Judges\nviii, 27. What this consisted in, is matter of dispute among the\nlearned. Some authors are of opinion that this ephod, as it is called,\nwas an idol; others, that it was only a trophy in memory of the signal\nvictory obtained by Gideon, and that the Israelites paid a kind of\ndivine worship to it; so that Gideon was the innocent cause of their\nidolatry, in like manner as Moses had been in making the brazen serpent,\nwhich was afterward worshipped.\n\nEPHRAIM was the name of Joseph\u2019s second son, by Asenath, Potiphar\u2019s\ndaughter. He was born in Egypt, A. M. 2294. Ephraim, with his brother\nManasseh, was presented by his father Joseph to Jacob on his death bed,\nGen. xlviii, 8, &c. Jacob laid his right hand on Ephraim the younger,\nand his left on Manasseh the elder. Joseph was desirous to change his\nhands, but Jacob answered, \u201cI know it, my son; Manasseh shall be\nmultiplied, but Ephraim shall be greater.\u201d The sons of Ephraim having\nmade an inroad into Palestine, the inhabitants of Gath killed them.\nEphraim their father mourned many days for them, and his brethren came\nto comfort him, 1 Chron. vii, 20, 21. Afterward, he had a son named\nBeriah, and a daughter Sherah. He had also other sons, Rephah, Resheph,\nTela, &c. His posterity multiplied in Egypt to the number of forty\nthousand five hundred men capable of bearing arms. In the land of\npromise, Joshua, who was of this tribe, gave them their portion between\nthe Mediterranean west, and the river Jordan east. The ark and\ntabernacle remained long in this tribe at Shiloh; and after the\nseparation of the ten tribes, the seat of the kingdom was in Ephraim,\nand hence Ephraim is frequently used to denote the whole kingdom. The\ndistrict belonging to this tribe is called Ephratah, Psalm cxxxii, 6.\nEphraim was led captive beyond the Euphrates, with all Israel, by\nSalmaneser, king of Assyria, A. M. 3283.\n\n2. EPHRAIM was also the name of a city, into which Christ retired with\nhis disciples a little before his passion, John xi, 54. It was situated\nin the tribe of Ephraim near the river Jordan. There was also the wood\nor forest of Ephraim, situated on the other side Jordan, in which\nAbsalom\u2019s army was routed and himself killed, 2 Sam. xviii, 6.\n\nEPHRATH, Caleb\u2019s second wife, who was the mother of Hur, 1 Chron. ii,\n19. From her, it is believed that the city of Ephratah, otherwise called\nBethlehem, where our Lord was born, had its name; and this city is more\nthan once known in Scripture by the name of Ephrath, Gen. xxxv, 16.\n\nEPICUREANS, a sect of philosophers in Greece and Rome. Epicurus was\ntheir founder, who lived about B. C. 300. The physical doctrine of\nEpicurus was as follows: Nothing can ever spring from nothing, nor can\nany thing ever return to nothing. The universe always existed, and will\nalways remain; for there is nothing into which it can be changed. There\nis nothing in nature, nor can any thing be conceived, beside body and\nspace. Body is that which possesses the properties of bulk, figure,\nresistance, and gravity; it is this alone which can touch and be\ntouched. Space, or vacuum, destitute of the properties of body,\nincapable of action or passion, is the region which is or may be\noccupied by body, and which affords it an opportunity of moving freely.\nThe existence of bodies is attested by the senses. Space must also\nexist, in order to allow bodies place in which to move and exist; and of\ntheir existence and motion we have the certain proof of perception.\nBeside body and space, no third nature can be conceived. But the\nexistence of qualities is not precluded, because these have no\nsubsistence except in the body to which they belong. The universe,\nconsisting of body and space, is infinite. Bodies are infinite in\nmultitude; space is infinite in magnitude. The universe is immovable,\nbecause there is no place beyond it into which it can move. It is also\neternal and immutable, since it is liable to neither increase nor\ndecrease, to production nor decay. Nevertheless, the parts of the\nuniverse are in motion, and are subject to change. All bodies consist of\nparts which are either themselves simple principles, or may be resolved\ninto such. These first principles, or simple atoms, are divisible by no\nforce, and therefore must be immutable.\n\n2. The formation of the world he conceived to have happened in the\nfollowing manner: A finite number of that infinite multitude of atoms,\nwhich, with infinite space, constitute the universe, falling\nfortuitously into the region of the world, were, in consequence of their\ninnate motion, collected into one rude and indigested mass. In this\nchaos, the heaviest and largest atoms, or collections of atoms, first\nsubsided, while the smaller, and those which from their form would move\nmost freely, were driven upwards. These latter, after several\nreverberations, rose into the outer region of the world, and formed the\nheavens. Those atoms which, by their size and figure, were suited to\nform fiery bodies, collected themselves into stars; those which were not\ncapable of rising so high in the sphere of the world, being disturbed by\nthe fiery particles, formed themselves into air. At length, from those\nwhich subsided, was produced the earth. By the action of air, agitated\nby heat from the heavenly bodies, upon the mixed mass of the earth, its\nsmoother and lighter particles were separated from the rest, and water\nwas produced, which naturally flowed into the lowest places. In the\nfirst combination of atoms, which formed the chaos, various seeds arose,\nwhich, being preserved and nourished by moisture and heat, afterward\nsprung forth in organized bodies of different kinds. The soul is a\nsubtle corporeal substance, composed of the finest atoms, which, by the\nextreme tenuity of its particles, is able to penetrate the whole body,\nand to adhere to all its parts. It is composed of four distinct parts:\nfire, which causes animal heat; an ethereal principle which is moist\nvapour; air; and a fourth principle, which is the cause of sensation.\nThese four parts are so perfectly combined as to form one subtle\nsubstance, which, while it remains in the body, is the cause of all its\nfaculties, motions, and passions, and which cannot be separated from it,\nwithout producing the entire dissolution of the animal system.\n\n3. In the universe there are, according to Epicurus, without\ncontradiction, divine natures; because nature itself has impressed the\nidea of divinity upon the minds of men. The notion is universal; nor is\nit established by custom, law, or any human institution; but it is the\neffect of an innate principle, producing universal consent, and\ntherefore it must be true. This universal notion has probably arisen\nfrom images of the gods, which have casually made their way into the\nminds of men in sleep, and have afterward been recollected. But it is\ninconsistent with our natural notions of the gods, as happy and immortal\nbeings, to suppose that they encumber themselves with the management of\nthe world, or are subject to the cares and passions which must attend so\ngreat a charge. Hence it is inferred, that the gods have no intercourse\nwith mankind, nor any concern with the affairs of the world.\nNevertheless, on account of their excellent nature, they are objects of\nreverence and worship. In their external shape the gods resemble men;\nand though the place of their residence is unknown to mortals; it is\nwithout doubt the mansion of perfect purity, tranquillity, and\nhappiness. Thus he attempted to account for all the appearances of\nnature, even those which respect animated and intelligent beings, upon\nthe simple principles of matter and motion, without introducing the\nagency of a supreme intelligence, or admitting any other idea of fate,\nthan that of blind necessity inherent in every atom, by which it moves\nin a certain direction.\n\n4. The ethics of Epicurus are much less exceptionable than his physics;\nof which we may judge from the following summary: The end of living, or\nthe ultimate good, which is to be sought for its own sake, according to\nthe universal opinion of mankind, is happiness; which men generally fail\nof attaining, because they form wrong notions of the nature of\nhappiness, or do not use proper means for attaining it. The happiness\nwhich belongs to man, is that state in which he enjoys as many of the\ngood things, and suffers as few of the evils incident to human nature as\npossible, passing his days in a smooth course of permanent tranquillity.\nPerfect happiness cannot possibly be possessed without the pleasure that\nattends freedom from pain, and the enjoyment of the good things of life.\nPleasure is in its nature good, and ought to be pursued; and pain is in\nits nature evil, and should be avoided. Beside, pleasure or pain is the\nmeasure of what is good or evil in every object of desire or aversion.\nHowever, pleasure ought not in every instance to be pursued, nor pain to\nbe avoided; but reason is to distinguish and compare the nature and\ndegrees of each, that the result may be a wise choice of that which\nshall appear to be, upon the whole, good. That pleasure is the first\ngood, appears from the inclination which every animal, from its first\nbirth, discovers to pursue pleasure and avoid pain; and is confirmed by\nthe universal experience of mankind, who are incited to action by no\nother principle, than the desire of avoiding pain, or obtaining\npleasure. Of pleasures there are two kinds; one consisting in a state of\nrest, in which both body and mind are free from pain; the other arising\nfrom an agreeable agitation of the senses, producing a correspondent\nemotion in the soul. Upon the former of these, the enjoyment of life\nchiefly depends. Happiness may, therefore, be said to consist in bodily\nease and mental tranquillity. It is the office of reason to confine the\npursuit of pleasure within the limits of nature, so as to attain this\nhappy state; which neither resembles a rapid torrent, nor a standing\npool, but is like a gentle stream, that glides smoothly and silently\nalong. This happy state can only be attained by a prudent care of the\nbody, and a steady government of the mind. The diseases of the body are\nto be prevented by temperance, or cured by medicine, or endured\ntolerably by patience. Against the diseases of the mind philosophy\nprovides sufficient antidotes; the virtues are its instruments for this\npurpose; the radical spring of which is prudence, or wisdom, and this\ninstructs men to free their understanding from the clouds of prejudice;\nto exercise temperance and fortitude in the government of themselves;\nand to practise justice toward all others. In a happy life, pleasure can\nnever be separated from virtue. The followers of Epicurus, however,\ndegenerated into mere sensualists,--an effect which could only result\nfrom a system which denied a supreme God, and excluded from all concern\nwith the affairs of men even those divine natures which it allowed to\nexist. This sect is mentioned Acts xvii, 18.\n\nEPISCOPACY, DIOCESAN. The number of Christians in most of the primitive\nchurches was at first small: they could easily, when not prevented by\npersecution, assemble together; and they thus formed one church or\ncongregation; for, in Scripture, the term _church_ is never used in the\nmore modern acceptation of the word, but is employed to denote either\nthe whole church of Christ, or a number of disciples meeting for the\ncelebration of divine worship. The converts, however, rapidly increased;\nand when they could no longer meet in one place, other places would be\nprepared for them. But, connected as they still were with the parent\nchurch, they would choose from its presbyters their own pastors, and\nview themselves as under the inspection of the president and the\npresbytery, by whom the affairs of the church had been previously\nconducted. The pastors would thus remain members of the presbytery, as\nthey had formerly been, and would look up to that one of their number\nwho had been accustomed to preside among them. They were, in fact, for a\nconsiderable time, considered as one with the original church: the\nbishop sent to them the elements of the Lord\u2019s Supper as the pledge of\nunity; and we find it asserted by ancient writers, that there was one\naltar and one bishop. There were in this way gradually established,\nfirst in the towns or cities in which the Apostles had called men to the\ntruth, and then in the contiguous district of country, several\ncongregations: in these pastors officiated, who were authorized by the\nbishop and presbytery, whose superintendence was extended, so that\nparochial episcopacy was insensibly but naturally changed into diocesan\nepiscopacy; many of the presbyters sent out by the bishop residing at\ntheir churches, but nevertheless composing part of his council, and\nbeing summoned to meet with him upon important occasions. This\nenlargement of the field of inspection rendered the particular\nsuperintendence of the bishop more requisite; and was the means both of\nadding to his influence, and of his being regarded as permanently raised\nabove his brethren.\n\n2. The ministers who were sent to the recently erected churches had\nprobably different powers, according to the numbers to whom they were to\nofficiate, the situation of the churches in respect of the original\nchurch, and the tranquillity or persecution which was their lot. In the\nimmediate neighbourhood of the bishop, and where one person was\nsufficient, he would merely perform the duties that had been assigned to\nhim previous to his mission; but the same reasons that led the Apostles\nto plant several presbyters in the churches which they founded might\nrender it expedient that more than one, sometimes that a considerable\nnumber, should be attached to the newly-formed congregations; more\nparticularly when the number attending was large, and when there was the\nprospect of their still farther increasing. In such cases, it appears\nthat the bishop gave to one of the presbyters sent, and did so for the\nsame reasons that had at first created inequality among the pastors,\nmore extensive powers than were entrusted to the rest, and made him his\nrepresentative authorizing him to preside over the others, and to\ndischarge those parts of the ministerial office which, in his own\nchurch, he reserved for himself. When this happened, the person so\ndistinguished was termed _choro-episcopus_: he was more than a\npresbyter, but he was inferior to the bishop, acted by his directions,\nand could be controlled by him in the exercise of the privileges which\nhad been granted. Such subordinate bishops continued for a considerable\ntime; but it might, from the beginning, have been foreseen that they\nwould soon aspire to an equality with the original bishops; and they\nwere at length suppressed, under the pretence that, by multiplying the\nhigher order in places of little consequence, the church would detract\nfrom the respectability of that order, and lessen the reverence with\nwhich it should be regarded.\n\n3. The different congregations or churches which were established in\nvarious cities and the adjoining districts were in so far independent of\neach other, that the bishops and presbyters of each had the rule of\ntheir particular church, and of the churches which had sprung from it,\nand were entitled, by their own authority, to make such regulations as\nappeared to them to be requisite; and this species of independence\ncontinued for a considerable time, every bishop presiding in his\ncongregation, and afterward in his diocess. There was, however, always a\ncommon tie by which they were united. Neighbouring churches, actuated by\nardent zeal for the interests of divine truth, consulted together upon\nthe best mode of promoting it. We know that the Apostolic churches were\nenjoined to communicate to other bodies the epistles which they had\nreceived; and while persecution continued, it was natural for all who\nwere exposed to it to consider by what means its fury could be avoided.\n\n4. After the bishops were established as superior to presbyters, when\nany meeting was held respecting religion, or the administration of the\nchurch, it was chiefly composed of this higher order, and the president\nof the synod or council was elected from their number. These meetings\nwere generally assembled in the metropolis, or principal city of the\ndistrict; and hence the bishop of this city, being frequently called to\npreside, came, at length, to be regarded as entitled to do so: thus\nacquiring a superiority over the other bishops, just as they had\nacquired superiority over the inferior clergy. He was, in consequence,\ndistinguished by a particular name, being denominated, from the city in\nwhich he presided, a metropolitan.\n\nEPISCOPALIANS, those who maintain that bishops, presbyters, or priests,\nand deacons, are three distinct orders in the church; and that the\nbishops have a superiority over both the others. The episcopal form of\nchurch government professes to find in the days of the Apostles the\nmodel upon which it is framed. While our Lord remained upon earth, he\nacted as the immediate governor of his church. Having himself called the\nApostles, he kept them constantly about his person, except at one time,\nwhen he sent them forth upon a short progress through the cities of\nJudea, and gave them particular directions how they should conduct\nthemselves. The seventy disciples, whom he sent forth at another time,\nare never mentioned again in the New Testament. But the Apostles\nreceived from him many intimations that their office was to continue\nafter his departure; and as one great object of his ministry was to\nqualify them for the execution of this office, so, in the interval\nbetween his resurrection and his ascension, he explained to them the\nduties of it, and he invested them with the authority which the\ndischarge of those duties implied. \u201cGo,\u201d said he, \u201cmake disciples of all\nnations, baptizing them, teaching them; and lo, I am with you always,\neven unto the end of the world. As my Father hath sent me, even so send\nI you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost,\u201d Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; John xx, 21,\n22. Soon after the ascension of Jesus, his Apostles received those\nextraordinary gifts of which his promise had given them assurance; and\nimmediately they began to execute their commission, not only as the\nwitnesses of his resurrection, and the teachers of his religion, but as\nthe rulers of that society which was gathered by their preaching. In\nActs vi, we find the Apostles ordering the Christians at Jerusalem to\n\u201clook out seven men of honest report,\u201d who might take charge of the\ndaily ministrations to the poor, and to bring the men so chosen to them,\nthat \u201cwe,\u201d said the Apostles, \u201cmay appoint them over this business.\u201d The\nmen accordingly were \u201cset before the Apostles; and when they had prayed,\nthey laid their hands on them.\u201d Here are the Apostles ordaining deacons.\nAfterward, we find St. Paul, in his progress through Asia Minor,\nordaining in every church elders, \u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03d0\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u0223\u03c2; the name properly\nexpressive of age being transferred, after the practice of the Jews, as\na mark of respect, to ecclesiastical rulers, Acts xiv, 23. The men thus\nordained by St. Paul appear, from the book of Acts and the Epistles, to\nhave been teachers, pastors, overseers, of the flock of Christ; and to\nTimothy, who was a minister of the word, the Apostle speaks of \u201cthe gift\nwhich is in thee by the putting on of my hands,\u201d 2 Tim. i, 6. Over the\npersons to whom he thus conveyed the office of teaching, he exercised\njurisdiction; for he sent to Ephesus, to the elders of the church to\nmeet him at Miletus; and there, in a long discourse, gave them a solemn\ncharge, Acts xx, 17\u201335; and to Timothy and Titus he writes epistles in\nthe style of a superior.\n\n2. As St. Paul unquestionably conceived that there belonged to him, as\nan Apostle, an authority over other office-bearers of the church, so his\nepistles contain two examples of a delegation of that authority. He not\nonly directs Timothy, whom he had besought to abide at Ephesus, how to\nbehave himself in the house of God as a minister, but he sets him over\nother ministers. He empowers him to ordain men to the work of the\nministry: \u201cThe things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses,\nthe same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others\nalso,\u201d 2 Tim. ii, 2. He gives him directions about the ordination of\nbishops and deacons; he places both these kinds of office-bearers in\nEphesus under his inspection, instructing him in what manner to receive\nan accusation against an elder who laboured in word and doctrine; and he\ncommands him to charge some that they teach no other doctrine but the\nform of sound words. In like manner he says to Titus, \u201cFor this cause\nleft I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that\nare wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee,\u201d\nTitus i, 5. He describes to Titus the qualifications of a bishop or\nelder, making him the judge how far any person in Crete was possessed of\nthese qualifications; he gives him authority over all orders of\nChristians there; and he empowers him to reject heretics. Here, then, is\nthat Apostle, with whose actions we are best acquainted, seemingly aware\nthat there would be continual occasion in the Christian church for the\nexercise of that authority over pastors and teachers, which the Apostles\nhad derived from the Lord Jesus; and by these two examples of a\ndelegation, given during his life time, preparing the world for\nbeholding that authority exercised by the successors of the Apostles in\nall ages. Accordingly, the earliest Christian writers tell us that the\nApostles, to prevent contention, appointed bishops and deacons; giving\norders, too, that, upon their death, other approved men should succeed\nin their ministry. We are told that the other Apostles constituted their\nfirst-fruits, that is, their first disciples, after they had proved them\nby the Spirit, bishops and deacons of those who were to believe; and\nthat the Apostle John, who survived the rest, after returning from\nPatmos, the place of his banishment, went about the neighbouring\nnations, ordaining bishops, establishing whole churches, and setting\napart particular persons for the ministry, as they were pointed out to\nhim by the Spirit.\n\n3. As bishops are mentioned in the earliest times, so ecclesiastical\nhistory records the succession of bishops through many ages; and even\nduring the first three centuries, before Christianity was incorporated\nwith the state, every city, where the multitude of Christians required a\nnumber of pastors to perform the stated offices, presents to us, as far\nas we can gather from contemporary writers, an appearance very much the\nsame with that of the church of Jerusalem in the days of the Apostles.\nThe Apostle James seems to have resided in that city. But there is also\nmention of the elders of the church, who, according to the Scripture\nrepresentation of elders, must have discharged the ministerial office,\nbut over whom the Apostle James presided. So, in Carthage, where Cyprian\nwas bishop, and in every other Christian city of which we have\nparticular accounts, there was a college of presbyters; and there was\none person who had not only presidency, but jurisdiction and authority,\nover the rest. They were his council in matters relating to the church,\nand they were qualified to preach, to baptize, and to administer the\nLord\u2019s Supper; but they could do nothing without his permission and\nauthority. It is a principle in Christian antiquity, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u201cone bishop, and one church.\u201d The one bishop had the care of\nall the Christians, who, although they met in separate congregations,\nconstituted one church; and he had the inspection of the pastors, who,\nhaving received ordination from the bishop, officiated in the separate\ncongregations, performed the several parts of duty which he prescribed\nto them, and were accountable to him for their conduct. In continuation\nof this primitive institution, we find episcopacy in all corners of the\nchurch of Christ. Until the time of the reformation, there were, in\nevery Christian state, persons with the name, the rank, and the\nauthority of bishops; and the existence of such persons was not\nconsidered as an innovation, but as an establishment, which, by means of\ncatalogues preserved in ecclesiastical writers, may be traced back to\nthe days of the Apostles.\n\n4. Upon the principles which have now been stated, it is understood,\naccording to the episcopal form of government, that there is in the\nchurch a superior order of office-bearers, the successors of the\nApostles, who possess in their own persons the right of ordination and\njurisdiction, and who are called \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, as being the overseers not\nonly of the people, but also of the clergy; and an inferior order of\nministers, called presbyters, the literal translation of the word\n\u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03d0\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, which is rendered in our English Bibles _elders_, persons\nwho receive, from the ordination of the bishop, power to preach and to\nadminister the sacraments, who are set over the people, but are\nthemselves under the government of the bishop, and have no right to\nconvey to others the sacred office, which he gives them authority to\nexercise under him. According to a phrase used by Charles I, who was by\nno means an unlearned defender of that form of government to which he\nwas a martyr, the presbyters are _episcopi gregis_; [bishops of the\nflock;] but the bishops are _episcopi gregis et pastorum_, [bishops of\nthe flock and of the pastors.]\n\n5. The liberal writers on that side, however, do not contend that this\nform of government is made so binding in the church as not to be\ndeparted from, and varied according to circumstances. It cannot be\nproved, says Dr. Paley, that any form of church government was laid down\nin the Christian, as it had been in the Jewish, Scriptures, with a view\nof fixing a constitution for succeeding ages. The truth seems to have\nbeen, that such offices were at first erected in the Christian church as\nthe good order, the instruction, and the exigencies of the society at\nthat time required; without any intention, at least without any declared\ndesign, of regulating the appointment, authority, or the distinction, of\nChristian ministers under future circumstances. To the same effect,\nalso, Bishop Tomline says, \u201cIt is not contended that the bishops,\npriests, and deacons of England are at present precisely the same that\nbishops, presbyters, and deacons were in Asia Minor, seventeen hundred\nyears ago. We only maintain that there have always been bishops,\npriests, and deacons, in the Christian church, since the days of the\nApostles, with different powers and functions, it is allowed, in\ndifferent countries and at different periods; but the general principles\nand duties which have respectively characterized these clerical orders\nhave been essentially the same at all times, and in all places; and the\nvariations which they have undergone have only been such as have ever\nbelonged to all persons in public situations, whether civil or\necclesiastical, and which are indeed inseparable from every thing in\nwhich mankind are concerned in this transitory and fluctuating world. I\nhave thought it right to take this general view of the ministerial\noffice, and to make these observations upon the clerical orders\nsubsisting in this kingdom, for the purpose of pointing out the\nfoundation and principles of church authority, and of showing that our\necclesiastical establishment is as nearly conformable, as change of\ncircumstances will permit, to the practice of the primitive church. But,\nthough I flatter myself that I have proved episcopacy to be an\nApostolical institution, yet I readily acknowledge that there is no\nprecept in the New Testament which commands that every church should be\ngoverned by bishops. No church can exist without some government; but\nthough there must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the\noffices of public worship, though there must be fixed regulations\nconcerning the appointment of ministers, and though a subordination\namong them is expedient in the highest degree, yet it does not follow\nthat all these things must be precisely the same in every Christian\ncountry; they may vary with the other varying circumstances of human\nsociety, with the extent of a country, the manners of its inhabitants,\nthe nature of its civil government, and many other peculiarities which\nmight be specified. As it has not pleased our almighty Father to\nprescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of\ntemporal comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has he\nprescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely\nnecessary to the attainment of eternal happiness. But he has, in the\nmost explicit terms, enjoined obedience to all governors, whether civil\nor ecclesiastical, and whatever may be their denomination, as essential\nto the character of a true Christian. Thus the Gospel only lays down\ngeneral principles, and leaves the application of them to men as free\nagents.\u201d Bishop Tomline, however, and the high Episcopalians of the\nchurch of England, contend for an original distinction in the office and\norder of bishops and presbyters; which notion is controverted by the\nPresbyterians, and is, indeed, contradicted by one who may be truly\ncalled the founder of the church of England, Archbishop Cranmer, who\nsays, \u201cThe bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two\nthings; but both one office in the beginning of Christ\u2019s religion.\u201d The\nmore rigid Episcopalians admit of no ordination as valid in the church\nbut by the hands of bishops, and those derived in a right line from the\nApostles. See PRESBYTERIANS.\n\n6. The churches of Rome and of England are the principal Episcopalian\nchurches in the west of Europe; and those of the Greeks and Arminians in\nthe east; but, beside these, there are Episcopalians in Scotland, and in\nother countries, where, Presbyterianism being the establishment, they\nare, of course, Dissenters. Thus a Presbyterian is a Dissenter in\nEngland, and an Episcopalian a Dissenter in Scotland. There is also an\nEpiscopalian church in the United States of America; but there being no\nestablished religion, there are, of course, no Dissenters. The Episcopal\nchurch in America is organized very differently from that in England.\nThe following particulars are from the best authorities:--The general\nconvention was formed in 1789, by a delegation from the different\nstates, and meets triennially. They have eleven dioceses, two of which\nare without bishops, and are at liberty to form more in other states.\nThe above convention consists of an upper and lower house; the former\nconsisting of bishops, in which the senior bishop presides: they have no\narchbishop: and the lower, of the other clergy, and laymen mingled with\nthem. There are also diocesan conventions annually, in which the bishop\npresides. The bishops have no salaries as such, but are allowed to hold\nparishes as other ministers; but it has lately been found more\nconvenient in many states to raise a fund for the support of the bishop,\nthat his time may be more at liberty for visiting the clergy. They have\nneither patronage nor palaces, and some of their incomes are extremely\nsmall. The English Common Prayer Book is adopted, with the omission of\nthe Athanasian Creed, and some other slight alterations. Subscription to\nthe articles is not required by candidates for holy orders. The\nMethodists in America, also, form an episcopal church; but founded upon\nthe primitive principle that bishops and presbyters are of the same\n_order_, although the _oversight_ of presbyters may be committed to\nthose who are, by virtue of their office, also called _bishops_.\n\n[The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in December, 1784. The\nfundamental principle on which the episcopacy of this church rests, is\nhere correctly stated. It is proper to add to Mr. Watson\u2019s enumeration,\nthat the Roman and Moravian churches in the United States are also\nepiscopal; and that the statement that the bishops of the Protestant\nEpiscopal Church receive no salaries as bishops, is not at present\n(1832) without exception. Their incomes, too, though doubtless extremely\nsmall compared with those of the bishops of the establishment in\nEngland, are not so, compared with those of other ministers generally in\nthe United States.\n\nEPISTLES, which occur under the same Hebrew word with books, namely,\n\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8, are mentioned the more rarely, the farther we go back into\nantiquity. An epistle is first mentioned, 2 Sam. xi, 14, &c. Afterward,\nthere is more frequent mention of them; and sometimes an epistle is\nmeant, when literally a messenger is spoken of, as in Ezra iv, 15\u201317. In\nthe east, letters are commonly sent unsealed. In case, however, they are\nsent to persons of distinction, they are placed in a valuable purse,\nwhich is tied, closed over with wax or clay, and then stamped with a\nsignet, Isaiah xxix, 11; Job xxxviii, 14. The most ancient epistles\nbegin and end without either salutation or farewell; but under the\nPersian monarchy the salutation was very prolix. It is given in an\nabridged form in Ezra iv, 7\u201310; v, 7. The Apostles, in their epistles,\nused the salutation customary among the Greeks; but they omitted the\nusual farewell at the close, namely, \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and adopted a benediction\nmore conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion. St. Paul, when\nhe dictated his letters, wrote the benediction at the close with his own\nhand, 2 Thess. iii, 17. He was more accustomed to dictate his letters\nthan to write them himself.\n\nThe name _Epistles_ is given, by way of eminence, to the letters written\nby the Apostles, or first preachers of Christianity, to particular\nchurches or persons, on particular occasions or subjects. Of these the\nApostle Paul wrote fourteen. St. James wrote one general epistle; St.\nPeter two; St. John three; and St. Jude one.\n\nAn epistle has its Hebrew name from its being rolled or folded together.\nThe modern Arabs roll up their letters, and then flatten them to the\nbreadth of an inch, and paste up the end of them, instead of sealing\nthem. The Persians make up their letters in a roll about six inches\nlong, and a bit of paper is fastened round it with gum, and sealed with\nan impression of ink, which resembles our printers\u2019 ink, but is not so\nthick. Letters, as stated above, were generally sent to persons of\ndistinction in a bag or purse; but to inferiors, or those who were held\nin contempt, they were sent open, that is, unenclosed. Lady M. W.\nMontagu says, the _bassa_ of Belgrade\u2019s answer to the English ambassador\ngoing to Constantinople was brought to him in a purse of scarlet satin.\nBut, in the case of Nehemiah, an insult was designed to be offered to\nhim by Sanballat, in refusing him the mark of respect usually paid to\npersons of his station, and treating him contemptuously, by sending the\nletter open, that is, without the customary appendages when presented to\npersons of respectability. \u201cFutty Sihng,\u201d says Mr. Forbes, \u201csent a\n_chopdar_ to me at Dhuboy, with a letter of invitation to the wedding,\nthen celebrating at Brodera at a great expense, and of long continuance.\nThe letter, as usual, from oriental princes, was written on silver\npaper, flowered with gold, with an additional sprinkling of saffron,\nenclosed under a cover of gold brocade. The letter was accompanied with\na bag of crimson and gold _keem-caub_, filled with sweet-scented seeds,\nas a mark of favour and good omen.\u201d\n\nEPOCH, a term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time, from which\nthe succeeding years are numbered. Scaliger says it means \u201ca stop,\u201d\nbecause \u201cin epochs stop and terminate the measures of times.\u201d It now\nusually denotes a remarkable date; as, the epoch of the destruction of\nTroy, B. C. 1183, &c. The first epoch is the creation of the world,\nwhich, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the\nyear 710 of the Julian period, and 4004 years before Jesus Christ. The\nsecond is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in\nthe year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in\nsacred history: the building of the tower of Babel, which was, according\nto Dr. Hales, B. C. 2554; the calling of Abraham, B. C. 2153; the\ndeparture of the Israelites out of Egypt, B. C. 1648; the dedication of\nthe temple, B. C. 1027; the end of the Babylonish captivity, B. C. 536;\nand the birth of Jesus Christ, A. D. 1. In profane history are reckoned\nfive epochs: the founding of the Assyrian empire, B. C. 1267; the era of\nNabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus, B. C. 747; the reign of Cyrus at\nBabylon, B. C. 556; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians,\nB. C. 330; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our\nSaviour was born, B. C. 44.\n\nERA. The term _era_ (not _\u00e6ra_, as incorrectly written) is Spanish,\nsignifying time, as in the phrase, _de era en era_, \u201cfrom time to time.\u201d\nIt was first used in the _Era Hispanica_, instituted B. C. 38, in honour\nof Augustus, when Spain was allotted to him in the distribution of the\nprovinces among the second triumvirate, Augustus, Anthony, and Lepidus.\nIt now usually denotes an indefinite series of years, beginning from\nsome known epoch; and so differs from a period which is a definite\nseries: as the era of the foundation of Rome, the era of the Olympiads,\nthe era of Nabonassar, &c. See EPOCH.\n\nESAR-HADDON, son of Sennacherib, and his successor in the kingdom of\nAssyria: called Sargon, or Saragon, Isa. xx, 1. He reigned twenty-nine\nyears. He made war with the Philistines, and took Azoth, by Tartan, his\ngeneral: he attacked Egypt, Cush, and Edom, Isa. xx, xxxiv; designing,\nprobably, to avenge the affront Sennacherib his father had received from\nTirhakah, king of Cush, and the king of Egypt, who had been Hezekiah\u2019s\nconfederates. He sent priests to the Cuth\u00e6ans, whom Salmaneser, king of\nAssyria, had planted in Samaria, instead of the Israelites: he took\nJerusalem, and carried King Manasseh to Babylon, of which he had become\nmaster, perhaps, because there was no heir to Belesis, king of Bayblon.\nHe is said to have reigned twenty-nine or thirty years at Nineveh, and\nthirteen years at Babylon; in all forty-two years. He died A. M. 3336.\n\nESAU, son of Isaac and Rebekah, born A. M. 2168, B. C. 1836. When the\ntime of Rebekah\u2019s delivery came, she had twins, Gen. xxv, 24\u201326: the\nfirst-born was hairy, therefore called Esau; that is, a man full grown\nor of perfect age; but some derive Esau from the Arabic _gescha_ or\n_gencheva_, which signifies a hair cloth. Esau delighted in hunting, and\nhis father Isaac had a particular affection for him. On one occasion,\nEsau, returning from the fields greatly fatigued, desired Jacob to give\nhim some red pottage, which he was then preparing. Jacob consented,\nprovided Esau would sell him his birthright. Esau complied, and by oath\nresigned it to him, Gen. xxv, 29\u201334. Esau, when aged forty, married two\nCanaanitish women, Judith, daughter of Beeri, the Hittite; and\nBashemath, daughter of Elon, Gen. xxvi, 34. These marriages were very\ndispleasing to Isaac and Rebekah, because they intermingled the blood of\nAbraham with that of Canaanite aliens. Isaac being old, and his sight\ndecayed, directed Esau to procure him delicate venison by hunting, that\nhe might give him his chief blessing, Gen. xxvii. The artifice of his\nmother, however, counteracted his purpose; and she contrived to impose\nupon Isaac, and to obtain the father\u2019s principal blessing for her son\nJacob. Esau was indignant on account of this treachery and determined to\nkill Jacob as soon as their father should die. Rebekah again interposed,\nand sent Jacob away to her brother Laban, with whom he might be secure.\nDuring the period of separation, which lasted several years, Esau\nmarried a wife of the family of Ishmael; and, removing to Mount Seir,\nacquired great power and wealth. When Jacob returned, after long\nabsence, to his father\u2019s country, with a numerous family, and large\nflocks and herds, he dreaded his brother\u2019s displeasure; but they had an\namicable and affectionate interview. After their father\u2019s death, they\nlived in peace and amity; but, as their possessions enlarged, and there\nwas not sufficient room for them in the land in which they were\nstrangers, Esau returned to Mount Seir, where his posterity multiplied\nunder the denomination of Edomites. (See EDOM.) The time of his death is\nnot mentioned; but Bishop Cumberland thinks it probable that he died\nabout the same time with his brother Jacob, at the age of about one\nhundred and forty-seven years, Gen. xxv-xxxvi.\n\n2. On the most important part of this history, the selling of the\nbirthright, we may observe, (1.) That although it was always the design\nof God that the blessing connected with primogeniture in the family of\nAbraham should be enjoyed by Jacob, and to exercise his sovereignty in\nchanging the succession in which the promises of the Abrahamic covenant\nmight descend; yet the conduct of Rebekah and Jacob was reprehensible in\nendeavouring to bring about the divine design by the unworthy means of\ncontrivance and deceit; and they were punished for their presumption by\ntheir sufferings. (2.) That the conduct of Esau in selling his\nbirthright was both wanton and profane. It was wanton, because he,\nthough faint, could be in no danger of not obtaining a supply of food in\nhis father\u2019s house; and was therefore wholly influenced by his appetite,\nexcited by the delicacy of Jacob\u2019s pottage. It was profane, because the\nblessings of the birthright were spiritual as well as civil. The church\nof God was to be established in the line of the first-born; and in that\nline the Messiah was to appear. These high privileges were despised by\nEsau, who is therefore made by St. Paul a type of all apostates from\nChrist, who, like him, profanely despise their birthright as the sons of\nGod. See BIRTHRIGHT.\n\nESDRAELON, PLAIN OF, in the tribe of Issachar, extends east and west\nfrom Scythopolis to Mount Carmel; called, likewise, the Great Plain, the\nValley of Jezreel, the Plain of Esdrela. Dr. E. D. Clarke observes, it\nis by far the largest plain in the Holy Land; extending quite across the\ncountry from Mount Carmel and the Mediterranean Sea to the southern\nextremity of the Sea of Galilee; about thirty miles in length, and\ntwenty in breadth. It is also a very fertile district, abounding in\npasture; on which account it has been selected for the purposes of\nencampment by almost every army that has traversed the Holy Land. Here\nBarak, descending with his ten thousand men from Mount Tabor, which\nrises like a cone in the centre of the plain, defeated Sisera, with his\n\u201cnine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him,\ngathered from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon; and\npursued after the chariots and after the host unto Harosheth of the\nGentiles; and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword;\nand there was not a man left,\u201d Judges iv. Here Josiah, king of Judah,\nfell, fighting against Necho, king of Egypt, 2 Kings xxiii, 29. And here\nthe Midianites and the Amalekites, who were \u201clike grasshoppers for\nmultitude, and their camels without number as the sand of the sea,\u201d\nencamped, when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi. This plain has\nlikewise been used for the same purpose by the armies of every conqueror\nor invader, from Nabuchodonosor, king of Assyria, to his imitator,\nNapoleon Buonaparte, who, in the spring of 1799, with a small body of\nFrench, defeated an army of several thousand Turks and Mamelukes. Jews,\nGentiles, Saracens, Christians, crusaders, and antichristian Frenchmen,\nEgyptians, Persians, Druses, Turks, and Arabs, warriors out of every\nnation which is under heaven, have pitched their tents in the Plain of\nEsdraelon; and have beheld the various banners of their nations wet with\nthe dews of Tabor and of Hermon. And it is to this day generally found\nto be the place of encampment of large parties of Arabs.\n\nESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books which were always excluded the\nJewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the\nPapists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in\nGreek by some Hellenistical Jews; though some imagine that they were\nfirst written in Chaldee, and afterward translated into Greek. It is\nuncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that\nthe author wrote before Josephus.\n\nESHBAAL, or ISHBOSHETH, the fourth son of Saul. The Hebrews, to avoid\npronouncing the word _baal_, \u201clord,\u201d used _bosheth_, \u201cconfusion.\u201d\nInstead of Mephi-baal, they said Mephi-bosheth; and, instead of\nEsh-baal, they said Ish-bosheth, 2 Sam. ii, 8.\n\nESHCOL, one of Abraham\u2019s allies, who dwelt with him in the valley of\nMamre, and accompanied him in the pursuit of Chedorlaomer, and the other\nconfederated kings, who pillaged Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried away\nLot, Abraham\u2019s nephew, Gen. xiv, 24. Also the valley or brook of Eshcol\nwas that in which the Hebrew messengers, who went to spy the land of\nCanaan, cut a bunch of grapes so large that it was as much as two men\ncould carry. It was situated in the south part of Judah, Num. xiii, 24;\nxxxii, 9.\n\nESSENES, or ESSENIANS, one of the three ancient sects of the Jews. They\nappear to have been an enthusiastic sect, never numerous, and but little\nknown; directly opposite to the Pharisees with respect to their reliance\nupon tradition, and their scrupulous regard to the ceremonial law, but\npretending, like them, to superior sanctity of manners. They existed in\nthe time of our Saviour; and though they are not mentioned in the New\nTestament, they are supposed to be alluded to by St. Paul in his\nEpistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and in his first Epistle to\nTimothy. From the account given of the doctrines and institutions of\nthis sect by Philo and Josephus, we learn that they believed in the\nimmortality of the soul; that they were absolute predestinarians; that\nthey observed the seventh day with peculiar strictness; that they held\nthe Scriptures in the highest reverence, but considered them as mystic\nwritings, and expounded them allegorically; that they sent gifts to the\ntemple, but offered no sacrifices; that they admitted no one into their\nsociety till after a probation of three years; that they lived in a\nstate of perfect equality, except that they paid respect to the aged,\nand to their priests; that they considered all secular employment as\nunlawful, except that of agriculture; that they had all things in\ncommon, and were industrious, quiet, and free from every species of\nvice; that they held celibacy and solitude in high esteem; that they\nallowed no change of raiment till necessity required it; that they\nabstained from wine; that they were not permitted to eat but with their\nown sect; and that a certain portion of food was allotted to each\nperson, of which they partook together, after solemn ablutions. The\naustere and retired life of the Essenes is supposed to have given rise\nto monkish superstition.\n\nThe Therapeut\u00e6 were a distinct branch of the Essenes. Jahn has thus\ndescribed the difference between them: The principal ground of\ndifference between the Essenes or Essa\u00ebi, and Therapeut\u00e6 consisted in\nthis; the former were Jews, who spoke the Aramean; the latter were Greek\nJews, as the names themselves intimate, namely, \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 and \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76. The\nEssenes lived chiefly in Palestine; the Therapeut\u00e6, in Egypt. The\nTherapeut\u00e6 were more rigid than the Essenes, since the latter, although\nthey made it a practice to keep at a distance from large cities, lived,\nnevertheless, in towns and villages, and practised agriculture and the\narts, with the exception of those arts which were made more directly\nsubservient to the purposes of war. The Therapeut\u00e6, on the contrary,\nfled from all inhabited places, dwelt in fields and deserts and gardens,\nand gave themselves up to contemplation. Both the Essenes and the\nTherapeut\u00e6 held their property in common, and those things which they\nstood in need of for the support and the comforts of life, were\ndistributed to them from the common stock. The candidates for admission\namong the Essenes gave their property to the society; but those who were\ndestined for a membership with the Therapeut\u00e6, left theirs to their\nfriends; and both, after a number of years of probation, made a\nprofession which bound them to the exercise of the strictest\nuprightness. The Romanists pretend, as Dr. Prideaux observes, without\nany foundation, that the Essenes were Christian monks, formed into a\nsociety by St. Mark, who founded the first church at Alexandria. But it\nis evident, from the accounts of Josephus and Philo, that the Essenes\nwere not Christians, but Jews.\n\nDr. Neander\u2019s account of the Essenes is as follows:--A company of pious\nmen, much experienced in the trials of the outward and of the inward\nlife, had withdrawn themselves out of the strife of theological and\npolitical parties, at first apparently (according to Pliny the elder) to\nthe western side of the Dead Sea; where they lived together in intimate\nconnection, partly in the same sort of society as the monks of later\ndays, and partly as mystical orders in all periods have done. From this\nsociety, other smaller ones afterward proceeded, and spread themselves\nover all Palestine. They were called Essenes, \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 or \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76. They\nemployed themselves in the arts of peace, agriculture, pasture,\nhandicraft works, and especially in the art of healing, while they took\ngreat delight in investigating the healing powers of nature. It is\nprobable, also, that they imagined themselves under the guidance of a\nsupernatural illumination in their search into nature, and their use of\nher powers. Their natural knowledge, and their art of healing, appear\nalso to have had a religious, theosophic character, as they professed\nalso to have peculiar prophetical gifts. The Essenes were, no doubt,\ndistinguished from the mass of ordinary Jews by this, that they knew and\nloved something higher than the outward ceremonial and a dead faith,\nthat they did really strive after holiness of heart, and inward\ncommunion with God. Their quiet, pious habits also rendered them\nremarkable, and by means of these they remained quiet amidst all the\npolitical changes, respected by all parties, even by the Heathens; and\nby their laborious habits and kindness, their obedience toward the\nhigher powers, as ordained of God, their fidelity and love of truth,\nthey were enabled to extend themselves in all directions. In their\nsociety every yea and nay had the force of an oath; for every oath, said\nthey, pre-supposes a mutual distrust, which ought not to be the case\namong a society of honest men. Only in one case was an oath suffered\namong them, namely, as a pledge for those who after a three years\u2019\nnoviciate were to be received into the number of the initiated.\nAccording to the portraiture of them, given by Philo, the Alexandrian,\nin his separate treatise concerning the \u201cTrue Freedom of the Virtuous,\u201d\nwe should take the Essenes for men of an entirely practical religious\nturn, far removed from all theosophy and all idle speculation; and we\nshould ascribe to them an inward religious habit of mind, free from all\nmixture of superstition and reliance on outward things. But the account\nof Philo does not at all accord with that of Josephus; and the more\nhistorical Josephus deserves in general more credit than Philo, who was\ntoo apt to indulge in philosophizing and idealism. Beside, Josephus had\nmore opportunity of knowing this sect thoroughly, than Philo; for Philo\nlived in Egypt, and the Essenes did not extend beyond Palestine.\nJosephus had here passed the greater part of his life, and had certainly\ntaken all necessary pains to inform himself accurately of the nature of\nthe different sects, among which he was determined, as a youth of\nsixteen years of age, to make choice, although he can hardly have\ncompletely passed through a noviciate in the sect of the Essenes,\nbecause he made the round of all the three Jewish sects, in a period of\nfrom three to four years. Josephus, also, shows himself completely\nunprejudiced in this description; while Philo, on the contrary, wished\nto represent the Essenes to the more cultivated Greeks as models of\npractical wisdom, and, therefore, he allowed himself to represent much,\nnot as it really was, but as it suited his purpose. We must conclude\nthat the Essenes did also busy themselves with theosophy, and pretended\nto impart to those of their order disclosures relating to the\nsupernatural world of spirits, because those who were about to be\ninitiated, were obliged to swear that they would never make known to any\none the names of the angels then to be communicated to them. The manner\nin which they kept secret the ancient books of their sect is also a\nproof of this. And, indeed, Philo himself makes it probable, when he\nsays, that they employed themselves with a \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, a\nphilosophy which was supported by an allegorical interpretation of\nScripture, for this kind of allegorizing interpretation was usually the\naccompaniment of a certain speculative system. According to Philo, they\nrejected the sacrifice of victims, because they considered, that to\nconsecrate and offer up themselves wholly to God, was the only true\nsacrifice, the only sacrifice worthy of God. But according to Josephus\nthey certainly considered sacrifice as something peculiarly holy, but\nthey thought that from its peculiar holiness it must have been\ndesecrated by the profane Jews in the temple of Jerusalem, and that it\ncould be worthily celebrated only in their holy community, just as\nmystic sects of this nature are constantly accustomed to make the\n_objective_ acts of religion dependent on the _subjective_ condition of\nthose who perform or take part in them. In the troublesome and\nsuperstitious observance of the rest of the Sabbath, according to the\nletter, and not according to the spirit, they went even farther than the\nother Jews, only with this difference, that they were in good earnest in\nthe matter, while the Pharisees by their casuistry relaxed their rules,\nor drew them tighter, just as it suited their purpose. The Essenes, not\nonly strenuously abhorred, like the other Jews, contact with the\nuncircumcised, but, having divided themselves into four classes, the\nEssenes of a higher grade were averse from contact with those of a\nlower, as if they were rendered unclean by it, and when any thing of\nthis kind did happen, they purified themselves after it. Like many other\nJews, they attributed great value, in general, to lustration by bathing\nin cold water. To their ascetic notions, the constant and healthy\npractice in the east of anointing with oil seemed unholy, and if it\nbefel any one of them, he was obliged to purify himself. It was also a\ngreat abomination to them to eat any food except such as had been\nprepared by persons of their own sect. They would die rather than eat of\nany other. This is a sufficient proof that although the Essenes might\npossess a certain inward religious life, and a certain practical piety,\nyet that these qualities with them, as well as with many other mystical\nsects, as for example, those of the middle ages, were connected with a\ntheosophy, which desired to know things hidden from human reason,\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f01 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, and therefore lost itself in idle\nimaginations and dreams, and were also mixed up with an outward\nasceticism, a proud spirit of separation from the rest of mankind, and\nsuperstitious observances and demeanours totally at variance with the\ntrue spirit of inward religion.\n\nESTHER. The book of Esther is so called, because it contains the history\nof Esther a Jewish captive, who by her remarkable accomplishments gained\nthe affection of King Ahasuerus, and by marriage with him was raised to\nthe throne of Persia; and it relates the origin and ceremonies of the\nfeast of Purim, instituted in commemoration of the great deliverance,\nwhich she, by her interest, procured for the Jews, whose general\ndestruction had been concerted by the offended pride of Haman. There is\ngreat diversity of opinion concerning the author of this book; it has\nbeen ascribed to Ezra, to Mordecai, to Joachim, and to the joint labours\nof the great synagogue; and it is impossible to decide which of these\nopinions is the most probable. We are told, that the facts here recorded\nhappened in the reign of Ahasuerus king of Persia, \u201cwho reigned from\nIndia even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces,\u201d\nEsther i, 1; and this extent of dominion plainly proves that he was one\nof the successors of Cyrus. That point is indeed allowed by all; but\nlearned men differ concerning the person meant by Ahasuerus, whose name\ndoes not occur in profane history; and consequently they are not agreed\nconcerning the precise period to which we are to assign this history.\nArchbishop Usher supposed, that by Ahasuerus was meant Darius Hystaspes,\nand Joseph Scaliger contended that Xerxes was meant; but Dean Prideaux\nhas very satisfactorily shown, that by Ahasuerus we are to understand\nArtaxerxes Longimanus. Josephus also considered Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes\nas the same person; and we may observe, that Ahasuerus is always\ntranslated Artaxerxes in the Septuagint version; and he is called by\nthat name in the apocryphal part of the book of Esther. See ECBATANA,\nand AHASUERUS.\n\nETERNITY is an attribute of God. (See _God_.) The self-existent being,\nsays the learned Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of\neternity and self-existence are so closely connected, that because\nsomething must of necessity be eternal, independently and without any\noutward cause of its being, therefore it must necessarily be\nself-existent; and because it is impossible but something must be\nself-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be\neternal. To be self-existent, is to exist by an absolute necessity in\nthe nature of the thing itself. Now this necessity being absolute, and\nnot depending upon any thing external, must be always unalterably the\nsame; nothing being alterable but what is capable of being affected by\nsomewhat without itself. That being therefore which has no other cause\nof its existence but the absolute necessity of its own nature, must of\nnecessity have existed from everlasting, without beginning; and must of\nnecessity exist to everlasting, without end.\n\nOn the eternal duration of the divine Being, many have held a\nmetaphysical refinement. \u201cThe eternal existence of God,\u201d it is said, \u201cis\nnot to be considered as successive; the ideas we gain from time are not\nto be allowed in our conceptions of his duration. As he fills all space\nwith his immensity, he fills all duration with his eternity; and with\nhim eternity is _nunc stans_, a permanent _now_, incapable of the\nrelations of past, present, and future.\u201d Such, certainly, is not the\nview given us of this mysterious subject in the Scriptures; and if it\nshould be said that they speak popularly, and are accommodated to the\ninfirmity of the reason of the body of mankind, we may reply, that\nphilosophy has not, with all its boasting of superior light, carried our\nviews on this attribute of the divine nature at all beyond revelation;\nand, in attempting it, has only obscured the conceptions of its\nadmirers. \u201cFilling duration with his eternity,\u201d is a phrase without any\nmeaning: for how can any man conceive a permanent instant, which\nco\u00ebxists with a perpetually flowing duration? One might as well\napprehend a mathematical point co\u00ebxtended with a line, a surface, and\nall dimensions. As this notion has, however, been made the basis of some\ntheological opinions, it may be proper to examine it.\n\n2. Whether we get our idea of time from the motion of bodies without us,\nor from the consciousness of the succession of our own ideas, or both,\nis not important to this inquiry. Time, in our conceptions, is\ndivisible. The artificial divisions are years, months, days, minutes,\nseconds, &c. We can conceive of yet smaller portions of duration; and,\nwhether we have given to them artificial names or not, we can conceive\nno otherwise of duration, than continuance of being, estimated as to\ndegree, by this artificial admeasurement, and therefore as substantially\nanswering to it. It is not denied but that duration is something\ndistinct from these its artificial measures; yet of this every man\u2019s\nconsciousness will assure him, that we can form no idea of duration\nexcept in this successive manner. But we are told that the eternity of\nGod is a fixed eternal _now_, from which all ideas of succession, of\npast and future, are to be excluded; and we are called upon to conceive\nof eternal duration without reference to past or future, and to the\nexclusion of the idea of that _flow_ under which we conceive of time.\nThe proper abstract idea of duration is, however, simple continuance of\nbeing, without any reference to the exact degree or extent of it,\nbecause in no other way can it be equally applicable to all the\nsubstances of which it is the attribute. It may be finite or infinite,\nmomentary or eternal; but that depends upon the substance of which it is\nthe quality, and not upon its own nature. Our own observation and\nexperience teach us how to apply it to ourselves. As to us, duration is\ndependent and finite; as to God, it is infinite; but in both cases the\noriginality or dependence, the finiteness or infinity of it, arises, not\nout of the nature of duration itself, but out of other qualities of the\nsubjects respectively.\n\n3. Duration, then, as applied to God, is no more than an extension of\nthe idea as applied to ourselves; and to exhort us to conceive of it as\nsomething essentially different, is to require us to conceive what is\ninconceivable. It is to demand of us to think without ideas. Duration is\ncontinuance of existence; continuance of existence is capable of being\nlonger or shorter; and hence necessarily arises the idea of the\nsuccession of the minutest points of duration into which we can conceive\nit divided. Beyond this the mind cannot go, it forms the idea of\nduration no other way: and if what we call _duration_ be any thing\ndifferent from this in God, it is not duration, properly so called,\naccording to human ideas; it is something else, for which there is no\nname among men, because there is no idea, and therefore it is impossible\nto reason about it. As long as meta-physicians use the term, they must\ntake the idea: if they spurn the idea, they have no right to the term,\nand ought at once to confess that they can go no farther. Dr. Cudworth\ndefines infinity of duration to be nothing else but perfection, as\nincluding in it necessary existence and immutability. This, it is true,\nis as much a definition of the moon, as of infinity of duration; but it\nis valuable, as it shows that, in the view of this great man, though an\nadvocate of the _nunc stans_, \u201cthe standing now,\u201d of eternity, we must\nabandon the term _duration_, if we give up the only idea under which it\ncan be conceived.\n\n4. It follows from this, therefore, that either we must apply the term\n_duration_ to the divine Being in the same sense in which we apply it to\ncreatures, with the extension of the idea to a duration which has no\nbounds and limits; or blot it out of our creeds, as a word to which our\nminds, with all the aid they may derive from the labours of\nmetaphysicians, can attach no meaning. The only objection to successive\nduration as applied to God, which has any plausibility, is, that it\nseems to imply change; but this wholly arises from confounding two very\ndistinct things; succession in the duration, and change in the\nsubstance. Dr. Cudworth appears to have fallen into this error. He\nspeaks of the duration of an imperfect nature, as sliding from the\npresent to the future, expecting something of itself which is not yet in\nbeing; and of a perfect nature being essentially immutable, having a\npermanent and unchanging duration, never losing any thing of itself once\npresent, nor yet running forward to meet something of itself which is\nnot yet in being. Now, though this is a good description of a perfect\nand immutable nature, it is no description at all of an\neternally-enduring nature. Duration implies no loss in the substance of\nany being, nor addition to it. A perfect nature never loses any thing of\nitself, nor expects more of itself than is possessed; but this does not\narise from the attribute of its duration, however that attribute may be\nconceived of, but from its perfection and consequent immutability. These\nattributes do not flow from the duration, but the continuance of the\nduration from them. The argument is clearly good for nothing, unless it\ncould be proved that successive duration necessarily implies a change in\nthe nature; but that is contradicted by the experience of finite\nbeings,--their natures are not at all determined by their duration, but\ntheir duration by their natures; and they exist for a moment, or for\nages, according to the nature which their Maker has impressed upon them.\nIf it be said that, at least, successive duration imports that a being\nloses past duration, and expects the arrival of future existence, we\nreply, that this is no imperfection at all. Even finite creatures do not\nfeel it to be an imperfection to have existed, and to look for continued\nand interminable being. It is true, with the past we lose knowledge and\npleasure; and expecting in all future periods increase of knowledge and\nhappiness, we are reminded by that of our present imperfection; but this\nimperfection does not arise from our successive and flowing duration,\nand we never refer it to that. It is not the past which takes away our\nknowledge and pleasure; nor future duration, simply considered, which\nwill confer the increase of both. Our imperfections arise out of the\nessential nature of our being, not out of the manner in which our being\nis continued. It is not the flow of our duration, but the flow of our\nnature, which produces these effects. On the contrary, we think that the\nidea of our successive duration, that is of continuance, is an\nadvantage, and not a defect. Let all ideas of continuance be banished\nfrom the mind, let there be to us a _nunc semper stans_, during the\nwhole of our being, and we appear to gain nothing,--our pleasures surely\nare not diminished by the idea of successive duration being added to\npresent enjoyment: that they have been, and still remain, and will\ncontinue, on the contrary, greatly heightens them. Without the idea of a\nflowing duration, we could have no such measure of the continuance of\nour pleasures; and this we should consider an abatement of our\nhappiness. What is so obvious an excellency in the spirit of man, and in\nangelic natures, can never be thought an imperfection in God, when\njoined with a nature essentially perfect and immutable.\n\n5. But it may be said, that \u201ceternal duration, considered as successive,\nis only an artificial manner of measuring and conceiving of duration;\nand is no more eternal duration itself than minutes and moments, the\nartificial measures of time, are time itself.\u201d Were this granted, the\nquestion would still be, whether there is any thing in duration\nconsidered generally, or in time considered specially, which corresponds\nto these artificial methods of measuring and conceiving of them. The\nocean is measured by leagues; and the extension of the ocean, and the\nmeasure of it, are distinct; they, nevertheless, answer to each other.\nLeagues are the nominal divisions of an extended surface; but there is a\nreal extension, which answers to the artificial conception and\nadmeasurement of it. In like manner, days, and hours, and moments, are\nthe measures of time: but there is either something in time which\nanswers to these measures; or not only the measure, but the thing\nitself, is artificial--an imaginary creation. If any man will contend,\nthat the period of duration which we call _time_ is nothing, no farther\ndispute can be held with him; and he may be left to deny also the\nexistence of matter, and to enjoy his philosophic revel in an ideal\nworld. We apply the same argument to duration generally, whether finite\nor infinite. Minutes and moments, or smaller portions, for which we have\nno name, may be artificial things, adopted to aid our conceptions; but\nconceptions of what? Not of any thing standing still, but of something\ngoing on. Of duration we have no other conception; and if there be\nnothing in nature which answers to this conception, then is duration\nitself imaginary, and we discourse about nothing. If the duration of the\ndivine Being admits not of past, present, and future, one of these two\nconsequences must follow,--that no such attribute as that of eternity\nbelongs to him,--or that there is no power in the human mind to conceive\nof it. In either case, the Scriptures are greatly impugned; for \u201cHe who\n_was_, and _is_, and _is to come_,\u201d is a revelation of the eternity of\nGod, which is then in no sense true. It is not true, if used literally:\nand it is as little so, if the language be figurative; for the figure\nrests on no basis, it illustrates nothing, it misleads. It is, however,\nto be remembered, that the eternal, supreme cause, must of necessity\nhave such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension of all\nthings, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal\nduration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will\nnot be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or\nview, and all things present and future be equally entirely in his power\nand direction; as if there was really no succession at all, but all\nthings were actually present at once.\n\n6. The Hebrew word for eternity is \u05e9\u05dc\u05dd. This is its proper sense; but,\nas Gesenius observes, as with us in common life, it is often used in an\ninaccurate or loose manner to express a very long space of time. So it\nis applied to the Jewish priesthood; to the Mosaic ordinances; to the\npossession of the land of Canaan; to the hills and mountains; to the\nearth, &c. These must, however, be considered as exceptions to\npredominant and certain usage.\n\nETHAN, the Ezrahite, one of the wisest men of his time; nevertheless,\nSolomon was wiser than he, 1 Kings iv, 31. The eighty-ninth psalm bears\nthe name of Ethan the Ezrahite. This Ethan, and Ethan son of Kishi, of\nthe tribe of Levi, and of the family of Merari, are the same person, 1\nChron. vi, 44. He was called likewise Idithun, and appears under this\nname in the titles to several psalms. He was a principal master of the\ntemple music, 1 Chron. xv, 17, &c.\n\nETHANIM, one of the Hebrew months, 1 Kings viii, 2. In this month the\ntemple of Solomon was dedicated. After the Jews returned from the\ncaptivity, the month Ethanim was called Tisri, which answers to our\nSeptember.\n\nETHIOPIA. See CUSH.\n\nEUCHARIST, the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper. The word, in its original\nGreek, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03db\u03b9\u03b1, properly signifies _giving thanks_; from the hymns and\nthanksgivings which accompanied that holy service in the primitive\nchurch. See LORD\u2019S SUPPER.\n\nEUNICE, the mother of Timothy, who was a Jewess by birth, but married to\na Greek, Timothy\u2019s father, 2 Tim. i, 5. Eunice had been converted to\nChristianity by some other preacher, Acts xvi, 1, 2, and not by St.\nPaul; for when that Apostle came to Lystra, he found there Eunice and\nTimothy, already far advanced in grace and virtue.\n\nEUNUCH. The word signifies, one who guards the bed. In the courts of\neastern kings, the care of the beds and apartments belonging to princes\nand princesses, was generally committed to eunuchs; but they had the\ncharge chiefly of the princesses, who lived secluded. The Hebrew _saris_\nsignifies a real eunuch, whether naturally born such, or rendered such.\nBut in Scripture this word often denotes an officer belonging to a\nprince, attending his court, and employed in the interior of his palace,\nas a name of office and dignity. In the Persian and Turkish courts, the\nprincipal employments are at this day possessed by real eunuchs. Our\nSaviour speaks of men who \u201cmade themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of\nheaven,\u201d Matt. xix, 12; that is, who, from a religious motive, renounced\nmarriage or carnal pleasures.\n\nEUPHRATES, a river of Asiatic Turkey, which rises from the mountains of\nArmenia, as some have said, in two streams, a few miles to the\nnorth-east of Erzeron, the streams uniting to the south-west near that\ncity; and chiefly pursuing a south-west direction to Semisat, where it\nwould fall into the Mediterranean, if not prevented by a high range of\nmountains. In this part of its course the Euphrates is joined by the\nMorad, a stream almost doubling in length that of the Euphrates, so that\nthe latter river might more justly be said to spring from Mount Ararat,\nabout one hundred and sixty British miles to the east of the imputed\nsource. At Semisat, the ancient Samosata, this noble river assumes a\nsoutherly direction, then runs an extensive course to the south-east,\nand after receiving the Tigris, falls by two or three mouths into the\ngulf of Persia, about fifty miles south-east of Bassora; north latitude\n29\u00b0 50\u00b4; east longitude 66\u00b0 55\u00b4. The comparative course of the Euphrates\nmay be estimated at about one thousand four hundred British miles. This\nriver is navigable for a considerable distance from the sea. In its\ncourse it separates Aladulia from Armenia, Syria from Diarbekir, and\nDiarbekir from Arabia, and passing through the Arabian Irak, joins the\nTigris. The Euphrates and Tigris, the most considerable as well as the\nmost renowned rivers of western Asia, are remarkable for their rising\nwithin a few miles of each other, running the same course, never being\nmore than one hundred and fifty miles asunder, and sometimes, before\ntheir final junction, approaching within fifteen miles of each other, as\nin the latitude of Bagdad. The space included between the two is the\nancient country of Mesopotamia. But the Euphrates is by far the more\nnoble river of the two. Sir R. K. Porter, describing this river in its\ncourse through the ruins of Babylon, observes, \u201cThe whole view was\nparticularly solemn. The majestic stream of the Euphrates wandering in\nsolitude, like a pilgrim monarch through the silent ruins of his\ndevastated kingdom, still appeared a noble river, even under all the\ndisadvantages of its desert-tracked course. Its banks were hoary with\nreeds; and the grey osier willows were yet there, on which the captives\nof Israel hung up their harps, and, while Jerusalem was not, refused to\nbe comforted.\u201d The Scripture calls it \u201cthe great river,\u201d and assigns it\nfor the eastern boundary of that land which God promised to the\nIsraelites, Deut. i, 7; Joshua i, 4.\n\nEUROCLYDON, the Greek name for the north-east wind, very dangerous at\nsea, of the nature of a whirlwind, which falls of a sudden upon ships,\nActs xxvii, 14. The same wind is now called a Levanter.\n\nEUTYCHIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, and were so\ncalled from Eutyches, abbot of a certain convent of monks at\nConstantinople. The Nestorians having explained the two natures in\nChrist in such a manner as, in the opinion of many, to make them\nequivalent to two persons, which was an evident absurdity, Eutyches, to\navoid this error, fell into the opposite extreme, and maintained that\nthere was only one nature in Jesus Christ, the divine nature, which,\naccording to him, had so entirely swallowed up the human, that the\nlatter could not be distinguished. Hence it was inferred that according\nto this system our Lord had nothing of humanity but the appearance.\n\nEVANGELISTS, the inspired authors of the Gospels. The word is derived\nfrom the Greek, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, formed of \u03b5\u1f56, _bene_, \u201cwell,\u201d and \u1f04\u03b3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n_angel, messenger_. The name of evangelists is said by some to have been\ngiven in the ancient church to such as preached the Gospel without being\nattached to any particular church, being either commissioned by the\nApostles to instruct the nations, or, of their own accord, abandoning\nevery worldly attachment, consecrated themselves to the sacred office of\npreaching the Gospel. In which sense these interpreters think it is that\nSt. Philip, who was one of the seven deacons, is called \u201cthe evangelist\u201d\nin Acts xxi, 8; and that St. Paul, writing to Timothy, bids him do the\nwork of an evangelist, 2 Tim. iv, 5. It is, however, to be remarked,\nthat the office in which the evangelists chiefly present themselves to\nour notice in the New Testament, is that of assistants to the Apostles;\nor, as they might be termed vice apostles, who acted under their\nauthority and direction. As they were directed to ordain pastors or\nbishops in the churches, but had no authority given them to ordain\nsuccessors to themselves in their particular office as evangelists,\nwhatever it might be, they must be considered as but temporary officers\nin the church, like the Apostles and prophets. The term evangelist is,\nat present, confined to the writers of the four Gospels.\n\nEVE, the first woman. She was called \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, Gen. iii, 20, a word that\nsignifies _life_, because she was to be the mother of all that live. Our\ntranslators, therefore, might have called her _Life_, as the Septuagint,\nwho render the Hebrew word by \u0396\u03c9\u1f74. Soon after the expulsion of the first\npair from paradise, Eve conceived and bare a son; and imagining, as is\nprobable, that she had given birth to the promised seed, she called his\nname Cain, which signifies _possession_, saying, \u201cI have gotten a man\nfrom the Lord.\u201d She afterward had Abel, and some daughters, and then\nSeth. The Scriptures name only these three sons of Adam and Eve, but\nsufficiently inform us, Gen. v, 4, that they had many more, saying, that\n\u201cAdam lived, after he had begotten Seth, eight hundred years, and begat\nsons and daughters.\u201d See ADAM.\n\nEVIL is distinguished into natural and moral. Natural evil is whatever\ndestroys or any way disturbs the perfection of natural beings, such as\nblindness, diseases, death, &c. Moral evil is the disagreement between\nthe actions of a moral agent, and the rule of those actions, whatever it\nbe. Applied to choice, or acting contrary to the moral or revealed laws\nof the Deity, it is termed _wickedness_, or _sin_. Applied to an act\ncontrary to a mere rule of fitness, it is called a _fault_. The question\nconcerning the origin of evil has very much perplexed philosophers and\ndivines, both ancient and modern. Plato, for the solution of this\nquestion, maintained, that matter, from its nature, possesses a blind\nand refractory force, from which arises in it a propensity to disorder\nand deformity; and that this is the cause of all the imperfection which\nappears in the works of God, and the origin of evil. Matter, he\nconceives, resists the will of the supreme Artificer, so that he cannot\npossibly execute his designs; and this is the cause of the mixture of\ngood and evil, which is found in the material world. \u201cIt cannot be,\u201d\nsays he, \u201cthat evil should be destroyed, for there must always be\nsomething contrary to good;\u201d and again, \u201cGod wills, as far as it is\npossible, every thing good, and nothing evil.\u201d What that property of\nmatter is which opposes the wise and benevolent intentions of the first\nIntelligence, Plato has not clearly explained; but he speaks of it as\n\u03be\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, an innate propensity to disorder, and says, that\nbefore nature was adorned with its present beautiful forms, it was\ninclined to confusion and deformity, and that from this habitude arises\nall the evil which happens in the world. Plutarch supposes the Platonic\nnotion to be, that there is in matter an unconscious, irrational soul;\nand this supposition has been adopted by several modern writers. But the\nwritings of Plato afford no evidence that he conceived the imperfection\nof matter to arise from any cause distinct from its nature. Such a\nnotion is incongruous with Plato\u2019s general system, and is contrary to\nthe doctrine of the Pythagorean school, to which he was probably\nindebted for his notions on this subject; for the philosophers of that\nsect held that motion is the effect of a power essential to matter. Some\nof the Stoics adopted the notion of the Platonists concerning the origin\nof evil, and ascribed it to the defective nature of matter, which it is\nnot in the power of the great Artificer to change; asserting, that\nimperfections appear in the world, not through any defect of skill in\nits author, but because matter will not admit of the accomplishment of\nhis designs. But it was perceived by others, that this hypothesis was\ninconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Stoics concerning\nnature. For since, according to their system, matter itself receives all\nits qualities from God, if its defects be the cause of evil, these\ndefects must be ultimately ascribed to him. No other way of relieving\nthis difficulty remained, than to have recourse to fate, and say, that\nevil was the necessary consequence of that eternal necessity to which\nthe great whole, comprehending both God and matter, is subject. Thus,\nwhen Chrysippus was asked whether diseases were to be ascribed to Divine\nprovidence, he replied that it was not the intention of nature that\nthese things should happen; nor were they conformable to the will of the\nAuthor of nature and Parent of all good things; but that, in framing the\nworld, some inconveniences had adhered by necessary consequence, to his\nwise and useful plan. To others the question concerning the origin of\nevil appeared so intricate and difficult, that, finding themselves\nunequal to the solution of it, they denied either that there is any God\nat all, or, at least, any author or governor of the world. The\nEpicureans belonged to this class; nor does Lucretius allege any other\nreason for denying the system of the world to be the production of a\nDeity beside its being so very faulty. Others again judged it to be more\nrational to assign a double cause of visible effects, than to assign no\ncause at all; as nothing, indeed, can be more absurd than to admit\nactions and effects without any agent and cause. These persons\nperceiving a mixture of good and evil, and being persuaded that so many\ninconsistencies and disorders could not proceed from a good being,\nsupposed the existence of a malevolent principle, or god, directly\ncontrary to the good one; hence they derived corruption and death,\ndiseases, griefs, mischiefs, frauds, and villanies, while from the good\nbeing they deduced nothing but good. This opinion was held by many of\nthe ancients; by the Persian magi, Manicheans, Paulicians, &c.\n\n2. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his \u201cDemonstration of the Being and Attributes\nof God,\u201d deduces from the possibility and real existence of human\nliberty an answer to the question, What is the cause and original of\nevil? For liberty, he says, implying a natural power of doing evil, as\nwell as good; and the imperfect nature of finite beings making it\npossible for them to abuse this their liberty to an actual commission of\nevil; and it being necessary to the order and beauty of the whole, and\nfor displaying the infinite wisdom of the Creator, that there should be\ndifferent and various degrees of creatures, whereof, consequently, some\nmust be less perfect than others; hence there necessarily arises a\npossibility of evil, notwithstanding that the Creator is infinitely\ngood. In short thus: all that we call evil is either an evil of\nimperfection, as the want of certain faculties and excellencies which\nother creatures have; or natural evil, as pain, death, and the like; or\nmoral evil, as all kinds of vice. The first of these is not properly an\nevil: for every power, faculty, or perfection, which any creature\nenjoys, being the free gift of God, which he was no more obliged to\nbestow, than he was to confer being or existence itself, it is plain the\nwant of any certain faculty or perfection in any kind of creatures which\nnever belonged to their nature, is no more an evil to them than their\nnever having been created, or brought into being at all, could properly\nhave been called an evil. The second kind of evil, which we call natural\nevil, is either a necessary consequence of the former; as death, to a\ncreature on whose nature immortality was never conferred; and then it is\nno more properly an evil than the former; or else it is counterpoised,\nin the whole, with as great or greater good, as the afflictions and\nsufferings of good men, and then also it is not properly an evil; or\nelse, lastly, it is a punishment; and then it is a necessary consequent\nof the third and last sort of evil, namely, moral evil. And this arises\nwholly from the abuse of liberty, which God gave to his creatures for\nother purposes, and which it was reasonable and fit to give them for the\nperfection and order of the whole creation; only they, contrary to God\u2019s\nintention and command, have abused what was necessary for the perfection\nof the whole, to the corruption and depravation of themselves. And thus\nall sorts of evils have entered into the world, without any diminution\nto the infinite goodness of its Creator and Governor.\n\n3. This is obviously all the answer which the question respecting the\norigin of evil is capable of receiving. It brings us to the point to\nwhich the Scriptures themselves lead us. And though many questions may\nyet be asked, respecting a subject so mysterious as the permission of\nevil by the Supreme Being, this is a part of his _counsels_ of which we\ncan have no cognizance, unless he is pleased to reveal them; and as\nrevelation is silent upon this subject, except generally, that all his\nacts, his permissive ones as well as others, are \u201cwise, and just, and\ngood,\u201d we may rest assured, that beyond what is revealed, human wisdom\nin the present state can never penetrate.\n\nEXCOMMUNICATION, is the judicial exclusion of offenders from the\nreligious rites and other privileges of the particular community to\nwhich they belong. Founded in the natural right which every society\npossesses to guard its laws and privileges from violation and abuse by\nthe infliction of salutary discipline, proportioned to the nature of the\noffences committed against them, it has found a place, in one form or\nanother, under every system of religion, whether human or divine. That\nit has been made an engine for the gratification of private malice and\nrevenge, and been perverted to purposes the most unjustifiable and even\ndiabolical, the history of the world but too lamentably proves; yet\nthis, though unquestionably a consideration which ought to inculcate the\nnecessity of prudence, as well as impartiality and temperance in the use\nof it, affords no valid argument against its legitimate exercise. From\nSt. Paul\u2019s writings we learn that the early excommunication was effected\nby the offender not being allowed to \u201ceat\u201d with the church, that is, to\npartake of the Lord\u2019s Supper, the sign of communion. In the early ages\nof the primitive church also, this branch of discipline was exercised\nwith moderation, which, however, gradually gave place to an undue\nseverity. From Tertullian\u2019s \u201cApology\u201d we learn, that the crimes which in\nhis time subjected to exclusion from Christian privileges, were murder,\nidolatry, theft, fraud, lying, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and the\nlike: and in Origen\u2019s treatise against Celsus, we are informed that such\npersons were expelled from the communion of the church, and lamented as\nlost and dead unto God; [_ut perditos Deoque mortuos_;] but that on\nmaking confession and giving evidence of penitence, they were received\nback as restored to life. It was at the same time specially ordained,\nthat no such delinquent, however suitably qualified in other respects,\ncould be afterward admitted to any ecclesiastical office. But it does\nnot appear that the infliction of this discipline was accompanied with\nany of those forms of excommunication, of delivering over to Satan, or\nof solemn execration, which were usual among the Jews, and subsequently\nintroduced into them by the Romish church. The authors and followers of\nheretical opinions which had been condemned, were also subject to this\npenalty; and it was sometimes inflicted on whole congregations when they\nwere judged to have departed from the faith. In this latter case,\nhowever, the sentence seldom went farther than the interdiction of\ncorrespondence with these churches, or of spiritual communication\nbetween their respective pastors. To the same exclusion from religious\nprivileges, those unhappy persons were doomed, who, whether from choice\nor from compulsion, had polluted themselves, after their baptism, by any\nact of idolatrous worship; and the penance enjoined on such persons,\nbefore they could be restored to communion, was often peculiarly severe.\nThe consequences of excommunication, even then, were of a temporal as\nwell as a spiritual nature. The person against whom it was pronounced,\nwas denied all share in the oblations of his brethren; the ties both of\nreligious and of private friendship were dissolved; he found himself an\nobject of abhorrence to those whom he most esteemed, and by whom he had\nbeen most tenderly beloved; and, as far as expulsion from a society held\nin universal veneration could imprint on his character a mark of\ndisgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind.\n\n2. It was not, however, till churchmen began to unite temporal with\nspiritual power, that any penal effects of a civil kind became\nconsequent on their sentences of excommunication; and that this ghostly\nartillery was not less frequently employed for the purposes of lawless\nambition and ecclesiastical domination, than for the just punishment of\nimpenitent delinquents, and the general edification of the faithful. But\nas soon as this union took place, and in exact proportion to the degree\nin which the papal system rose to its predominance over the civil rights\nas well as the consciences of men, the list of offences which subjected\ntheir perpetrators to excommunication, was multiplied; and the severity\nof its inflictions, with their penal effects, increased in the same\nratio. The slightest injury, or even insult, sustained by an\necclesiastic, was deemed a sufficient cause for the promulgation of an\nanathema. Whole families, and even provinces, were prohibited from\nengaging in any religious exercise, and cursed with the most tremendous\ndenunciations of divine vengeance. Nor were kings and emperors secure\nagainst these thunders of the church; their subjects were, on many\noccasions, declared, by a papal bull, to be absolved from allegiance to\nthem; and all who should dare to support them, menaced with a similar\njudgment. These terrors have passed away; the true Scriptural\nexcommunication ought to be maintained in every church; which is the\nprohibition of immoral and apostate persons from the use of those\nreligious rites which indicate \u201cthe communion of saints,\u201d but without\nany temporal penalty.\n\nEXODUS, from \u1f10\u03be, _out_, and \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2, _a way_, the name of the second book\nof Moses, and is so called in the Greek version because it relates to\nthe departure of the Israelites out of Egypt. It comprehends the history\nof about a hundred and forty-five years; and the principal events\ncontained in it are, the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their\nmiraculous deliverance by the hand of Moses; their entrance into the\nwilderness of Sinai; the promulgation of the law, and the building of\nthe tabernacle. See PENTATEUCH.\n\nEXPIATION, a religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made\nfor the commission of some crime, the guilt done away, and the\nobligation to punishment cancelled. The chief methods of expiation among\nthe Jews were by sacrifices; and it is important always to recollect\nthat the Levitical sacrifices were of an expiatory character; because as\namong the Jews sacrifices were unquestionably of divine original, and as\nthe terms taken from them are found applied so frequently to Christ and\nto his sufferings in the New Testament, they serve to explain that\npeculiarity under which the Apostles regarded the death of Christ, and\nafford additional proof that it was considered by them as a sacrifice of\nexpiation, as the grand universal sin-offering for the whole world. For\nour Lord is announced by John as \u201cthe Lamb of God;\u201d and that not with\nreference to meekness or any other moral virtue; but with an\naccompanying phrase, which would communicate to a Jew the full\nsacrificial sense of the term employed, \u201cthe Lamb of God, which taketh\naway the sin of the world.\u201d He is called \u201cour Passover, sacrificed for\nus.\u201d He is said to have given \u201chimself for us, an offering and a\nsacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour.\u201d As a priest, it was\nnecessary \u201che should have somewhat to offer;\u201d and he offered \u201chimself,\u201d\n\u201chis own blood,\u201d to which is ascribed the washing away of sin, and our\neternal redemption. He is declared to have \u201cput away sin by the\nsacrifice of himself,\u201d to have \u201cby himself purged our sins,\u201d to have\n\u201csanctified the people by his own blood,\u201d to have \u201coffered to God one\nsacrifice for sins.\u201d Add to these, and to innumerable other similar\nexpressions and allusions, the argument of the Apostle in the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews, in which, by proving at length, that the sacrifice of\nChrist was superior in efficacy to the sacrifices of the law, he most\nunequivocally assumes, that the death of Christ was a sacrifice and\nsin-offering; for without that it would no more have been capable of\ncomparison with the sacrifices of the law, than the death of John the\nBaptist, St. Stephen, or St. James, all martyrs and sufferers for the\ntruth, who had recently sealed their testimony with their blood. This\nvery comparison, we may affirm, is utterly unaccountable and absurd on\nany hypothesis which denies the sacrifice of Christ; for what relation\ncould his death have to the Levitical immolations and offerings, if it\nhad no sacrificial character? Nothing could, in fact, be more\nmisleading, and even absurd, than to apply those terms which, both among\nJews and Gentiles, were in use to express the various processes and\nmeans of atonement and piacular propitiation, if the Apostles and Christ\nhimself did not intend to represent his death strictly as an expiation\nfor sin:--misleading, because such would be the natural and necessary\ninference from the terms themselves, which had acquired this as their\nestablished meaning:--and absurd, because if, as Socinians say, they\nused them metaphorically, there was not even an ideal resemblance\nbetween the figure and that which it was intended to illustrate. So\ntotally irrelevant, indeed, will those terms appear to any notion\nentertained of the death of Christ which excludes its expiatory\ncharacter, that to assume that our Lord and his Apostles used them as\nmetaphors, is profanely to assume them to be such writers as would not\nin any other case be tolerated; writers wholly unacquainted with the\ncommonest rules of language, and therefore wholly unfit to be teachers\nof others, and that not only in religion but in things of inferior\nimportance.\n\n2. The use of such terms, we have said, would not only be wholly absurd,\nbut criminally misleading to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, who\nwere first converted to Christianity. To them the notion of propitiatory\nofferings, offerings to avert the displeasure of the gods, and which\nexpiated the crimes of offenders, was most familiar, and terms\ncorresponding to it were in constant use. The bold denial of this by Dr.\nPriestley might well bring upon him the reproof of Archbishop Magee,\nwho, after establishing this point from the Greek and Latin writers,\nobserves, \u201cSo clearly does their language announce the notion of a\npropitiatory atonement, that if we would avoid an imputation on Dr.\nPriestley\u2019s fairness, we are driven, of necessity, to question the\nextent of his acquaintance with those writers.\u201d The reader may consult\nthe instances given by this writer, in No. 5 of his \u201cIllustrations,\u201d\nappended to his \u201cDiscourses on the Atonement;\u201d and also the tenth\nchapter of Grotius \u201c_De Satisfactione_,\u201d whose learning has most amply\nillustrated and firmly settled this view of the Heathen sacrifices. The\nuse to be made of this in the argument is, that as the Apostles found\nthe very terms they used with reference to the nature and efficacy of\nthe death of Christ, fixed in an expiatory signification among the\nGreeks, they could not, in honesty, use them in a distant figurative\nsense, much less in a contrary one, without giving their readers due\nnotice of their having invested them with a new import. From \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, _a\npollution_, _an impurity_, which was to be expiated by sacrifice, are\nderived \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 and \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, which denote the act of expiation; \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9,\ntoo, _to purify_, _cleanse_, is applied to the effect of expiation; and\n\u1f31\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 denotes the method of propitiating the gods by sacrifice.\nThese, and other words of similar import, are used by the authors of the\nSeptuagint, and by the Evangelists and Apostles; but they give no\npremonition of using them in any strange and altered sense; and when\nthey apply them to the death of Christ, they must, therefore, be\nunderstood to use them in their received meaning. In like manner the\nJews had their expiatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in\nthem are, in like manner, employed by the Apostles to characterize the\ndeath of their Lord; and they would have been as guilty of misleading\ntheir Jewish as their Gentile readers, had they employed them in a new\nsense, and without warning, which, unquestionably, they never gave.\n\n3. As to the expiatory nature of the sacrifices of the law, it is not\nrequired by the argument to show that _all_ the Levitical offerings were\nof this character. There were also offerings for persons and for things\nprescribed for purification, which were incidental; but even they grew\nout of the leading notion of expiatory sacrifice, and that legal\npurification which resulted from the forgiveness of sins. It is enough\nto prove, that the grand and eminent sacrifices of the Jews were\nstrictly expiatory, and that by them the offerers were released from\npunishment and death, for which ends they were appointed by the\nLawgiver. When we speak, too, of vicarious sacrifice, we do not mean\neither, on the one hand, such a substitution as that the victim should\nbear the same quantum of pain and suffering as the offender himself; or,\non the other, that it was put in the place of the offender as a mere\nsymbolical act, by which he confessed his desert of punishment; but _a\nsubstitution made by divine appointment_, by which the victim was\nexposed to sufferings and death instead of the offender, in virtue of\nwhich the offender himself was released. With this view, one can\nscarcely conceive why so able a writer as Archbishop Magee should prefer\nto use the term, \u201cvicarious _import_,\u201d rather than the simple and\nestablished term, \u201cvicarious;\u201d since the Antinomian notion of\nsubstitution may be otherwise sufficiently guarded against, and the\nphrase \u201cvicarious _import_\u201d is certainly capable of being resolved into\nthat figurative notion of mere symbolical action, which, however\nplausible, does in fact deprive the ancient sacrifices of their\n_typical_, and the oblation of Christ of its _real_, efficacy. Vicarious\nacting, is acting for another; vicarious suffering, is suffering for\nanother; but the nature and circumstances of that suffering in the case\nof Christ are to be determined by the doctrine of Scripture at large,\nand not wholly by the term itself, which is, however, useful for this\npurpose, (and therefore to be preserved,) that it indicates the sense in\nwhich those who use it understand the declaration of Scripture, \u201cChrist\ndied for us,\u201d so as that he died not merely for our _benefit_, but _in\nour stead_; in other words, that, but for his having died, those who\nbelieve in him would personally have suffered that death which is the\npenalty of every violation of the law of God.\n\n4. That sacrifices under the law were expiatory and vicarious, admits of\nabundant proof.\n\nThe chief objections made to this doctrine are, (1.) That under the law\nin all capital cases, the offender, upon legal proof or conviction, was\ndoomed to die, and that no sacrifice could exempt him from the penalty.\n(2.) That in all lower cases to which the law had not attached capital\npunishment, but pecuniary mulcts, or personal labour or servitude upon\ntheir nonpayment, this penalty was to be strictly executed, and none\ncould plead any privilege or exemption on account of sacrifice; and that\nwhen sacrifices were ordained with a pecuniary mulct, they are to be\nregarded in the light of _fine_, one part of which was paid to the\nstate, the other to the church. This was the mode of argument adopted by\nthe author of \u201cthe Moral Philosopher;\u201d and nothing of weight has been\nadded to these objections since his day. Now, much of this may be\ngranted, without any prejudice to the argument; and, indeed, is no more\nthan the most orthodox writers on this subject have often remarked. The\nlaw, under which the Jews were placed, was at once, as to them, both a\nmoral and a political law; and the Lawgiver excepted certain offences\nfrom the benefit of pardon, because that would have been exemption from\ntemporal death, which was the state penalty. He therefore would accept\nno atonement for such transgressions. Blasphemy, idolatry, murder, and\nadultery, were the \u201cpresumptuous sins\u201d which were thus exempted; and the\nreason will be seen in the political relation of the people to God; for\nin refusing to exempt them from punishment in this world, respect was\nhad to the order and benefit of society. Running parallel, however, with\nthis political application of the law to the Jews as subjects of the\ntheocracy, we see the authority of the moral law kept over them as men\nand creatures; and if these \u201cpresumptuous sins,\u201d of blasphemy and\nidolatry, of murder and adultery, and a few others, were the only\ncapital crimes considered politically, they were not the only capital\ncrimes considered morally; that is, there were other crimes which would\nhave subjected the offender to death, but for this provision of\nexpiatory oblations. The true question then is, whether such sacrifices\nwere appointed by God, and accepted instead of the personal punishment\nor life of the offender, which otherwise would have been forfeited, as\nin the other cases; and if so, if the life of animal sacrifices was\naccepted instead of the life of man, then the notion that \u201cthey were\nmere mulcts and pecuniary penalties\u201d falls to the ground, and the\nvicarious nature of most of the Levitical oblations is established. That\nother offences, beside those above mentioned, were capital, that is,\nexposed the offender to death, is clear from this, that all offences\nagainst the law had this capital character. As death was the sanction of\nthe commandment given to Adam, so every one who transgressed any part of\nthe law of Moses became guilty of death; every man was \u201caccursed,\u201d that\nis, devoted to die, who \u201ccontinued not in all things written in the book\nof the law.\u201d \u201cThe man only that doeth these things shall live by them,\u201d\nwas the rule; and it was, therefore, to redeem the offenders from this\npenalty that sacrifices were appointed. So with reference to the great\nday of expiation, we read, \u201cFor on that day shall the priest make an\natonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your\nsins; and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an\natonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year,\u201d\nLev. xvi, 30\u201334.\n\n5. To prove that this was the intention and effect of the annual\nsacrifices of the Jews, we need do little more than refer to Lev. xvii,\n10, 11: \u201cI will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and\nwill cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in\nthe blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an\natonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement\nfor the soul.\u201d Here the blood which is said to make an atonement for the\nsoul, is the blood of the victims; and to make an atonement for the soul\nis the same as to be a ransom for the soul, as will appear by referring\nto EXODUS xxx, 12\u201316; and to be a ransom for the soul is to avert death.\n\u201cThey shall give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that\nthere be no plague among them,\u201d by which their lives might be suddenly\ntaken away. The \u201csoul\u201d is also here used obviously for the life; the\nblood, or the life of the victims in all sacrifices, was substituted for\nthe life of man, to preserve him from death, and the victims were\ntherefore vicarious.\n\n6. The Hebrew word \u05db\u05e4\u05e8, rendered _atonement_, signifying primarily _to\ncover_, _to overspread_, has been the subject of some evasive\ncriticisms. It comes, however, in the secondary sense to signify\natonement or propitiation, because the effect of that is to cover, or,\nin Scripture meaning, to remit offences. The Septuagint also renders it\nby \u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, _to appease_, _to make propitious_. It is used, indeed,\nwhere the means of atonement are not of the sacrificial kind, but these\ninstances equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in\ncases of transgression, to be that of reconciling the offended Deity, by\naverting his displeasure; so that when the atonement for sin is said to\nbe made by sacrifice, no doubt can remain that the sacrifice was\nstrictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this conclusion we\nfind it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations\nfor transgression of the divine commands, that the sin for which\natonement was made by those oblations should be forgiven.\n\n7. As the notion that the sacrifices of the law were not vicarious, but\nmere mulcts and fines, is overturned by the general appointment of the\nblood to be an atonement for the souls, the forfeited lives, of men, so\nalso is it contradicted by particular instances. Let us refer to\nLeviticus v, 15,16: \u201cIf a soul commit a trespass, and sin through\nignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he shall make amends for the\nharm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth part\nthereto, and shall give it to the priest.\u201d Here, indeed, is the proper\nfine for the trespass; but it is added, \u201cHe shall bring for his trespass\nunto the Lord a ram without blemish, and the priest shall make atonement\nfor him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven\nhim.\u201d Thus, then, so far from the sacrifice being the fine, the fine is\ndistinguished from it, and with the ram only was the atonement made to\nthe Lord for his trespass. Nor can the ceremonies with which the\ntrespass and sin offerings were accompanied agree with any notion but\nthat of their vicarious character. The worshipper, conscious of his\ntrespass, brought an animal, his own property, to the door of the\ntabernacle. This was not a eucharistical act; not a memorial of mercies\nreceived, but of sins committed. He laid his hands upon the head of the\nanimal, the symbolical act of transferring punishment; then slew it with\nhis own hand, and delivered it to the priest, who burned the fat and\npart of the animal upon the altar; and, having sprinkled part of the\nblood upon the altar, and, in some cases, upon the offerer himself,\npoured the rest at the bottom of the altar. And thus, we are told, \u201cThe\npriest shall make an atonement for him, as concerning his sin, and it\nshall be forgiven him.\u201d So clearly is it made manifest by these actions,\nand by the description of their nature and end, that the animal bore the\npunishment of the offender, and that by this appointment he was\nreconciled to God, and obtained the forgiveness of his offences.\n\n8. An equally strong proof that the life of the animal sacrifice was\naccepted in place of the life of man, is afforded by the fact, that\natonement was required by the law to be made, by sin offerings and burnt\nofferings, for even bodily distempers and disorders. It is not necessary\nto the argument to explain the distinctions between these various\noblations; nor yet to inquire into the reason for requiring propitiation\nto be made for corporal infirmities which, in many cases, could not be\navoided. They were, however, thus connected with sin as the cause of all\nthese disorders; and God, who had placed his residence among the\nIsraelites, insisted upon a perfect ceremonial purity, to impress upon\nthem a sense of his moral purity, and the necessity of purification of\nmind. Whether these were the reasons, or some others not at all\ndiscoverable by us, all such unclean persons were liable to death, and\nwere exempted from it only by animal sacrifices. This appears from the\nconclusion to all the Levitical directions concerning the ceremonial to\nbe observed in all such cases: \u201cThus shall ye separate the children of\nIsrael from their uncleanness; that they die not in,\u201d or by, \u201ctheir\nuncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle which is among them,\u201d Lev.\nxv, 31. So that, by virtue of the sin offerings, the children of Israel\nwere saved from a death which otherwise they would have suffered from\ntheir uncleanness, and that by substituting the life of the animal for\nthe life of the offerer. Nor can it be urged that death is, in these\ninstances, threatened only as the punishment of not observing these laws\nof purification; for the reason given in the passage just quoted shows\nthat the threatening of death was not hypothetical upon their not\nbringing the prescribed purification, but is grounded upon the fact of\n\u201cdefiling the tabernacle of the Lord which was among them,\u201d which is\nsupposed to be done by all uncleanness, as such, in the first instance.\n\n9. As a farther proof of the vicarious character of the principal\nsacrifices of the Mosaic economy, we may instance those statedly offered\nfor the whole congregation. Every day were offered two lambs, one in the\nmorning, and the other in the evening, \u201cfor a continual burnt offering.\u201d\nTo these daily victims were to be added, weekly, two other lambs for the\nburnt offering of every Sabbath. None of these could be considered in\nthe light of fines for offences, since they were offered for no\nparticular persons, and must be considered, therefore, unless resolved\ninto an unmeaning ceremony, piacular and vicarious. To pass over,\nhowever, the monthly sacrifices, and those offered at the great feasts,\nit is sufficient to fix upon those, so often alluded to in the Epistle\nto the Hebrews, offered on the solemn anniversary of expiation. On that\nday, to other prescribed sacrifices were to be added another ram for a\nburnt offering, and another goat, the most eminent of the sacrifices for\na sin offering, whose blood was to be carried by the high priest into\nthe inner sanctuary, which was not done by the blood of any other\nvictim, except the bullock, which was offered the same day as a sin\noffering for the family of Aaron. The circumstances of this ceremony,\nwhereby atonement was to be made \u201cfor all the sins\u201d of the whole Jewish\npeople, are so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular\ndetail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is\ncommanded to offer a bullock and a goat, as sin offerings, the one for\nhimself, and the other for the people; and, having sprinkled the blood\nof these in due form before the mercy seat, to lead forth a second goat,\ndenominated \u201cthe scape-goat;\u201d and, after laying both his hands upon the\nhead of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of\nthe people, to put them upon the head of the goat, and to send the\nanimal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness;\nin this manner expressing, by an action which cannot be misunderstood,\nthat the atonement, which, it is affirmed, was to be effected by the\nsacrifice of the sin offering, consisted in removing from the people\ntheir iniquities by this translation of them to the animal. For it is to\nbe remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct one:\nit is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding\npart and symbolical consummation of the sin offering: so that the\ntransfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the\nscape-goat, and the bearing them away into the wilderness, manifestly\nimply, that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin offering\nconsisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities.\n\n10. How, then, is this impressive and singular ceremonial to be\nexplained? Shall we resort to the notion of mulcts and fines? If so,\nthen this and other stated sacrifices must be considered in the light of\npenal enactments. But this cannot agree with the appointment of such\nsacrifices annually in succeeding generations: \u201cThis shall be a statute\nfor ever unto you.\u201d The law appoints a certain day in the year for\nexpiating the sins both of the high priest himself and of the whole\ncongregation, and that for all high priests and all generations of the\ncongregation. Now, could a law be enacted, inflicting a certain penalty,\nat a certain time, upon a whole people, as well as upon their high\npriest, thus presuming upon their actual transgression of it? The\nsacrifice was also for sins in general; and yet the penalty, if it were\none, is not greater than individual persons were often obliged to\nundergo for single trespasses. Nothing, certainly, can be more absurd\nthan this hypothesis. Shall we account for it by saying that sacrifices\nwere offered for the benefit of the worshipper, but exclude the notion\nof expiation? But here we are obliged to confine the benefit to\nreconciliation and the taking away of sins, and that by the appointed\nmeans of the shedding of blood, and the presentation of blood in the\nholy place, accompanied by the expressive ceremony of imposition of\nhands upon the head of the victim; the import of which act is fixed,\nbeyond all controversy, by the priest\u2019s confessing over that victim the\nsins of all the people, and at the same time imprecating upon its head\nthe vengeance due to them, Lev. xvi, 21. Shall we content ourselves with\nmerely saying that this was a symbol? But the question remains, Of what\nwas it the symbol? To determine this, let the several parts of the\nsymbolic action be enumerated. Here is confession of sin; confession\nbefore God at the door of the tabernacle; the substitution of a victim;\nthe figurative transfer of sins to that victim; the shedding of blood,\nwhich God appointed to make atonement for the soul; the carrying the\nblood into the holiest place, the very permission of which clearly\nmarked the divine acceptance; the bearing away of iniquity; and the\nactual reconciliation of the people to God. If, then, this is\nsymbolical, it has nothing correspondent with it, it never had or can\nhave any thing correspondent to it but the sacrificial death of Jesus\nChrist, and the communication of the benefits of his passion in the\nforgiveness of sins to those that believe in him, and in their\nreconciliation with God. Shall we, finally, say that those sacrifices\nhad respect, not to God to obtain pardon by expiation, but to the\nofferer, teaching him moral lessons, and calling forth moral\ndispositions? We answer, that this hypothesis leaves many of the\nessential circumstances of the ceremonial wholly unaccounted for. The\ntabernacle and temple were erected for the residence of God, by his own\ncommand. There it was his will to be approached, and to these sacred\nplaces the victims were required to be brought. Any where else they\nmight as well have been offered, if they had had respect only to the\nofferer; but they were required to be brought to God, to be offered\naccording to a prescribed ritual, and by an order of men appointed for\nthat purpose. Now truly there is no reason why they should be offered in\nthe sanctuary rather than in any other place, except that they were\noffered to the Inhabitant of the sanctuary; nor could they be offered in\nhis presence without having respect to him. There were some victims\nwhose blood, on the day of atonement, was to be carried into the inner\nsanctuary; but for what purpose can we suppose the blood to have been\ncarried into the most secret place of the divine residence, except to\nobtain the favour of Him in whose presence it was sprinkled? To this we\nmay add, that the reason given for these sacred services is not in any\ncase a mere moral effect to be produced upon the minds of the\nworshippers: they were \u201cto make atonement,\u201d that is, to avert God\u2019s\ndispleasure, that the people might not \u201cdie.\u201d\n\n11. We may find, also, another more explicit illustration in the\nsacrifice of the passover. The sacrificial character of this offering is\nstrongly marked; for it was an offering brought to the tabernacle; it\nwas slain in the sanctuary; and the blood was sprinkled upon the altar\nby the priests. It derives its name from the passing over and sparing of\nthe houses of the Israelites, on the door posts of which the blood of\nthe immolated lamb was sprinkled, when the first-born in the houses of\nthe Egyptians were slain; and thus we have another instance of life\nbeing spared by the instituted means of animal sacrifice. Nor need we\nconfine ourselves to particular instances. \u201cAlmost all things,\u201d says an\nApostle, who surely knew his subject, \u201care by the law purged with blood;\nand without shedding of blood there is no remission.\u201d Thus, by their\nvery law, and by constant usage, were the Jews familiarized to the\nnotion of expiatory sacrifice, as well as by the history contained in\ntheir sacred books, especially in Genesis, which speaks of the vicarious\nsacrifices offered by the patriarchs; and in the book of Job, in which\nthat patriarch is said to have offered sacrifices for the supposed sins\nof his sons; and where Eliphaz is commanded, by a divine oracle, to\noffer a burnt offering for himself and his friends, \u201clest God should\ndeal with them after their folly.\u201d\n\n12. On the sentiments of the uninspired Jewish writers on this point,\nthe substitution of the life of the animal for that of the offerer, and,\nconsequently, the expiatory nature of their sacrifices, Outram has given\nmany quotations from their writings, which the reader may consult in his\nwork on Sacrifices. Two or three only may be adduced by way of specimen.\nR. Levi Ben Gerson says, \u201cThe imposition of the hands of the offerers\nwas designed to indicate that their sins were removed from themselves,\nand transferred to the animal.\u201d Isaac Ben Arama: \u201cHe transfers his sins\nfrom himself, and lays them upon the head of the victim.\u201d R. Moses Ben\nNachman says, with respect to a sinner offering a victim, \u201cIt was just\nthat his blood should be shed, and that his body should be burned; but\nthe Creator, of his mercy, accepted the victim from him, as his\nsubstitute and ransom; that the blood of the animal might be shed\ninstead of his blood; that is, that the blood of the animal might be\ngiven for his life.\u201d\n\n13. Full of these ideas of vicarious expiation, then, the Apostles wrote\nand spoke, and the Jews of their time heard and read, the books of the\nNew Testament. The Socinian pretence is, that the inspired penmen used\nthe sacrificial terms which occur in their writings figuratively; but we\nnot only reply, as before, that they could not do this honestly, unless\nthey had given notice of this new application of the established terms\nof the Jewish theology; but, if this be assumed, it leaves us wholly at\na loss to discover what that really was which they intended to teach by\nthese sacrificial terms and allusions. They are themselves utterly\nsilent as to this point; and the varying theories of those who reject\nthe doctrine of atonement, in fact, confess that their writings afford\nno solution of the difficulty. If, therefore, it is blasphemous to\nsuppose, on the one hand, that inspired men should write on purpose to\nmislead; so, on the other, it is utterly inconceivable that, had they\nonly been ordinary writers, they should construct a figurative language\nout of terms which had a definite and established sense, without giving\nany intimation at all that they employed them otherwise than in their\nreceived meaning, or telling us why they adopted them at all, and more\nespecially when they knew that they must be interpreted, both by Jews\nand Greeks, in a sense which, if the Socinians are right, was in direct\nopposition to that which they intended to convey. See TYPE, SACRIFICE,\nPROPITIATION.\n\nEXPIATION, or ATONEMENT, _Great Day of_, was the tenth of Tizri, which\nnearly answers to our September, O. S. The Hebrews call it KIPPUR, or\nCHIPPUR, \u201cpardon,\u201d or \u201cexpiation,\u201d because the faults of the year were\nthen expiated. The principal ceremonies of this day have been noticed in\nthe preceding article; but a more particular detail may be useful. The\nhigh priest, after he had washed, not only his hands and his feet, as\nusual at common sacrifices, but his whole body, dressed himself in plain\nlinen, like the other priests, wearing neither his purple robe, nor the\nephod, nor the pectoral, because he was to expiate his own sins,\ntogether with those of the people. He first offered a bullock and a ram\nfor his own sins, and those of the priests: putting his hands on the\nheads of these victims, he confessed his own sins and the sins of his\nhouse. Afterward, he received from the princes of the people two goats\nfor a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, to be offered in the\nname of the whole nation. The lot determined which of the two goats\nshould be sacrificed, and which set at liberty. After this, the high\npriest put some of the sacred fire of the altar of burnt offerings into\na censer, threw incense upon it, and entered with it, thus smoking, into\nthe sanctuary. After he had perfumed the sanctuary with this incense, he\ncame out, took some of the blood of the young bullock he had sacrificed,\ncarried that also into the sanctuary, and, dipping his fingers in it,\nsprinkled it seven times between the ark and the vail, which separated\nthe holy from the sanctuary, or most holy. Then he came out a second\ntime, and, beside the altar of burnt offerings, killed the goat which\nthe lot had determined to be the sacrifice. The blood of this goat he\ncarried into the most holy sanctuary, and sprinkled it seven times\nbetween the ark and the vail, which separated the holy from the\nsanctuary: from thence he returned into the court of the tabernacle, and\nsprinkled both sides of it with the blood of the goat. During all this,\nnone of the priests or people were admitted into the tabernacle, or into\nthe court. After this, the high priest came to the altar of burnt\nofferings, wetted the four horns of it with the blood of the goat and\nyoung bullock, and sprinkled it seven times with the same blood. The\nsanctuary, the court, and the altar, being thus purified, the high\npriest directed the goat which was set at liberty by the lot to be\nbrought to him. He put his hand on the goat\u2019s head, confessed his own\nsins and the sins of the people, and then delivered the goat to a person\nappointed, who was to carry it to some desert place, and let it loose,\nor, as others say, throw it down some precipice. This being done, the\nhigh priest washed himself all over in the tabernacle; and, putting on\nother clothes, his pontifical dress, that is, his robe of purple, the\nephod, and the pectoral, he sacrificed two rams for burnt offering, one\nfor himself, the other for the people. The great day of expiation was a\nprincipal solemnity of the Hebrews, a day of rest and strict fasting.\n\n2. There have been various disputes among the learned respecting the\nmeaning of the word _azazel_, the name of the scape-goat on which the\nlot fell; but the most prevailing opinion is, that it is derived from\n_gnez_, \u201ca goat,\u201d and _azel_, \u201cto go away.\u201d So Buxtorf and many others\nexplain it; and so it was understood by our translators, who have\ntherefore rendered it \u201ca scape-goat.\u201d Both goats were typical of Christ:\nthat which was sacrificed is understood to have denoted his death, by\nmeans of which sin was expiated; the other, which was to have the sins\nof the people confessed over him, and, as it were, put upon him, and\nthen to be sent alive into some desert place, where they could see him\nno more, was intended to signify the effect of the expiation, namely,\nthe removing of guilt, indicating that it should never more be charged\non the pardoned sinner.\n\n3. The rites attending the public service of the day of expiation were\nchiefly performed by the high priest, whose duties were on this day more\narduous than on any other day in the year, or perhaps on all the rest\nunited. He was to kill and offer the sacrifices, and sprinkle their\nblood with his own hands, Lev. xvi, 11\u201315; and he was to enter with it\ninto the holy of holies, which he was not permitted to do at any other\ntime, Lev. xvi, 2, &c; Heb. ix, 7. It was thus his peculiar privilege to\ndraw nearer to God, or to the tokens of his special presence, to the ark\nof the covenant, to the mercy seat, and to the Shekinah, than was\nallowed to any other mortal. The services which he performed in the\ninmost sanctuary were, the burning of incense, and sprinkling the blood\nof the sacrifices before the mercy seat, which he was to do with his\nfinger seven times, Lev. xvi, 14.\n\n4. The spiritual meaning of all these rites has been particularly\nexplained by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews ix. As the high priest was a\ntype of Christ, his laying aside those vestments which were made \u201cfor\nglory and beauty,\u201d Exodus xxviii, 2, and appearing in his common\ngarments, which he did on that day, probably signified our Lord\u2019s\nhumiliation, when he emptied himself of the glory which he had with the\nFather before the world was, and \u201cwas made in fashion as a man,\u201d Phil.\nii, 6, 7. The expiatory sacrifices, offered by the high priest, were\ntypical of the true expiation which Christ made for the sins of his\npeople, when he gave himself for them, that he might redeem them from\nall iniquity, Titus ii, 14; Heb. i, 3; and the priest\u2019s confessing the\nsins of the people over them, and putting them upon the head of the\nscape-goat, Lev. xvi, 21, was a lively emblem of the imputation of sin\nto Christ, who \u201cwas made sin for us,\u201d 2 Cor. v, 21; for \u201cthe Lord hath\nlaid on him the iniquity of us all,\u201d Isaiah liii, 6. Farther, the goat\u2019s\n\u201cbearing upon him all the iniquities of the Jews into a land not\ninhabited,\u201d Lev. xvi, 22, represents the effect of Christ\u2019s sacrifice in\ndelivering his people from guilt and punishment; and the priest\u2019s\nentering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice is\nexplained by the Apostle to be typical of Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven\nitself, and his making intercession for his people in virtue of the\nsacrifice of his death.\n\nEYE, the organ of sight. The Hebrews by a curious and bold metaphor call\nfountains eyes; and they also give the same name to colours: \u201cAnd the\neye,\u201d or colour, \u201cof the manna was as the eye,\u201d or colour, \u201cof\nbdellium,\u201d Num. xi, 7. By an \u201cevil eye\u201d is meant, envy, jealousy,\ngrudging, ill-judged parsimony; to turn the eyes on any one, is to\nregard him and his interests; to find grace in any one\u2019s eyes, Ruth ii,\n10, is to win his friendship and good will. \u201cThe eyes of servants look\nunto the hands of their masters,\u201d Psalm cxxiii, 2, to observe the least\nmotion, and obey the least signal. \u201cTheir eyes were opened,\u201d Gen. iii,\n7, they began to comprehend in a new manner. \u201cThe wise man\u2019s eyes are in\nhis head,\u201d Eccles. ii, 14, he does not act by chance. The eye of the\nsoul, in a moral sense, is the intention, the desire. God threatens to\nset his eyes on the Israelites for evil, and not for good, Amos ix, 4.\nNebuchadnezzar recommends to Nebuzaradan that he would \u201cset his eyes\u201d on\nJeremiah, and permit him to go where he pleased, Jer. xxxix, 12; xl, 4.\nSometimes expressions of this kind are taken in a quite opposite sense:\n\u201cBehold, the eyes of the Lord are on the sinful kingdom; and I will\ndestroy it,\u201d Amos ix, 8. To be eyes to the blind, or to serve them\ninstead of eyes, is sufficiently intelligible, Job xxix, 15. The\nPersians called those officers of the crown who had the care of the\nking\u2019s interests and the management of his finances, the king\u2019s eyes.\nEye service is peculiar to slaves, who are governed by fear only; and is\nto be carefully guarded against by Christians, who ought to serve from a\nprinciple of duty and affection, Eph. vi, 6; Col. iii, 22. The lust of\nthe eyes, or the desire of the eyes, comprehends every thing that\ncuriosity, vanity, &c, seek after; every thing that the eyes can present\nto men given up to their passions, 1 John ii, 16. \u201cCast ye away every\nman the abomination of his eyes,\u201d Ezek. xx, 7, 8; let not the idols of\nthe Egyptians seduce you. The height or elevation of the eyes is taken\nfor pride, Eccles. xxiii, 5. St. Paul says that the Galatians would\nwillingly have \u201cplucked out their eyes\u201d for him, Gal. iv, 15; expressing\nthe intensity of their zeal, affection, and devotion to him. The Hebrews\ncall the apple of the eye the black daughter of the eye. To keep any\nthing as the apple of the eye, is to preserve it with particular care,\nDeut. xxxii, 10: \u201cHe that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye,\u201d\nZech. ii, 8; attempts to injure me in the tenderest part, which men\ninstinctively defend. The eye and its actions are occasionally\ntransferred to God: \u201cThe eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the\nwhole earth,\u201d Zech. iv, 10; 2 Chron. xvi, 9; Psalm xi, 4. \u201cThe eyes of\nthe Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good,\u201d Proverbs\nxv, 3. \u201cThe Lord looked down from heaven,\u201d &c. We read, Matthew vi, 22,\n\u201cThe light,\u201d or lamp, \u201cof the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be\nsingle,\u201d simple, clear, \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u201cthy whole body shall be full of light;\nbut if thine eye be evil,\u201d distempered, diseased, \u201cthy whole body shall\nbe darkened.\u201d The direct allusion may hold to a lantern, or lamp,\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; if the glass of it be clear, the light will shine through it\nstrongly; but if the glass be soiled, dirty, foul, but little light will\npass through it: for if they had not glass lanterns, such as we use,\nthey had others in the east made of thin linen, &c: these were very\nliable to receive spots, stains, and foulnesses, which impeded the\npassage of the rays of light from the luminary within. So, in the\nnatural eye, if the cornea be single, and the humours clear, the light\nwill act correctly; but if there be a film over the cornea, or a\ncataract, or a skin between any of the humours, the rays of light will\nnever make any impression on the internal seat of sight, the retina. By\nanalogy, therefore, if the mental eye, the judgment, be honest,\nvirtuous, sincere, well-meaning, pious, it may be considered as\nenlightening and directing the whole of a person\u2019s actions; but if it be\nperverse, malign, biassed by undue prejudices, or drawn aside by\nimproper views, it darkens the understanding, perverts the conduct, and\nsuffers a man to be misled by his unwise and unruly passions.\n\n2. The orientals, in some cases, deprive the criminal of the light of\nday, by sealing up his eyes. A son of the great Mogul was actually\nsuffering this punishment when Sir Thomas Roe visited the court of\nDelhi. The hapless youth was cast into prison, and deprived of the light\nby some adhesive plaster put upon his eyes, for the space of three\nyears; after which the seal was taken away, that he might with freedom\nenjoy the light; but he was still detained in prison. Other princes have\nbeen treated in a different manner, to prevent them from conspiring\nagainst the reigning monarch, or meddling with affairs of state: they\nhave been compelled to swallow opium and other stupifying drugs, to\nweaken or benumb their faculties, and render them unfit for business.\nInfluenced by such absurd and cruel policy, Shah Abbas, the celebrated\nPersian monarch, who died in 1629, ordered a certain quantity of opium\nto be given every day to his grandson, who was to be his successor, to\nstupify him, and prevent him from disturbing his government. Such are\nprobably the circumstances alluded to by the prophet: \u201cThey have not\nknown nor understood; for he hath shut their eyes that they cannot see;\nand their hearts that they cannot understand,\u201d Isaiah xliv, 18. The verb\n\u05d8\u05d5\u05d7, rendered in our version, _to shut_, signifies \u201cto overlay,\u201d \u201cto\ncover over the surface;\u201d thus, the king of Israel prepared three\nthousand talents of gold, and seven thousand talents of refined silver,\nto _overlay_ the walls of the temple, 1 Chron. xxix, 4. But it generally\nsignifies to _overspread_, or daub over, as with mortar or plaster, of\nwhich Parkhurst quotes a number of examples; a sense which entirely\ncorresponds with the manner in which the eyes of a criminal are sealed\nup in some parts of the east. The practice of sealing up the eyes, and\nstupifying a criminal with drugs, seems to have been contemplated by the\nsame prophet in another passage of his book: \u201cMake the heart of this\npeople fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they\nsee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their\nheart, and convert and be healed.\u201d\n\n3. Deprivation of sight was a very common punishment in the east. It was\nat first the practice to sear the eyes with a hot iron; but a discovery\nthat this was not effectual, led to the cruel method of taking them out\naltogether with a sharp-pointed instrument. The objects of this\nbarbarity were usually persons who aspired to the throne, or who were\nconsidered likely to make such an attempt. It was also inflicted on\nchieftains, whom it was desirable to deprive of power without putting\nthem to death. For this reason the hapless Zedekiah was punished with\nthe loss of sight, because he had rebelled against the king of Babylon,\nand endeavoured to recover the independence of his throne: \u201cThen he put\nout the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains,\nand carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his\ndeath,\u201d Jer. lii, 11.\n\n4. Females used to paint their eyes. The substance used for this purpose\nis called in Chaldee \u05db\u05d4\u05dc, _cohol_; by the LXX, \u03db\u03af\u03b2\u03b9. Thus we read of\nJezebel, 2 Kings ix, 30, that, understanding that Jehu was to enter\nSamaria, she decked herself for his reception, and (as in the original\nHebrew) \u201cput her eyes in paint.\u201d This was in conformity to a custom\nwhich prevailed in the earliest ages. As large black eyes were thought\nthe finest, the women, to increase their lustre, and to make them appear\nlarger, tinged the corner of their eyelids with the impalpable powder of\nantimony or of black lead. This was supposed also to give the eyes a\nbrilliancy and humidity, which rendered them either sparkling or\nlanguishing, as suited the various passions. The method of performing\nthis among the women in the eastern countries at the present day, as\ndescribed by Russel, is by a cylindrical piece of silver or ivory, about\ntwo inches long, made very smooth, and about the size of a common probe;\nthis is wet with water, and then dipped into a powder finely levigated,\nmade from what appears to be a rich lead ore, and applied to the eye;\nthe lids are closed upon it while it is drawn through between them. This\nblacks the inside, and leaves a narrow black rim all round the edge.\nThat this was the method practised by the Hebrew women, we infer from\nIsaiah iii, 22, where the prophet, in his enumeration of the articles\nwhich composed the toilets of the delicate and luxurious daughters of\nZion, mentions \u201cthe wimples and the crisping pins,\u201d or bodkins for\npainting the eyes. The satirist Juvenal describes the same practice:--\n\n               _Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctum\n               Obliqua producit acu, pingitque trementes\n               Attollens oculos._\n                                                SAT. ii.\n\n              \u201cThese with a tiring pin their eyebrows dye\n              Till the full arch give lustre to the eye.\u201d\n                                                GIFFORD.\n\nThis custom is referred to by Jeremiah, iv, 30:--\n\n          \u201cThough thou clothest thyself in scarlet,\n          Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,\n          Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,\n          In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;\n          Thy paramours have rejected thee.\u201d\n\nAnd Ezekiel, describing the irregularities of the Jewish nation, under\nthe idea of a debauched woman, says, \u05db\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05da, \u201cThou didst dress thine\neyes with cohol;\u201d which the Septuagint render, \u1f18\u03db\u03b9\u03d0\u03af\u03b6\u0223 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u201cThou didst dress thine eyes with stibium,\u201d Ezek. xxiii, 40.\n\n5. The passage, Psalm cxxiii, 2, derives a striking illustration from\nthe customs of the east. The servants or slaves in eastern countries\nattend their masters or mistresses with the profoundest respect.\nMaundrell observes, that the servants in Turkey stand round their master\nand his guests in deep silence and perfect order, watching every motion.\nPococke says, that at a visit in Egypt every thing is done with the\ngreatest decency and the most profound silence, the slaves or servants\nstanding at the bottom of the room, with their hands joined before them,\nwatching with the utmost attention every motion of their master, who\ncommands them by signs. De la Motraye says, that the eastern ladies are\nwaited on even at the least wink of the eye, or motion of the fingers,\nand that in a manner not perceptible to strangers.\n\nEZEKIEL, like his contemporary Jeremiah, was of the sacerdotal race. He\nwas carried away captive to Babylon with Jehoiachim, king of Judah, B.\nC. 598, and was placed with many others of his countrymen upon the river\nChebar, in Mesopotamia, where he was favoured with the divine\nrevelations contained in his book. He began to prophesy in the fifth\nyear of his captivity, and is supposed to have prophesied about\ntwenty-one years. The boldness with which he censured the idolatry and\nwickedness of his countrymen is said to have cost him his life; but his\nmemory was greatly revered, not only by the Jews, but also by the Medes\nand Persians. The book which bears his name may be considered under the\nfive following divisions: the first three chapters contain the glorious\nappearance of God to the prophet, and his solemn appointment to his\noffice, with instructions and encouragements for the discharge of it.\nFrom the fourth to the twenty-fourth chapter inclusive, he describes,\nunder a variety of visions and similitudes, the calamities impending\nover Judea, and the total destruction of the temple and city of\nJerusalem, by Nebuchadnezzar, occasionally predicting another period of\nyet greater desolation, and more general dispersion. From the beginning\nof the twenty-fifth to the end of the thirty-second chapter, the prophet\nforetels the conquest and ruin of many nations and cities, which had\ninsulted the Jews in their affliction; of the Ammonites, the Moabites,\nthe Edomites, and Philistines; of Tyre, of Sidon, and Egypt; all of\nwhich were to be punished by the same mighty instrument of God\u2019s wrath\nagainst the wickedness of man; and in these prophecies he not only\npredicts events which were soon to take place, but he also describes the\ncondition of these several countries in the remote periods of the world.\nFrom the thirty-second to the fortieth chapter, he inveighs against the\naccumulated sins of the Jews collectively, and the murmuring spirit of\nhis captive brethren; exhorts them earnestly to repent of their\nhypocrisy and wickedness, upon the assurance that God will accept\nsincere repentance; and comforts them with promises of approaching\ndeliverance under Cyrus; subjoining intimations of some far more\nglorious, but distant, redemption under the Messiah, though the manner\nin which it is to be effected is deeply involved in mystery. The last\nnine chapters contain a remarkable vision of the structure of a new\ntemple and a new polity, applicable in the first instance to the return\nfrom the Babylonian captivity, but in its ultimate sense referring to\nthe glory and prosperity of the universal church of Christ. Jerom\nobserves that the visions of Ezekiel are among the things in Scripture\nhard to be understood. This obscurity arises, in part at least, from the\nnature and design of the prophecies themselves; they were delivered\namidst the gloom of captivity; and though calculated to cheer the\ndrooping spirits of the Jews, and to keep alive a watchful and\nsubmissive confidence in the mercy of God, yet they were intended to\ncommunicate only such a degree of encouragement as was consistent with a\nstate of punishment, and to excite an indistinct expectation of future\nblessings, upon condition of repentance and amendment. It ought also to\nbe observed, that the last twelve chapters of this book bear a very\nstrong resemblance to the concluding chapters of the Revelation. The\nstyle of this prophet is characterized by Bishop Lowth as bold,\nvehement, and tragical; as often worked up to a kind of tremendous\ndignity. He is highly parabolical, and abounds in figures and\nmetaphorical expressions. He may be compared to the Grecian \u00c6schylus; he\ndisplays a rough but majestic dignity; an unpolished though noble\nsimplicity; inferior perhaps in originality and elegance to others of\nthe prophets, but unequalled in that force and grandeur for which he is\nparticularly celebrated. He sometimes emphatically and indignantly\nrepeats his sentiments, fully dilates his pictures, and describes the\nidolatrous manners of his countrymen under the strongest and most\nexaggerated representations that the license of eastern style would\nadmit. The middle part of the book is in some measure poetical, and\ncontains even some perfect elegies, though his thoughts are in general\ntoo irregular and uncontrolled to be chained down to rule, or fettered\nby language.\n\nEZION-GEBER. See ELATH.\n\nEZRA, the author of the book which bears his name, was of the sacerdotal\nfamily, being a direct descendant from Aaron, and succeeded Zerubbabel\nin the government of Judea. This book begins with the repetition of the\nlast two verses of the second book of Chronicles, and carries the Jewish\nhistory through a period of seventy-nine years, commencing from the\nedict of Cyrus. The first six chapters contain an account of the return\nof the Jews under Zerubbabel, after the captivity of seventy years; of\ntheir re\u00ebstablishment in Judea; and of the building and dedication of\nthe temple at Jerusalem. In the last four chapters, Ezra relates his own\nappointment to the government of Judea by Artaxerxes Longimanus, his\njourney thither from Babylon, the disobedience of the Jews, and the\nreform which he immediately effected among them. It is to be observed,\nthat between the dedication of the temple and the departure of Ezra,\nthat is, between the sixth and seventh chapters of this book, there was\nan interval of about fifty-eight years, during which nothing is here\nrelated concerning the Jews, except that, contrary to God\u2019s command,\nthey intermarried with Gentiles. This book is written in Chaldee from\nthe eighth verse of the fourth chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of\nthe seventh chapter. It is probable that the sacred historian used the\nChaldean language in this part of his work, because it contains chiefly\nletters and decrees written in that language, the original words of\nwhich he might think it right to record; and indeed the people, who were\nrecently returned from the Babylonian captivity, were at least as\nfamiliar with the Chaldee as they were with the Hebrew tongue.\n\nTill the arrival of Nehemiah, Ezra had the principal authority in\nJerusalem. In the second year of Nehemiah\u2019s government, the people being\nassembled in the temple, at the feast of tabernacles, Ezra was desired\nto read the law. He read it from morning till noon, and was accompanied\nby Levites who stood beside him, and kept silence. The next day they\ndesired to know of Ezra how they were to celebrate the feast of\ntabernacles. This he explained, and continued eight days reading the law\nin the temple. All this was followed by a solemn renewal of the covenant\nwith the Lord. Josephus says that Ezra was buried at Jerusalem; but the\nJews believe that he died in Persia, in a second journey to Artaxerxes.\nHis tomb is shown there in the city of Zamuza. He is said to have lived\nnearly one hundred and twenty years.\n\nEzra was the restorer and publisher of the Holy Scriptures, after the\nreturn of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. 1. He corrected the\nerrors which had crept into the existing copies of the sacred writings\nby the negligence or mistake of transcribers. 2. He collected all the\nbooks of which the Holy Scriptures then consisted, disposed them in\ntheir proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture for his time. 3.\nHe added throughout the books of his edition what appeared necessary for\nillustrating, connecting, or completing them; and of this we have an\ninstance in the account of the death and burial of Moses, in the last\nchapter of Deuteronomy. In this work he was assisted by the same Spirit\nby which they were at first written. 4. He changed the ancient names of\nseveral places become obsolete, and substituted for them new names, by\nwhich they were at that time called. 5. He wrote out the whole in the\nChaldee character; that language having grown into use after the\nBabylonish captivity. The Jews have an extraordinary esteem for Ezra,\nand say that if the law had not been given by Moses, Ezra deserved to\nhave been the legislator of the Hebrews.\n\n\nFABLE, a fiction destitute of truth. St. Paul exhorts Timothy and Titus\nto shun profane and Jewish fables, 1 Tim. iv, 7; Titus i, 14; as having\na tendency to seduce men from the truth. By these fables some understand\nthe reveries of the Gnostics; but the fathers generally, and after them\nmost of the modern commentators, interpret them of the vain traditions\nof the Jews; especially concerning meats, and other things, to be\nabstained from as unclean, which our Lord also styles \u201cthe doctrines of\nmen,\u201d Matt. xv, 9. This sense of the passages is confirmed by their\ncontexts. In another sense, the word is taken to signify an apologue, or\ninstructive tale, intended to convey truth under the concealment of\nfiction; as Jotham\u2019s fable of the trees, Judges ix, 7\u201315, no doubt by\nfar the oldest fable extant.\n\nFACE. Moses begs of God to show him his face, or to manifest his glory;\nhe replies, \u201cI will make all my goodness pass before thee,\u201d and I will\nproclaim my name; \u201cbut my face thou canst not see; for there shall no\nman see it and live!\u201d The persuasion was very prevalent in the world,\nthat no man could support the sight of Deity, Genesis xvi, 13; xxxii,\n30; Exod. xx, 19; xxiv, 11; Judges vi, 22, 23. We read that God spake\nmouth to mouth with Moses, even apparently, and not in dark speeches,\nNumbers xii, 8; \u201cThe Canaanites have heard that thou art among thy\npeople, and seen face to face,\u201d Numbers xiv, 14. God talked with the\nHebrews \u201cface to face out of the midst of the fire,\u201d Deut. v, 4. All\nthese places are to be understood simply, that God so manifested himself\nto the Israelites, that he made them hear his voice as distinctly as if\nhe had appeared to them face to face; but not that they actually saw\nmore than the cloud of glory which marked his presence. The face of God\ndenotes sometimes his anger: \u201cThe face of the Lord is against them that\ndo evil.\u201d \u201cAs wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish\nbefore the face of God,\u201d Psalm lxviii, 2. To turn the face upon any one,\nespecially when connected with the light or shining of the countenance,\nare beautiful representations of the divine kindness and condescension.\nTo regard the face of any one, is to have respect of persons, Proverbs\nxxviii, 21. The Apostle, speaking of the difference between our\nknowledge of God here and in heaven, says, \u201cNow we see through a glass\ndarkly; but then face to face,\u201d 1 Cor. xiii, 12; by which he shows the\nvast difference between our seeing or knowing God and divine things by\nan imperfect revelation to faith, and by direct vision. This observation\nof the Apostle is rendered the more striking, when it is recollected\nthat the Roman glass was not fully transparent as ours, but dull and\nclouded. Of this, specimens may be seen in the glass vessels taken out\nof Pompeii.\n\nFAITH, in Scripture, is presented to us under two leading views: the\nfirst is that of _assent_ or _persuasion_; the second, that of\n_confidence_ or _reliance_. The former may be separate from the latter,\nbut the latter cannot exist without the former. Faith, in the sense of\nan intellectual assent to truth, is, by St. James, allowed to devils. A\ndead, inoperative faith is also supposed, or declared, to be possessed\nby wicked men, professing Christianity; for our Lord represents persons\ncoming to him at the last day, saying, \u201cLord, have we not prophesied in\nthy name\u201d &c, to whom he will say, \u201cDepart from me, I never knew you.\u201d\nAnd yet the charge in this place does not lie against the sincerity of\ntheir belief, but against their conduct as \u201cworkers of iniquity.\u201d As\nthis distinction is taught in Scripture, so it is also observed in\nexperience: assent to the truths of revealed religion may result from\nexamination and conviction, while yet the spirit and conduct may remain\nunrenewed and sinful.\n\n2. The faith which is required of us as a condition of salvation always\nincludes confidence or reliance, as well as assent or persuasion. That\nfaith by which \u201cthe elders obtained a good report,\u201d was of this\ncharacter; it united _assent_ to the truth of God\u2019s revelations with a\nnoble _confidence_ in his promise. \u201cOur fathers trusted in thee, and\nwere not confounded.\u201d We have a farther illustration in our Lord\u2019s\naddress to his disciples upon the withering away of the fig tree: \u201cHave\nfaith in God.\u201d He did not question whether they believed the existence\nof God, but exhorted them to confidence in his promises, when called by\nhim to contend with mountainous difficulties: \u201cHave faith in God; for\nverily I say unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be\nthou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his\nheart, but shall believe (trust) that these things which he saith shall\ncome to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith.\u201d It was in reference to\nhis simple confidence in Christ\u2019s power that our Lord so highly\ncommended the centurion, and said, \u201cI have not found so great faith, no,\nnot in Israel,\u201d Matt. viii, 10. And all the instances of faith in the\npersons miraculously healed by Christ, were also of this kind: their\nfaith was belief in his claims, and also confidence in his goodness and\npower.\n\n3. That faith in Christ which in the New Testament is connected with\nsalvation, is clearly of this nature; that is, it combines assent with\nreliance, belief with trust. \u201cWhatsoever ye ask the Father in my name,\u201d\nthat is, in dependence upon my interest and merits, \u201che shall give it\nyou.\u201d Christ was preached both to Jews and Gentiles as the object of\ntheir trust, because he was preached as the only true sacrifice for sin;\nand they were required to renounce their dependence upon their own\naccustomed sacrifices, and to transfer that dependence to his death and\nmediation,--and \u201cin his name shall the Gentiles trust.\u201d He is said to be\nset forth as a propitiation, \u201cthrough faith in his blood;\u201d which faith\ncan neither merely mean assent to the historical fact that his blood was\nshed by a violent death; nor mere assent to the general doctrine that\nhis blood had an atoning quality; but as all expiatory offerings were\n_trusted in_ as the means of propitiation both among Jews and Gentiles,\nfaith or trust was now to be exclusively rendered to the blood of\nChrist, as the divinely appointed sacrifice for sin, and the only refuge\nof the true penitent.\n\n4. To the most unlettered Christian this then will be very obvious, that\ntrue and saving faith in Christ consists both of assent and trust; but\nthis is not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacrifice of Christ,\nlike that of the Heathens in their sacrifices; nor the presumptuous\ntrust of wicked and impenitent men, who depend on Christ to save them in\ntheir sins; but such a trust as is exercised according to the authority\nand direction of the word of God; so that _to know_ the Gospel in its\nleading principles, and to have a cordial _belief_ in it, is necessary\nto that more specific act of faith which is called _reliance_, or in\nsystematic language, _fiducial assent_. The Gospel, as the scheme of\nman\u2019s salvation, declares that he is under the law; that this law of God\nhas been violated by all; and that every man is under sentence of death.\nSerious consideration of our ways, confession of the fact, and sorrowful\nconviction of the evil and danger of sin, will, under the influence of\ndivine grace, follow the cordial belief of the testimony of God; and we\nshall then turn to God with contrite hearts, and earnest prayers, and\nsupplications for his mercy. This is called \u201crepentance toward God;\u201d and\nrepentance being the first subject of evangelical preaching, and then\nthe injunction to believe the Gospel, it is plain, that Christ is only\n_immediately_ held out, in this divine plan of our redemption, as the\nobject of trust in order to forgiveness to persons in this state of\npenitence and under this sense of danger. The degree of sorrow for sin,\nand alarm upon this discovery of our danger as sinners, is no where\nfixed to a precise standard in Scripture; only it is supposed every\nwhere, that it is such as to lead men to inquire earnestly, \u201cWhat shall\nI do to be saved?\u201d and with earnest seriousness to use all the appointed\nmeans of grace, as those who feel that their salvation is at issue, that\nthey are in a lost condition, and must be pardoned or perish. To all\nsuch persons, Christ, as the only atonement for sin, is exhibited as the\nobject of their trust, with the promise of God, \u201cthat whosoever\nbelieveth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.\u201d Nothing\nis required of such but this actual trust in, and personal apprehension\nor taking hold of, the merits of Christ\u2019s death as a sacrifice for sin;\nand upon their thus believing they are justified, their \u201cfaith is\ncounted for righteousness,\u201d or, in other words, they are forgiven.\n\n5. This appears to be the plain Scriptural representation of this\ndoctrine; and we may infer from it, (1.) That the faith by which we are\njustified is not a mere assent to the doctrines of the Gospel, which\nleaves the heart unmoved and unaffected by a sense of the evil and\ndanger of sin and the desire of salvation, although it supposes this\nassent; nor, (2.) Is it that more lively and cordial assent to, and\nbelief in, the doctrine of the Gospel, touching our sinful and lost\ncondition, which is wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, and from\nwhich springeth repentance, although this must precede it; nor, (3.) Is\nit only the assent of the mind to the method by which God justifies the\nungodly by faith in the sacrifice of his Son, although this is an\nelement of it; but it is a hearty concurrence of the will and affections\nwith this plan of salvation, which implies a renunciation of every other\nrefuge, and an actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of\nhis merits: such a belief of the Gospel by the power of the Spirit of\nGod as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in\nChrist, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble\nconfidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.\n\n6. This is that qualifying condition to which the promise of God annexes\njustification; that without which justification would not take place;\nand in this sense it is that we are justified by faith; not by the merit\nof faith, but by faith instrumentally as this condition: for its\nconnection with the benefit arises from the merits of Christ and the\npromise of God. If Christ had not merited, God had not promised; if God\nhad not promised, justification had never followed upon this faith; so\nthat the indissoluble connection of faith and justification is from\nGod\u2019s institution, whereby he hath bound himself to give the benefit\nupon performance of the condition. Yet there is an aptitude in this\nfaith to be made a condition; for no other act can receive Christ as a\nPriest propitiating and pleading the propitiation and the promise of God\nfor his sake to give the benefit. As receiving Christ and the gracious\npromise in this manner, it acknowledgeth man\u2019s guilt, and so man\nrenounceth all righteousness in himself, and honoureth God the Father,\nand Christ the Son, the only Redeemer. It glorifies God\u2019s mercy and free\ngrace in the highest degree. It acknowledges on earth, as it will be\nperpetually acknowledged in heaven, that the whole salvation of sinful\nman, from the beginning to the last degree thereof, whereof there shall\nbe no end, is from God\u2019s freest love, Christ\u2019s merit and intercession,\nhis own gracious promise, and the power of his own Holy Spirit.\n\n7. Faith, in Scripture, sometimes is taken for the truth and\nfaithfulness of God, Rom. iii, 3; and it is also taken for the\npersuasion of the mind as to the lawfulness of things indifferent, Rom.\nxiv, 22, 23; and it is likewise put for the doctrine of the Gospel,\nwhich is the object of faith, Acts xxiv, 24; Phil. i, 27; Jude 3; for\nthe belief and profession of the Gospel, Rom. i, 8; and for fidelity in\nthe performance of promises.\n\nFALL OF MAN. In addition to what is stated on this subject under the\narticle _Adam_, it may be necessary to establish the literal sense of\nthe account given of man\u2019s fall in the book of Genesis. This account is,\nthat a garden having been planted by the Creator, for the use of man, he\nwas placed in it, \u201cto dress it, and to keep it;\u201d--that in this garden\ntwo trees were specially distinguished, one as \u201cthe tree of life,\u201d the\nother as \u201cthe tree of the knowledge of good and evil;\u201d--that from eating\nof the latter Adam was restrained by positive interdict, and by the\npenalty, \u201cIn the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;\u201d--that\nthe serpent, who was more subtle than any beast of the field, tempted\nthe woman to eat, by denying that death would be the consequence, and by\nassuring her, that her eyes and her husband\u2019s eyes \u201cwould be opened,\u201d\nand that they would \u201cbe as gods, knowing good and evil;\u201d--that the woman\ntook of the fruit, gave of it to her husband, who also ate;--that for\nthis act of disobedience they were expelled from the garden, made\nsubject to death, and laid under other maledictions.\n\n2. That this history should be the subject of much criticism, not only\nby infidels, but by those who hold false and perverted views of the\nChristian system, was to be expected. Taken in its natural and obvious\nsense, along with the comments of the subsequent Scriptures, it teaches\nthe doctrines of the existence of an evil, tempting, invisible spirit,\ngoing about seeking whom he may deceive and devour; of the introduction\nof moral corruptness into human nature, which has been transmitted to\nall men; and is connected also with the doctrine of a vicarious\natonement for sin; and wherever the fundamental truths of the Christian\nsystem are denied, attempts will be made so to interpret this part of\nthe Mosaic history as to obscure the testimony which it gives to them,\neither explicitly, or by just induction. Interpreters have adopted\nvarious and often strange theories; but those whose opinions it seems\nnecessary to notice may be divided into such as deny the literal sense\nof the relation entirely; such as take the account to be in part literal\nand in part allegorical; and those who, while they contend earnestly for\nthe literal interpretation of every part of the history, consider some\nof the terms used, and some of the persons introduced, as conveying a\nmeaning more extensive than the letter, and as constituting several\nsymbols of spiritual things and of spiritual beings.\n\n3. Those who have denied the literal sense entirely, and regarded the\nwhole relation as an instructive _mythos_, or fable, have, as might be\nexpected, when all restraint of authority was thus thrown off from the\nimagination, themselves adopted very different theories. Thus we have\nbeen taught, that this account was intended to teach the evil of\nyielding to the violence of appetite and to its control over reason; or\nthe introduction of vice in conjunction with knowledge and the\nartificial refinements of society; or the necessity of keeping the great\nmass of mankind from acquiring too great a degree of knowledge, as being\nhurtful to society; or to consider it as another version of the story of\nthe golden age, and its being succeeded by times more vicious and\nmiserable; or as designed, enigmatically, to account for the origin of\nevil, or of mankind. This catalogue of opinions might be much enlarged:\nsome of them have been held by mere visionaries; others by men of\nlearning, especially by several of the semi-infidel theologians and\nBiblical critics of Germany; nor has our own country been exempt from\nthis class of bold expositors. How to fix upon the moral of \u201cthe fable\u201d\nis, however, the difficulty; and the great variety of opinion is a\nsufficient refutation of the general notion assumed by the whole class,\nsince scarcely can two of them be found who adopt the same views, after\nthey have discarded the literal acceptation.\n\n4. But that the account of Moses is to be taken as a matter of real\nhistory, and according to its literal import, is established by two\nconsiderations, against which, as being facts, nothing can successfully\nbe urged. The first is, that the account of the fall of the first pair\nis a part of a continuous history. The creation of the world, of man, of\nwoman; the planting of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man there;\nthe duties and prohibitions laid upon him; his disobedience; his\nexpulsion from the garden; the subsequent birth of his children, their\nlives, and actions, and those of their posterity, down to the flood;\nand, from that event, to the life of Abraham, are given in the same\nplain and unadorned narrative; brief, but yet simple; and with no\nintimation at all, either from the elevation of the style or otherwise,\nthat a fable or allegory is in any part introduced. As this, then, is\nthe case, and the evidence of it lies upon the very face of the history,\nit is clear, that if the account of the fall be excerpted from the whole\nnarrative as allegorical, any subsequent part, from Abel to Noah, from\nNoah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, may be excerpted for the same\nreason, which reason is merely this, that it does not agree with the\ntheological opinions of the interpreter; and thus the whole of the\nPentateuch may be rejected history, and converted into fable. Either\nthen the account of the fall must be taken as history, or the historical\ncharacter of the whole five books of Moses must be unsettled; and if\nnone but infidels will go to the latter consequence, then no one who\nadmits the Pentateuch to be a true history generally, can consistently\nrefuse to admit the story of the fall of the first pair to be a\nnarrative of real events, because it is written in the same style, and\npresents the same character of a continuous record of events. So\nconclusive has this argument been felt, that the anti-literal\ninterpreters have endeavoured to evade it, by asserting that the part of\nthe history of Moses in question bears marks of being a separate\nfragment, more ancient than the Pentateuch itself, and transcribed into\nit by Moses, the author and compiler of the whole. This point is\nexamined and satisfactorily refuted in Holden\u2019s learned and excellent\nwork, entitled, \u201cDissertation on the Fall of Man;\u201d but it is easy to\nshow, that it would amount to nothing, if granted, in the mind of any\nwho is satisfied on the previous question of the inspiration of the Holy\nScriptures. For let it be admitted that Moses, in writing the\npentateuchal history, availed himself of the traditions of the\npatriarchal ages, a supposition not in the least inconsistent with his\ninspiration or with the absolute truth of his history, since the\ntraditions so introduced have been authenticated by the Holy Spirit; or\nlet it be supposed, which is wholly gratuitous, that he made use of\npreviously existing documents; and that some differences of style in his\nbooks may be traced which serve to point out his quotations, which is a\nposition that some of the best Hebraists have denied; yet two things are\nto be noted: first, that the inspired character of the books of Moses is\nauthenticated by our Lord and his Apostles, so that they must\nnecessarily be wholly true, and free from real contradictions; and,\nsecondly, that to make it any thing to their purpose who contend that\nthe account of the fall is an older document, introduced by Moses, it\nought to be shown that it is not written as truly in the narrative\nstyle, even if it could be proved to be, in some respects, a different\nstyle, as that which precedes and follows it. Now the very literal\ncharacter of our translation will enable even the unlearned reader to\ndiscover this. Whether it be an embodied tradition, or the insertion of\na more ancient document, (though there is no foundation at all for the\nlatter supposition,) it is obviously a narrative, and a _narrative_ as\nsimple as any which precedes or follows it.\n\n5. The other indisputable fact to which I just now adverted, as\nestablishing the literal sense of the history, is that, as such, it is\nreferred to and reasoned upon in various parts of Scripture: \u201cKnowest\nthou not this of old, since man (Adam) was placed upon earth, that the\ntriumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for\na moment?\u201d Job xx, 4, 5. There is no reason to doubt but that this\npassage refers to the fall and the first sin of man. The date agrees;\nfor the knowledge here taught is said to arise from facts as old as the\nfirst placing of man upon earth, and the sudden punishment of the\niniquity corresponds to the Mosaic account: \u201cThe triumphing of the\nwicked is short, his joy but for a moment.\u201d \u201cIf I covered my\ntransgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom,\u201d Job xxxi,\n33. Magee renders the verse,\n\n              \u201cDid I cover, like Adam, my transgression,\n              By hiding in a lurking place mine iniquity?\u201d\n\nand adds, \u201cI agree with Peters, that this contains a reference to the\nhistory of the first man, and his endeavours to hide himself after his\ntransgression.\u201d Our margin reads, \u201cafter the manner of men;\u201d and also\nthe old versions; but the Chaldee paraphrase agrees with our\ntranslation, which is also satisfactorily defended by numerous critics.\n\u201cWhat is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman,\nthat he should be righteous?\u201d Job xv, 14. Why not clean? Did God make\nwoman or man unclean at the beginning? If he did, the expostulation\nwould have been more apposite, and much stronger, had the true cause\nbeen assigned, and Job had said, \u201cHow canst thou expect cleanness in\nman, whom thou _createdst_ unclean?\u201d But, as the case now stands, the\nexpostulation has a plain reference to the introduction of vanity and\ncorruption by the sin of the woman, and is an evidence that this ancient\nwriter was sensible of the evil consequences of the fall upon the whole\nrace of man. \u201cEden\u201d and \u201cthe garden of the Lord\u201d are also frequently\nreferred to in the prophets. We have the \u201ctree of life\u201d mentioned\nseveral times in the Proverbs and in the Revelation. \u201cGod,\u201d says\nSolomon, \u201cmade man upright.\u201d The enemies of Christ and his church are\nspoken of, both in the Old and New Testaments, under the names of \u201cthe\nserpent,\u201d and \u201cthe dragon;\u201d and the habit of the serpent to lick the\ndust is also referred to by Isaiah.\n\n6. If the history of the fall, as recorded by Moses, were an allegory,\nor any thing but a literal history, several of the above allusions would\nhave no meaning; but the matter is put beyond all possible doubt in the\nNew Testament, unless the same culpable liberties be taken with the\ninterpretation of the words of our Lord and of St. Paul as with those of\nthe Jewish lawgiver. Our Lord says, \u201cHave ye not read, that he which\nmade them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For\nthis cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his\nwife; and they twain shall be one flesh?\u201d Matt. xix, 4, 5. This is an\nargument on the subject of divorces, and its foundation rests upon two\nof the facts recorded by Moses: (1.) That God made at first but two\nhuman beings, from whom all the rest have sprung. (2.) That the intimacy\nand indissolubility of the marriage relation rests upon the formation of\nthe woman from the man; for our Lord quotes the words in Genesis, where\nthe obligation of man to cleave to his wife is immediately connected\nwith that circumstance: \u201cAnd Adam said, This is now bone of my bones,\nand flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken\nout of man. _Therefore_ shall a man leave his father and his mother, and\nshall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.\u201d This is\nsufficiently in proof that both our Lord and the Pharisees considered\nthis early part of the history of Moses as a narrative; for, otherwise,\nit would neither have been a reason, on his part, for the doctrine which\nhe was inculcating, nor have had any force of conviction as to them. \u201cIn\nAdam,\u201d says the Apostle Paul, \u201call die;\u201d \u201cby one man sin entered into\nthe world.\u201d \u201cBut I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve\nthrough his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the\nsimplicity that is in Christ.\u201d In the last passage, the instrument of\nthe temptation is said to be a serpent, \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2, which is a sufficient\nanswer to those who would make it any other animal; and Eve is\nrepresented as being first seduced, according to the account in Genesis.\nThis St. Paul repeats in 1 Tim. ii, 13, 14: \u201cAdam was first formed, then\nEve. And Adam was not deceived,\u201d first or immediately, \u201cbut the woman\nbeing deceived was in the transgression.\u201d And he offers this as the\nreason of an injunction, \u201cLet the woman learn in silence with all\nsubjection.\u201d When, therefore, it is considered, that these passages are\nintroduced, not for rhetorical illustration, or in the way of classical\nquotation, but are made the basis of grave and important reasonings,\nwhich embody some of the most important doctrines of the Christian\nrevelation, and of important social duties and points of Christian order\nand decorum; it would be to charge the writers of the New Testament with\nthe grossest absurdity, nay, with even culpable and unworthy trifling,\nto suppose them to argue from the history of the fall as a narrative,\nwhen they knew it to be an allegory. And if we are, therefore, compelled\nto allow that it was understood as a real history by our Lord and his\ninspired Apostles, those speculations of modern critics, which convert\nit into a parable, stand branded with their true character of infidel\nand semi-infidel temerity.\n\n7. The effect of the sin or lapse of Adam was to bring him under the\nwrath of God; to render him liable to pain, disease, and death; to\ndeprive him of primeval holiness; to separate him from communion with\nGod and that spiritual life which was before imparted by God, and on\nwhich his holiness alone depended, from the loss of which a total moral\ndisorder and depravation of his soul resulted; and finally to render him\nliable to everlasting misery. See ORIGINAL SIN. For the effect of the\nfall of Adam upon his posterity, see JUSTIFICATION.\n\nFASTING has been practised in all ages, and among all nations, in times\nof mourning, sorrow, and affliction. We see no example of fasting,\nproperly so called, before Moses. Since the time of Moses, examples of\nfasting have been very common among the Jews. Joshua and the elders of\nIsrael remained prostrate before the ark from morning till evening,\nwithout eating, after Israel was defeated at Ai, Joshua vii, 6. The\neleven tribes which fought against that of Benjamin, fell down on their\nfaces before the ark, and so continued till evening without eating,\nJudges xx, 26. David fasted while the first child he had by Bathsheba\nwas sick, 2 Sam. xii, 16. The Heathens sometimes fasted: the king of\nNineveh, terrified by Jonah\u2019s preaching, ordered that not only men, but\nalso beasts, should continue without eating or drinking; should be\ncovered with sackcloth, and each after their manner should cry to the\nLord, Jonah iii, 5, 6. The Jews, in times of public calamity, appointed\nextraordinary fasts, and made even the children at the breast fast, Joel\nii, 16. Moses fasted forty days upon Mount Horeb, Exod. xxiv, 18. Elijah\npassed as many days without eating, 1 Kings xix, 8. Our Saviour fasted\nforty days and forty nights in the wilderness, Matt. iv, 2. These fasts\nwere miraculous, and out of the common rules of nature.\n\n2. Beside the solemn fast of expiation instituted by divine authority,\nthe Jews appointed certain days of humiliation, called the fasts of the\ncongregation. The calamities for which these were enjoined, were a\nsiege, pestilence, diseases, famine, &c. They were observed on the\nsecond and fifth days of the week: they began at sunset, and continued\ntill midnight of the following day. On these days they wore sackcloth\nnext the skin, and rent their clothes; they sprinkled ashes on their\nheads, and neither washed their hands, nor anointed their heads with\noil. The synagogues were filled with suppliants, whose prayers were long\nand mournful, and their countenances dejected with all the marks of\nsorrow and repentance.\n\n3. As to the fasts observed by Christians, it does not appear by his own\npractice, or by his commands to his disciples, that our Lord instituted\nany particular fast. But when the Pharisees reproached him, that his\ndisciples did not fast so often as theirs, or as John the Baptist\u2019s, he\nreplied, \u201cCan ye make the children of the bride-chamber fast while the\nbride-groom is with them? But the days will come when the bride-groom\nshall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days,\u201d\nLuke v, 34, 35. Fasting is also recommended by our Saviour in his sermon\non the mount; not as a stated, but as an occasional, duty of Christians,\nfor the purpose of humbling their minds under the afflicting hand of\nGod; and he requires that this duty be performed in sincerity, and not\nfor the sake of ostentation, Matt. vi, 16.\n\n4. Although Christians, says Dr. Neander, did not by any means retire\nfrom the business of life, yet they were accustomed to devote many\nseparate days entirely to examining their own hearts, and pouring them\nout before God, while they dedicated their life anew to him with\nuninterrupted prayers, in order that they might again return to their\nordinary occupations with a renovated spirit of zeal and seriousness,\nand with renewed powers of sanctification. These days of holy devotion,\ndays of prayer and penitence, which individual Christians appointed for\nthemselves, according to their individual necessities, were often a kind\nof fast-days. In order that their sensual feelings might less distract\nand impede the occupation of their heart with its holy contemplations,\nthey were accustomed on these days to limit their corporeal wants more\nthan usual, or to fast entirely. In the consideration of this, we must\nnot overlook the peculiar nature of that hot climate in which\nChristianity was first promulgated. That which was spared by their\nabstinence on these days was applied to the support of the poorer\nbrethren.\n\nFAT. God forbade the Hebrews to eat the fat of beasts: \u201cAll the fat is\nthe Lord\u2019s. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations,\nthroughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood,\u201d Lev.\niii, 17. Some interpreters understand these words literally, and suppose\nfat as well as blood to be forbidden. Josephus says Moses forbids only\nthe fat of oxen, goats, sheep, and their species. This agrees with Lev.\nvii, 23: \u201cYe shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of\ngoat.\u201d This is observed by the modern Jews, who think that the fat of\nother sorts of clean creatures is allowed them, even that of beasts\nwhich have died of themselves, conformably to Lev. vii, 24: \u201cAnd the fat\nof the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn\nwith beasts, may be used in any other use; but ye shall in nowise eat of\nit.\u201d Others maintain that the law which forbids the use of fat, should\nbe restrained to fat separated from the flesh, such as that which covers\nthe kidneys and the intestines; and this only in the case of its being\noffered in sacrifice. This is confirmed by Lev. vii, 25: \u201cWhosoever\neateth of the fat of the beast of which men offer an offering made by\nfire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from\nhis people.\u201d In the Hebrew style, fat signifies not only that of beasts,\nbut also the richer or prime part of other things: \u201cHe should have fed\nthem with the finest\u201d (in Hebrew the fat) \u201cof the wheat.\u201d Fat denotes\nabundance of good things: \u201cI will satiate the souls of the priests with\nfatness,\u201d Jer. xxxi, 14. \u201cMy soul shall be satisfied with marrow and\nfatness,\u201d Psalm lxiii, 5. The fat of the earth implies its fruitfulness:\n\u201cGod give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and\nplenty of corn and wine,\u201d Gen. xxvii, 28.\n\nFATHER. This word, beside its common acceptation, is taken in Scripture\nfor grandfather, great-grandfather, or the founder of a family, how\nremote soever. So the Jews in our Saviour\u2019s time called Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob, their fathers. Jesus Christ is called the Son of David,\nthough David was many generations distant from him. By father is\nlikewise understood the institutor of a certain profession. Jabal \u201cwas\nfather of such as dwell in tents, and such as have cattle.\u201d Jubal \u201cwas\nfather of all such as handle the harp and organ,\u201d or flute, &c, Gen. iv,\n20, 21. Huram is called father of the king of Tyre, 2 Chron. ii, 13;\nand, 2 Chron. iv, 16, even of Solomon, because he was the principal\nworkman, and chief director of their undertakings. The principal\nprophets were considered as fathers of the younger, who were their\ndisciples, and are called sons of the prophets, 2 Kings ii, 12. Father\nis a term of respect given by inferiors to superiors. \u201cMy father,\u201d said\nNaaman\u2019s attendants to him, \u201cif the prophet had bid thee do some great\nthing,\u201d 2 Kings v, 13; and so the king of Israel addresses the prophet\nElisha, 2 Kings vi, 21. Rechab, the founder of the Rechabites, is called\ntheir father, Jer. xxxv, 6. A man is said to be a father to the poor and\norphans, when he supplies their necessities, and sympathizes with their\nmiseries, as a father would do toward them: \u201cI was a father to the\npoor,\u201d says Job, xxix, 16. God declares himself to be the \u201cFather of the\nfatherless, and Judge of the widow,\u201d Psalm lxviii, 5. God is frequently\ncalled our heavenly Father, and simply our Father; eminently the Father,\nPreserver, and Protector of all, especially of those who invoke him, and\nserve him: \u201cIs he not thy Father that bought thee?\u201d says Moses, Deut.\nxxxii, 6. Since the coming of Jesus Christ, we have a new right to call\nGod our Father, by reason of the adoption which our Saviour has merited\nfor us, by clothing himself in our humanity, and purchasing us by his\ndeath: \u201cYe have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,\nFather. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are\nthe children of God,\u201d Romans viii, 15. Job entitles God \u201cthe Father of\nrain,\u201d Job xxxviii, 28; he produces it, and causes it to fall. The devil\nis called the father of the wicked and the father of lies, John viii,\n44. He deceived Eve and Adam; he introduced sin and falsehood; he\ninspires his followers with his spirit and sentiments. The father of\nSichem, the father of Tekoah, the father of Bethlehem, &c, signify the\nchief persons who inhabited these cities; he who built or rebuilt them.\nAdam is the first father, the father of the living; Abraham is the\nfather of the faithful, the father of the circumcision; called also the\n\u201cfather of many nations,\u201d because many people sprung from him; as the\nJews, Ishmaelites, Arabs, &c. God is called \u201cthe Father of spirits,\u201d\nHeb. xii, 9. He not only creates them, but he justifies, sanctifies, and\nglorifies them, and thus confers upon them eternal happiness.\n\nFATHERS, a term of honour applied to the first and most eminent writers\nof the Christian church. Those of the first century are called\nApostolical fathers; those of the first three centuries, and till the\ncouncil of Nice, Ante-Nicene; and those later than that council,\nPost-Nicene. Learned men are not unanimous concerning the degree of\nesteem which is due to these ancient fathers. Some represent them as the\nmost excellent guides, while others place them in the very lowest rank\nof moral writers, and treat their precepts and decisions as perfectly\ninsipid, and, in many respects, pernicious. It appears, however,\nincontestable, that, in the writings of the primitive fathers are many\nsublime sentiments, judicious thoughts, and several things well adapted\nto form a religious temper, and to excite pious and virtuous affections.\nAt the same time, it must be confessed, that, after the earliest age,\nthey abound still more with precepts of an excessive and unreasonable\nausterity, with stoical and academical dictates, with vague and\nindeterminate notions, and, what is still worse, with decisions\nabsolutely false, and in evident opposition to the commands of Christ.\nThough the judgment of antiquity in some disputable points may certainly\nbe useful, yet we ought never to consider the writings of the fathers as\nof equal authority with the Scriptures. In many cases they may be deemed\ncompetent witnesses, but we must not confide in their verdict as judges.\nAs Biblical critics they are often fanciful and injudicious, and their\nprincipal value consists in this, that the succession of their writings\nenables us to prove the existence and authenticity of the sacred books,\nup to the age of the Apostles.\n\nThe following is a list of the entire fathers: Contemporaries of the\nApostles, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.\nPapias, A. D. 116; Justin Martyr, 140; Dionysius of Corinth, 170;\nTatian, 172; Hegesippus, 173; Melito, 177; Iren\u00e6us, 178; Athenagoras,\n178; Miltiades, 180; Theophilus, 181; Clement of Alexandria, 194;\nTertullian, 200; Minutius Felix, 210; Ammonius, 220; Origen, 230;\nFirmilian, 233; Dionysius of Alexandria, 247; Cyprian, 248; Novatus, or\nNovatian, 251; Arnobius, 306; Lactantius, 306; Alexander of Alexandria,\n313; Eusebius, 315; Athanasius, 326; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Hilary,\n354; Epiphanius, 368; Basil, 370; Gregory of Nazianzum, 370; Gregory of\nNyssa, 370; Optatus, 370; Ambrose, 374; Philaster, 380; Jerome, 392;\nTheodore of Mopsuestia, 394; Ruffin, 397; Augustine, 398; Chrysostom,\n398; Sulpitius Severus, 401; Cyril of Alexandria, 412; Theodoret, 423;\nand Gennadius, 494.\n\nArchbishop Wake, in his _Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of\nEngland_ has very satisfactorily shown, that the deference paid by\nProtestants to the Christian fathers of the first three ages, is neither\nof such an idolatrous description as is generally represented, nor is\ntheir authority ever extolled to an equality with that of the Holy\nScriptures. \u201cThough we have appealed,\u201d he says, \u201cto the churches of the\nfirst ages for new proofs of the truth of our doctrine, it is not that\nwe think that the doctors of those times had more right to judge of our\nfaith than those had that followed them; but it is because after a\nserious examination we have found, that, as for what concerns _the\ncommon belief_ that is among us, they have believed and practised the\nsame things without adding other opinions or superstitions that destroy\nthem,--wherein they have acted conformably to their and our rule, THE\nWORD OF GOD: notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, but that they\neffectually fell into some wrong opinions, as that of the Millenaries\nand infant communion,\u201d &c. The usefulness and necessity of studying the\nancient fathers have been defended by many persons eminent for their\nlearning and piety. Archbishop Usher was one who beyond all men then\nliving knew the vast importance of these studies, and had derived the\ngreatest benefits from them. The following brief advice, in the language\nof Dr. Parr, his erudite biographer, will convey his sentiments on this\nvery interesting subject: \u201cIndeed he had so great an esteem of the\nANCIENT AUTHORS, for the acquiring any solid learning, whether sacred or\nprofane, that his advice to young students, either in divinity or\nantiquity, was, not to spend too much time in epitomes, but to set\nthemselves to read the ancient authors themselves; as, to begin with the\nFATHERS, and to read them according to the ages in which they lived,\n(which was the method he had taken himself,) and, together with them,\ncarefully to peruse the CHURCH HISTORIANS that treated of that age in\nwhich those fathers lived: by which means the student would be better\nable to perceive the reason and meaning of divers passages in their\nwritings, (which otherwise would be obscure,) when he knew the original\nand growth of those heresies and heterodox opinions against which they\nwrote, and may also better judge what doctrines, ceremonies, and\nopinions prevailed in the church in every age, and by what means\nintroduced.\u201d\n\nFEAR, a painful apprehension of danger. It is sometimes used for the\nobject of fear; as, \u201cthe fear of Isaac,\u201d that is, the God whom Isaac\nfeared, Gen. xxxi, 42. God says that he will send his fear before his\npeople, to terrify and destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. Job speaks of\nthe terrors of God, as set in array against him, Job vi, 4; the\nPsalmist, that he had suffered the terrors of the Lord with a troubled\nmind, Psalm lxxxviii, 15. Fear is used, also, for reverence: \u201cGod is\ngreatly to be _feared_\u201d in the assembly of his saints. This kind of\nfear, being compatible with confidence and love, is sometimes called\nfilial fear; while \u201cthe fear which hath torment,\u201d being the result of\nconscious guilt, and the anticipation of punishment, is removed by that\n\u201clove\u201d to God which results from a consciousness of our reconciliation\nto him.\n\nThe filial fear of God is a holy affection, or gracious habit, wrought\nin the soul by God, Jer. xxxii, 40, whereby it is inclined and enabled\nto obey all God\u2019s commandments, even the most difficult, Gen. xxii, 12;\nEccl. xii, 13; and to hate and avoid evil, Nehemiah v, 15; Prov. viii,\n13; xv, 6. Slavish fear is the consequence of guilt; it is a judicial\nimpression from the sad thoughts of the provoked majesty of the heaven;\nit is an alarm within that disturbs the rest of a sinner. Fear is put\nfor the whole worship of God: \u201cI will teach you the fear of the Lord,\u201d\nPsalm xxxiv, 11; I will teach you the true way of worshipping and\nserving God. It is likewise put for the law and word of God: \u201cThe fear\nof the Lord is clean, enduring for ever,\u201d Psalm xix, 9. The law is so\ncalled, because it is the object, the cause, and the rule of the grace\nof holy fear.\n\nFEASTS. God appointed several festivals among the Jews. 1. To perpetuate\nthe memory of great events; so, the Sabbath commemorated the creation of\nthe world; the passover, the departure out of Egypt; the pentecost, the\nlaw given at Sinai, &c. 2. To keep them under the influence of religion,\nand by the majesty of that service which he instituted among them, and\nwhich abounded in mystical symbols or types of evangelical things, to\nconvey spiritual instruction, and to keep alive the expectation of the\nMessiah, and his more perfect dispensation. 3. To secure to them certain\ntimes of rest and rejoicings. 4. To render them familiar with the law;\nfor, in their religious assemblies, the law of God was read and\nexplained. 5. To renew the acquaintance, correspondence, and friendship\nof their tribes and families, coming from the several towns in the\ncountry, and meeting three times a year in the holy city.\n\nThe first and most ancient festival, the Sabbath, or seventh day,\ncommemorated the creation. \u201cThe Lord blessed the seventh day, and\nsanctified it,\u201d says Moses, \u201cbecause that in it he had rested from all\nhis work,\u201d Gen. ii, 3. See SABBATH.\n\nThe passover was instituted in memory of the Israelites\u2019 departure out\nof Egypt, and of the favour which God showed his people in sparing their\nfirst-born, when he destroyed the first-born of the Egyptians, Exod.\nxii, 14, &c. See PASSOVER.\n\nThe feast of pentecost was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the\npassover, in memory of the law being given to Moses on Mount Sinai,\nfifty days after the departure out of Egypt. They reckoned seven weeks\nfrom the passover to pentecost, beginning at the day after the passover.\nThe Hebrews call it the feast of weeks, and the Christians, pentecost,\nwhich signifies the fiftieth day.\n\nThe feast of trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the civil year;\non which the trumpets sounded, proclaiming the beginning of the year,\nwhich was in the month Tisri, answering to our September, O. S. We know\nno religious cause of its establishment. Moses commands it to be\nobserved as a day of rest, and that particular sacrifices should be\noffered at that time.\n\nThe new moons, or first days of every month, were, in some sort, a\nconsequence of the feasts of trumpets. The law did not oblige people to\nrest upon this day, but ordained only some particular sacrifices. It\nappears that, on these days, also, the trumpet was sounded, and\nentertainments were made, 1 Sam. xx, 5\u201318.\n\nThe feast of expiation or atonement was celebrated on the tenth day of\nTisri, which was the first day of the civil year. It was instituted for\na general expiation of sins, irreverences, and pollutions of all the\nIsraelites, from the high priest to the lowest of the people, committed\nby them throughout the year, Lev. xxiii, 27, 28; Num. xxix, 7. See\nEXPIATION, _Day of_.\n\nThe feast of tents, or tabernacles, on which all Israel were obliged to\nattend the temple, and to dwell eight days under tents of branches, in\nmemory of their fathers dwelling forty years in tents, as travellers in\nthe wilderness. It was kept on the fifteenth of the month Tisri, the\nfirst of the civil year. The first and seventh day of this feast were\nvery solemn. But during the other days of the octave they might work,\nLev. xxiii, 34, 35; Num. xxix, 12, 13. At the beginning of the feast,\ntwo vessels of silver were carried in a ceremonious manner to the\ntemple, one full of water, the other of wine, which were poured at the\nfoot of the altar of burnt offerings, always on the seventh day of this\nfestival.\n\nOf the three great feasts of the year, the passover, pentecost, and that\nof the tabernacles, the octave, or seventh day after these feasts, was a\nday of rest as much as the festival itself; and all the males of the\nnation were obliged to visit the temple at these three feasts. But the\nlaw did not require them to continue there during the whole octave,\nexcept in the feast of tabernacles, when they seem obliged to be present\nfor the whole seven days.\n\nBeside these feasts, we find the feast of lots, or _purim_, instituted\non occasion of the deliverance of the Jews from Haman\u2019s plot, in the\nreign of Ahasuerus. See PURIM.\n\nThe feast of the dedication of the temple, or rather of the restoration\nof the temple, which had been profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Mac.\niv, 52, &c, was celebrated in winter, and is supposed to be the feast of\ndedication mentioned in John x, 22. Josephus says, that it was called\nthe feast of lights, probably because this happiness befel them when\nleast expected, and they considered it as a new light risen on them.\n\nIn the Christian church, no festival appears to have been expressly\ninstituted by Jesus Christ, or his Apostles. Yet, as we commemorate the\npassion of Christ as often as we celebrate his Supper, he seems by this\nto have instituted a perpetual feast. Christians have always celebrated\nthe memory of his resurrection, and observe this feast on every Sunday,\nwhich was commonly called the Lord\u2019s day, Rev. i, 10. By inference we\nmay conclude this festival to have been instituted by Apostolic\nauthority.\n\nThe birth-day of Christ, commonly called Christmas-day, has been\ngenerally observed by his disciples with gratitude and joy. His birth\nwas the greatest blessing ever bestowed on mankind. The angels from\nheaven celebrated it with a joyful hymn; and every man, who has any\nfeeling of his own lost state without a Redeemer, must rejoice and be\nglad in it. \u201cUnto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and his\nname shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the\neverlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,\u201d Isaiah ix, 6. For this\nfestival, however, there is no authority in Scripture, nor do we know\nthat it was observed in the age of the Apostles.\n\nOn Easter Sunday we celebrate our Saviour\u2019s victory over death and hell,\nwhen, having on the cross made an atonement for the sin of the world, he\nrose again from the grave, brought life and immortality to light, and\nopened to all his faithful servants the way to heaven. On this great\nevent rest all our hopes. \u201cIf Christ be not risen,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cthen\nis our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. But now is Christ\nrisen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept,\u201d 1\nCor. xv, 14, 20.\n\nForty days after his resurrection, our Lord ascended into heaven, in the\nsight of his disciples. This is celebrated on what is called\nAscension-day, or Holy Thursday. Ten days after his ascension, our Lord\nsent the Holy Spirit to be the comforter and guide of his disciples.\nThis blessing is commemorated on Whit-Sunday, which is a very great\nfestival, and may be profitably observed; for the assistance of the Holy\nSpirit can alone support us through all temptations, and guide us into\nall truth.\n\nThe pretended success of some in discovering the remains of certain holy\nmen, called \u201crelics,\u201d multiplied in the fourth century of the Christian\nchurch the festivals and commemorations of the martyrs in a most\nextravagant manner. These days, instead of being set apart for pious\nexercises, were spent in indolence, voluptuousness, and criminal\npursuits; and were less consecrated to the service of God, than employed\nin the indulgence of sinful passions. Many of these festivals were\ninstituted on a Pagan model, and perverted to similar purposes.\n\nFELIX, CLAUDIUS. See CLAUDIUS.\n\nFERRET, \u05d0\u05e0\u05e7\u05d4, from \u05d0\u05e0\u05e7, or _cry out_, Lev. xi, 30. The ferret is a\nspecies of the weasel; but Bochart will have the _anakah_ to be the\nspotted lizard, called by Pliny _stellio_. Dr. James takes it for the\nfrog, in allusion to the name, which literally signifies _the crier_,\nbefitting the croaking of that animal; but we shall find the frog\nmentioned under another name. Dr. Geddes renders it _the newt_, or\nrather _the lizard of the Nile_; and it evidently must be of the lizard\nspecies. Pliny mentions \u201cthe _galleotes_, covered with red spots, whose\ncries are sharp,\u201d which may be the _gekko_, which is probably the animal\nhere intended. As its name, in the Indies _tockai_, and in Egypt\n_gekko_, is formed from its voice, so the Hebrew name _anakah_, or\nperhaps _anakkah_, seems to be formed in like manner; the double k being\nequally observable in all these appellations. If these remarks are\nadmissible, this lizard is sufficiently identified.\n\nFESTUS. Portius Festus succeeded Felix in the government of Judea, A. D.\n60. Felix his predecessor, to oblige the Jews, when he resigned his\ngovernment, left St. Paul in bonds at C\u00e6sarea, in Palestine, Acts xxiv,\n27. Festus, at his first coming to Jerusalem, was entreated by the\nprincipal Jews to condemn St. Paul, or to order him up to Jerusalem,\nthey having conspired to assassinate him in the way. Festus answered,\nthat it was not customary with the Romans to condemn any man without\nhearing him; but said that he would hear their accusations against St.\nPaul at C\u00e6sarea. From these accusations St. Paul appealed to C\u00e6sar, and\nby this means secured himself from the prosecution of the Jews, and the\nwicked intentions of Festus, whom they had corrupted.\n\nFIG TREE, \u05ea\u05d0\u05d2\u05d4, Gen. iii, 7; Num. xiii, 23; \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u1fc6, Matthew vii, 16; xxi,\n19; xxiv, 32; Mark xi, 13, 20, 21; xiii, 28; Luke vi, 44; xiii, 6, 7;\nxxi, 29; John i, 48; James iii, 12; Rev. vi, 13. This tree was very\ncommon in Palestine. It becomes large, dividing into many branches,\nwhich are furnished with leaves shaped like those of the mulberry, and\naffords a friendly shade. Accordingly, we read, in the Old Testament, of\nJuda and Israel dwelling, or sitting securely, every man under his fig\ntree, 1 Kings iv, 25; Micah iv, 4; Zech. iii, 10; 1 Mac. xiv, 12. And,\nin the New Testament, we find Nathanael under a fig tree, probably for\nthe purposes of devotional retirement, John i, 49\u201351. Hasselquist, in\nhis journey from Nazareth to Tiberias, says, \u201cWe refreshed ourselves\nunder the shade of a fig tree, where a shepherd and his herd had their\nrendezvous; but without either house or hut.\u201d The fruit which it bears\nis produced from the trunk and large branches, and not from the smaller\nshoots, as in most other trees. It is soft, sweet, and very nourishing.\nMilton is of opinion that the banian tree was that with the leaves of\nwhich our first parents made themselves aprons. But his account, as to\nthe matter of fact, wants even probability to countenance it; for the\nleaves of this are so far from being, as he has described them, of the\nbigness of an Amazonian target, that they seldom or never exceed five\ninches in length, and three in breadth. Therefore, we must look for\nanother of the fig kind, that better answers the purpose referred to by\nMoses, Gen. iii, 7; and as the fruit of the banana tree, is often, by\nthe most ancient authors, called a fig, may we not suppose this to have\nbeen the fig tree of paradise? Pliny, describing this tree, says that\nits leaves were the greatest and most shady of all others; and as the\nleaves of these are often six feet long, and about two broad, are thin,\nsmooth, and very flexible, they may be deemed more proper than any other\nfor the covering spoken of, especially since they may be easily joined\ntogether with the numerous threadlike filaments, which may, without\nlabour, be peeled from the body of the tree. The first ripe fig is still\ncalled _bocc\u00f4re_ in the Levant, which is nearly its Hebrew name, \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4,\nJer. xxiv, 2. Thus Dr. Shaw, in giving an account of the fruits in\nBarbary, mentions \u201cthe black and white _bocc\u00f4re_, or \u2018early fig,\u2019 which\nis produced in June, though the _kermes_, or _kermouse_, the \u2018fig,\u2019\nprobably so called, which they preserve and make up into cakes, is\nrarely ripe before August.\u201d And on Nahum iii, 12, he observes, that \u201cthe\n_bocc\u00f4res_ drop as soon as they are ripe, and, according to the\nbeautiful allusion of the prophet, fall into the mouth of the eater upon\nbeing shaken.\u201d Farther, \u201cIt frequently falls out in Barbary,\u201d says he;\n\u201cand we need not doubt of the like in this hotter climate of Judea,\nthat, according to the quality of the preceding season, some of the more\nforward and vigorous trees will now and then yield a few ripe figs six\nweeks or more before the full season. Something like this may be alluded\nto by the Prophet Hosea, when he says, \u2018I saw your fathers as \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4,\n_the first ripe_, in the fig tree, at her first time,\u2019 Hosea ix, 10.\nSuch figs were reckoned a great dainty.\u201d See Isaiah xxviii, 4. The\nProphet Isaiah gave orders to apply a lump of figs to Hezekiah\u2019s boil;\nand immediately after it was cured. God, in effecting this miraculous\ncure, was pleased to order the use of means not improper for that end.\n\n2. The account of our Saviour\u2019s denunciation against the barren fig\ntree, Matt. xxi, 19; Mark xi, 13, has occasioned some of the boldest\ncavils of infidelity; and the vindication of it has exercised the\ningenuity of several of the most learned critics and commentators. The\nwhole difficulty arises from the circumstance of his disappointment in\nnot finding fruit on the tree, when it is expressly said, that \u201cthe time\nof figs was not yet.\u201d While it was supposed that this expression\nsignified, that the time for such trees to bring forth fruit was not yet\ncome, it looked very unaccountable that Christ should reckon a tree\nbarren, though it had leaves, and curse it as such, when he knew that\nthe time of bearing figs was not come; and that he should come to seek\nfigs on this tree, when he knew that figs were not used to be ripe so\nsoon in the year. But the expression does not signify the time of the\ncoming forth of figs, but the time of the gathering in of ripe figs, as\nis plain from the parallel expressions. Thus, \u201cthe time of the fruit,\u201d\nMatt. xxi, 34, most plainly signifies the time of gathering in ripe\nfruits, since the servants were sent to receive those fruits for their\nmaster\u2019s use. St. Mark and St. Luke express the same by the word _time_,\nor _season_: \u201cAt the _season_ he sent a servant,\u201d &c; that is, at the\nseason or time of gathering in ripe fruit, Mark xii, 2; Luke xx, 10. In\nlike manner, if any one should say in our language, the season of fruit,\nthe season of apples, the season of figs, every one would understand him\nto speak of the season or time of gathering in these fruits. When,\ntherefore, St. Mark says, that \u201cthe time or season of figs was not yet,\u201d\nhe evidently means that the time of gathering ripe figs was not yet\npast; and, if so, it was natural to expect figs upon all those trees\nthat were not barren; whereas, after the time of gathering figs, no one\nwould expect to find them on a fig tree, and its having none then would\nbe no sign of barrenness. St. Mark, by saying, \u201cFor the time of figs was\nnot yet,\u201d does not design to give a reason for \u201chis finding nothing but\nleaves;\u201d but he gives a reason for what he said in the clause before:\n\u201cHe came, if haply he might find any thereon;\u201d and it was a good reason\nfor our Saviour\u2019s coming and seeking figs on the tree, because the time\nfor their being gathered was not come. We have other like instances in\nthe Gospels, and, indeed, in the writings of all mankind, of another\nclause coming in between the assertion and the proof. Thus, in this very\nevangelist: \u201cThey said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone\nfrom the door of the sepulchre? and when they looked, they saw the stone\nwas rolled away; for it was very great,\u201d Mark xvi, 3, 4; where its being\nvery great is not assigned as a reason of its being rolled away, but of\nthe women\u2019s wishing for some one to roll it away for them. St. Matthew\ninforms us that the tree was \u201cin the way,\u201d that is, in the common road,\nand therefore, probably, no particular person\u2019s property; but if it was,\nbeing barren, the timber might be as serviceable to the owner as before.\nSo that here was no real injury; but Jesus was pleased to make use of\nthis innocent miracle to prefigure the speedy ruin of the Jewish nation\non account of its unfruitfulness under greater advantages than any other\npeople enjoyed at that day; and, like all the rest of his miracles, it\nwas done with a gracious intention, namely, to alarm his countrymen, and\ninduce them to repent. In the blasting of this barren fig tree, the\ndistant appearance of which was so fair and promising, he delivered one\nmore awful lesson to a degenerate nation, of whose hypocritical exterior\nand flattering but delusive pretensions it was a just and striking\nemblem.\n\nFINGER. The finger of God signifies his power, his operation. Pharaoh\u2019s\nmagicians discovered the finger of God in the miracle which Moses\nwrought, Exodus viii, 19. This legislator gave the law written by the\nfinger of God to the Hebrews, Exodus xxxi, 18. Our Saviour says he cast\nout devils by the finger and Spirit of God, which he intimates was a\nsign that the kingdom of God was come; that God\u2019s spiritual government\nof his church was begun to be exercised among the Jews, by the Messiah,\nLuke xi, 20. To put forth one\u2019s finger, is a bantering, insulting\ngesture. \u201cIf thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, and the\nputting out of the finger,\u201d Isaiah lviii, 9; if thou take away from the\nmidst of thee the chain, or yoke, wherewith thou loadest thy debtors;\nand forbear pointing at them, and using jeering or menacing gestures.\n\nFIRE. God hath often appeared in fire, and encompassed with fire, as\nwhen he showed himself in the burning bush; and descended on Mount\nSinai, in the midst of flames, thunderings, and lightning, Exodus iii,\n2; xix, 18. Hence fire is a symbol of the Deity: \u201cThe Lord thy God is a\nconsuming fire,\u201d Deut. iv, 24. The Holy Ghost is compared to fire: \u201cHe\nshall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,\u201d Matt. iii, 11. To\nverify this prediction, he sent the Holy Ghost, which descended upon his\ndisciples, in the form of tongues, or like flames of fire, Acts ii, 3.\nIt is the work of the Holy Spirit to enlighten, purify, and sanctify the\nsoul; and to inflame it with love to God, and zeal for his glory. Fire\nfrom heaven fell frequently on the victims sacrificed to the Lord, as a\nmark of his presence and approbation. It is thought, that God in this\nmanner expressed his acceptance of Abel\u2019s sacrifices, Gen. iv, 4. When\nthe Lord made a covenant with Abraham, a fire like that of a furnace\npassed through the divided pieces of the sacrifices, and consumed them,\nGen. xv, 17. Fire fell upon the sacrifices which Moses offered at the\ndedication of the tabernacle, Lev. ix, 24; and upon those of Manoah,\nSamson\u2019s father, Judges xiii, 19, 20; upon Solomon\u2019s, at the dedication\nof the temple, 2 Chron. vii, 1; and on Elijah\u2019s, at Mount Carmel, 1\nKings xviii, 38. The fire which came down from heaven, first upon the\naltar in the tabernacle, and afterward descended anew upon the altar in\nthe temple of Solomon, at its consecration, was there constantly fed and\nmaintained by the priests, day and night, in the same manner as it had\nbeen in the tabernacle. The Jews have a tradition, that Jeremiah,\nforeseeing the destruction of the temple, took this fire and hid it in a\npit; but that at the rebuilding of the temple, being brought again from\nthence, it revived upon the altar. But this is a fiction: and the\ngenerality of them allow, that, at the destruction of the temple, it was\nextinguished: and in the time of the second temple, nothing was made use\nof for all their burnt offerings but common fire only. The ancient\nChaldeans adored the fire, as well as the old Persians, and some other\npeople of the east. The torments of hell are described by fire, both in\nthe Old and New Testament. Our Saviour makes use of this similitude, to\nrepresent the punishment of the damned, Mark ix, 44. He likewise speaks\nfrequently of the eternal fire prepared for the devil, his angels, and\nreprobates, Matt. xxv, 41. The sting and remorse of conscience is the\nworm that will never die; and the wrath of God upon their souls and\nbodies, the fire that shall never go out. There are writers who\nmaintain, that by the worm is to be understood a living and sensible,\nnot an allegorical and figurative, worm; and by fire, a real elementary\nand material fire. Among the abettors of this opinion are Austin,\nCyprian, Chrysostom, Jerom, &c. The word of God is compared to fire: \u201cIs\nnot my word like a fire?\u201d Jer. xxiii, 20. It is full of life and\nefficacy; like a fire it warms, melts, and heats; and is powerful to\nconsume the dross, and burn up the chaff and stubble. Fire is likewise\ntaken for persecution, dissension, and division: \u201cI am come to send fire\non earth,\u201d Luke xii, 49; as if it was said, upon my coming and\npublishing the Gospel, there will follow, through the devil\u2019s malice and\ncorruption of men, much persecution to the professors thereof, and\nmanifold divisions in the world, whereby men will be tried, whether they\nwill be faithful or not.\n\nFIRMAMENT. It is said, Gen. i, 7, that God made the firmament in the\nmidst of the waters, to separate the inferior from the superior. The\nword used on this occasion properly signifies _expansion_, or something\nexpanded. This expansion is properly the atmosphere, which encompasses\nthe globe on all sides, and separates the water in the clouds from that\non the earth.\n\nFIRST-BORN. The first-born, who was the object of special affection to\nhis parents, was denominated by way of eminence, \u05e8\u05d7\u05dd \u05e4\u05d8\u05e8, _the opening\nof the womb_. In case a man married with a widow, who by a previous\nmarriage had become the mother of children, the first-born as respected\nthe second husband was the eldest child by the second marriage. Before\nthe time of Moses, the father might, if he chose, transfer the right of\nprimogeniture to a younger child, but the practice occasioned much\ncontention, Gen. xxv, 31, 32; and a law was enacted, overruling it,\nDeut. xxi, 15\u201317. The first-born inherited peculiar rights and\nprivileges. (1.) He received a double portion of the estate. Jacob, in\nthe case of Reuben, his first-born, bestowed his additional portion upon\nJoseph, by adopting his two sons, Gen. xlviii, 5\u20138; Deut. xxi, 17. This\nwas done as a reprimand, and a punishment of his incestuous conduct,\nGenesis xxxv, 22; but Reuben, notwithstanding, was enrolled as the\nfirst-born in the genealogical registers, 1 Chron. v, 1. (2.) The\nfirst-born was the priest of the whole family. The honour of exercising\nthe priesthood was transferred, by the command of God communicated\nthrough Moses, from the tribe of Reuben, to whom it belonged by right of\nprimogeniture, to that of Levi, Num. iii, 12\u201318; viii, 18. In\nconsequence of God having taken the Levites from among the children of\nIsrael instead of all the first-born to serve him as priests, the\nfirst-born of the other tribes were to be redeemed, at a valuation made\nby the priest not exceeding five shekels, from serving God in that\ncapacity, Numbers xviii, 15, 16; Luke ii, 22, &c. (3.) The first-born\nenjoyed an authority over those who were younger, similar to that\npossessed by a father, Gen. xxv, 23, &c; 2 Chron. xxi, 3; Gen. xxvii,\n29; Exod. xii, 29: which was transferred in the case of Reuben by Jacob\ntheir father to Judah, Gen. xlix, 8\u201310. The tribe of Judah, accordingly,\neven before it gave kings to the Hebrews, was every where distinguished\nfrom the other tribes. In consequence of the authority which was thus\nattached to the first-born, he was also made the successor in the\nkingdom. There was an exception to this rule in the case of Solomon,\nwho, though a younger brother, was made his successor by David at the\nspecial appointment of God. It is very easy to see in view of these\nfacts, how the word \u201cfirst-born\u201d came to express sometimes a great, and\nsometimes the highest, dignity.\n\n2. First-born is not always to be understood literally; it is sometimes\ntaken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of any thing.\n\u201cThe first-born of the poor,\u201d Isaiah xiv, 30, signifies the most\nmiserable of the poor; and \u201cthe first-born of death,\u201d Job xviii, 13, the\nmost terrible of deaths.\n\n3. God ordained that all the Jewish first-born both of men and beasts,\nfor service, should be consecrated to him. The male children only were\nsubject to this law. If a woman\u2019s first child were a girl, the father\nwas not obliged to offer any thing for her, or for the children after\nher, though they were males. If a man had many wives, he was obliged to\noffer the first-born of each of them to the Lord. The first-born were\noffered in the temple, and were redeemed for the sum of five shekels.\nThe firstling of a clean beast was offered at the temple, not to be\nredeemed, but to be killed. An unclean beast, a horse, an ass, or a\ncamel, was either redeemed or exchanged. An ass was redeemed by a lamb,\nor five shekels; if not redeemed, it was killed.\n\nFIRST-FRUITS, among the Hebrews, were presents made to God of part of\nthe fruits of the harvest, to express the submission, dependence, and\nthankfulness of the offerers. They were offered at the temple, before\nthe crop was touched; and when the harvest was over, before any private\npersons used their corn. The first of these first-fruits, offered in the\nname of the nation, was a sheaf of barley, gathered on the fifteenth of\nNisan in the evening, and threshed in a court of the temple. After it\nwas well cleaned, about three pints of it were roasted and pounded in a\nmortar. Over this was thrown a portion of oil, and a handful of incense.\nThen the priest took this offering, waved it before the Lord toward the\nfour parts of the world, threw a handful of it into the fire upon the\naltar, and kept the rest. After this, every one was at liberty to get in\nhis harvest. Beside these first-fruits, every private person was obliged\nto bring his first-fruits to the temple. The Scripture prescribes\nneither the time nor the quantity. The rabbins say, that they were\nobliged to bring at least the sixtieth part of their fruits and harvest.\nThese first-fruits consisted of wheat, barley, grapes, figs, apricots,\nolives, and dates. They met in companies of four-and-twenty persons to\ncarry their first-fruits in a ceremonious manner. The company was\npreceded by an ox appointed for the sacrifice, with a crown of olives on\nhis head, and his horns gilded. There was also another sort of\nfirst-fruits paid to God, Num. xv, 19, 20, when the bread in every\nfamily was kneaded, a portion of it was set apart, and given to the\npriest or Levite of the place. If there was no priest or Levite, it was\ncast into the oven, and consumed by the fire. This is one of the three\nprecepts peculiar to the women; because they generally made the bread.\nThe first-fruits and tenths were the most substantial revenue of the\npriests and Levites. St. Paul says, Christians have the first-fruits of\nthe Spirit, Rom. viii, 23, that is, a greater abundance of God\u2019s Spirit,\nmore perfect and more excellent gifts than the Jews. Christ is called\nthe first-fruits of them that slept; for as the first-fruits were\nearnests to the Jews of the succeeding harvest, so Christ is the\nfirst-fruits or the earnest of the general resurrection.\n\nFIR TREE, \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9, occurs 2 Sam. vi, 5; 1 Kings v, 8, 10; vi, 15, 34; ix,\n11; 2 Kings xix, 23; 2 Chron. ii, 8; iii, 5; Psalm civ, 17; Isaiah xiv,\n8; xxxvii, 24; xli, 19; lv, 13; lx, 13; Ezek. xxvii, 5; xxxi, 8; Hosea\nxiv, 8; Nahum ii, 3; Zech. xi, 2. The LXX render it so variously as to\nshow that they knew not what particular tree is meant; the Vulgate,\ngenerally by _abietes_, the \u201cfir tree.\u201d Celsius asserts that it is the\ncedar; but Millar maintains that it is the fir. The fir tree is an\nevergreen, of beautiful appearance, whose lofty height, and dense\nfoliage, afford a spacious shelter and shade. The trunk of the tree is\nvery straight. The wood was anciently used for spears, musical\ninstruments, furniture for houses, rafters in building, and for ships.\nIn 2 Sam. vi, 5, it is mentioned that David played on instruments of fir\nwood; and Dr. Burney, in his \u201cHistory of Music,\u201d observes, \u201cThis species\nof wood, so soft in its nature, and sonorous in its effects, seems to\nhave been preferred by the ancients, as well as moderns, to every other\nkind for the construction of musical instruments, particularly the\nbellies of them, on which the tone of them chiefly depends. Those of the\nharp, lute, guitar, harpsichord, and violin, in present use, are always\nmade of this wood.\u201d\n\nFISH, \u05d3\u05d2, \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2, Matt. vii, 10; xvii, 27; Luke v, 6; John xxi, 6, 8, 11,\noccurs very frequently. This appears to be the general name in Scripture\nof aquatic animals. Boothroyd, in the note upon Num. xi, 4, says, \u201cI am\ninclined to think that the word \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8, here rendered _flesh_, denotes only\nthe flesh of fish, as it certainly does in Lev. xi, 11; and indeed the\nnext verse seems to support this explication: \u2018We remember how freely we\nate fish.\u2019 It was then, particularly, the flesh of fish, for which they\nlonged, which was more relishing than either the beef or mutton of those\nregions, which, unless when young, is dry and unpalatable. Of the great\nabundance and deliciousness of the fish of Egypt, all authors, ancient\nand modern, are agreed.\u201d We have few Hebrew names, if any, for\nparticular fishes. Moses says in general, Lev. xi, 9\u201312, that all sorts\nof river, lake, and sea fish, might be eaten, if they had scales and\nfins; others were unclean. St. Barnabas, in his epistle, cites, as from\nancient authority, \u201cYou shall not eat of the lamprey, the many-feet,\n[polypes,] nor the cuttle fish.\u201d Though fish was the common food of the\nEgyptians, yet we learn from Herodotus and Ch\u00e6remon, as quoted by\nPorphyry, that their priests abstained from fish of all sorts. Hence we\nmay see how distressing to the Egyptians was the infliction which turned\nthe waters of the river into blood, and occasioned the death of the\nfish, Exod. vii, 18\u201321. Their sacred stream became so polluted as to be\nunfit for drink, for bathing, and for other uses of water to which they\nwere superstitiously devoted, and themselves obliged to nauseate what\nwas the usual food of the common people, and held sacred by the priests,\nExod. ii, 5; vii, 15; viii, 20.\n\nIn Ezekiel xxix, 4, the king of Egypt is compared to the crocodile: \u201cI\nam against thee, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers\nin Egypt. I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish in thy\nrivers to stick to thy scales, and I will bring thee out of the midst of\nthy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick to thy scales.\u201d\nIf the _remora_ is as troublesome to the crocodile as it is to some\nother tenants of the water, it may here be referred to. Forskal mentions\nthe _echeneis neucrates_ [remora] at Gidda, there called _kaml el\nkersh_, \u201cthe louse of the shark,\u201d because it often adheres very strongly\nto this fish; and Hasselquist says that it is found at Alexandria.\n\nThe term, \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2, _a fish_, was, at an early period of the Christian era,\nadopted as a symbolical word. It was formed from the initial letters of\nthe Greek words, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u1f78\u03c2, \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f59\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, \u201cJesus Christ, the Son\nof God, our Saviour.\u201d From the use of symbolical terms, the transition\nwas easy to the adoption of symbolical representations, and it therefore\nsoon became common for the Christians to have the letters of the word\n\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03c2, or the figures of fishes, sculptured on their monuments for the\ndead, struck on their medals, engraved on their rings and seals, and\neven formed on the articles of domestic use.\n\nFITCHES, or VETCHES, a kind of tare. There are two words in Hebrew which\nour translators have rendered _fitches_, \u05e7\u05e6\u05d7 and \u05db\u05e1\u05de\u05ea: the first occurs\nonly in Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27, and must be the name of some kind of\nseed; but the interpreters differ much in explaining it. Jerom,\nMaimonides, R. David Kimchi, and the rabbins understand it of the\n_gith_; and rabbi Obdias de Bartenora expressly says that its barbarous\nor vulgar name is \u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9. The _gith_ was called by the Greeks \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\nand by the Latins _nigella_; and is thus described by Ballester: \u201cIt is\na plant commonly met with in gardens, and grows to a cubit in height,\nand sometimes more, according to the richness of the soil. The leaves\nare small like those of fennel, the flower blue, which disappearing, the\novary shows itself on the top, like that of a poppy, furnished with\nlittle horns, oblong, divided by membranes into several partitions, or\ncells, in which are enclosed seeds of a very black colour, not unlike\nthose of the leek, but of a very fragrant smell.\u201d And Ausonius observes,\nthat its pungency is equal to that of pepper:--\n\n             _Est inter fruges morsu piper \u00e6quiparens git._\n\nPliny says it is of use in bakehouses, _pistrinis_, and that it affords\na grateful seasoning to the bread. The Jewish rabbins also mention the\nseeds among condiments, and mixed with bread. For this purpose it was\nprobably used in the time of Isaiah; since the inhabitants of those\ncountries, to this day, have a variety of rusks and biscuits, most of\nwhich are strewed on the top with the seeds of sesamum, coriander, and\nwild garden saffron.\n\nThe other word rendered _fitches_ in our translation of Ezek. iv, 9, is\n\u05db\u05e1\u05de\u05ea; but in Exod. ix, 32, and Isaiah xxviii, 25, \u201crye.\u201d In the latter\nplace the Septuagint has \u03be\u03ad\u03b1, and in the two former \u1f40\u03bb\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1; and the\nVulgate in Exodus, _far_, and in Isaiah and Ezekiel, _vicia_. Saadias,\nlikewise, took it to be something of the leguminous kind, \u05d2\u05dc\u05e0\u05d0\u05df,\n_cicircula_, (misprinted _circula_ in the Polyglott version,) or, \u201ca\nchickling.\u201d Aquila has \u03b6\u03ad\u03b1, and Theodotion, \u1f40\u03bb\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1. Onkelos and Targum\nhave \u05db\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 and Syriac, \u05db\u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05d0, which are supposed to be the _millet_, or\na species of it called _panicum_; Persian, \u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05db\u05d3\u05dd, the _spelt_; and this\nseems to be the most probable meaning of the Hebrew word; at least it\nhas the greatest number of interpreters from Jerom to Celsius. There are\nnot, however, wanting, who think it was rye; among whom R. D. Kimchi,\nfollowed by Luther, and our English translators: Dr. Geddes, too, has\nretained it, though he says that he is inclined to think that the\n_spelt_ is preferable.\n\nDr. Shaw thinks that this word may signify _rice_. Hasselquist, on the\ncontrary, affirms that rice was brought into cultivation in Egypt under\nthe Caliphs. This, however, may be doubted. One would think from the\nintercourse of ancient Egypt with Babylon and with India, that this\ncountry could not be ignorant of a grain so well suited to its climate.\n\nFLAG, \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5, occurs Gen. xli, 2, 18; Job viii, 11; and \u05e1\u05d5\u05e3, _weeds_, Exod.\nii, 3, 5; Isa. xix, 6; John ii, 5. The word _achu_ in the first two\ninstances is translated \u201cmeadows,\u201d and in the latter, \u201cflag.\u201d It\nprobably denotes the sedge, or long grass, which grows in the meadows of\nthe Nile, very grateful to the cattle. It is retained in the Septuagint\nin Genesis, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f04\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9; and is used by the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus\nxl, 16, \u1f04\u03c7\u03b9 and \u1f04\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9; for the copies vary.\n\n\u201cWe have no radix,\u201d says the learned Chapelow, \u201cfor \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5, unless we\nderive it, as Schultens does, from the Arabic _achi_, \u2018to bind or join\ntogether.\u2019\u201d Thus, Parkhurst defines it \u201ca species of plant, sedge, or\nreed, so called from its fitness for making ropes, or the like, to\nconnect or join things together; as the Latin _juncus_, a \u2018bulrush,\u2019 _a\njungendo_, from \u2018joining,\u2019 for the same reason;\u201d and he supposes that it\nis the plant, or reed, growing near the Nile, which Hasselquist\ndescribes as having numerous narrow leaves, and growing about eleven\nfeet high, of the leaves of which the Egyptians make ropes.\n\nThe word \u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 is called by Eben Ezra, \u201ca reed growing on the borders of\nthe river.\u201d Bochart, Fuller, Rivetus, Ludolphus, and Junius and\nTremellius, render it by _juncus_, _carex_, or _alga_; and Celsius\nthinks it the _fucus_ or _alga_, \u201csea weed.\u201d Dr. Geddes says there is\nlittle doubt of its being the sedge called _sari_, which, as we learn\nfrom Theophrastus and Pliny, grows on the marshy banks of the Nile, and\nrises to the height of almost two cubits. This, indeed, agrees very well\nwith Exod. ii, 3, 5, and the thickets of arundinaceous plants, at some\nsmall distances from the Red Sea, observed by Dr. Shaw; but the place in\nJonah seems to require some submarine plant.\n\nFLAX, \u05e4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4, Exod. ix, 31; Lev. xiii, 47, 48, 52, 59; Deut. xxii, 11;\nJoshua ii, 6; Judg. xv, 14; Prov. xxxi, 13; Isaiah xix, 9; xlii, 3;\nxliii, 17; Jer. xiii, 1; Ezek. xl, 3; xliv, 17, 18; Hosea ii, 5, 9;\n\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd Matt. xii, 20; Rev. xv, 6; a plant very common, and too well known\nto need a description. It is a vegetable upon which the industry of\nmankind has been exercised with the greatest success and utility. On\npassing a field of it, one is struck with astonishment when he considers\nthat this apparently insignificant plant may, by the labour and\ningenuity of man, be made to assume an entirely new form and appearance,\nand to contribute to pleasure and health, by furnishing us with\nagreeable and ornamental apparel. This word Mr. Parkhurst thinks is\nderived from the verb \u05e4\u05e9\u05d8, _to strip_, because the substance which we\nterm _flax_ is properly the bark or fibrous part of the vegetable,\npilled or stripped off the stalks. From time immemorial Egypt was\ncelebrated for the production or manufacture of flax. Wrought into\ngarments, it constituted the principal dress of the inhabitants, and the\npriests never put on any other kind of clothing. The fine linen of Egypt\nis celebrated in all ancient authors, and its superior excellence\nmentioned in the sacred Scriptures. The manufacture of flax is still\ncarried on in that country, and many writers take notice of it. Rabbi\nBenjamin Tudela mentions the manufactory at Damiata; and Egmont and\nHeyman describe the article as being of a beautiful colour, and so\nfinely spun that the threads are hardly discernible.\n\nFLEA, \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05e9, 1 Sam. xxiv, 14; xxvi, 20. The LXX, and another Greek\nversion in the _Hexapla_, render it \u03c8\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, and the Vulgate _pulex_. It\nseems, says Mr. Parkhurst, an evident derivative from \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2 _free_, and\n\u05e8\u05e2\u05e9 _to leap_, _bound_, or _skip_, on account of its agility in leaping\nor skipping. The flea is a little wingless insect, equally contemptible\nand troublesome. It is thus described by an Arabian author: \u201cA black,\nnimble, extenuated, hunch-backed animal, which being sensible when any\none looks on it, jumps incessantly, now on one side, now on the other,\ntill it gets out of sight.\u201d David likens himself to this insect;\nimporting that while it would cost Saul much pains to catch him, he\nwould obtain but very little advantage from it.\n\nFLESH, a term of very ambiguous import in the Scriptures. An eminent\ncritic has enumerated no less than six different meanings which it bears\nin the sacred writings, and for which, he affirms, there will not be\nfound a single authority in any profane writer: 1. It sometimes denotes\nthe whole body considered as animated, as in Matt. xxvi, 41, \u201cThe spirit\nis willing, but the flesh is weak.\u201d 2. It sometimes means a human being,\nas in Luke iii, 6, \u201cAll flesh shall see the salvation of God.\u201d 3.\nSometimes a person\u2019s kindred collectively considered, as in Rom. xi, 14,\n\u201cIf by any means I may provoke them which are my flesh.\u201d 4. Sometimes\nany thing of an external or ceremonial nature, as opposed to that which\nis internal and moral, as in Gal. iii, 3, \u201cHaving begun in the Spirit,\nare ye now made perfect in the flesh?\u201d 5. The sensitive part of our\nnature, or that which is the seat of appetite, as in 2 Cor. vii, 1, \u201cLet\nus cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit;\u201d where\nthere can be no doubt that the pollutions of the flesh must be those of\nthe appetites, being opposed to the pollutions of the spirit, or those\nof the passions. 6. It is employed to denote any principle of vice and\nmoral pravity of whatever kind. Thus among the works of the flesh, Gal.\nv, 19\u201321, are numbered not only adultery, fornication, uncleanness,\nlasciviousness, drunkenness, and revellings, which all relate to\ncriminal indulgence of appetite, but idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,\nvariance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, and\nmurders, which are manifestly vices of a different kind, and partake\nmore of the diabolical nature than of the beastly.\n\nFLIES. The kinds of flies are exceedingly numerous; some with two, and\nsome with four, wings. They abound in warm and moist regions, as in\nEgypt, Chaldea, Palestine, and in the middle regions of Africa; and\nduring the rainy seasons are very troublesome. In the Hebrew Scriptures,\nor in the ancient versions, are seven kinds of insects, which Bochart\nclasses among _musc\u00e6_, or flies. These are, 1. \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1, Exod. viii, 20; Psa.\nlxxviii, 45; cv, 31, which those interpreters who, by residing on the\nspot, have had the best means of identifying, have rendered the\n_dog-fly_, \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1, and it is supposed to be the same which in\nAbyssinia is called the _zimb_. 2. \u05d6\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1, 2 Kings i, 2, 3, 6, 16; Eccles.\nx, 1; Isa. vii, 18. Whether this denotes absolutely a distinct species\nof fly, or swarms of all sorts, may be difficult to determine. 3. \u05d9\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\nJudges xiv, 18; Psa. cxviii, 12, rendered _bee_. 4. \u05e6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4, \u03c3\u03c6\u1f74\u03be, Exodus\nxxiii, 28; Joshua xxiv, 12; Deut. vii, 20, _hornet_. 5. \u05e1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, \u03bf\u1f36\u03db\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\nEzek. ii, 6; Hosea iv, 16. 6. \u05db\u05e7, \u03ba\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03c8, Matt. xxiii, 24, _the gnat_. 7.\n\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2, Exod. viii, 16; Psa. cv, 31, _lice_.\n\n2. M. Sonnini, speaking of Egypt, says, \u201cOf insects there the most\ntroublesome are the flies. Both man and beast are cruelly tormented with\nthem. No idea can be formed of their obstinate rapacity when they wish\nto fix upon some part of the body. It is in vain to drive them away;\nthey return again in the self-same moment; and their perseverance\nwearies out the most patient spirit. They like to fasten themselves in\npreference on the corners of the eye, and on the edge of the eyelid;\ntender parts, toward which a gentle moisture attracts them.\u201d The\nEgyptians paid a superstitious worship to several sorts of flies and\ninsects. If, then, such was the superstitious homage of this people,\nnothing could be more determinate than the judgment brought upon them by\nMoses. They were punished by the very things they revered; and though\nthey boasted of spells and charms, yet they could not ward off the evil.\n\n3. \u201cThe word _zimb_,\u201d says Bruce, \u201cis Arabic, and signifies _the fly_ in\ngeneral.\u201d The Chaldee paraphrase is content with calling it simply\n_zebub_, which has the same general signification. The Ethiopic version\ncalls it _tsaltsalya_, which is the true name of this particular fly in\nGeez. It is in size very little larger than a bee, of a thicker\nproportion; and its wings, which are broader, are placed separate like\nthose of a fly. Its head is large; the upper jaw or lip is sharp, and\nhas at the end of it a strong pointed hair, of about a quarter of an\ninch in length; the lower jaw has two of these hairs: and this pencil of\nhairs, joined together, makes a resistance to the finger, nearly equal\nto a strong bristle of a hog. Its legs are serrated on the inside, and\nthe whole covered with brown hair, or down. It has no sting, though it\nappears to be of the bee kind. As soon as this winged assassin appears,\nand its buzzing is heard, the cattle forsake their food, and run wildly\nabout the plain till they die, worn out with affright, fatigue, and\npain. The inhabitants of Melinda down to Cape Gardefan, to Saba, and the\nsouth coast of the Red Sea, are obliged to put themselves in motion, and\nremove to the next sand in the beginning of the rainy season. This is\nnot a partial emigration; the inhabitants of all the countries, from the\nmountains of Abyssinia northward, to the confluence of the Nile and\nAstaboras, are, once in a year, obliged to change their abode, and seek\nprotection in the sands of Beja, till the danger of the insect is over.\nThe elephant and the rhinoceros, which by reason of their enormous bulk,\nand the vast quantity of food and water they daily need, cannot shift to\ndesert and dry places, are obliged, in order to resist the zimb, to roll\nthemselves in mud and mire, which, when dry, coats them over like\narmour. It was no trifling judgment, then, with which the prophet\nthreatened the refractory Israelites: \u201cThe Lord shall hiss for the fly\nthat is in the uttermost parts of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee\nthat is in the land of Assyria,\u201d Isaiah vii, 18. If the prediction be\nunderstood in the literal sense, it represents the _\u0153stra_ or\n_cincinell\u00e6_, as the armies of Jehovah, summoned by him to battle\nagainst his offending people; or, if it be taken metaphorically, which\nis perhaps the proper way of expounding it, the prophet compares the\nnumerous and destructive armies of Babylon to the countless swarms of\nthese flies, whose distant hum is said to strike the quadrupeds with\nconsternation, and whose bite inflicts, on man and beast, a torment\nalmost insupportable. How intolerable a plague of flies can prove, is\nevident from the fact, that whole districts have been laid waste by\nthem. Such was the fate of Myuns in Ionia, and of Alarn\u00e6. The\ninhabitants were forced to quit these cities, not being able to stand\nagainst the flies and gnats with which they were pestered. Trajan was\nobliged to raise the siege of a city in Arabia, before which he had sat\ndown, being driven away by the swarms of these insects. Hence different\npeople had deities whose office it was to defend them against flies.\nAmong these may be reckoned Baalzebub, the fly-god of Ekron: _Hercules\nmuscarum abactor_, \u201cHercules, the expeller of flies;\u201d and hence Jupiter\nhad the titles of \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03c5\u0390\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03c5\u03ca\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, because he was supposed\nto expel flies, and especially to clear his temples of these insects.\n\n4. Solomon observes, \u201cDead flies cause the apothecary\u2019s ointment to\nstink,\u201d Eccles. x, 1. \u201cA fact well known,\u201d says Scheuchzer; \u201cwherefore\napothecaries take care to prevent flies from coming to their syrups and\nother fermentable preparations. For in all insects there is an acrid\nvolatile salt, which, mixed with sweet or even alkaline substances,\nexcites them to a brisk intestine motion, disposes them to fermentation,\nand to putrescence itself; by which the more volatile principles fly\noff, leaving the grosser behind: at the same time, the taste and odour\nare changed, the agreeable to fetid, the sweet to insipid.\u201d This verse\nis an illustration, by a very appropriate similitude, of the concluding\nassertion in the preceding chapter, that \u201cone sinner destroyeth much\ngood,\u201d as one dead fly spoils a whole vessel of precious ointment,\nwhich, in eastern countries, was considered as very valuable, 2 Kings\nxx, 13. The application of this proverbial expression to a person\u2019s good\nname, which is elsewhere compared to sweet ointment, Eccles. vii, 1;\nCant. i, 3, is remarkably significant. As a fly, though a diminutive\ncreature, can taint and corrupt much precious perfume; so a small\nmixture of folly and indiscretion will tarnish the reputation of one\nwho, in other respects, is very wise and honourable; and so much the\nmore, because of the malignity and ingratitude of mankind, who are\ndisposed rather to censure one error, than to commend many excellencies,\nand from whose minds one small miscarriage is sufficient to blot out the\nmemory of all other deserts. It concerns us, therefore, to conduct\nourselves unblamably, that we may not by the least oversight or folly\nblemish our profession, or cause it to be offensive to others.\n\nFLOCK. See SHEPHERD.\n\nFLOOR, for threshing corn, or threshing floor, is frequently mentioned\nin Scripture. This was a place in the open air, in which corn was\nthreshed, by means of a cart or sledge, or some other instrument drawn\nby oxen. The threshing floors among the Jews were only, as they are to\nthis day in the east, round level plats of ground in the open air, where\nthe corn was trodden out by oxen. Thus Gideon\u2019s floor appears to have\nbeen in the open air, Judges vi, 37; and also that of Araunah the\nJebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, otherwise it would not have been a proper place\nfor erecting an altar, and offering sacrifices. In Hosea xiii, 3, we\nread of the chaff which is driven by the whirlwind from the floor. This\ncircumstance of the threshing floor\u2019s being exposed to the agitation of\nthe wind seems to be the principal reason of its Hebrew name. It\nappears, therefore, that a threshing floor, which is rendered in our\ntextual translation, \u201ca void place,\u201d might well be _near_ the entrance\nof the gate of Samaria, and a proper situation in which the kings of\nIsrael and Judah might hear the prophets, 1 Kings xxii, 10; 2 Chron.\nxviii, 9. An instrument sometimes used in Palestine and the east, to\nforce the corn out of the ear, and bruise the straw, was a heavy kind of\nsledge made of thick boards, and furnished beneath with teeth of stone\nor iron, Isa. xli, 15. The sheaves being laid in order, the sledge was\ndrawn over the straw by oxen, and at the same time threshed out the\ncorn, and cut or broke the straw into a kind of chaff. An instrument in\nthe east is still used for the same purpose. This sledge is alluded to\nin 2 Sam. xii, 31; Isa. xxviii, 27; xli, 15; Amos i, 3. Dr. Lowth, in\nhis notes on Isaiah xxviii, 27, 28, observes, that four methods of\nthreshing are mentioned in this passage, by different instruments, the\nflail, the drag, the wain, and the treading of the cattle. The staff, or\nflail, was used for the _infirmiora semina_, the grain that was too\ntender to be treated in the other methods. The drag consisted of a sort\nof frame of strong planks, made rough at the bottom with hard stones or\niron; it was drawn by horses or oxen over the corn sheaves on the floor,\nthe driver sitting upon it. The wain was nearly similar to this\ninstrument, but had wheels with iron teeth, or edges like a saw. The\nlast method is well known from the law of Moses, which forbids the ox to\nbe muzzled when he treadeth out the corn. Niebuhr, in his Travels, gives\nthe following description of a machine which the people of Egypt use at\nthis day for threshing out their corn: \u201cThis machine,\u201d says he, \u201cis\ncalled _nauridsj_. It has three rollers which turn on their axles; and\neach of them is furnished with some irons round and flat. At the\nbeginning of June, Mr. Forskall and I several times saw, in the environs\nof Dsjise, how corn was threshed in Egypt. Every peasant chose for\nhimself, in the open field, a smooth plat of ground from eighty to a\nhundred paces in circumference. Hither was brought on camels or asses\nthe corn in sheaves, of which was formed a ring of six or eight feet\nwide, and two high. Two oxen were made to draw over it again and again\nthe sledge, _traineau_, above mentioned; and this was done with the\ngreatest convenience to the driver; for he was seated in a chair fixed\non the sledge. Two such parcels or layers of corn are threshed out in a\nday, and they move each of them as many as eight times, with a wooden\nfork of five prongs, which they call _meddre_. Afterward they throw the\nstraw into the middle of the ring, where it forms a heap, which grows\nbigger and bigger. When the first layer is threshed they replace the\nstraw in the ring, and thresh it as before. Thus the straw becomes every\ntime smaller, till at last it resembles chopped straw. After this, with\nthe fork just described, they cast the whole some yards from thence, and\nagainst the wind; which driving back the straw, the corn and the ears\nnot threshed out fall apart from it, and make another heap. A man\ncollects the clods of dirt, and other impurities to which any corn\nadheres, and throws them into a sieve. They afterward place in a ring\nthe heaps, in which a good many entire ears are still found, and drive\nover them for four or five hours together ten couple of oxen joined two\nand two, till by absolute trampling they have separated the grains,\nwhich they throw into the air with a shovel to cleanse them.\u201d\n\nFO, or FUH, as the Chinese now call him, was an Indian prince, who was\nmade a god at thirty years of age, and died at seventy-five. His\nworshippers form one of the three great sects of China, and it is said\nto be far the most numerous. The worship of this idol, they pretend, was\nobserved a thousand years before the Christian era, and was introduced\nfrom India into China within the first century after. Many temples are\nreared to this deity, some of which are magnificent; and a number of\nbonzes, or priests, are consecrated to his service. He is represented\nshining in light, with his hands hid under his robes, to show that he\ndoes all things invisibly. The doctors of this sect, like those of\nEgypt, Greece, and India, teach a double doctrine; the one public, the\nother private. According to the former, they say, all the good are\nrecompensed, and the wicked punished, in places destined for each. They\nenjoin all works of charity; and forbid cheating, impurity, murder, and\neven the taking of life from any creature whatever. For they believe\nthat the souls of their ancestors transmigrate into irrational\ncreatures; either into such as they liked best, or resembled most in\ntheir behaviour; for which reason they never kill any such animals; but,\nwhile they live, feed them well, and when they die bury them with\nrespect. As they build temples for Fuh, which are filled with images, so\nalso monasteries for his priests, providing for their maintenance, as\nthe most effectual means to partake of their prayers. These priests\npretend to know into what bodies the dead are transmigrated; and seldom\nfail of representing their case to the surviving friends as miserable,\nor uncomfortable; that they may extort money from them to procure for\nthe deceased a passage into a better state, or pray them out of\npurgatory, which forms a part of their system.\n\nThe interior doctrine of this sect, which is kept secret from the common\npeople, teaches a philosophical atheism, which admits neither rewards\nnor punishments after death; and believes not in a providence, or the\nimmortality of the soul; acknowledges no other God than the _void_, or\n_nothing_; and which makes the supreme happiness of mankind to consist\nin a total inaction, an entire insensibility, and a perfect quietude.\nFuh, though the idol of the common people, is considered as a foreign\ndeity in China, imported by the Boudhists from India: great effects are,\nhowever, attached to the perpetual reiteration of his name, and even to\nmeditation upon it. It is supposed to render fate favourable, and life\nsecure; to prevent migration into the bodies of inferior animals; and,\nin fine, to secure a place in the paradise of Fuh, whose land is yellow\ngold, whose towers are composed of gems, the bridges of pearls, &c.\n\nFOOL, FOLLY, or FOOLISHNESS. The term fool is to be understood sometimes\naccording to its plain, literal meaning, as denoting a person void of\nunderstanding; but it is often used figuratively, Psalm xxxviii, 5;\nlxix, 5. \u201cThe fool,\u201d that is, the impious sinner, \u201chath said in his\nheart, There is no God,\u201d Psalm xiv, 1. \u201cI have sinned: do away the\niniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,\u201d 1 Chron. xxi,\n8. \u201cFools make a mock at sin,\u201d Prov. xiv, 9. See also the language of\nTamar to her brother Amnon: \u201cDo not this folly; for whither shall I\ncause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools\nin Israel,\u201d 2 Sam. xiii, 13; that is, Thou wilt be accounted a very\nwicked person. Our Lord seems to have used the term in a sense somewhat\npeculiar in Matthew v, 22: \u201cWhosoever shall say to his brother, Thou\nfool, shall be in danger of hell fire.\u201d But the whole verse shows the\nmeaning to be, that when any one of his professed disciples indulges a\ntemper and disposition of mind contrary to charity, or that peculiar\nlove which the brethren of Christ are bound by his law to have toward\neach other, John xiii, 34, not only showing anger against another\nwithout a cause, but also treating him with contemptuous language, and\nthat with malicious intent, he shall be in danger of eternal\ndestruction.\n\nFOOT. Anciently it was customary to wash the feet of strangers coming\noff a journey, because generally they travelled barefoot, or wore\nsandals only, which did not secure them from dust or dirt. Jesus Christ\nwashed the feet of his Apostles, and thereby taught them to perform the\nhumblest services for one another. Feet, in the sacred writers, often\nmean inclinations, affections, propensities, actions, motions: \u201cGuide my\nfeet in thy paths.\u201d \u201cKeep thy feet at a distance from evil.\u201d \u201cThe feet\nof the debauched woman go down to death.\u201d \u201cLet not the foot of pride\ncome against me.\u201d To be at any one\u2019s feet, signifies obeying him,\nlistening to his instructions and commands. Moses says that \u201cthe Lord\nloved his people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at\nhis feet,\u201d Deut. xxxiii, 3. St. Paul was brought up at the feet of\nGamaliel. Mary sat at our Saviour\u2019s feet, and heard his word, Luke x,\n39.\n\nIt is said that the land of Canaan is not like Egypt, \u201cwhere thou\nsowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy _foot_,\u201d Deut. xi, 10.\nPalestine is a country which has rains, plentiful dews, springs,\nrivulets, brooks, &c, that supply the earth with the moisture necessary\nto its fruitfulness. On the contrary, Egypt has no river except the\nNile: there it seldom rains, and the lands which are not within reach of\nthe inundation continue parched and barren. To supply this want, ditches\nare dug from the river, and water is distributed throughout the several\nvillages and cantons: there are great struggles who shall first obtain\nit; and, in this dispute, they frequently come to blows. Notwithstanding\nthese precautions, many places have no water; and, in the course of the\nyear, those places which are nearest the Nile require to be watered\nagain by means of art and labour. This was formerly done by the help of\nmachines, one of which is thus described by Philo: It is a wheel which a\nman turns by the motion of his feet, by ascending successively the\nseveral steps that are within it. This is what Moses means in this place\nby saying, that, in Egypt, they water the earth with their feet. The\nwater is thus conveyed to cisterns; and when the gardens want\nrefreshment, water is conducted by trenches to the beds in little rills,\nwhich are stopped by the _foot_, and turned at pleasure into different\ndirections.\n\n2. To be under any one\u2019s feet, to be a footstool to him, signifies the\nsubjection of a subject to his sovereign, of a slave to his master. To\nlick the dust of one\u2019s feet, is an abject manner of doing homage. In Mr.\nHugh Boyd\u2019s account of his embassy to the king of Candy, in Ceylon,\nthere is a paragraph which singularly illustrates this, and shows the\nadulation and obsequious reverence with which an eastern monarch is\napproached. Describing his introduction to the king, he says, \u201cThe\nremoval of the curtain was the signal of our obeisances. Mine, by\nstipulation, was to be only kneeling. My companions immediately began\nthe performance of theirs, which were in the most perfect degree of\neastern humiliation. They almost literally licked the dust; prostrating\nthemselves with their faces almost close to the stone floor, and\nthrowing out their arms and legs; then, rising on their knees, they\nrepeated, in a very loud voice, a certain form of words of the most\nextravagant meaning that can be conceived, that the head of the king of\nkings might reach beyond the sun; that he might live a thousand years,\u201d\n&c. Nakedness of feet was a sign of mourning. God says to Ezekiel, \u201cMake\nno mourning for the dead, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet,\u201d &c. It\nwas also a mark of respect: \u201cPut off thy shoes from off thy feet; for\nthe place whereon thou standest is holy ground,\u201d Exodus iii, 5. The\nrabbins say that the priests went barefoot in the temple. \u201cIf thou turn\naway thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day,\u201d\nIsaiah lviii, 13; if thou forbear walking and travelling on the Sabbath\nday, and do not then thine own will. We know that journeys were\nforbidden on the Sabbath day, Matt. xxiv, 20; Acts i, 12. Kissing the\nfeet was often practised as a mark of affection and reverence.\n\nFORNICATION, whoredom, or the act of incontinency between single\npersons; for if either of the parties be married, the sin is adultery.\n\nFOREHEAD, _Mark on the_, Ezekiel ix, 4. Mr. Maurice, speaking of the\nreligious rites of the Hindoos, says, Before they can enter the great\npagoda, an indispensable ceremony takes place, which can only be\nperformed by the hand of a brahmin; and that is, the impression of their\nforeheads with the _tiluk_, or mark of different colours, as they may\nbelong either to the sect of Veeshnu, or Seeva. If the temple be that of\nVeeshnu, their foreheads are marked with a longitudinal line, and the\ncolour used is vermilion. If it be the temple of Seeva, they are marked\nwith a parallel line, and the colour used is turmeric, or saffron. But\nthese two grand sects being again subdivided into numerous classes, both\nthe size and the shape of the _tiluk_ are varied, in proportion to their\nsuperior or inferior rank. In regard to the _tiluk_, I must observe,\nthat it was a custom of very ancient date in Asia to mark their servants\nin the forehead. It is alluded to in these words of Ezekiel, where the\nAlmighty commands his angels to \u201cgo through the midst of the city, and\nset a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh for the abominations\ncommitted in the midst thereof.\u201d The same idea occurs also in Rev. vii,\n3. The divers sects of the Hindoos have a distinguishing mark of the\nsect, by which they are known, on the forehead, of powdered sandal wood,\nor of the slime of the Ganges. The mark of the Wischnites consists of\ntwo nearly oval lines down the nose, which runs from two straight lines\non the forehead. The mark of the Schivites consists of two curved lines,\nlike a half moon with a point on the nose. It is made either with the\nslime of the Ganges, with sandal wood, or the ashes of cow dung.\n\nFOUNTAIN is properly the source or springhead of waters. There were\nseveral celebrated fountains in Judea, such as that of Rogel, of Gihon,\nof Siloam, of Nazareth, &c; and allusions to them are often to be met\nwith in both the Old and New Testament. Dr. Chandler, in his travels in\nAsia Minor, says, \u201cThe reader, as we proceed, will find frequent mention\nof fountains. Their number is owing to the nature of the country and the\nclimate. The soil, parched and thirsty, demands moisture to aid\nvegetation; and a cloudless sun, which inflames the air, requires for\nthe people the verdure, with shade and air, its agreeable attendants.\nHence fountains are met with, not only in the towns and villages, but in\nthe fields and gardens, and by the sides of the roads, and of the beaten\ntracks on the mountains. Many of them are the useful donations of humane\npersons while living, or have been bequeathed as legacies on their\ndecease.\u201d As fountains of water were so extremely valuable to the\ninhabitants of the eastern countries, it is easy to understand why the\ninspired writers so frequently allude to them, and thence deduce some of\ntheir most beautiful and striking similitudes, when they would set forth\nthe choicest spiritual blessings. Thus Jeremiah calls the blessed God,\n\u201cthe fountain of living waters,\u201d Jer. ii, 13. As those springs or\nfountains of water are the most valuable and highly prized which never\nintermit or cease to flow, but are always sending forth their streams;\nsuch is Jehovah to his people: he is a perennial source of felicity.\nZechariah, pointing in his days to the atonement which was to be made in\nthe fulness of time, by the shedding of the blood of Christ, describes\nit as a fountain that was to be opened in which the inhabitants of\nJerusalem might wash away all their impurities: \u201cIn that day there shall\nbe a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of\nJerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness,\u201d Zech. xiii, 1. Joel predicted\nthe salvation which was to come out of Zion, under the beautiful figure\nof \u201ca fountain which should come forth out of the house of the Lord, and\nwater the plain of Shittim,\u201d Joel iii, 18. The Psalmist, expatiating on\nthe excellency of the loving-kindness of God, not only as affording a\nground of hope to the children of men, but also as the source of\nconsolation and happiness, adds, \u201cThou shalt make them drink of the\nriver of thy pleasures; for with thee is the fountain of life,\u201d Psalm\nxxxvi, 7\u20139. In short, the blessedness of the heavenly state is shadowed\nforth under this beautiful figure; for as \u201cin the divine presence there\nis fulness of joy, and at God\u2019s right hand, pleasures for evermore,\u201d\nPsalm xvi, 11; so it is said of those who came out of great tribulation,\nthat \u201cthe Lamb that was in the midst of the throne shall lead them unto\nliving fountains of water, and God shall wipe away all tears from their\neyes,\u201d Rev. vii, 17.\n\nFOX, \u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u05dc, Judges xv, 4; Nehemiah iv, 3; xi, 27; Psalm lxiii, 10; Cant.\nii, 15; Lam. v, 11; Ezek. xiii, 4; Matt. viii, 20; Luke ix, 58; xiii,\n32. Parkhurst observes that this is the name of an animal, probably so\ncalled from its burrowing, or making holes in the earth to hide himself\nor dwell in. The LXX render it by \u1f00\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03be, the Vulgate, _vulpes_, and our\nEnglish version, _fox_. It is recorded, in Judges xv, 4, 5, that \u201cSamson\nwent and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned\ntail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails; and\nwhen he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing\ncorn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the\nstanding corn, with the vineyards and olives.\u201d Dr. Shaw thinks jackals\nto be the animals here intended; observing, that \u201cas these are creatures\nby far the most common and familiar, as well as the most numerous of any\nin the eastern countries, we may well perceive the great possibility\nthere was for Samson to take, or cause to be taken, three hundred of\nthem. The fox, properly so called,\u201d he adds, \u201cis rarely to be met with,\nneither is it gregarious.\u201d So Hasselquist remarks: \u201cJackals are found in\ngreat numbers about Gaza; and, from their gregarious nature, it is much\nmore probable that Samson should have caught three hundred of them, than\nof the solitary quadruped, the fox.\u201d\n\n2. At the feast of Ceres, the goddess of corn, celebrated annually at\nRome about the middle of April, there was the observance of this custom,\nto fix burning torches to the tails of a number of foxes, and to let\nthem run through the circus till they were burnt to death. This was done\nin revenge upon that species of animals, for having once burnt up the\nfields of corn. The reason, indeed, assigned by Ovid, is too frivolous\nan origin for so solemn a rite; and the time of its celebration, the\nseventeenth of April, it seems, was not harvest time, when the fields\nwere covered with corn, _vestitos messibus agros_; for the middle of\nApril was seed time in Italy, as appears from Virgil\u2019s Georgics. Hence\nwe must infer that this rite must have taken its rise from some other\nevent than that by which Ovid accounted for it; and Samson\u2019s foxes are a\nprobable origin of it. The time agrees exactly, as may be collected from\nseveral passages of Scripture. For instance: from the book of Exodus we\nlearn, that before the passover, that is, before the fourteenth day of\nthe month Abib, or March, barley in Egypt was in the ear, Exod. xii, 18;\nxiii, 4. And in chapter ix, 31, 32, it is said, that the wheat at that\ntime was not grown up. Barley harvest, then, in Egypt, and so in the\ncountry of the Philistines, which bordered upon it, must have fallen\nabout the middle of March. Wheat harvest, according to Pliny, was a\nmonth later: \u201c_In Egypto hordeum sexto a satu mense, frumenta septimo\nmetuntur._\u201d [In Egypt barley is reaped in the sixth month from the time\nof its being sown, wheat in the seventh.] Therefore wheat harvest\nhappened about the middle of April; the very time in which the burning\nof foxes was observed at Rome. It is certain that the Romans borrowed\nmany of their rites and ceremonies, both serious and ludicrous, from\nforeign nations; and Egypt and Phenicia furnished them with more perhaps\nthan any other country. From one of these the Romans might either\nreceive this rite immediately, or through the hands of their neighbours,\nthe Carthaginians, who were a colony of Phenicians; and so its true\norigin may be referred back to the story which we have been considering.\n\nBochart has made it probable that the \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd spoken of in Isaiah xiii, 22;\nxxxiv, 14; and Jer. 1, 39, rendered by our translators \u201cthe beasts of\nthe islands,\u201d an appellation very vague and indeterminate, are\n_jackals_; and that the \u03b8\u03c9\u1f72\u03c2 of the Greeks, and the _beni ani_ of the\nArabians are the same animal; and though he takes that to have been\ntheir specific name, yet he thinks, that, from their great resemblance\nto a fox, they might be comprehended under the Hebrew name of a fox,\n_shual_; which is indeed almost the same with _sciagal sciugal_, the\nPersian names of the jackal. Scaliger and Olearius, quoted by Bochart,\nexpressly call the jackal a fox; and Mr. Sandys speaks of it in the same\nmanner: \u201cThe jackals, in my opinion, are no other than foxes, whereof an\ninfinite number,\u201d &c. Hasselquist calls it the little eastern fox; and\nK\u00e6mpfer says that it might not be improperly called the wolf-fox. It is\ntherefore very conceivable that the ancients might comprehend this\nanimal under the general name of fox.\n\n3. To give an idea of his own extreme poverty, the Lord Jesus says, Luke\nix, 58, \u201cFoxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son\nof man hath not where to lay his head.\u201d And he calls Herod, the tetrarch\nof Galilee, a fox, Luke xiii, 32; thereby signifying his craft, and the\nrefinements of his policy. In illustration of the pertinency of this\nallusion, we may quote a remark of Busbequius: \u201cI heard a mighty noise,\nas if it had been of men who jeered and mocked us. I asked what was the\nmatter; and was answered, \u2018Only the howlings of certain beasts which the\nTurks call, _ciagals_, or _jackals_.\u2019 They are a sort of wolves,\nsomewhat bigger than foxes, but less than common wolves, yet as greedy\nand devouring. They go in flocks, and seldom hurt man or beast; but get\ntheir food more by craft and stealth than by open force. Thence it is\nthat the Turks call subtle and crafty persons by the metaphorical name\nof _ciagals_.\u201d\n\nFRANKINCENSE, \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4, Exod. xxx, 34, &c. \u03bb\u03af\u03d0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. ii, 11; Rev.\nxviii, 13, a dry, resinous substance, of a yellowish white colour, a\nstrong fragrant smell, and bitter, acrid taste. The tree which produces\nit is not known. Dioscorides mentions it as procured from India. What is\nhere called the pure frankincense is, no doubt, the same with the\n_mascula thura_ of Virgil, and signifies what is first obtained from the\ntree.\n\nFRIEND is taken for one whom we love and esteem above others, to whom we\nimpart our minds more familiarly than to others, and that from a\nconfidence of his integrity and good will toward us: thus Jonathan and\nDavid were mutually friends. Solomon, in his book of Proverbs, gives the\nqualities of a true friend. \u201cA friend loveth at all times:\u201d not only in\nprosperity, but also in adversity; and, \u201cthere is a friend that sticketh\ncloser than a brother.\u201d He is more hearty in the performance of all\nfriendly offices; he reproves and rebukes when he sees any thing amiss.\n\u201cFaithful are the wounds of a friend.\u201d His sharpest reproofs proceed\nfrom an upright, and truly loving and faithful soul. He is known by his\ngood and faithful counsel, as well as by his seasonable rebukes.\n\u201cOintment and perfume rejoice the heart, so does the sweetness of a\nman\u2019s friend by hearty counsel:\u201d by such counsel as comes from his very\nheart and soul, and is the language of his inward and most serious\nthoughts. The company and conversation of a friend is refreshing and\nreviving to a person, who, when alone, is sad, dull, and inactive. \u201cIron\nsharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.\u201d The\ntitle, \u201cthe friend of God,\u201d is principally given to Abraham: \u201cArt not\nthou our God, who gavest this land to the seed of Abraham, thy friend,\nfor ever?\u201d And in Isaiah xli, 8, \u201cBut thou Israel art the seed of\nAbraham, my friend.\u201d \u201cAnd the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith,\nAbraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and\nhe was called the friend of God,\u201d James ii, 23. This title was given\nhim, not only because God frequently appeared to him, conversed\nfamiliarly with him, and revealed his secrets to him, \u201cShall I hide from\nAbraham that thing which I do?\u201d Gen. xviii, 17; but also because he\nentered into a covenant of perpetual friendship both with him and his\nseed. Our Saviour calls his Apostles \u201cfriends:\u201d \u201cBut I have called you\nfriends;\u201d and he adds the reason of it, \u201cfor all things that I have\nheard of my Father, I have made known unto you,\u201d John xv, 15. As men use\nto communicate their counsels and their whole mind to their friends,\nespecially in things which are of any concern, or may be of any\nadvantage for them to know and understand, so I have revealed to you\nwhatever is necessary for your instruction, office, comfort, and\nsalvation. And this title is not peculiar to the Apostles only, but is\ncommon with them to all true believers. The friend of the bridegroom is\nthe brideman; he who does the honours of the wedding, and leads his\nfriend\u2019s spouse to the nuptial chamber. John the Baptist, with respect\nto Christ and his church, was the friend of the bridegroom; by his\npreaching he prepared the people of the Jews for Christ, John iii, 29.\nFriend is a word of ordinary salutation, whether to a friend or foe: he\nis called friend who had not on a wedding garment, Matt. xxii, 12. And\nour Saviour calls Judas the traitor friend. Some are of opinion that\nthis title is given to the guest by an irony, or antiphrasis; meaning\nthe contrary to what the word importeth; or that he is called so,\nbecause he appeared to others to be Christ\u2019s friend; or was so in his\nown esteem and account, though falsely, being a hypocrite. However, this\nbeing spoken in the person of him who made the feast, it is generally\ntaken for a usual compellation, and that Christ, following the like\ncourteous custom of appellation and friendly greeting, did so salute\nJudas, which yet left a sting behind it in his conscience, who knew\nhimself to be the reverse of what he was called. The name of friend is\nlikewise given to a neighbour. \u201cWhich of you shall have a friend, and\nshall go to him at midnight, and say, Friend, lend me three loaves?\u201d\nLuke xi, 3.\n\nFRIENDS, or QUAKERS, a religious society which began to be distinguished\nabout the middle of the seventeenth century. Their doctrines were first\npromulgated in England, by George Fox, about the year 1647; for which he\nwas imprisoned at Nottingham, in the year 1649, and the year following\nat Derby. Fox evidently considered himself as acting under a divine\ncommission, and went, not only to fairs and markets, but into courts of\njustice and \u201csteeple houses,\u201d as he called the churches, warning all to\nobey the Holy Spirit, speaking by him. It is said, that the appellation\nof Quakers was given them in reproach by one of the magistrates, who, in\n1650, committed Fox to prison, on account of his bidding him, and those\nabout him, to _quake_ at the word of the Lord. But they adopted among\nthemselves, and still retain, the kind appellation of Friends.\n\nFrom their first appearance, they suffered much persecution. In\nNew-England they were treated with peculiar severity, imprisoned,\nscourged, (women as well as men,) and at Boston four of them were even\nhanged, among whom was one woman; and this was the more extraordinary\nand inexcusable, as the settlers themselves had but lately fled from\npersecution in the parent country! During these sufferings, they applied\nto King Charles II, for relief; who, in 1661, granted a mandamus, to put\na stop to them. Neither were the good offices of this prince in their\nfavour confined to the colonies; for in 1672, he released, under the\ngreat seal, four hundred of these suffering people who were imprisoned\nin Great Britain. To what has been alleged against them, on account of\nJames Naylor and his associates, they answer that their extravagancies\nand blasphemies were disapproved at the time, and the parties disowned;\nnor was Naylor restored till he had given signs of a sincere repentance,\nand publicly condemned his errors.\n\nIn 1681, Charles II, granted to W. Penn the province of Pennsylvania.\nPenn\u2019s treaty with the Indians, and the liberty of conscience which he\ngranted to all denominations, even those which had persecuted his own,\ndo honour to his memory. In the reign of James II, the Friends, in\ncommon with other English Dissenters, were relieved by the suspension of\nthe penal laws. But it was not till the reign of William and Mary that\nthey obtained any thing like a proper legal protection. An act was\npassed in the year 1696, which, with a few exceptions, allowed to their\naffirmation the legal force of an oath, and provided a less oppressive\nmode for recovering tithes under a certain amount; which provisions,\nunder the reign of George I, were made perpetual. For refusing to pay\ntithes, &c, however, they are still liable to suffer in the exchequer\nand ecclesiastical court, both in Great Britain and Ireland.\n\nThe true Friends are orthodox, as to the leading doctrines of\nChristianity, but express themselves in peculiar phrases. They hold\nspecial revelations of the Holy Spirit, yet not to the disparagement of\nthe written word, which they regard as the infallible rule of faith and\npractice. They reject a salaried ministry, and interpret the sacraments\nmystically. They are advocates of the interior spiritual life of\nreligion, to which, indeed, they have borne constant testimony; and they\nare distinguished by probity, philanthropy, and a public spirit. [In the\nUnited States, the Friends are divided into the Orthodox, (so called,)\nand Hicksites, or followers of the late Elias Hicks. The latter are\nconsidered as having departed from the original doctrines of the\nFriends, and very far from the leading doctrines of Christianity, as\nheld by Protestant Christians in general.]\n\nFROG, \u05e6\u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05e2; Arabic, _akurrak_; Greek, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2; Exod. viii, 2\u201314; Psalm\nlxxviii, 45; cv, 30; Rev. xvi, 13. When God plagued Pharaoh and his\npeople, the river Nile, which was the object of great admiration to the\nEgyptians, was made to contribute to their punishment. \u201cThe river\nbrought forth frogs abundantly;\u201d but the circumstance of their coming up\ninto the bed chambers, and into the ovens and kneading troughs, needs\nexplanation to us, whose domestic apartments and economy are so\ndifferent from those of the ancient nations. Their lodgings were not in\nupper stories, but in recesses on the ground floor; and their ovens were\nnot like ours, built on the side of a chimney, and adjacent to a\nfireplace, where the glowing heat would frighten away the frogs, but\nthey dug a hole in the ground, in which they placed an earthen pot,\nwhich having sufficiently heated, they stuck their cakes to the inside\nto be baked. To find such places full of frogs when they came to heat\nthem in order to bake their bread, and to see frogs in the beds where\nthey sought repose, must have been both disgusting and distressing in\nthe extreme. Frogs were reckoned unclean by the Hebrews.\n\nFRONTLETS. Leo of Modena thus describes them: The Jews take four pieces\nof parchment, and write, with an ink made on purpose, and in square\nletters, these four passages, one on each piece: 1. \u201cSanctify unto me\nall the first-born,\u201d &c, Exodus xiii, 1\u201310. 2. \u201cAnd when the Lord shall\nbring thee into the land of the Canaanites,\u201d &c, verses 11\u201316. 3. \u201cHear,\nO Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,\u201d &c, Deut. vi, 4\u20139. 4. \u201cIf you\nshall hearken diligently unto my commandments,\u201d &c, Deut. xi, 13\u201321.\nThis they do in obedience to these words of Moses: \u201cThese commandments\nshall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial\nbetween thine eyes.\u201d These four little pieces of parchment are fastened\ntogether, and a square formed of them, on which the letter \u05e9 is written;\nthen a little square of hard calf\u2019s skin is put upon the top, out of\nwhich come two leathern strings an inch wide, and a cubit and a half, or\nthereabouts, in length. This square is put on the middle of the\nforehead, and the strings being girt about the head, make a knot in the\nform of the letter \u05d3: they then are brought before, and fall on the\nbreast. It is called _teffila-schel-rosch_, or the _tephila_ of the\nhead. The most devout Jews put it on both at morning and noon-day\nprayer; but the generality of the Jews wear it only at morning prayer.\nOnly the chanter of the synagogue is obliged to put it on at noon as\nwell as morning.\n\nIt is a question, whether the use of frontlets, and other phylacteries,\nwas literally ordained by Moses. They who believe their use to be\nbinding, observe, that the text of Moses speaks as positively of this as\nof other precepts; he requires the commandments of God to be written on\nthe doors of houses, as a sign on their hands, and as an ornament on\ntheir foreheads, Exod. xiii, 16. If there be any obligation to write\nthese commandments on their doors, as the text intimates, there is the\nsame for writing them on their hands and foreheads. On the contrary,\nothers maintain that these precepts should be taken figuratively and\nallegorically, as denoting that the Jews should very carefully preserve\nthe remembrance of God\u2019s law, and observe his commands; that they should\nalways have them before them, and never forget them. Prior to the\nBabylonish captivity, no traces of them appear in the history of the\nJews. The prophets never inveigh against the omission or neglect of\nthem, nor was there any question concerning them in the reformation of\nmanners at any time among the Hebrews. The almost general custom in the\neast of wearing phylacteries and frontlets, determines nothing for the\nantiquity or usefulness of this practice. The Caraite Jews, who adhere\nto the letter of the law, and despise traditions, call the rabbinical\nJews bridled asses, because they wear these tephilim and frontlets. See\nPHYLACTERY.\n\nFRUIT, the product of the earth, as trees, plants, &c. \u201cBlessed shall be\nthe fruit of thy ground and cattle.\u201d The fruit of the body signifies\nchildren: \u201cBlessed shall be the fruit of thy body.\u201d By fruit is\nsometimes meant reward: \u201cThey shall eat of the fruit of their own ways,\u201d\nProv. i, 31; they shall receive the reward of their bad conduct, and\npunishment answerable to their sins. The fruit of the lips is the\nsacrifice of praise or thanksgiving, Heb. xiii, 15. The fruit of the\nrighteous, that is, the counsel, example, instruction, and reproof of\nthe righteous, is a tree of life, is a means of much good, both temporal\nand eternal; and that not only to himself, but to others also, Prov. xi,\n30. Solomon says, in Prov. xii, 14, \u201cA man shall be satisfied with good\nby the fruit of his mouth;\u201d that is, he shall receive abundant blessings\nfrom God as the reward of that good he has done, by his pious and\nprofitable discourses. \u201cFruits meet for repentance,\u201d Matt. iii, 8, is\nsuch a conduct as befits the profession of penitence.\n\n2. The fruits of the Spirit are those gracious habits which the Holy\nSpirit of God produces in those in whom he dwelleth and worketh, with\nthose acts which flow from them, as naturally as the tree produces its\nfruit. The Apostle enumerates these fruits in Galatians v, 22, 23. The\nsame Apostle, in Eph. v, 9, comprehends the fruits of the sanctifying\nSpirit in these three things; namely, goodness, righteousness, and\ntruth. The fruits of righteousness are such good works and holy actions\nas spring from a gracious frame of heart: \u201cBeing filled with the fruits\nof righteousness,\u201d Phil. i, 11. Fruit is taken for a charitable\ncontribution, which is the fruit or effect of faith and love: \u201cWhen I\nhave sealed unto them this fruit,\u201d Rom. xv, 28; when I have safely\ndelivered this contribution. When fruit is spoken of good men, then it\nis to be understood of the fruits or works of holiness and\nrighteousness; but when of evil men, then are meant the fruits of sin,\nimmorality, and wickedness. This is our Saviour\u2019s doctrine, Matt. vii,\n16\u201318.\n\n3. Uncircumcised fruit, or impure, of which there is mention in Lev.\nxix, 23, is the fruit for the first three years of a tree newly planted;\nit was reputed unclean, and no one was permitted to eat of it in all\nthat time. In the fourth year it was offered to the Lord; after which it\nwas common, and generally eaten. Various reasons are assigned for this\nprecept. As (1.) Because the first-fruits were to be offered to God, who\nrequired the best: but in this time the fruit was not come to\nperfection. (2.) It was serviceable to the trees themselves, which grew\nthe better and faster; being early stripped of those fruits which\notherwise would have derived to themselves, and drawn away, much of the\nstrength from the root and tree. (3.) It tended to the advantage of men,\nboth because the fruit was then waterish, undigestible, and unwholesome;\nand because hereby men were taught to bridle their appetites, a lesson\nof great use and absolute necessity in a godly life.\n\nFUEL. In preparing their victuals, the orientals are, from the extreme\nscarcity of wood in many countries, reduced to use cow dung for fuel. At\nAleppo, the inhabitants use wood and charcoal in their rooms, but heat\ntheir baths with cow dung, the parings of fruit, and other things of a\nsimilar kind, which they employ people to gather for that purpose. In\nEgypt, according to Pitts, the scarcity of wood is so great, that at\nCairo they commonly heat their ovens with horse or cow dung, or dirt of\nthe streets; what wood they have, being brought from the shores of the\nBlack Sea, and sold by weight. Chardin attests the same fact: \u201cThe\neastern people always used cow dung for baking, boiling a pot, and\ndressing all kinds of victuals that are easily cooked, especially in\ncountries that have but little wood;\u201d and Dr. Russel remarks, in a note,\nthat \u201cthe Arabs carefully collect the dung of the sheep and camel, as\nwell as that of the cow; and that the dung, offals, and other matters,\nused in the bagnios, after having been new gathered in the streets, are\ncarried out of the city, and laid in great heaps to dry, where they\nbecome very offensive. They are intolerably disagreeable, while drying,\nin the town, adjoining to the bagnios; and are so at all times when it\nrains, though they be stacked, pressed hard together, and thatched at\ntop.\u201d These statements exhibit, in a very strong light, the extreme\nmisery of the Jews, who escaped from the devouring sword of\nNebuchadnezzar: \u201cThey that did feed delicately are desolate in the\nstreets; they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills,\u201d Lam.\niv, 5. To embrace dunghills, is a species of wretchedness, perhaps\nunknown to us in the history of modern warfare; but it presents a\ndreadful and appalling image, when the circumstances to which it alludes\nare recollected. What can be imagined more distressing to those who\nlived delicately, than to wander without food in the streets? What more\ndisgusting and terrible to those who had been clothed in rich and\nsplendid garments, than to be forced, by the destruction of their\npalaces, to seek shelter among stacks of dung, the filth and stench of\nwhich it is almost impossible to endure? The dunghill, it appears from\nHoly Writ, is one of the common retreats of the mendicant. This imparts\ngreat force and beauty to a passage in the song of Hannah: \u201cHe raiseth\nup the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the beggar from the dunghill,\nto set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of\nglory,\u201d 1 Sam. ii, 8. The change in the circumstances of that excellent\nwoman, she reckoned as great, (and it was to her as unexpected,) as the\nelevation of a poor despised beggar from a nauseous and polluting\ndunghill, rendered tenfold more fetid by the intense heat of an oriental\nsun, to one of the highest and most splendid stations on earth.\n\n2. Dung is used as fuel in the east only when wood cannot be had; for\nthe latter, and even any other combustible substance, is preferred when\nit can be obtained. The inhabitants of Aleppo, according to Russel, use\nthorns and fuel of a similar kind for those culinary purposes which\nrequire haste, particularly for boiling, which seems to be the reason\nthat Solomon mentions the \u201ccrackling of thorns under a pot,\u201d rather than\nin any other way. The same allusion to the use of thorns for boiling\noccurs in other parts of the sacred volume: thus, the Psalmist speaks of\nthe wicked, \u201cBefore your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them\naway as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.\u201d The Jews are\nsometimes compared in the prophets to \u201ca brand plucked out of the\nburning,\u201d Amos iv, 11; Zech. iii, 2; a figure which Chardin considers as\nreferring to vine twigs, and other brushwood which the orientals\nfrequently use for fuel, and which, in a few minutes, must be consumed\nif they are not snatched out of the fire; and not to those battens, or\nlarge branches, which will lie a long time in the fire before they are\nreduced to ashes. If this idea be correct, it displays in a stronger and\nmore lively manner the seasonable interposition of God\u2019s mercy, than is\nfurnished by any other view of the phrase. The same remark applies to\nthe figure by which the Prophet Isaiah describes the sudden and complete\ndestruction of Rezin, and the son of Remaliah; only in this passage, the\nfirebrands are supposed to be smoking; that is, in the opinion of\nHarmer, having the steam issuing with force from one end, in consequence\nof the fire burning violently at the other. The words of the prophet\nare: \u201cTake heed and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted, for\nthe two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin\nwith Syria, and of the son of Remaliah,\u201d Isaiah vii, 4. It is not easy\nto conceive an image more striking than this; the remains of two small\ntwigs burning with violence at one end, as appears by the steaming of\nthe other, are soon reduced to ashes; so shall the kingdoms of Syria and\nIsrael sink into ruin and disappear.\n\n3. The scarcity of fuel in the east obliges the inhabitants to use, by\nturns, every kind of combustible matter. The withered stalks of herbs\nand flowers, the tendrils of the vine, the small branches of myrtle,\nrosemary, and other plants, are all used in heating their ovens and\nbagnios. We can easily recognise this practice in these words of our\nLord: \u201cConsider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not,\nneither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that Solomon, in all his\nglory, was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe\nthe grass of the field, which today is, and to-morrow is cast into the\noven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?\u201d Matt.\nvi, 28\u201330. The grass of the field, in this passage, evidently includes\nthe lilies of which our Lord had just been speaking, and, by\nconsequence, herbs in general; and in this extensive sense the word\n\u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is not unfrequently taken. These beautiful productions of nature,\nso richly arrayed, and so exquisitely perfumed, that the splendour even\nof Solomon is not to be compared with theirs, shall soon wither and\ndecay, and be used as fuel to heat the oven and the bagnio. Has God so\nadorned these flowers and plants of the field, which retain their beauty\nand vigour but for a few days, and are then applied to some of the\nmeanest purposes of life; and will he not much more clothe you who are\nthe disciples of his own Son, who are capable of immortality, and\ndestined to the enjoyment of eternal happiness?\n\nFULNESS. \u201cThe fulness of time\u201d is the time when the Messiah appeared,\nwhich was appointed by God, promised to the fathers, foretold by the\nprophets, expected by the Jews themselves, and earnestly longed for by\nall the faithful: \u201cWhen the fulness of the time was come, God sent his\nSon,\u201d Gal. iv, 4. The fulness of Christ is the superabundance of grace\nwith which he was filled: \u201cOf his fulness have all we received,\u201d John i,\n16. And whereas men are said to be filled with the Holy Ghost, as John\nthe Baptist, Luke i, 15; and Stephen, Acts vi, 5; this differs from the\nfulness of Christ in these three respects: (1.) Grace in others is by\nparticipation, as the moon hath her light from the sun, rivers their\nwaters from the fountain: but in Christ all that perfection and\ninfluence which we include in that term is originally, naturally, and of\nhimself. (2.) The Spirit is in Christ infinitely and above measure, John\niii, 34; but in the saints by measure according to the gift of God, Eph.\niv, 16. The saints cannot communicate their graces to others, whereas\nthe gifts of the Spirit are in Christ as a head and fountain, to impart\nthem to his members. \u201cWe have received of his fulness,\u201d John i, 16. It\nis said, that \u201cthe fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily,\u201d Col.\nii, 2; that is, the whole nature and attributes of God are in Christ,\nand that really, essentially, or substantially; and also personally, by\nnearest union; as the soul dwells in the body, so that the same person\nwho is man is God also. The church is called the fulness of Christ, Eph.\ni, 23. It is the church which makes him a complete and perfect head; for\nthough he has a natural and personal fulness as God, yet, as Mediator,\nhe is not full and complete, without his mystical body, (as a king is\nnot complete without his subjects,) but receives an outward, relative,\nand mystical fulness from his members.\n\nFUNERAL RITES. See BURIAL.\n\nFURNACE, a fireplace for melting gold and other metals. \u201cThe fining pot\nis for silver, the furnace for gold,\u201d Prov. xvii, 3. It signifies also a\nplace of cruel bondage and oppression, such as Egypt was to the\nIsraelites, who there met with much hardship, rigour, and severity, to\ntry and purge them, Deut. iv, 20; Jer. xi, 4; the sharp and grievous\nafflictions and judgments, wherewith God tries his people, Ezek. xxii,\n18; xx, 22; also a place of torment, as Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s fiery furnace,\nDan. iii, 6, 11. On the last we may remark, that this mode of putting to\ndeath is not unusual in the east in modern times. After speaking of the\ncommon modes of punishing with death in Persia, Chardin says, \u201cBut there\nis still a particular way of putting to death such as have transgressed\nin civil affairs, either by causing a dearth, or by selling above the\ntax by a false weight, or who have committed themselves in any other\nmanner: they are put upon a spit and roasted over a slow fire, Jer.\nxxix, 22. Bakers, when they offend, are thrown into a hot oven. During\nthe dearth in 1668, I saw such ovens heated in the royal square in\nIspahan, to terrify the bakers, and deter them from deriving advantage\nfrom the general distress.\u201d\n\n\nGABBATHA, a place in Pilate\u2019s palace, from whence he pronounced sentence\nof death upon Jesus Christ, John xix, 13. This was probably an eminence,\nor terrace, paved with marble, for the Hebrew means _elevated_.\n\nGABRIEL, one of the principal angels of heaven. He was sent to the\nProphet Daniel, to explain to him the visions of the ram and goat, and\nthe mystery of the seventy weeks, which had been revealed to him, Dan.\nviii, 15; ix, 21; xi, 1, &c. The same angel was sent to Zechariah, to\ndeclare to him the future birth of John the Baptist, Luke i, 11, &c. Six\nmonths after this he appeared to a virgin, whose name was Mary, of the\ncity of Nazareth, as related Luke i, 26, &c.\n\nGAD was the name of the son of Jacob and Zilpah, Leah\u2019s servant, Gen.\nxxx, 9\u201311. Leah, Jacob\u2019s wife, gave him also Zilpah, that by her she\nmight have children. Zilpah brought a son, whom Leah called Gad, saying,\n\u201cA troop cometh.\u201d Gad had seven sons, Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri,\nArodi, and Areli, Genesis xlvi, 16. Jacob, blessing Gad, said, \u201cA troop\nshall overcome him, but he shall overcome at the last,\u201d Gen. xlix, 19;\nand Moses, in his last song, mentions Gad as \u201ca lion which teareth the\narm with the crown of the head,\u201d &c, Deut. xxxiii, 20, 21. The tribe of\nGad came out of Egypt in number forty-five thousand six hundred and\nfifty. After the defeat of the kings Og and Sihon, Gad and Reuben\ndesired to have their lot in the conquered country, and alleged their\ngreat number of cattle. Moses granted their request, on condition that\nthey would accompany their brethren, and assist in the conquest of the\nland beyond Jordan. Gad had his inheritance between Reuben south, and\nManasseh north, with the mountains of Gilead east, and Jordan west.\n\n2. GAD, a prophet, David\u2019s friend, who followed him when persecuted by\nSaul. The Scripture calls him a prophet and David\u2019s seer, 2 Sam. xxiv,\n11. The first time we find him with this prince is when he fled into the\nland of Moab, 1 Sam. xxii, 5, to secure his father and mother in the\nfirst year of Saul\u2019s persecution. The Prophet Gad warned him to return\ninto the land of Judah. After David had determined to number his people,\nthe Lord sent to him the Prophet Gad, to offer him his choice of three\nscourges: seven years\u2019 famine, or three months\u2019 flight before his\nenemies, or three days\u2019 pestilence. Gad also directed David to erect an\naltar to the Lord, in the threshing floor of Ornan or Araunah, the\nJebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, 13\u201319; and he wrote a history of David\u2019s life,\ncited in 1 Chron. xxix, 29.\n\nGADARA, a city which gave name to the country of the Gadarenes; situated\non a steep rocky hill on the river Hieromax, or Yermuck, about five\nmiles from its junction with the Jordan. It was a place of considerable\nnote in the time of Josephus, and the metropolis of Per\u00e6a, or the\ncountry beyond Jordan. It was also celebrated for its hot baths. The\nvicinity was likewise called the country of the Gergesenes, from Gerasa,\nor Gergesa, another considerable city in the same neighbourhood. Thus\nthe miracle of our Lord performed here is represented by St. Mark to\nhave been done in the country of the Gadarenes, Mark v, 1; and by St.\nMatthew, in that of the Gergesenes, Matt. viii, 28.\n\nGALATIA, a province of the Lesser Asia, bounded on the west by Phrygia,\non the east by the river Haylys, on the north by Paphlagonia, and on the\nsouth by Lycaonia. The Galatians are said to have been descended from\nthose Gauls, who, finding their own country too strait for them, left\nit, after the death of Alexander the Great, in quest of new settlements.\nQuitting their own country, they migrated eastward along the Danube till\nthey came where the Saave joins that river; then dividing themselves\ninto three bodies, under the conduct of different leaders, one of these\nbodies entered Pannonia; another marched into Thrace; a third into\nIllyricum and Macedonia. The party which proceeded into Thrace, crossed\nthe Bosphorus into the Lesser Asia, and hiring themselves to Nicomedes,\nking of Bithynia, assisted him to subdue his brother Zipetes, with whom\nhe was then at war; and as a reward of their services they received from\nhim a country in the middle of Asia Minor, which from them was afterward\ncalled _Gallo-Gr\u00e6cia_, and, by contraction, Galatia. As their inland\nsituation in a great measure cut them off from all intercourse with more\ncivilized nations, the Galatians long remained a rude and illiterate\npeople. And as a proof of this, it is mentioned by Jerom, that when the\nApostle Paul preached the Gospel among them, and for many ages\nafterward, they continued to speak the language of the country from\nwhence they came out.\n\n2. Paul and Barnabas carried the light of the Gospel into the regions of\nGalatia at a very early period; and it appears from the epistle which\nthe former subsequently wrote to the churches in that country, that they\nhad at first received it with great joy, Gal. iv, 15. But some Judaizing\nteachers getting access among them soon after the Apostle\u2019s departure,\ntheir minds became corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ\nJesus; and, though mostly Gentiles, they were beginning to mingle\ncircumcision, and other Jewish observances, with their faith in Christ,\nin order to render it more available to their salvation. This occasioned\nPaul\u2019s writing his epistle to those churches; and his object throughout\nnearly the whole of it is to counteract the pernicious influence of the\ndoctrine of those false teachers particularly as it respected the\narticle of justification, or a sinner\u2019s acceptance with God. And in no\npart of the Apostle\u2019s writings is that important doctrine handled in a\nmore full and explicit manner; nor does he any where display, such a\nfirm, determined, and inflexible opposition to all who would corrupt the\ntruth from its simplicity. He begins by expressing his astonishment that\nthey were so soon turned aside \u201cunto another gospel,\u201d but instantly\nchecking himself, he recals the word and declares, \u201cit is not another\ngospel,\u201d but a perversion of the Gospel of Christ. \u201cAnd though we, or an\nangel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we\nhave preached unto you, let him be accursed.\u201d There are in his epistle\nseveral other things equally pointed and severe, particularly his\nexpostulation on the folly and absurdity of their conduct in subjecting\nthemselves to the Jewish yoke of bondage, Gal. iii, 1. \u201cThe erroneous\ndoctrines of the Judaizing teachers,\u201d says Dr. Macknight, \u201cand the\ncalumnies they spread for the purpose of discrediting St. Paul\u2019s\napostleship, no doubt occasioned great uneasiness of mind to him and to\nthe faithful in that age, and did much hurt, at least for a while, among\nthe Galatians. But in the issue these evils have proved of no small\nservice to the church in general; for by obliging the Apostle to produce\nthe evidences of his apostleship, and to relate the history of his life,\nespecially after his conversion, we have obtained the fullest assurance\nof his being a real Apostle, called to the office by Jesus Christ\nhimself; consequently we are assured that our faith in the doctrines of\nthe Gospel, as taught by him, (and it is he who hath taught the peculiar\ndoctrines of the Gospel most fully,) is not built on the credit of a\nman, but on the authority of the Spirit of God, by whom St. Paul was\ninspired in the whole of the doctrine which he has delivered to the\nworld.\u201d\n\nGALBANUM, \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4, Exod. xxx, 34. Micha\u00eblis makes the word a compound of\n\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1, _milk_ or _gum_, (for the Syriac uses the noun in both senses,) and\n\u05dc\u05d1\u05df], _white_, as being the white milk or gum of a plant. It is the\nthickened sap of an umbelliferous plant, called _metopion_, which grows\non Mount Amanus, in Syria, and is frequently found in Persia, and in\nsome parts of Africa. It was an ingredient in the holy incense of the\nJews.\n\nGALILEANS. In the twelfth year of Christ, about the time that Archelaus\nwas sent away from his government, a secession was made from the sect of\nthe Pharisees, and a new sect arose, called the Galileans. Not long\nafter this time, Judea, which was a Roman province, was added, for civil\npurposes, to Syria, over which Quirinus was governor. It happened, when\nthe tax was levied by Quirinus, that one Judas, of Galilee, otherwise\ncalled Gaulonites, in company with Zaduk, a Sadducee, publicly taught,\nthat such taxation was repugnant to the law of Moses, according to which\nthe Jews, they maintained, had no king but God. The tumults which this\nman excited were suppressed, Acts v, 37; but his disciples, who were\ncalled Galileans, continued to propagate this doctrine, and,\nfarthermore, required of all proselytes that they should be circumcised.\nIt was in reference to this sect that the captious question was proposed\nin Matt. xxii, 17, &c; namely, whether it was lawful to give tribute to\nC\u00e6sar. The Galileans, whom Pilate slew in the temple, Luke xiii, 1, 2,\nappear to have been of this sect. By degrees, the Galileans swallowed up\nalmost all the other sects; and it is highly probable that the zealots,\nparticularly mentioned at the siege of Jerusalem, were of this faction.\n\nGALILEE was one of the most extensive provinces into which the Holy Land\nwas divided. It exceeded Judea in extent, but probably varied in its\nlimits at different times. This province is divided by the rabbins into,\n1. The Upper; 2. The Nether; and, 3. The Valley. Josephus divides it\ninto only Upper and Lower; and he says that the limits of Galilee were,\non the south, Samaria and Scythopolis, unto the flood of Jordan. Galilee\ncontained four tribes, Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Asher; a part,\nalso, of Dan, and part of Per\u00e6a, that is, beyond the river. Upper\nGalilee abounded in mountains. Lower Galilee, which contained the tribes\nof Zebulun and Asher, was sometimes called the Great Field, \u201cthe\nchampaign,\u201d Deut. xi, 30. The Valley was adjacent to the sea of\nTiberias. Josephus describes Galilee as very populous, and containing\ntwo hundred and four cities and towns. It was also very rich, and paid\ntwo hundred talents in tribute. The natives were brave and good\nsoldiers; but they were seditious, and prone to insolence and rebellion.\nIn the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the inhabitants of Galilee and Per\u00e6a\nare scarcely mentioned, whether they were Jews returned from Babylon, or\na mixture of different nations. The language of these regions differed\nconsiderably from that of Judea; as did various customs, in which each\nfollowed its own mode. Our Lord so frequently visited Galilee, that he\nwas called a Galilean, Matt. xxvi, 69. The population of Galilee being\nvery great, he had many opportunities of doing good in this country;\nand, being there out of the power of the priests at Jerusalem, he seems\nto have preferred it as his abode. Nazareth and Capernaum were in this\ndivision. From such a mixture of people, many provincialisms might be\nexpected. Hence, we find Peter detected by his language, probably by his\nphraseology, as well as his pronunciation, Mark xiv, 70. Upper Galilee\nhad Mount Lebanon and the countries of Tyre and Sidon on the north; the\nMediterranean Sea on the west; Abilene, Itur\u00e6a, and the country of the\nDecapolis, on the east; and Lower Galilee on the south. Its principal\ncity was C\u00e6sarea Philippi. This part of Galilee, being less inhabited by\nJews, was thence called Galilee of the Nations, or of the Gentiles.\nLower Galilee had the upper division of the same country to the north;\nthe Mediterranean on the west; the sea of Galilee. or lake of\nGennesareth, on the east; and Samaria on the south. Its principal cities\nwere Tiberias, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, Nain,\nC\u00e6sarea of Palestine, and Ptolemais. This district was of all others\nmost honoured with the presence of our Saviour. Here he was conceived;\nhere he was brought back by his mother and reputed father, after their\nreturn from Egypt; here he lived with them till he was thirty years of\nage; and, although after his entrance on his public ministry he\nfrequently visited the other provinces, it was here that he chiefly\nresided. Here, also, he made his first appearance after his resurrection\nto his Apostles, who were themselves natives of the same country, and\nwere thence called men of Galilee.\n\nGALILEE, _Sea of_. This inland sea, or more properly lake, which derives\nits several names, the lake of Tiberias, the sea of Galilee, and the\nlake of Gennesareth, from the territory which forms its western and\nsouth-western border, is computed to be between seventeen and eighteen\nmiles in length, and from five to six in breadth. The mountains on the\neast come close to its shore, and the country on that side has not a\nvery agreeable aspect: on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the\nhigh ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of Gennesareth,\nand the foot of those hills by which you ascend to the high mountain of\nSaphet. To the north and south it has a plain country, or valley. There\nis a current throughout the whole breadth of the lake, even to the\nshore; and the passage of the Jordan through it is discernible by the\nsmoothness of the surface in that part. Various travellers have given\ndifferent accounts of its general aspect. According to Captain Mangles,\nthe land about it has no striking features, and the scenery is\naltogether devoid of character. \u201cIt appeared,\u201d he says, \u201cto particular\ndisadvantage to us, after those beautiful lakes we had seen in\nSwitzerland; but it becomes a very interesting object when you consider\nthe frequent allusions to it in the Gospel narrative.\u201d Dr. Clarke, on\nthe contrary, speaks of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery.\n\u201cThe lake of Gennesareth,\u201d he says, \u201cis surrounded by objects well\ncalculated to heighten the solemn impressions made by such\nrecollections, and affords one of the most striking prospects in the\nHoly Land. Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer\nand finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes, although\nperhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess the vastness of the\nlake of Geneva, although it much resembles it in certain points of view.\nIn picturesque beauty, it comes nearest to the lake of Locarno, in\nItaly, although it is destitute of any thing similar to the islands by\nwhich that majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in\nmagnitude, and in the height of its surrounding mountains, to the Lake\nAsphaltites.\u201d Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having given\nthe most accurate account, and one which reconciles, in some degree, the\ndiffering statements above cited, when, speaking of the lake as seen\nfrom Tel Hoom, he says, that its appearance is grand, but that the\nbarren aspect of the mountains on each side, and the total absence of\nwood, give a cast of dulness to the picture: this is increased to\nmelancholy by the dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns\nthroughout its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is\nto be found. The situation of the lake, lying, as it were, in a deep\nbasin between the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only\nthe narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan at either end, protects\nits waters from long-continued tempests: its surface is in general as\nsmooth as that of the Dead Sea. But the same local features render it\noccasionally subject to whirlwinds, squalls, and sudden gusts from the\nmountains, of short duration; especially when the strong current formed\nby the Jordan is opposed by a wind of this description from the\nsouth-east, sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane,\nit may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly\nraised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable to\nresist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by the language\nof the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord\u2019s miracles: \u201cThere came\ndown a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled with water, and\nwere in jeopardy. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of\nthe water; and they ceased, and there was a calm,\u201d Luke viii, 23, 24.\nThere were fleets of some force on this lake during the wars of the Jews\nwith the Romans, and very bloody battles were fought between them.\nJosephus gives a particular account of a naval engagement between the\nRomans under Vespasian, and the Jews who had revolted during the\nadministration of Agrippa. Titus and Trajan were both present, and\nVespasian himself was on board the Roman fleet. The rebel force\nconsisted of an immense multitude, who, as fugitives after the capture\nof Tarich\u00e6a by Titus, had sought refuge on the water. The vessels in\nwhich the Romans defeated them were built for the occasion, and yet were\nlarger than the Jewish ships. The victory was followed by so terrible a\nslaughter of the Jews, that nothing was to be seen, either on the lake\nor its shores, but the blood and mangled corses of the slain; and the\nair was infected by the number of dead bodies. Six thousand five hundred\npersons are stated to have perished in this naval engagement, and in the\nbattle of Tarich\u00e6a, beside twelve hundred who were afterward massacred\nin cold blood, by order of Vespasian, in the amphitheatre at Tiberias,\nand a vast number who were given to Agrippa as slaves.\n\nGALL, \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9, something excessively bitter, and supposed to be poisonous,\nDeut. xxix, 18; xxxii, 32; Psalm lxix, 21; Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; xxiii,\n15; Lam. iii, 19; Hosea x, 4; Amos vi, 12. It is evident, from the\nfirst-mentioned place, that some herb or plant is meant of a malignant\nor nauseous kind. It is joined with wormwood, and, in the margin of our\nBibles, explained to be \u201ca very poisonful herb.\u201d In Psalm lxix, 21,\nwhich is justly considered as a prophecy of our Saviour\u2019s sufferings, it\nis said, \u201cThey gave me \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 to eat\u201d; which the LXX have rendered \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd,\n_gall_. And, accordingly, it is recorded in the history, \u201cThey gave him\nvinegar to drink, mingled with gall,\u201d \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2, Matt. xxvii, 34.\nBut, in the parallel passage, it is said to be, \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u201cwine mingled with myrrh,\u201d Mark xv, 23, a very bitter ingredient. From\nwhence it is probable that \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74, and perhaps \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9, may be used as a\ngeneral name for whatever is exceedingly bitter; and, consequently,\nwhere the sense requires it, may be put specially for any bitter herb or\nplant, the infusion of which may be called \u05de\u05d9\u05be\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9.\n\nGALLIO was the name of the brother of Seneca, the philosopher. He was at\nfirst named Marcus Ann\u00e6us Novatus; but, being adopted by Lucius Junius\nGallio, he took the name of his adoptive father. The Emperor Claudius\nmade him proconsul of Achaia. He was of a mild and agreeable temper. To\nhim his brother Seneca dedicated his books, \u201cOf Anger.\u201d He shared in the\nfortunes of his brothers, as well when out of favour as in their\nprosperity at court. At length, Nero put him, as well as them, to death.\nThe Jews were enraged at St. Paul for converting many Gentiles, and\ndragged him to the tribunal of Gallio, who, as proconsul, generally\nresided at Corinth, Acts xviii, 12, 13. They accused him of teaching\n\u201cmen to worship God contrary to the law.\u201d St. Paul being about to speak,\nGallio told the Jews, that if the matter in question were a breach of\njustice, or an action of a criminal nature, he should think himself\nobliged to hear them; but, as the dispute was only concerning their law,\nhe would not determine such differences, nor judge them. Sosthenes, the\nchief ruler of the synagogue, was beaten by the Greeks before Gallio\u2019s\nseat of justice; but this governor did not concern himself about it. His\nabstaining from interfering in a religious controversy did credit to his\nprudence; nevertheless, his name has oddly passed into a reproachful\nproverb; and a man regardless of all piety is called \u201ca Gallio,\u201d and is\nsaid \u201cGallio-like to care for none of these things.\u201d Little did this\nRoman anticipate that his name would be so immortalized.\n\nGAMALIEL, a celebrated rabbi, and doctor of the Jewish law, under whose\ntuition the great Apostle of the Gentiles was brought up, Acts xxii, 3.\nBarnabas and Stephen are also supposed to have been among the number of\nhis pupils. Soon after the day of pentecost, when the Jewish sanhedrim\nbegan to be alarmed at the progress the Gospel was making in Jerusalem,\nand consequently wished to put to death the Apostles, in the hope of\nchecking its farther progress, they were apprehended and brought before\nthe national council, of which Gamaliel seems to have been a leading\nmember. It is very probable that many zealots among them would have\ndespatched the affair in a very summary manner, but their impetuosity\nwas checked by the cool and prudent advice of Gamaliel; for, having\nrequested the Apostles to withdraw for a while, he represented to the\nsanhedrim that, if the Apostles were no better than impostors, their\nfallacy would quickly be discovered; but on the other hand, if what they\nwere engaged in was from God, it was vain for them to attempt to\nfrustrate it, since it was the height of folly to contend with the\nAlmighty. The assembly saw the wisdom of his counsel, and very prudently\nchanged the sentence, upon which they were originally bent against the\nApostles\u2019 lives, into that of corporal punishment.\n\n2. It may here also be remarked, that the sanhedrim could not themselves\nbelieve that tale which they had diligently circulated among the people,\nthat the disciples had stolen away the body of Jesus, and then pretended\nthat he had arisen from the dead. If the Jewish council had thought\nthis, it would have been very absurd in Gamaliel to exhort them to wait\nto see whether \u201cthe counsel and work\u201d was of God, that is, whether the\nApostles related a fact when they preached the resurrection, and\ngrounded the divine authority of their religion upon that fact.\nGamaliel\u2019s advice was wholly based upon the admission, that an\nextraordinary, and to them an inexplicable, event had happened.\n\nGAMES. Games and combats were instituted by the ancients in honour of\ntheir gods; and were celebrated with that view by the most polished and\nenlightened nations of antiquity. The most renowned heroes, legislators,\nand statesmen, did not think it unbecoming their character and dignity,\nto mingle with the combatants, or contend in the race; they even\nreckoned it glorious to share in the exercises, and meritorious to carry\naway the prize. The victors were crowned with a wreath of laurel in\npresence of their country; they were celebrated in the rapturous\neffusions of their poets; they were admired, and almost adored, by the\ninnumerable multitudes which flocked to the games, from every part of\nGreece, and many of the adjacent countries. They returned to their own\nhomes in a triumphal chariot, and made their entrance into their native\ncity, not through the gates which admitted the vulgar throng, but\nthrough a breach in the walls, which were broken down to give them\nadmission; and at the same time to express the persuasion of their\nfellow citizens, that walls are of small use to a city defended by men\nof such tried courage and ability. Hence the surprising ardour which\nanimated all the states of Greece to imitate the ancient heroes, and\nencircle their brows with wreaths, which rendered them still more the\nobjects of admiration or envy to succeeding times, than the victories\nthey had gained, or the laws they had enacted.\n\n2. But the institutors of those games and combats had higher and nobler\nobjects in view than veneration for the mighty dead, or the\ngratification of ambition or vanity; it was their design to prepare the\nyouth for the profession of arms; to confirm their health; to improve\ntheir strength, their vigour, and activity; to inure them to fatigue;\nand to render them intrepid in close fight, where, in the infancy of the\nart of war, muscular force commonly decided the victory. This statement\naccounts for the striking allusions which the Apostle Paul makes in his\nepistles to these celebrated exercises. Such references were calculated\nto touch the heart of a Greek, and of every one familiarly acquainted\nwith them, in the liveliest manner, as well as to place before the eye\nof his mind the most glowing and correct images of spiritual and divine\nthings. No passages in the nervous and eloquent epistles from the pen of\nSt. Paul, have been more admired by the critics and expositors of all\ntimes, than those into which some allusion to these agonistic exercises\nis introduced; and, perhaps, none are calculated to leave a deeper\nimpression on the Christian\u2019s mind, or excite a stronger and more\nsalutary influence on his actions. Certain persons were appointed to\ntake care that all things were done according to custom, to decide\ncontroversies that happened among the antagonists, and to adjudge the\nprize to the victor. Some eminent writers are of opinion that Christ is\ncalled the \u201cAuthor and Finisher of faith,\u201d in allusion to these judges.\nThose who were designed for the profession of _athlet\u00e6_, or combatants,\nfrequented from their earliest years the academies maintained for that\npurpose at the public expense. In these places they were exercised under\nthe direction of different masters, who employed the most effectual\nmethods to inure their bodies for the fatigues of the public games, and\nto form them for the combats. The regimen to which they submitted was\nvery hard and severe. At first, they had no other nourishment than dried\nfigs, nuts, soft cheese, and a gross heavy sort of bread called \u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1;\nthey were absolutely forbidden the use of wine, and enjoined continence.\nWhen they proposed to contend in the Olympian games, they were obliged\nto repair to the public gymnasium at Elis, ten months before the\nsolemnity, where they prepared themselves by continual exercises. No man\nthat had omitted to present himself at the appointed time, was allowed\nto be a candidate for the prizes; nor were the accustomed rewards of\nvictory given to such persons, if by any means they insinuated\nthemselves, and overcame their antagonists; nor would any apology,\nthough seemingly ever so reasonable, serve to excuse their absence. No\nperson that was himself a notorious criminal, or nearly related to one,\nwas permitted to contend. Farther, to prevent underhand dealings, if any\nperson was convicted of bribing his adversary, a severe fine was laid\nupon him; nor was this alone thought a sufficient guard against unfair\ncontracts, and unjust practices, but the contenders were obliged to\nswear they had spent ten whole months in preparatory exercises; and,\nbeside all this, they, their fathers, and their brethren, took a solemn\noath, that they would not, by any sinister or unlawful means, endeavour\nto stop the fair and just proceedings of the games.\n\n3. The spiritual contest, in which all true Christians aim at obtaining\na heavenly crown, has its rules also, devised and enacted by infinite\nwisdom and goodness, which require implicit and exact submission, which\nyield neither to times nor circumstances, but maintain their supreme\nauthority, from age to age, uninterrupted and unimpaired. The combatant\nwho violates these rules forfeits the prize, and is driven from the\nfield with indelible disgrace, and consigned to everlasting wo. Hence\nthe great Apostle of the Gentiles exhorts his son Timothy strictly to\nobserve the precepts of the Gospel, without which, he can no more hope\nto obtain the approbation of God, and the possession of the heavenly\ncrown, than a combatant in the public games of Greece, who disregarded\nthe established rules, could hope to receive from the hands of his judge\nthe promised reward: \u201cAnd if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he\nnot crowned except he strive lawfully,\u201d 2 Tim. ii, 5, or according to\nthe established laws of the games. Like the Grecian combatants, the\nChristian must \u201cabstain from fleshly lusts,\u201d and \u201cwalk in all the\nstatutes and commandments of the Lord, blameless.\u201d Such was St. Paul;\nand in this manner he endeavoured to act: \u201cBut I keep under my body, and\nbring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached\nto others, I myself should be a cast-away,\u201d 1 Cor. ix, 27. The latter\npart of this verse Doddridge renders, \u201clest after having served as a\nherald I should be disapproved;\u201d and says in a note, \u201cI thought it of\nimportance to retain the primitive sense of these gymnastic\nexpressions.\u201d It is well known to those who are at all acquainted with\nthe original, that the word used means to discharge the office of a\nherald, whose business it was to proclaim the conditions of the games,\nand display the prizes, to awaken the emulation and resolution of those\nwho were to contend in them. But the Apostle intimates, that there was\nthis peculiar circumstance attending the Christian contest, that the\nperson who proclaimed its laws and rewards to others, was also to engage\nin it himself; and that there would be a peculiar infamy and misery in\nhis miscarrying. \u1f08\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, which we render _cast-away_, signifies one\nwho is disapproved by the judge of the games, as not having fairly\ndeserved the prize: he therefore loses it; even the prize of eternal\nlife. The rule which the Apostle applies to himself he extends in\nanother passage to all the members of the Christian church: \u201cThose who\nstrive for the mastery are temperate in all things; now they do it to\nobtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible.\u201d Tertullian uses\nthe same thought to encourage the martyrs. He urges constancy upon them,\nfrom what the hopes of victory made the _athlet\u00e6_ endure; and repeats\nthe severe and painful exercises they were obliged to undergo, the\ncontinual anguish and constraint in which they passed the best years of\ntheir lives, and the voluntary privation which they imposed on\nthemselves, of all that was most grateful to their appetites and\npassions.\n\n4. The _athlet\u00e6_ took care to disencumber their bodies of every article\nof clothing which could in any manner hinder or incommode them. In the\nrace, they were anxious to carry as little weight as possible, and\nuniformly stripped themselves of all such clothes as, by their weight,\nlength, or otherwise, might entangle or retard them in the course. The\nChristian also must \u201clay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so\neasily beset\u201d him, Heb. xii, 1. In the exercise of faith and\nself-denial, he must \u201ccast off the works of darkness,\u201d lay aside all\nmalice and guile, hypocrisies, and envyings, and evil speakings,\ninordinate affections, and worldly cares, and whatever else might\nobstruct his holy profession, damp his spirits, and hinder his progress\nin the paths of righteousness.\n\n5. The foot race seems to have been placed in the first rank of public\ngames, and cultivated with a care and industry proportioned to the\nestimation in which it was held. The Olympic games generally opened with\nraces, and were celebrated at first with no other exercise. The lists or\ncourse where the _athlet\u00e6_ exercised themselves in running, was at first\nbut one stadium in length, or about six hundred feet; and from this\nmeasure it took its name, and was called the _stadium_, whatever might\nbe its extent. This, in the language of St. Paul, speaking of the\nChristian\u2019s course, was \u201cthe race which was set before them,\u201d determined\nby public authority, and carefully measured. On each side of the stadium\nand its extremity, ran an ascent or kind of terrace, covered with seats\nand benches, upon which the spectators were seated, an innumerable\nmultitude collected from all parts of Greece, to which the Apostle thus\nalludes in his figurative description of the Christian life: \u201cSeeing we\nare compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside\nevery weight,\u201d Heb. xii, 1.\n\nThe most remarkable parts of the stadium were its entrance, middle, and\nextremity. The entrance was marked at first only by a line drawn on the\nsand, from side to side of the stadium. To prevent any unfair advantage\nbeing taken by the more vigilant or alert candidates, a cord was at\nlength stretched in front of the horses or men that were to run; and\nsometimes the space was railed in with wood. The opening of this\nbarrier, was the signal for the racers to start. The middle of the\nstadium was remarkable, only by the circumstance of having the prizes\nallotted to the victors set up there. From this custom, Crysostom draws\na fine comparison: \u201cAs the judges in the races and other games, expose\nin the midst of the stadium, to the view of the champions, the crowns\nwhich they were to receive; in like manner, the Lord, by the mouth of\nhis prophets, has placed the prizes in the midst of the course, which he\ndesigns for those who have the courage to contend for them.\u201d At the\nextremity of the stadium was a goal, where the foot races ended; but in\nthose of chariots and horses, they were to run several times round it\nwithout stopping, and afterward conclude the race by regaining the other\nextremity of the lists from whence they started. It is therefore to the\nfoot race the Apostle alludes, when he speaks of the race set before the\nChristian, which was a straight course, to be run only once, and not, as\nin the other, several times without stopping.\n\n6. According to some writers, it was at the goal, and not in the middle\nof the course, that the prizes were exhibited; and they were placed in a\nvery conspicuous situation, that the competitors might be animated by\nhaving them always in their sight. This accords with the view which the\nApostle gives of the Christian life: \u201cBrethren, I count not myself to\nhave apprehended; but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which\nare behind, and reaching forth unto those things, which are before, I\npress toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ\nJesus,\u201d Phil. iii, 13, 14. L\u2019Enfant thinks, the Apostle here alludes to\nthose who stood at the elevated place at the end of the course, calling\nthe racers by their names, and encouraging them by holding out the\ncrown, to exert themselves with vigour. Within the measured and\ndeterminate limits of the stadium, the _athlet\u00e6_ were bound to contend\nfor the prize, which they forfeited without hope of recovery, if they\ndeviated ever so little from the appointed course.\n\n7. The honours and rewards granted to the victors were of several kinds.\nThey were animated in their course by the rapturous applauses of the\ncountless multitudes that lined the stadium, and waited the issue of the\ncontest with eager anxiety; and their success was instantly followed by\nreiterated and long continued plaudits; but these were only a prelude to\nthe appointed rewards, which, though of little value in themselves, were\naccounted the highest honour to which a mortal could aspire. These\nconsisted of different wreaths of wild olive, pine, parsley, or laurel,\naccording to the different places where the games were celebrated. After\nthe judges had passed sentence, a public herald proclaimed the name of\nthe victor; one of the judges put the crown upon his head, and a branch\nof palm into his right hand, which he carried as a token of victorious\ncourage and perseverance. As he might be victor more than once in the\nsame games, and sometimes on the same day, he might also receive several\ncrowns and palms. When the victor had received his reward, a herald,\npreceded by a trumpet, conducted him through the stadium, and proclaimed\naloud his name and country; while the delighted multitudes, at the sight\nof him, redoubled their acclamations and applauses.\n\n8. The crown in the Olympic games was of wild olive; in the Pythian, of\nlaurel; in the Isthmian or Corinthian, of pine tree; and in the Nem\u00e6an,\nof smallage or parsley. Now, most of these were evergreens; yet they\nwould soon grow dry, and crumble into dust. Elsner produces many\npassages in which the contenders in these exercises are rallied by the\nGrecian wits, on account of the extraordinary pains they took for such\ntrifling rewards; and Plato has a celebrated passage, which greatly\nresembles that of the Apostle, but by no means equals it in force and\nbeauty: \u201cNow they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an\nincorruptible.\u201d The Christian is thus called to fight the good fight of\nfaith, and to lay hold of eternal life; and to this he is more\npowerfully stimulated by considering that the ancient _athlet\u00e6_ took all\ntheir care and pains only for the sake of obtaining a garland of\nflowers, or a wreath of laurel, which quickly fades and perishes,\npossessed little intrinsic value, and only served to nourish their pride\nand vanity, without imparting any solid advantage to themselves or\nothers; but that which is placed in the view of the spiritual\ncombatants, to animate their exertions, and reward their labours, is no\nless than a crown of glory which never decays; \u201can inheritance\nincorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven\nfor them,\u201d 1 Pet. i, 4; v, 4. But the victory sometimes remained\ndoubtful, in consequence of which a number of competitors appeared\nbefore the judges, and claimed the prize. The candidates who were\nrejected on such occasions by the judge of the games, as not having\nfairly merited the prize, were called by the Greeks \u1f00\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, or\n_disapproved_, which we render _cast away_, in a passage already quoted\nfrom St. Paul\u2019s First Epistle to the Corinthians: \u201cBut I keep under my\nbody, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have\npreached to others, I myself should be, \u1f00\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, cast away,\u201d rejected\nby the Judge of all the earth, and disappointed of my expected crown.\nWhat has been observed concerning the spirit and ardour with which the\ncompetitors engaged in the race, and concerning the prize they had in\nview to reward their arduous contention, will illustrate the following\nsublime passage of the same sacred writer in his Epistle to the\nPhilippians: \u201cNot as though I had already attained, either were already\nperfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also\nI am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have\napprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are\nbehind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press\ntoward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ\nJesus,\u201d Phil. iii, 12\u201314. The affecting passage, also, of the same\nApostle, in the Second Epistle of Timothy, written a little before his\nmartyrdom, is beautifully allusive to the above-mentioned race, to the\ncrown that awaited the victory, and to the Hellanodics or judges who\nbestowed it: \u201cI have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I\nhave kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of\nrighteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at\nthat day: and not to me only, but to all them also that love his\nappearing,\u201d 2 Tim. iv, 8.\n\nGARDENS. In the language of the Hebrews, every place where plants and\ntrees were cultivated with greater care than in the open field, was\ncalled a garden. The idea of such an enclosure was certainly borrowed\nfrom the garden of Eden, which the bountiful Creator planted for the\nreception of our first parents. Beside, the gardens of primitive nations\nwere commonly, if not in every instance, devoted to religious purposes.\nIn these shady retreats were celebrated, for a long succession of ages,\nthe rites of Pagan superstition. Thus Jehovah calls the apostate Jews,\n\u201ca people that provoketh me continually to anger to my face, that\nsacrificeth in gardens,\u201d Isa. lxv, 3. And in a preceding chapter, the\nprophet threatens them in the name of the Lord: \u201cThey shall be ashamed\nof the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the\ngardens which ye have chosen.\u201d The oriental gardens were either open\nplantations, or enclosures defended by walls or hedges. Some fences in\nthe Holy Land, in later times, are not less beautiful than our living\nfences of white thorn; and perfectly answer the description of ancient\nJewish prophets, who inform us that the hedges in their times consisted\nof thorns, and that the spikes of these thorny plants were exceedingly\nsharp. Doubdan found a very fruitful vineyard, full of olives, fig\ntrees, and vines, about eight miles south-west from Bethlehem, enclosed\nwith a hedge; and that part of it adjoining to the road, strongly formed\nof thorns and rose bushes, intermingled with pomegranate trees of\nsurpassing beauty and fragrance. A hedge composed of rose bushes and\nwild pomegranate shrubs, then in full flower, mingled with other thorny\nplants, adorned in the varied livery of spring, must have made at once a\nstrong and beautiful fence. The wild pomegranate tree, the species\nprobably used in fencing, is much more prickly than the other variety;\nand when mingled with other thorny bushes, of which they have several\nkinds in Palestine, some of whose prickles are very long and sharp, must\nform a hedge very difficult to penetrate. These facts illustrate the\nbeauty and force of several passages in the sacred volume: thus, in the\nProverbs of Solomon, \u201cThe way of the slothful man is as a hedge of\nthorns,\u201d Prov. xv, 19; it is obstructed with difficulties, which the\nsloth and indolence of his temper represent as galling or insuperable;\nbut which a moderate share of resolution and perseverance would easily\nremove or surmount. In the prophecies of Hosea, God threatens his\ntreacherous and idolatrous people with many painful embarrassments and\nperplexities, which would as effectually retard or obstruct their\nprogress in the paths of wickedness, as a hedge of thorny plants\nstretching across the traveller\u2019s way, the prosecution of his journey:\n\u201cTherefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a\nwall, that she shall not find her paths,\u201d Hosea ii, 6. In the days of\nMicah, the magistrates of Judah had become exceedingly corrupt: \u201cThe\nbest of them is a brier; the most upright is sharper than a thorn\nhedge;\u201d to appear before their tribunal, or to have any dealings with\nthem, was to involve one\u2019s self in endless perplexities, and to be\nexposed to galling disappointments, if not to certain destruction. They\nresembled those thorny plants which are twisted together, whose spines\npoint in every direction, and are so sharp and strong that they cannot\nbe touched without danger, and so entangling that when the traveller has\nwith much pain and exertion freed himself from one, he is instantly\nseized by another. \u201cBut the sons of Belial,\u201d said the king of Israel,\n\u201cshall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be\ntaken with hands: but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with\niron, and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with\nfire in the same place,\u201d 2 Sam. xxiii, 6, 7. Other enclosures had fences\nof loose stones, or mud walls, some of them very low, which often\nfurnished a retreat to venomous reptiles. To this circumstance the royal\npreacher alludes, in his observations of wisdom and folly: \u201cHe that\ndiggeth a pit, shall fall into it: and whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent\nshall bite him,\u201d Eccles. x, 8. The term which our translators render\n_hedge_ in this passage, they might with more propriety have rendered\n_wall_, as they had done in another part of the writings of Solomon: \u201cI\nwent by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void\nof understanding; and lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles\nhad covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken\ndown,\u201d Proverbs xxiv, 30.\n\n2. The land of promise has been, from the earliest ages, an unenclosed\ncountry, with a few spots defended by a hedge of thorny plants, or a\nstone wall built without any cement. At Aleppo, most of the vineyards\nare fenced with stone walls; for in many parts of Syria a hedge would\nnot grow for want of moisture. But, as their various esculent vegetables\nare now not unfrequently planted in the open fields, both in Syria and\nPalestine, so Chardin seems to suppose they were often unfenced in\nancient times; and, on this account, those lodges and booths, to which\nIsaiah refers, in the first chapter of his prophecy, were built. In\nHindostan they follow the same custom. At the commencement of the rainy\nseason, the peasants plant abundance of melons, cucumbers, and gourds,\nwhich are then the principal food of the inhabitants. They are planted\nin the open fields and extensive plains, and are therefore liable to the\ndepredations of men and beasts. In the centre of the field is an\nartificial mount, with a hut on the top, sufficiently large to shelter a\nsingle person from the inclemency of the weather. There, amid heavy\nrains and tempestuous winds, a poor solitary being is stationed day and\nnight to protect the crop. From thence he gives an alarm to the nearest\nvillage. Few situations can be more unpleasant than a hovel of this\nkind, exposed for three or four months to wind, lightning, and rain. To\nsuch a cheerless station the prophet no doubt alludes, in that passage\nwhere he declares the desolations of Judah: \u201cThe daughter of Zion is\nleft as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,\u201d\nIsa. i, 8. If such watch houses were necessary in those gardens which\nwere defended by walls or hedges, some of which, indeed, it was not\ndifficult to get over, they must have been still more necessary in those\nwhich were perfectly open.\n\n3. The oriental garden displays little method, or design; the whole\nbeing commonly no more than a confused medley of fruit trees, with beds\nof esculent plants, and even plots of wheat and barley sometimes\ninterspersed. The garden belonging to the governor of Eleus, a Turkish\ntown on the western border of the Hellespont, which Dr. Chandler\nvisited, consisted only of a very small spot of ground, walled in, and\ncontaining only two vines, a fig and a pomegranate tree, and a well of\nexcellent water. And, it would seem, the garden of an ancient Israelite\ncould not boast of greater variety; for the grape, the fig, and the\npomegranate, are almost the only fruits which it produced. This fact may\nperhaps give us some insight into the reason of the sudden and\nirresistible conviction which flashed on the mind of Nathanael, when our\nSaviour said to him, \u201cWhen thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.\u201d\nThe good man seems to have been engaged in devotional exercises in a\nsmall retired garden, walled in, and concealed from the scrutinizing\neyes of men. The place was so small, that he was perfectly certain no\nman but himself was there; and so completely defended, that none could\nbreak through, or look over, the fence; and, by consequence, that no eye\nwas upon him, but the all-seeing eye of God; and, therefore, since\nChrist saw him there, Nathanael knew he could be no other than the Son\nof God, and the promised Messiah.\n\nGARLICK, \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd. As this word occurs only in Numbers xi, 5, some doubts\nhave arisen respecting the plant intended. From its being coupled with\nleeks and onions, there can be but little doubt that the garlick is\nmeant. The Talmudists frequently mention the use of this plant among the\nJews, and their fondness for it. That garlicks grew plenteously in\nEgypt, is asserted by Dioscorides: there they were much esteemed, and\nwere both eaten and worshipped:--\n\n            \u201cThen gods were recommended by their taste.\n            Such savoury deities must needs be good,\n            Which served at once for worship and for food.\u201d\n\nGARMENT. See HABITS.\n\nGATE is often used in Scripture to denote a place of public assembly,\nwhere justice was administered, Deut. xvii, 5, 8; xxi, 19; xxii, 15;\nxxv, 6, 7, &c. One instance of these judgments appears in that given at\nthe gate of Bethlehem, between Boaz and a relation of Naomi, on the\nsubject of Ruth, chap. iv, 2; another in Abraham\u2019s purchase of a field\nto bury Sarah, Gen. xxiii, 10, 18. The gate of judgment is a term still\ncommon to the Arabians to express a court of justice, and even\nintroduced by the Saracens into Spain. \u201cI had several times,\u201d says\nJacob, \u201cvisited the Alhambra, the ancient palace and fortress of the\nMoorish kings: it is situated on the top of a hill, overlooking the\ncity, and is surrounded by a wall of great height and thickness. The\nentrance is through an archway, over which is carved a key, the symbol\nof the Mohammedan monarchs. This gate, called the gate of judgment,\naccording to eastern forms, was the place where the kings administered\njustice.\u201d In Morocco, the gate is still the place where judgment is\nheld. \u201cAll complaints,\u201d says Host, \u201care brought, in the first instance,\nto the cadi, or governor, who, for that purpose, passes certain hours of\nthe day in the gate of the city, partly for the sake of the fresh air,\nand partly to see all those who go out; and, lastly, to observe a custom\nwhich has long prevailed, of holding judgment there. The gate is\ncontrived accordingly, being built like a square chamber, with two\ndoors, which are not directly opposite to each other, but on two\nadjoining sides, with seats on the other sides. In this manner David sat\nbetween two gates,\u201d 2 Sam. xviii, 24. Gate sometimes signifies power,\ndominion, almost in the same sense as the Turkish emperor\u2019s palace is\ncalled the _Porte_. God promises Abraham that his posterity shall\npossess the gates of their enemies, their towns, their fortresses,\nGenesis xxii, 17. Jesus Christ says to Peter, \u201cThou art Peter; and on\nthis rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it,\u201d Matt. xvi, 18. This may mean either the powers of\nhell, or invisible spirits; or simply death,--the church shall be\nreplenished by living members from generation to generation, so that\ndeath shall never annihilate it.\n\nSolomon says, \u201cHe that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction.\u201d The Arabs\nare accustomed to ride into the houses of those they design to harass.\nTo prevent this, Thevenot tells us that the door of the house in which\nthe French merchants live at Rama was not three feet high, and that all\nthe doors of that town are equally low. Agreeably to this account, the\nAbb\u00e9 Mariti, speaking of his admission into a monastery near Jerusalem,\nsays, \u201cThe passage is so low, that it will scarcely admit a horse; and\nit is shut by a gate of iron, strongly secured in the inside. As soon as\nwe entered, it was again made fast with various bolts and bars of iron:\na precaution extremely necessary in a desert place, exposed to the\nincursions, and insolent attacks of the Arabs.\u201d Mr. Drummond says, that\nin the country about Roudge, in Syria, \u201cthe poor miserable Arabs are\nunder the necessity of hewing their houses out of the rock, and cutting\nvery small doors or openings to them, that they may not be made stables\nfor the Turkish horse, as they pass and repass.\u201d And thus, long before\nhim, Sandys, at Gaza, in Palestine: \u201cWe lodged under an arch in a little\ncourt, together with our asses; the door exceeding low, as are all that\nbelong unto Christians, to withstand the sudden entrance of the insolent\nTurks.\u201d \u201cTo exalt the gate,\u201d would consequently be to court destruction.\nMorier says, \u201cA poor man\u2019s door is scarcely three feet in height; and\nthis is a precautionary measure to hinder the servants of the great from\nentering it on horseback; which, when any act of oppression is intended,\nthey would make no scruple to do. But the habitation of a man in power\nis known by his gate, which is generally elevated in proportion to the\nvanity of its owner. A lofty gate is one of the insignia of royalty:\nsuch is the _Allan Capi_, at Ispahan, and _Bob Homayan_, or the _Sublime\nPorte_, at Constantinople. It must have been the same in ancient days;\nthe gates of Jerusalem, Zion, &c, are often mentioned in the Scripture,\nwith the same notion of grandeur annexed to them.\u201d\n\nGATH, the fifth of the Philistine cities. It was a place of strength in\nthe time of the prophets Amos and Micah, and is placed by Jerom on the\nroad between Eleutheropolis and Gaza. It appears to have been the\nextreme boundary of the Philistine territory in one direction, as Ekron\nwas on the other. Hence the expression, \u201cfrom Ekron even unto Gath,\u201d 1\nSam. vii, 14.\n\nGAULAN, or GOLAN, a city beyond Jordan, from which the small province\ncalled Gaulonitis took its name. It was given to the half tribe of\nManasseh, on the other side Jordan, Deut. iv, 43; and became a city of\nrefuge, Joshua xxi, 27.\n\nGAZA, a city of the Philistines, made by Joshua part of the tribe of\nJudah. It was one of the five principalities of the Philistines,\nsituated toward the southern extremity of the promised land, 1 Sam. vi,\n17, between Raphia and Askelon. The advantageous situation of Gaza was\nthe cause of the numerous revolutions which it underwent. It first of\nall belonged to the Philistines, and then to the Hebrews. It recovered\nits liberty in the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, and was reconquered by\nHezekiah, 2 Kings xviii, 8. It was subject to the Chaldeans, who\nconquered Syria and Phenicia. Afterward, it fell into the hands of the\nPersians. It must have been a place of considerable strength. For two\nmonths it baffled all the efforts of Alexander the Great, who was\nrepeatedly repulsed, and wounded in the siege; which he afterward\nrevenged in a most infamous manner on the person of the gallant defender\nBetis, whom, while yet alive, having ordered his ankles to be bored, he\ndragged round the walls, tied to his chariot wheels, in the barbarous\nparade of imitating the less savage treatment of the corpse of Hector by\nAchilles.\n\nDr. Wittman gives the following description of his visit to Gaza: \u201cIn\npursuing our route toward this place, the view became still more\ninteresting and agreeable: the groves of olive trees extending from the\nplace where we had halted to the town, in front of which a fine avenue\nof these trees was planted. Gaza is situated on an eminence, and is\nrendered picturesque by the number of fine minarets which rise\nmajestically above the buildings, and by the beautiful date trees which\nare interspersed. The suburbs of Gaza are composed of wretched mud huts;\nbut within side the town the buildings make a much better appearance\nthan those we had generally met with in Syria. The streets are of a\nmoderate breadth. Many fragments of statues, columns, &c, of marble were\nseen in the walls and buildings in different parts of the town. The\nsuburbs and environs of Gaza are rendered infinitely agreeable by a\nnumber of large gardens, cultivated with the nicest care, which lie in a\ndirection north and south of the town; while others of the same\ndescription run to a considerable distance westward. These gardens are\nfilled with a great variety of choice fruit trees, such as the fig, the\nmulberry, the pomegranate, the apricot, the peach, and the almond;\ntogether with a few lemon and orange trees. The numerous plantations of\nolive and date trees which are interspersed contribute greatly to the\npicturesque effect of the scene exhibited by the surrounding plains.\nThese, on our arrival, were overspread with flowers, the variegated\ncolours of which displayed every tint and every hue. Among these were\nthe chrysanthemum, scarlet ranunculus, lupin, pheasant-eye, tulip,\nchina-aster, dwarf-iris, lintel, daisy, &c, all of them growing wild and\nabundantly, with the exception of the lupin, which was cultivated in\npatches, regularly ploughed and sowed, with a view to collect the seeds,\nwhich the inhabitants employ at their meals, more especially to thicken\ntheir ragouts. The few corn fields, which lay at a distance, displayed\nthe promise of a rich golden harvest; and the view of the sea, distant\nabout a league, tended to diversify still more the animated features of\nthis luxuriant scene.\u201d This and similar descriptions of modern\ntravellers, which are occasionally introduced into this work, are given\nboth as interesting in themselves, and to show that relics of the\nancient beauty and fertility of the Holy Land are still to be found in\nmany parts of it.\n\nGEMARA. This word signifies _complement_, _perfection_. The rabbins call\nthe Pentateuch the law, without any addition. Next to this they have the\nTalmud, which is divided into two parts: the first is only an\napplication of the law to particular cases, with the decision of the\nancient rabbins, and is called _mishnah_, or \u201csecond law:\u201d the other\npart, which is a more extensive application of the same law, is a\ncollection of determinations by rabbins, later than the _mishnah_. This\nlast is termed _gemara_, \u201cperfection,\u201d \u201cfinishing,\u201d because they\nconsider it as a conclusive explanation of the law, to which no farther\nadditions can be made. There are two _gemaras_, or two Talmuds, that of\nJerusalem, and that of Babylon. The former was compiled, according to\nthe Jews, about the end of the second or third century, by a celebrated\nrabbin, called Jochanan; but father Morinus maintains that the _gemara_\nwas not finished till about the seventh century. Dr. Prideaux says that\nit was completed about A. D. 300. The Jews have little value for this\nJerusalem Talmud, on account of its obscurity. The Babylonish _gemara_\nis, as the rabbins say, more modern. It was begun by a Jewish doctor,\nnamed Asa, and continued by Marmar and Mar, his sons or disciples. The\nJews believe that the _gemara_ contains nothing but the word of God,\npreserved in the tradition of the elders, and transmitted, without\nalteration, from Moses to rabbi Judah, the holy, and the other compilers\nof the Talmud; who did not reduce it to writing till they were afraid it\nwould be corrupted by the several transmigrations and persecutions to\nwhich their nation was subjected.\n\nGENEALOGY, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, signifies a list of a person\u2019s ancestors. The\ncommon Hebrew expression for it is _Sepher-Toledoth_, \u201cthe Book of\nGenerations.\u201d No nation was ever more careful to preserve their\ngenealogies than the Jews. The sacred writings contain genealogies\nextended three thousand five hundred years backward. The genealogy of\nour Saviour is deduced by the evangelists from Adam to Joseph and Mary,\nthrough a space of four thousand years and upward. The Jewish priests\nwere obliged to produce an exact genealogy of their families, before\nthey were admitted to exercise their function. Wherever placed, the Jews\nwere particularly careful not to marry below themselves; and to prevent\nthis, they kept tables of genealogy in their several families, the\noriginals of which were lodged at Jerusalem, to be occasionally\nconsulted. These authentic monuments, during all their wars and\npersecutions, were taken great care of, and from time to time renewed.\nBut, since the last destruction of their city, and the dispersion of the\npeople, their ancient genealogies are lost. But to this the Jews reply,\nthat either Elias, or some other inspired priest or prophet, shall come,\nand restore their genealogical tables before the Messiah\u2019s appearance; a\ntradition, which they ground on a passage in Nehemiah vii, 64, 65, to\nthis effect: the genealogical register of the families of certain\npriests being lost, they were not able to make out their lineal descent\nfrom Aaron; and therefore, \u201cas polluted, were put from the priesthood;\u201d\nthe \u201cTirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy\nthings, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.\u201d From hence\nthe Jews conclude, that such a priest will stand up, and restore and\ncomplete the genealogies of their families: though others suppose these\nwords to import, that they should never exercise their priesthood any\nmore; and that, \u201ctill there shall stand up a priest with Urim and\nThummim,\u201d amounts to the same as the Roman proverb, _ad Gr\u00e6cas\ncalendas_, [never,] since the Urim and Thummim were now absolutely and\nfor ever lost.\n\nGENERATION. Beside the common acceptation of this word, as signifying\ndescent, it is used for the history and genealogy of any individual, as\n\u201cThe book of the generations of Adam,\u201d Genesis v, 1, the history of\nAdam\u2019s creation, and of his posterity. \u201cThe generations of the heavens\nand of the earth,\u201d Genesis ii, 4, is a recital of the creation of heaven\nand earth. \u201cThe book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of\nDavid,\u201d Matthew i, 1, is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and the history\nof his life. The ancients sometimes computed by generations: \u201cIn the\nfourth generation thy descendants shall come hither again,\u201d Genesis xv,\n16. \u201cJoseph saw Ephraim\u2019s children of the third generation,\u201d Genesis 1,\n23. \u201cA bastard shall not be admitted into the congregation, till the\ntenth generation,\u201d Deut. xxiii, 2. Among the ancients, when the duration\nof generations was not exactly described by the age of four men\nsucceeding one another from father to son, it was fixed by some at a\nhundred years, by others at a hundred and ten, by others at\nthirty-three, thirty, twenty-five, and even at twenty years; being\nneither uniform nor settled: only, it is remarked, that a generation is\nlonger as it is more ancient.\n\nGENESIS, a canonical book of the Old Testament, so called from the Greek\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _genesis_, or _generation_, because it contains an account of\nthe origin of all visible things, and of the genealogy of the first\npatriarchs. In the Hebrew it is called \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea, which signifies, _in the\nbeginning_, because it begins with that word. See PENTATEUCH.\n\nGENNESARETH, LAND OF, or GENNESAR, a small district of Galilee, supposed\nto have been so called from its pleasantness, and extending about four\nmiles along the north-western shore of the sea of Galilee, or\nGennesareth, so called from this same region. It is more probable,\nhowever, that Gennesareth is nothing more than a word moulded from\nCinnereth, the ancient name of a city and adjoining tract in this very\nsituation, as well as of the lake itself. This part of Galilee is\ndescribed by Josephus as possessing a singular fertility, with a\ndelightful temperature of the air, and abounding in the fruits of\ndifferent climates.\n\nGENTILE. The Hebrews called the Gentiles \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7, _the nations_,\nthat is, those who have not received the faith or law of God. All who\nare not Jews, and circumcised, are _goiim_. Those who were converted,\nand embraced Judaism, they called proselytes. Since the Gospel, the true\nreligion is not confined to any one nation or country, as heretofore,\nGod, who had promised by his prophets to call the Gentiles to the faith,\nwith a superabundance of grace, has fulfilled his promise; so that the\nChristian church is now composed principally of Gentile converts; and\nthe Jews, too proud of their particular privileges, and abandoned to\ntheir reprobate sense of things, have disowned Jesus Christ, their\nMessiah and Redeemer, for whom, during so many ages, they had looked so\nimpatiently. In the writings of St. Paul, the Gentiles are generally\ndenoted as Greeks, Rom. i, 14, 16; ii, 9, 10; iii; x, 12; 1 Cor. i,\n22\u201324; Gal. iii, 28. St. Luke, in the Acts, expresses himself in the\nsame manner, Acts vi, 1; xi, 20; xviii, &c.\n\n2. St. Paul is commonly called the Apostle of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. ii,\n7, or Greeks; because he, principally, preached Jesus Christ to them;\nwhereas Peter, and the other Apostles, preached generally to the Jews,\nand are called Apostles of the circumcision, Gal. ii, 8. The prophets\ndeclared very particularly the calling of the Gentiles. Jacob foretold\nthat the Messiah, he who was to be sent, the Shiloh, should gather the\nGentiles to himself. Solomon, at the dedication of his temple, prays for\n\u201cthe stranger\u201d who should there entreat God. The Psalmist says, that the\nLord would give the Gentiles to the Messiah for his inheritance; that\nEgypt and Babylon shall know him; that Ethiopia shall hasten to bring\nhim presents; that the kings of Tarshish, and of the isles, the kings of\nArabia and Sheba, shall be tributary to him, Psalm ii, 8; lxvii, 4;\nlxxii, 9, 10. Isaiah abounds with prophecies of the like nature, on\nwhich account he has justly been distinguished by the name of \u201cthe\nprophet of the Gentiles.\u201d\n\nGENTILES, COURT OF THE. Josephus says there was, in the court of the\ntemple, a wall, or balustrade, breast-high, with pillars at particular\ndistances, and inscriptions on them in Greek and Latin, importing that\nstrangers were forbidden from entering farther; here their offerings\nwere received, and sacrifices were offered for them, they standing at\nthe barrier; but they were not allowed to approach to the altar. Pompey,\nnevertheless, went even into the sanctuary, but behaved with strict\ndecorum; and the next day he commanded the temple to be purified, and\nthe customary sacrifices to be offered. A little before the last\nrebellion of the Jews, some mutineers would have persuaded the priests\nto accept no victim not presented by a Jew; and obliged them to reject\nthose which were offered by command of the emperor, for the Roman\npeople. The wisest in vain remonstrated with them on the danger this\nwould bring on their country; urged that their ancestors had never\nrejected the presents of Gentiles; and that the temple was mostly\nadorned with the offerings of such people; at the same time, the most\nlearned priests, who had spent their whole lives in the study of the\nlaw, testified that their forefathers had always received the sacrifices\nof strangers.\n\nFrom the above particulars, we learn the meaning of what the Apostle\nPaul calls \u201cthe middle wall of partition,\u201d between Jews and Gentiles\nbroken down by the Gospel.\n\nGERAR, a royal city of the Philistines, situate not far from the angle\nwhere the south and west sides of Palestine meet.\n\nGERIZIM, a mount near Shechem, in Ephraim, a province of Samaria.\nShechem lay at the foot of two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim. Gerizim was\nfruitful, Ebal was barren. God commanded that the Hebrews, after passing\nthe Jordan, should be so divided, that six tribes might be stationed on\nMount Gerizim, and six on Mount Ebal. The former was to pronounce\nblessings on those who observed the law of the Lord; the others, curses\nagainst those who should violate it, Deut. xi, 29; xxvii, 12. As to the\noriginal of the temple upon Gerizim, we must take Josephus\u2019s relation of\nit. Manasseh, the grandson of Eliashib, the high priest, and brother to\nJaddus, high priest of the Jews, having been driven from Jerusalem in\nthe year of the world 3671, and not enduring patiently to see himself\ndeprived of the honour and advantages of the priesthood, Sanballat, his\nfather-in-law, addressed himself to Alexander the Great, who was then\ncarrying on the siege of Tyre; and having paid him homage for the\nprovince of Samaria, whereof he was governor, he farther offered him\neight thousand of his best troops, which disposed Alexander to grant\nwhat he desired for his son-in-law, and for many other priests, who\nbeing married, as well as he, contrary to the law, chose rather to\nforsake their country than their wives, and had joined Manasseh in\nSamaria. When Antiochus Epiphanes began to persecute the Jews, A. M.\n3836; B. C. 186, the Samaritans entreated him that their temple upon\nGerizim, which hitherto had been dedicated to an unknown and nameless\ngod, might be consecrated to Jupiter the Grecian, which was easily\nconsented to by Antiochus. The temple of Gerizim subsisted some time\nafter the worship of Jupiter was introduced into it; but it was\ndestroyed by John Hircanus Maccab\u00e6us, and was not rebuilt till Gabinius\nwas governor of Syria; who repaired Samaria, and called it by his own\nname. It is certain, that, in our Saviour\u2019s time, this temple was in\nbeing; and that the true God was worshipped there, since the woman of\nSamaria, pointing to Gerizim, said to him, \u201cOur fathers worshipped in\nthis mountain, and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men\nought to worship,\u201d John iv, 20. We are assured, that Herod the Great,\nhaving rebuilt Samaria, and called it Sebaste, in honour of Augustus,\nwould have obliged the Samaritans to worship in the temple which he had\nerected there, but they constantly refused.\n\nGETHSEMANE. See OLIVES, _Mount of_.\n\nGIANT, \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc, Greek, \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, _a monster_, _a terrible man_, a chief who\nbeats and bears down other men. Scripture speaks of giants before the\nflood: \u201cNephilim, mighty men who were of old, men of renown,\u201d Gen. vi,\n4. Aquila translates nephilim, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, _men who attack_, who fall\nwith impetuosity on their enemies, which renders very well the force of\nthe term. Symmachus translates it \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9, _violent men_, cruel, whose\nonly rule of action is violence. Scripture sometimes calls giants\nRephaim: Chedorlaomer beat the Rephaim at Ashteroth-Karnaim. The Emim,\nancient inhabitants of Moab, were of a gigantic stature, that is,\nRephaim. The Rephaim and the Perizzites are connected as old inhabitants\nof Canaan. The Rephaim in some parts of Scripture signify spirits in the\ninvisible world, in a state of misery. Job says that the ancient Rephaim\ngroan under the waters; and Solomon, that the ways of a loose woman lead\nto the Rephaim; that he who deviates from the ways of wisdom, shall\ndwell in the assembly of Rephaim, that is, in hell, Prov. ii, 18; iv,\n18; xxi, 16, &c; Gen. xiv, 5; Deut. ii, 11, 20; iii, 11, 13; Joshua xii,\n4; xiii, 12; Job xxvi, 5. The Anakim, or the sons of Anak, were the most\nfamous giants of Palestine. They dwelt at Hebron and thereabouts. The\nIsraelites sent to view the promised land reported, that, in comparison,\nthey themselves were but grasshoppers, Num. xiii, 33.\n\n2. As to the existence of giants, several writers, both ancient and\nmodern, have thought that the giants of Scripture were men famous for\nviolence and crime, rather than for strength or stature. But it cannot\nbe denied, that there have been races of men of a stature much above\nthat common at present; although their size has often been absurdly\nmagnified. The ancients considered persons whose stature exceeded seven\nfeet as gigantic. Living giants have certainly been seen who were\nsomewhat taller; but the existence of those who greatly surpassed it, or\nwere double the height, has been inferred only from remains discovered\nin the earth, but not from the ocular testimony of credible witnesses.\nWere we to admit what has been reported on the subject, there would be\nno bounds to the dimensions of giants; the earth would seem unsuitable\nfor them to tread upon. History, however, acquaints us that, in the\nreign of Claudius, a giant named Galbara, ten feet high was brought to\nRome from the coast of Africa. An instance is cited by Goropius, an\nauthor with whom we are otherwise unacquainted, of a female of equal\nstature. A certain Greek sophist, Pro\u00e6resius, is said to have been nine\nfeet in height. Julius Capitolinus affirms that Maximinian, the Roman\nemperor was eight feet and a half; there was a Swede, one of the life\nguards of Frederick the Great, of that size. M. Le Cat speaks of a giant\nexhibited at Rouen, measuring eight feet and some inches; and we believe\nsome have been seen in this country, within the last thirty years, whose\nstature was not inferior. In Plott\u2019s \u201cHistory of Staffordshire,\u201d there\nis an instance of a man of seven feet and a half high, and another, in\nThoresby\u2019s account of Leeds, of seven feet five inches high. Examples\nmay be found elsewhere of several individuals seven feet in height,\nbelow which, after the opinion of the ancients, we may cease to consider\nmen gigantic. Entire families sometimes, though rarely, occur of six\nfeet four, or six feet six inches high. From all this we may conclude,\nthat there may have possibly been seen some solitary instances of men\nwho were ten feet in height; that those of eight feet are extremely\nuncommon, and that even six feet and a half far exceeds the height of\nmen in Europe. We may reasonably understand that the gigantic nations of\nCanaan were above the average size of other people, with instances among\nthem of several families of gigantic stature. This is all that is\nnecessary to suppose, in order to explain the account of Moses; but the\nnotion that men have gradually degenerated in size has no foundation.\nThere is no evidence whatever, that the modern tribes of mankind have\nthus degenerated. The catacombs of ancient Egypt and Palestine; the\ncenotaph, if it be truly such, in the great pyramid; the tomb of\nAlexander the Great, are all calculated for bodies of ordinary\ndimensions. The truth is still more satisfactorily established from the\nmummies which are yet withdrawn from their receptacles in Egypt, and the\ncaverns of the Canary Islands. In the most ancient sepulchres of\nBritain, those apparently anterior to the introduction of Christianity,\nno remains are discovered which indicate the larger stature of the\ninhabitants than our own. In every part of the world domestic implements\nand personal ornaments, many centuries old, are obtained from tombs,\nfrom bogs and mosses, or those cities overwhelmed by volcanic eruptions,\nwhich would be ill adapted to a gigantic race of ancestors.\n\nGIBEON, the capital city of the Gibeonites, who took advantage of the\noaths of Joshua, and of the elders of Israel, procured by an artful\nrepresentation of their belonging to a very remote country, Joshua ix.\nJoshua and the elders had not the precaution to consult God on this\naffair, but inconsiderately made a league with these people. They soon\ndiscovered their mistake, and, without revoking their promise of saving\ntheir lives, they condemned them to labour in carrying wood and water\nfor the tabernacle; and to other works, as slaves and captives; in which\nstate of servitude they remained, till the entire dispersion of the\nJewish nation, A. M. 2553; B. C. 1451. Three days after the Gibeonites\nhad surrendered to the Hebrews, the kings of Canaan being informed of\nit, five of them came and besieged the city of Gibeon. The Gibeonites\nsent to Joshua, and desired speedy help. Joshua attacked the five kings\nearly in the morning, put them to flight, and pursued them to Bethoron,\nJosh. x, 3, &c. The Gibeonites were descended from the Hivites, the old\ninhabitants of the country, and possessed four cities: Cephirah,\nBeeroth, Kirjath-jearim, and Gibeon, their capital; all afterward given\nto Benjamin, except Kirjath-jearim, which fell to Judah. The Gibeonites\ncontinued subject to those burdens which Joshua imposed on them, and\nwere very faithful to the Israelites. Nevertheless, Saul destroyed a\ngreat number of them, 2 Sam. xxi, 1; but God, in the reign of David,\nsent a great famine, which lasted three years, A. M. 2983; B. C. 1021;\nand the prophets told David that this calamity would continue while\nSaul\u2019s cruelty remained unavenged. David asked the Gibeonites what\nsatisfaction they desired. They answered, \u201cSeven of Saul\u2019s sons we will\nput to death, to avenge the blood of our brethren.\u201d The Gibeonites\ncrucified them. From this time there is no mention of the Gibeonites as\na distinct people. But they were probably included among the Nethinim,\nappointed for the service of the temple, 1 Chron. ix, 2. Afterward,\nthose of the Canaanites who were subdued, and had their lives spared,\nwere added to the Gibeonites. We see in Ezra viii, 20; ii, 58; 1 Kings\nix, 20, 21, that David, Solomon, and the princes of Judah, gave many\nsuch to the Lord; these Nethinim being carried into captivity with Judah\nand the Levites, many of them returned with Ezra, Zerubbabel, and\nNehemiah, and continued, as before, in the service of the temple, under\nthe priests and Levites. We neither know when, nor by whom, nor on what\noccasion, the tabernacle and altar of burnt sacrifices, made by Moses in\nthe wilderness, were removed to Gibeon; but this we certainly know,\nthat, toward the end of David\u2019s reign, and in the beginning of\nSolomon\u2019s, they were there, 1 Chron. xxi, 29, 30. David, seeing an angel\nof the Lord at Araunah\u2019s threshing floor, was so terrified, that he had\nnot time or strength to go so far as Gibeon to offer sacrifice; but\nSolomon, being seated on the throne, went to sacrifice at Gibeon, 1\nKings iii, 4.\n\nGIDEON, the son of Joash, of the tribe of Manasseh; the same with\nJerubbaal, the seventh judge of Israel. He dwelt in the city of Ophra,\nand was chosen by God in a very extraordinary manner to deliver the\nIsraelites from the oppression of the Midianites, under which they had\nlaboured for the space of seven years. See Judges vi, 14\u201327; viii, 1\u201324,\n&c.\n\nGIER EAGLE, \u05e8\u05d7\u05dd, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 17. As the root of this word\nsignifies _tenderness_ and _affection_, it is supposed to refer to some\nbird remarkable for its attachment to its young; hence some have thought\nthat the pelican is to be understood; and Bochart endeavours to prove\nthat the golden vulture is meant; but there can be no doubt that it is\nthe _percnopterus_ of the ancients, the _ach-bobba_ of the Arabians,\nparticularly described by Bruce under the name of _rachamah_. He says,\n\u201cWe know from Horus Apollo, that the _rachma_, or she vulture, was\nsacred to Isis, and adorned the statue of the goddess; that it was the\nemblem of parental affection; and that it was the hieroglyphic for an\naffectionate mother.\u201d He farther says, that \u201cthis female vulture, having\nhatched her young ones, continues with them one hundred and twenty days,\nproviding them with all necessaries; and, when the stock of food fails\nthem, she tears off the fleshy part of her thigh, and feeds them with\nthat and the blood which flows from the wound.\u201d\n\nHasselquist thus describes the Egyptian vulture: \u201cThe appearance of the\nbird is as horrid as can well be imagined. The face is naked and\nwrinkled, the eyes are large and black, the beak black and crooked, the\ntalons large, and extended ready for prey, and the whole body polluted\nwith filth. These are qualities enough to make the beholder shudder with\nhorror. Notwithstanding this, the inhabitants of Egypt cannot be enough\nthankful to Providence for this bird. All the places round Cairo are\nfilled with the dead bodies of asses and camels; and thousands of these\nbirds fly about and devour the carcasses, before they putrify and fill\nthe air with noxious exhalations.\u201d No wonder that such an animal should\nbe deemed unclean.\n\nGIFT OF TONGUES, an ability given to the Apostles and others of readily\nand intelligibly speaking a variety of languages which they had never\nlearned. This was a glorious and decisive attestation to the Gospel, as\nwell as a suitable, and, indeed, in their circumstances, a necessary\nqualification for the mission for which the Apostles and their\ncoadjutors were designed. Nor is there any reason, with Dr. Middleton,\nto understand it as merely an occasional gift, so that a person might\nspeak a language most fluently one hour, and be entirely ignorant of it\nthe next; which neither agrees with what is said of the abuse of it, nor\nwould it have been sufficient to answer the end proposed, Acts ii. Some\nappear to have been gifted with one tongue, others with more. To St.\nPaul this endowment was vouchsafed in a more liberal degree, than to\nmany others; for, as to the Corinthians, who had received the gift of\ntongues, he says, \u201cthat he spake with tongues more than they all.\u201d\n\nGIFTS. The practice of making presents is very common in oriental\ncountries. The custom probably had its origin among those men who first\nsustained the office of kings or rulers, and who, from the novelty and\nperhaps the weakness attached to their situation, chose, rather than\nmake the hazardous attempt of exacting taxes, to content themselves with\nreceiving those presents which might be freely offered, 1 Sam. x, 27.\nHence it passed into a custom, that whoever approached the king should\ncome with a gift. This was the practice and the expectation. The custom\nof presenting gifts was subsequently extended to other great men; to men\nwho were inferior to the king, but who were, nevertheless, men of\ninfluence and rank; it was also extended to those who were equals, when\nthey were visited, Proverbs xviii, 16. Kings themselves were in the\nhabit of making presents, probably in reference to the custom in\nquestion and the feelings connected with it, to those individuals, their\ninferiors in point of rank, whom they wished to honour, and also to\nthose who, like themselves, were clothed with the royal authority. These\npresents, namely, such as were presented by the king as a token of the\nroyal esteem and honour, are almost invariably denominated in the\nHebrew, \u05e9\u05d7\u05d3 and \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4, 1 Kings xv, 19; 2 Kings xvi, 8; xviii, 14; Isaiah\nxxxvi, 16. The more ancient prophets did not deem it discreditable to\nthem to receive presents, nor unbecoming their sacred calling, except\nwhen, as was sometimes the case, they refused by way of expressing their\ndissatisfaction or indignation, 2 Kings v, 15; viii, 9. In later times,\nwhen false prophets, in order to obtain money, prophesied without truth\nand without authority, the true prophets, for the purpose of keeping the\nline of distinction as broad as possible, rejected every thing that\nlooked like reward. Gifts of this kind, that have now been described,\nare not to be confounded with those which are called \u05e9\u05d7\u05d3, and which were\npresented to judges, not as a mark of esteem and honour, but for\npurposes of bribery and corruption. The former was considered an honour\nto the giver, but a gift of the latter kind has been justly reprobated\nin every age, Exod. xxii, 8; Deut. x, 17; xvi, 19; xxvii, 25; Psalm xv,\n5; xxvi, 10; Isaiah i, 23; v, 23; xxxiii, 15. The giver was not\nrestricted as to the kind of present which he should make. He might\npresent not only silver and gold, but clothes and arms, also different\nkinds of food, in a word any thing which could be of benefit to the\nrecipient, Gen. xliii, 11; 1 Sam. ix, 7; xvi, 20; Job xiii, 11. It was\nthe custom anciently, as it is at the present time in the east, for an\nindividual when visiting a person of high rank, to make some presents of\nsmall value to the servants or domestics of the person visited, 1 Sam.\nxxv, 27. It was the usual practice among kings and princes to present to\ntheir favourite officers in the government, to ambassadors from foreign\ncourts, to foreigners of distinction, and to men eminent for their\nlearning, garments of greater or less value, Genesis xiv, 22, 23; Esther\nviii, 15. The royal wardrobe, in which a large number of such garments\nwas kept, is denominated in Hebrew \u05d1\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd 2 Chronicles xxxiv, 22. It was\nconsidered an honour of the highest kind, if a king or any person in\nhigh authority thought it proper, as a manifestation of his favour, to\ngive away to another the garment which he had previously worn himself, 1\nSam. xviii, 4. In the east, at the present day, it is expected, that\nevery one who has received a garment from the king will immediately\nclothe himself in it, and promptly present himself and render his homage\nto the giver; otherwise he runs the hazard of exciting the king\u2019s\ndispleasure, Matt. xxii, 11, 12. It was sometimes the case, that the\nking, when he made a feast, presented vestments to all the guests who\nwere invited, with which they clothed themselves before they sat down to\nit, 2 Kings x, 22; Gen. xlv, 22; Rev. iii, 5. In oriental countries, the\npresents which are made to kings and princes are to this day carried on\nbeasts of burden, are attended with a body of men, and are escorted with\nmuch pomp. It matters not how light or how small the present may be, it\nmust either be carried on the back of a beast of burden, or by a man,\nwho must support it with both his hands, Judges iii, 18; 2 Kings viii,\n9.\n\nGIHON, the name of one of the four rivers the source of which was in\nparadise, Genesis ii, 13. (See _Eden_.) Reland, Calmet, &c, think that\nGihon is the Araxes, which has its source, as well as the Tigris and\nEuphrates, in the mountains of Armenia, and, running with almost\nincredible rapidity, falls into the Caspian Sea. Gihon was also the name\nof a fountain to the west of Jerusalem, at which Solomon was anointed\nking by the high priest Zadok, and the Prophet Nathan, 1 Kings i, 33.\n\nGILBOA, MOUNT, a ridge of mountains on the north of Bethshan, or\nScythopolis, forming in that part the boundary of the plain of Jordan to\nthe west. It is memorable from the defeat of Saul by the Philistines;\nwhen his three sons were slain, and he himself died by his own hand, his\narmourbearer refusing to kill him, 1 Sam. xxxi.\n\nGILEAD, the name given to the monument erected by Laban and Jacob, in\ntestimony of a mutual covenant and agreement, Gen. xxxi, 47, 48. Hence\nthe hill upon which it was erected, was called Mount Gilead, Cant. iv,\n1; vi, 5; Jer. 1, 19. The mountains of Gilead were part of that ridge of\nmountains which extend from Mount Lebanon southward, on the east of the\nHoly land; they gave their name to the whole country which lies on the\neast of the sea of Galilee, and included the mountainous region called\nin the New Testament Trachonitis. The Scripture speaks of the balm of\nGilead, Jer. viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li, 8. The merchants who bought Joseph\ncame from Gilead, and were carrying balm into Egypt, Gen. xxxvii, 25.\nSee BALM.\n\nGILGAL, a celebrated place situated on the west of Jordan, where the\nIsraelites encamped some time after their passage over that river, and\nwhere Joshua pitched twelve stones taken out of Jordan as a memorial. A\nconsiderable city was afterward built there, which became renowned for\nmany events recorded in the history of the Jews. Gilgal was about a\nleague from Jordan, and at an equal distance from Jericho. It received\nits name from the circumstance of the Hebrews being there circumcised;\nfor when by divine command that rite had been performed upon them, the\nLord said, \u201cThis day have I rolled away from off you the reproach of\nEgypt,\u201d Joshua v, 2\u20134, &c.--The word Gilgal signifies _rolling_. Here\nthe ark was long stationed, and consequently the place was much resorted\nto by the Israelites. It seems to have been the place in which Jeroboam\nor some of the kings of Israel instituted idolatrous worship; and hence\nthe allusions to it by the prophets, Hosea iv, 15; Amos iv, 4. It is\nprobable that there were idols at Gilgal as early as the days of Ehud,\nwho was one of the judges; for it is said that, having delivered his\npresents to the king, \u201cEhud went away, but returned again from the\nquarries that were by Gilgal,\u201d Judges iii, 19. The margin of our Bibles\nreads, \u201cthe graven images,\u201d or idols set up by the Moabites, the viewing\nof which, it is thought, stirred up Ehud to revenge the affront thereby\noffered to the God of Israel. At this same place, the people met to\nconfirm the kingdom to Saul, 1 Sam. xi, 14, 15. It was at Gilgal, too,\nthat Saul incurred the divine displeasure, in offering sacrifice before\nSamuel arrived, 1 Sam. xiii; and there also it was that he received the\nsentence of his rejection for disobeying the divine command, and sparing\nthe king of Amalek with the spoils which he had reserved, 1 Sam. xv.\n\nIt has been supposed that the setting up of stones, as at Gilgal and\nother places, gave rise to the rude stone circular temples of the\nDruids, and other Heathens. The idea, however, appears fanciful, and\nthere is an essential difference between stones erected for memorials,\nand those used to mark sacred, or supposed sacred, places for worship.\n\nGIRDLE. The girdle is an indispensable article in the dress of an\noriental: it has various uses; but the principal one is to tuck up their\nlong flowing vestments, that they may not incommode them in their work,\nor on a journey. The Jews, according to some writers, wore a double\ngirdle, one of greater breadth, with which they girded their tunic when\nthey prepared for active exertions: the other they wore under their\nshirt, around their loins. This under girdle they reckon necessary to\ndistinguish between the heart and the less honourable parts of the human\nframe. The upper girdle was sometimes made of leather, the material of\nwhich the girdle of John the Baptist was made; but it was more commonly\nfabricated of worsted, often very artfully woven into a variety of\nfigures, and made to fold several times about the body; one end of which\nbeing doubled back, and sewn along the edges, serves them for a purse,\nagreeably to the acceptation of \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, in the Scriptures, which is\ntranslated _purse_, in several places of the New Testament, Matt. x, 9;\nMark vi, 8. The ancient Romans, in this, as in many other things,\nimitated the orientals; for their soldiers, and probably all classes of\nthe citizens, used to carry their money in their girdles. Whence, in\nHorace, _qui zonam perdidit_, means one who had lost his purse; and\nAulus Gellius, C. Gracchus is introduced, saying, \u201cThose girdles which I\ncarried out full of money when I went from Rome, I have, at my return\nfrom the province, brought again empty.\u201d The Turks make a farther use of\nthese girdles, by fixing their knives and poinards in them; while the\nwriters and secretaries suspend in them their ink-horns; a custom as old\nas the Prophet Ezekiel, who mentions \u201ca person clothed in white linen,\nwith an ink-horn upon his loins,\u201d Ezek. ix, 2. That part of the\nink-holder which passes between the girdle and the tunic, and receives\ntheir pens, is long and flat; but the vessel for the ink, which rests\nupon the girdle, is square, with a lid to clasp over it.\n\n2. To loose the girdle and give it to another was, among the orientals,\na token of great confidence and affection. Thus, to ratify the covenant\nwhich Jonathan made with David, and to express his cordial regard for\nhis friend, among other things, he gave him his girdle. A girdle\ncuriously and richly wrought was among the ancient Hebrews a mark of\nhonour, and sometimes bestowed as a reward of merit; for this was the\nrecompense which Joab declared he meant to bestow on the man who put\nAbsalom to death: \u201cWhy didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and\nI would have given thee ten shekels of silver, and a girdle,\u201d 2 Samuel\nxviii, 11. The reward was certainly meant to correspond with the\nimportance of the service which he expected him to perform, and the\ndignity of his own station as commander in chief: we may, therefore,\nsuppose that the girdle promised was not a common one of leather, or\nplain worsted, but of costly materials and richly adorned; for people of\nrank and fashion in the east wear very broad girdles, all of silk, and\nsuperbly ornamented with gold and silver, and precious stones, of which\nthey are extremely proud, regarding them as the tokens of their superior\nstation and the proof of their riches. \u201cTo gird up the loins\u201d is to\nbring the flowing robe within the girdle, and so to prepare for a\njourney, or for some vigorous exercise.\n\nGLASS, \u1f55\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. This word occurs Rev. xxi, 18, 21; and the adjective\n\u1f51\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Rev. iv, 6; xv, 2. Parkhurst says that in the later Greek\nwriters, and in the New Testament, \u1f55\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 denotes the artificial\nsubstance, _glass_; and that we may either with Mintert derive it from\n\u1f15\u03bb\u03b7, _splendour_, or immediately from the Hebrew \u05d4\u05dc, _to shine_. There\nseems to be no reference to glass in the Old Testament. The art of\nmaking it was not known. Our translators have rendered the Hebrew word\n\u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea, in Exodus xxxviii, 8, and Job xxxvii, 18, \u201clooking-glass.\u201d But the\nmaking mirrors of glass coated with quicksilver, is an invention quite\nmodern. The word _looking-glass_ occurs in our version of Ecclesiasticus\nxii, 11, \u201cNever trust thine enemy; for like as iron rusteth, so is his\nwickedness. Though he humble himself, and go crouching, yet take good\nheed and beware of him, and thou shalt be unto him as if thou hadst\nwashed a looking-glass, and thou shalt know that his rust hath not been\naltogether wiped away.\u201d This passage proves, by its mention of rust,\nthat mirrors were then made of polished metal. The word \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, or\n_mirror_, occurs in 1 Cor. xiii, 12, and James i, 23. Dr. Pearce thinks\nthat in the former place it signifies any of those transparent\nsubstances which the ancients used in their windows, and through which\nthey saw external objects obscurely. But others are of opinion that the\nword denotes a mirror of polished metal; as this, however, was liable to\nmany imperfections, so that the object before it was not seen clearly or\nfully, the meaning of the Apostle is, that we see things as it were by\nimages reflected from a mirror, which shows them very obscurely and\nindistinctly. In the latter place, a mirror undoubtedly is meant; \u201cFor\nif any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man\nbeholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and\ngoeth his way, and straightway he forgetteth what manner of man he was:\u201d\nbut in the former, 1 Cor. xiii, 12, semi-transparent glass such as that\nwhich we see in the ancient glass vases of the Romans is obviously\nintended. Specimens of Roman glass may be seen in collections of\nantiquities, and some have been dug up at Pompeii; but in all it is\ncloudy and dull, and objects can only be seen through it with\nindistinctness. From this we may fully perceive the force of the\nApostle\u2019s words, \u201cnow we see through a glass darkly.\u201d\n\nGLEAN. To glean is properly to gather ears of corn, or grapes, left by\nthe reapers, &c. The Jews were not allowed to glean their fields, but\nwere to leave this to the poor, Lev. xix, 10; xxiii, 22; Deut. xxiv, 21;\nRuth ii, 3.\n\nGLORIFY, to make glorious or honourable, or to cause to appear so, John\nxii, 28; xiii, 31, 32; xv, 8; xvii, 4, 5; xxi, 19; Acts iii, 13. In this\nview it particularly refers to the resurrection of Christ, and his\nascension to the right hand of God, John vii, 39; xii, 16. It also\nexpresses that change which shall pass upon believers at the general\nresurrection, and their admission into heaven.\n\nGLORY, splendour, magnificence. The glory of God in the writings of\nMoses, denotes, generally, the divine presence; as when he appeared on\nMount Sinai; or, the bright cloud which declared his presence, and\ndescended on the tabernacle of the congregation, Exod. xxiv, 9, 10, 16,\n17. Moses, with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, went\nup to Mount Sinai, and \u201csaw the glory of the Lord.\u201d Now \u201cthe glory of\nthe Lord was, as it were, a burning fire on the mountain; and under his\nfeet was, as it were, the brightness of the sapphire stone, resembling\nheaven itself in clearness.\u201d The glory of the Lord appeared to Israel in\nthe cloud also, when he gave them manna and quails, Exod. xvi, 7, 10.\nMoses having earnestly begged of God to show his glory to him, God said,\n\u201cThou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live. And\nthe Lord said, There is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:\nand it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put\nthee in the cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I\npass by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back\nparts:\u201d (the train, the fainter rays of the glory:) \u201cbut my face shall\nnot be seen,\u201d Exod. xxxiii, 18. The ark of God is called the glory of\nIsrael; and the glory of God, 1 Samuel iv, 21, 22; Psalm xxvi, 8. The\npriestly ornaments are called \u201cgarments of glory,\u201d Exod. xxviii, 2, 40;\nand the sacred vessels, \u201cvessels of glory,\u201d 1 Macc. ii, 9, 12. Solomon\n\u201cin all his glory,\u201d in all his lustre, in his richest ornaments, was not\nso beautifully arrayed as a lily, Matt. vi, 29; Luke xii, 27. When the\nprophets describe the conversion of the Gentiles, they speak of the\n\u201cglory of the Lord\u201d as filling the earth; that is, his knowledge shall\nuniversally prevail, and he shall be every where worshipped and\nglorified. The term \u201cglory\u201d is used also of the Gospel dispensation by\nSt. Paul; and to express the future felicity of the saints in heaven.\nWhen the Hebrews required an oath of any man, they said, \u201cGive glory to\nGod:\u201d confess the truth, give him glory, confess that God knows the most\nsecret thoughts, the very bottom of your hearts, Joshua vii, 19; John\nix, 24.\n\nGNAT, \u03ba\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03c8, Matt. xxiii, 24, a small-winged insect, comprehending a\ngenus of the order of _diptera_. In those hot countries, as Servius\nremarks, speaking of the east, gnats and flies are very apt to fall into\nwine, if it be not carefully covered; and passing the liquor through a\nstrainer, that no gnat or part of one might remain, became a proverb for\nexactness about little matters. This may help us to understand that\npassage, Matt. xxiii, 24, where the proverbial expression of carefully\nstraining out a little fly from the liquor to be drunk, and yet\nswallowing a camel, intimates, that the scribes and Pharisees affected\nto scruple little things, and yet disregarded those of the greatest\nmoment.\n\nGNOSTICS, from \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u201cknowledge,\u201d men of science and wisdom,\n_illuminati_; men who, from blending the philosophy of the east, or of\nGreece, with the doctrines of the Gospel, boasted of deeper knowledge in\nthe Scriptures and theology than others. It was, therefore, not so\nproperly a distinct sect as a generic term, comprehending all who,\nforsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, pretended to be \u201cwise above what\nis written,\u201d to explain the New Testament by the dogmas of the\nphilosophers, and to derive from the sacred writings mysteries which\nnever were contained in them. The origin of the Gnostic heresy, as it is\ncalled, has been variously stated. The principles of this heresy were,\nhowever, much older than Christianity; and many of the errors alluded to\nin the apostolic epistles are doubtless of a character very similar to\nsome branches of the Gnostic system. (See _Cabbala_.) Cerinthus, against\nwhom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the\nRevelation, and the Ebionites, (described under that article,) were all\nearly Gnostics, although the system was not then so completely formed as\nafterward. Dr. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, has thus sketched the\nGnostic system:--In attempting to give an account of these doctrines, I\nmust begin with observing what we shall see more plainly when we trace\nthe causes of Gnosticism, that it was not by any means a new and\ndistinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system.\nThus we find in it the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and the notion that\nevery thing in this lower world has a celestial and immaterial\narchetype. We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabalistic\njargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion\nof the Jews; and many Gnostics adopted the oriental notion of two\nindependent co\u00ebternal principles, the one the author of good, the other\nof evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms\nwhich must have been taken from the Gospel; and Jesus Christ, under some\nform or other, of _\u00e6on_, emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into\nall their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that\nknowledge which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them\nto their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was\nmystery: its end and object was to purify its followers from the\ncorruptions of matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being,\nsuited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge.\n\n2. We have a key to many parts of their system, when we know that they\nheld matter to be intrinsically evil, of which, consequently, God could\nnot be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet, that the creator\nof the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the\nAuthor of good, and the Father of Christ. Their system allowed some of\nthem to call the creator God; but the title most usually given to him\nwas Demiurgus. Those who embraced the doctrine of two principles\nsupposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle; and, in\nmost systems, the creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked\nupon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some,\nagain, believed that angels were employed in creating the world; but all\nwere agreed in maintaining that matter itself was not created, that it\nwas eternal, and remained inactive, till\n\n                    _Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,\n            Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit._\n                                                     OVID.\n\n[Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the mass, and reduced\nit, when separated, into elements.]\n\nThe supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a _pleroma_ of\ninaccessible light; and beside the name of first Father, or first\nPrinciple, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable\nnature of his perfections. This being, by an operation purely mental, or\nby acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes,\nfrom whom, by a series of descents, more or less numerous according to\ndifferent schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called\n_\u00e6ons_, from the periods of their existence before time was, or\n_emanations_, from the mode of their production. These successive _\u00e6ons_\nor emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and\ntheir existence was indispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might\naccount for the creation of the world without making God the author of\nevil. These _\u00e6ons_ lived through countless ages with their first father;\nbut the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric\ncircles; and they gradually deteriorated, as they approached nearer and\nnearer to the extremity of the _pleroma_. Beyond this _pleroma_ was\nmatter, inert and powerless, though co\u00ebternal with the supreme God, and\nlike him without beginning. At length, one of the _\u00e6ons_ passed the\nlimits of the _pleroma_, and, meeting with matter, created the world,\nafter the form and model of an ideal world which existed in the\n_pleroma_ or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that\ninconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the\nintermediate _\u00e6ons_ be as many as the wildest imagination could devise,\nstill God was the remote, if not the proximate, cause of creation. Added\nto which, we are to suppose that the Demiurgus formed the world without\nthe knowledge of God; and that, having formed it, he rebelled against\nhim. Here, again, we find a strong resemblance to the oriental doctrine\nof two principles, good and evil, or light and darkness. The two\nprinciples were always at enmity with each other. God must have been\nconceived to be more powerful than matter, or an emanation from God\ncould not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to\nreduce matter into its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the\nDemiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always\nendeavouring to cure: and here it is that the Gnostics borrowed so\nlargely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of\ntheir _\u00e6ons_ were evidently taken from terms which they found in the\nGospel. Thus we meet with _Logos_, _Monogenes_, _Zoe_, _Ecclesia_, all\nof them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in\nthe _pleroma_. At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two\nof the last _\u00e6ons_ which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world\nto remedy the evil which the creative _\u00e6on_ or Demiurgus had caused. He\nwas to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter, or of the evil\nprinciple; and, by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto\nunknown, to fit them, by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge, to\nenter the divine _pleroma_. To give this knowledge, was the end and\nobject of Christ\u2019s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and\nbelievers of the doctrine assumed to themselves the name of Gnostics. In\nall their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with\nthe same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence\nof evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real\nconnection with matter: yet, the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to\nbe the same with him who was revealed in the Gospel; and it was\nnotorious that he was revealed as the Son of Mary, who appeared in a\nhuman form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the\ndifficulty, were principally two: they either denied that Christ had a\nreal body at all, and held that he was an unsubstantial phantom; or,\ngranting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents,\nthey believed that one of the _\u00e6ons_, called Christ, quitted the\n_pleroma_, and descended upon Jesus at his baptism.\n\n3. We have seen that the God who was the father or progenitor of Christ,\nwas not considered to be the creator of the world. Neither was he the\nGod of the Old Testament, and the giver of the Mosaic law. This notion\nwas supported by the same argument which infidels have often urged, that\nthe God of the Jews is represented as a God of vengeance and of cruelty;\nbut it was also a natural consequence of their fundamental principle,\nthat the author of good cannot in any manner be the author of evil. In\naccordance with this notion, we find all the Gnostics agreed in\nrejecting the Jewish Scriptures, or, at least, in treating them with\ncontempt. Since they held that the supreme God was revealed for the\nfirst time to mankind by Christ, he could not have been the God who\ninspired the prophets; and yet, with that strange inconsistency which we\nhave already observed in them, they appealed to these very Scriptures in\nsupport of their own doctrines. They believed the prophets to have been\ninspired by the same creative _\u00e6on_, or the same principle of evil,\nwhich acted originally upon matter; and if their writings had come down\nto us, we should perhaps find them arguing, that, though the prophets\nwere not inspired by the supreme God, they still could not help giving\nutterance to truth.\n\n4. Their same abhorrence of matter, and their same notion concerning\nthat purity of knowledge which Christ came upon earth to impart, led\nthem to reject the Christian doctrines of a future resurrection and a\ngeneral judgment. They seem to have understood the Apostles as preaching\nliterally a resurrection of the body; and it is certain that the fathers\ninsisted upon this very strongly as an article of belief. But to imagine\nthat the body, a mass of created and corruptible matter, could ever\nenter into heaven, into that _pleroma_ which was the dwelling of the\nsupreme God, was a notion which violated the fundamental principle of\nthe Gnostics. According to their scheme, no resurrection was necessary,\nmuch less a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to\nperfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the grossness of\nmatter; and, by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnostic\ncould comprehend, he was raised to be an inhabitant of the divine\n_pleroma_. If we would know the effect which the doctrines of the\nGnostics had upon their moral conduct, we shall find that the same\nprinciple led to two very opposite results. Though the fathers may have\nexaggerated the errors of their opponents, it seems undeniable, that\nmany Gnostics led profligate lives, and maintained upon principle that\nsuch conduct was not unlawful. Others, again, are represented as\npractising great austerities, and endeavouring, by every means, to\nmortify the body and its sensual appetites. Both parties were actuated\nby the same common notion, that matter is inherently evil. The one\nthought that the body, which is compounded of matter, ought to be kept\nin subjection; and hence they inculcated self-denial, and the practice\nof moral virtue: while others, who had persuaded themselves that\nknowledge was every thing, despised the distinctions of the moral law,\nwhich was given, as they said, not by the supreme God, but by an\ninferior _\u00e6on_, or a principle of evil, who had allied himself with\nmatter.\n\n5. With respect to the origin of this system the same author observes:\nThere is no system of philosophy which has been traced to a greater\nnumber of sources than that which we are now discussing; and the variety\nof opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the\nvery different aspects which Gnosticism assumed, or from wishing to\nderive it from one exclusive quarter. Thus, some have deduced it from\nthe eastern notion of a good and evil principle, some from the Jewish\nCabbala, and others from the doctrines of the later Platonists. Each of\nthese systems is able to support itself by alleging very strong\nresemblances; and those persons have taken the most natural and probably\nthe truest course, who have concluded that all these opinions\ncontributed to build up the monstrous system, which was known by the\nname of Gnosticism.\n\nGOAT, \u05e2\u05d5. There are other names or appellations given to the goat, as,\n1. \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4, 1 Kings xx, 27, which means the _ram-goat_, or leader of the\nflock. 2. \u05e2\u05ea\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, a word which never occurs but in the plural, and\nmeans, _the best prepared_, or choicest of the flock; and metaphorically\n_princes_, as, Zech. x, 3, \u201cI will visit the goats, saith the Lord,\u201d\nthat is, I will begin my vengeance with the princes of the people. \u201cHell\nfrom beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth\nup the dead for thee, even all the great goats of the earth,\u201d Isaiah\nxiv, 9; all the kings, all the great men. And Jeremiah, speaking of the\nprinces of the Jews, says, \u201cRemove out of the midst of Babylon, and be\nas the he-goats before the flocks,\u201d Jer. 1, 8. 3. \u05e6\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8, a name for the\ngoat, of Chaldee origin, and found only in Ezra vi, 17; viii, 35; Daniel\nviii, 5, 21. 4. \u05e2\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc, from \u05e2\u05d5, _a goat_, and \u05d0\u05d5\u05dc, _to wander about_,\nLeviticus xvi, 8, \u201cthe scape-goat.\u201d 5. \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8, _hairy_, or _shaggy_, whence\n\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, \u201c_the shaggy ones_.\u201d In Lev. xvii, 7, it is said, \u201cAnd they\nshall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils,\u201d (_seirim_, \u201chairy\nones,\u201d) \u201cafter whom they have gone a whoring.\u201d The word here means\nidolatrous images of goats, worshipped by the Egyptians. It is the same\nword that is translated _satyrs_, in Isaiah xiii, 21; where the LXX\nrender it \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, _demons_. But here they have \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03c2, _to vain\nthings_ or _idols_, which comes to the same sense. What gives light to\nso obscure a passage is what we read in Maimonides, that the Zabian\nidolaters worshipped demons under the figure of goats, imagining them to\nappear in that form, whence they called them by the names of _seirim_;\nand that this custom, being spread among other nations, gave occasion to\nthis precept. In like manner we learn from Herodotus, that the Egyptians\nof Mendes held goats to be sacred animals, and represented the god Pan\nwith the legs and head of that animal. From those ancient idolaters the\nsame notion seems to have been derived by the Greeks and Romans, who\nrepresented their Pan, their fauns, satyrs, and other idols, in the form\nof goats: from all which it is highly probable, that the Israelites had\nlearned in Egypt to worship certain demons, or sylvan deities, under the\nsymbolical figure of goats. Though the phrase, \u201cafter whom they have\ngone a whoring,\u201d is equivalent in Scripture to that of committing\nidolatry, yet we are not to suppose that it is not to be taken in a\nliteral sense in many places, even where it is used in connection with\nidolatrous acts of worship. It is well known that Baal-peor and\nAshtaroth were worshipped with unclean rites, and that public\nprostitution formed a grand part of the worship of many deities among\nthe Egyptians, Moabites, Canaanites, &c.\n\nThe goat was one of the clean beasts which the Israelites might both eat\nand offer in sacrifice. The kid, \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9 is often mentioned as a food, in a\nway that implies that it was considered as a delicacy. The \u05d0\u05e7\u05d5, or _wild\ngoat_, mentioned Deut. xiv, 5, and no where else in the Hebrew Bible, is\nsupposed to be the _tragelaphus_, or \u201cgoat-deer.\u201d Schultens conjectures\nthat this animal might have its name, _ob fugacitatem_, from its\nshyness, or running away. The word \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc, occurs 1 Sam. xxiv, 3; Job\nxxxix, 1; Psalm civ, 18; Prov. v, 19: and various have been the\nsentiments of interpreters on the animal intended by it. Bochart insists\nthat it is the _ibex_, or \u201crock-goat.\u201d The root whence the name is\nderived, signifies _to ascend_, _to mount_; and the ibex is famous for\nclambering, climbing, and leaping, on the most craggy precipices. The\nArab writers attribute to the _jaal_ very long horns, bending backward;\nconsequently it cannot be the chamois. The horns of the _jaal_ are\nreckoned among the valuable articles of traffic, Ezek. xxvii, 15. The\nibex is finely shaped, graceful in its motions, and gentle in its\nmanners. The female is particularly celebrated by natural historians for\ntender affection to her young, and the incessant vigilance with which\nshe watches over their safety; and also for ardent attachment and\nfidelity to her mate.\n\nGOD, an immaterial, intelligent, and free Being; of perfect goodness,\nwisdom, and power; who made the universe, and continues to support it,\nas well as to govern and direct it, by his providence. Philologists have\nhitherto considered the word God as being of the same signification with\ngood; and this is not denied by M. Hallenberg. But he thinks that both\nwords originally denoted _unity_; and that the root is \u05d0\u05ea\u05d3, _unus_;\nwhence the Syriac _Chad_ and _Gada_; the Arabic _Ahd_ and _Gahd_; the\nPersic _Choda_ and _Chuda_; the Greek \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03b3\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2; the Teutonic\n_Gud_; the German _Gott_; and our Saxon _God_. The other names of God,\nthis author thinks, are referable to a similar origin.\n\n2. By his immateriality, intelligence, and freedom, God is distinguished\nfrom Fate, Nature, Destiny, Necessity, Chance, _Anima Mundi_, and from\nall the other fictitious beings acknowledged by the Stoics, Pantheists,\nSpinosists, and other sorts of Atheists. The knowledge of God, his\nnature, attributes, word, and works, with the relations between him and\nhis creatures, makes the subject of the extensive science called\ntheology. In Scripture God is defined by, \u201cI am that I am; Alpha and\nOmega; the Beginning and End of all things.\u201d Among philosophers, he is\ndefined a Being of infinite perfection; or in whom there is no defect of\nany thing which we conceive may raise, improve, or exalt his nature. He\nis the First Cause, the First Being, who has existed from the beginning,\nhas created the world, or who subsists necessarily, or of himself.\n\n3. The plain argument, says Maclaurin, in his \u201cAccount of Sir I.\nNewton\u2019s Philosophical Discoveries,\u201d for the existence of the Deity,\nobvious to all, and carrying irresistible conviction with it, is from\nthe evident contrivance and fitness of things for one another, which we\nmeet with throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice\nor subtle reasonings in this matter; a manifest contrivance immediately\nsuggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful\nreasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our\nbelief. No person, for example, that knows the principles of optics, and\nthe structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without skill\nin that science; or that the ear was formed without the knowledge of\nsounds; or that the male and female in animals were not formed for each\nother, and for continuing the species. All our accounts of nature are\nfull of instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful structure of\nthings for final causes, exalts our idea of the Contriver; the unity of\ndesign shows him to be one. The great motions in the system performed\nwith the same facility as the least, suggest his almighty power, which\ngave motion to the earth and the celestial bodies with equal ease as to\nthe minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the\ninternal parts of bodies, shows that his influence penetrates the inmost\nrecesses of things, and that he is equally active and present every\nwhere. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the\nexcellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and\nthe beauty which adorns the works of nature, far superior to any thing\nin art, suggest his consummate wisdom. The usefulness of the whole\nscheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it, with\nthe internal disposition and moral structure of these beings themselves,\nshows his unbounded goodness. These are arguments which are sufficiently\nopen to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while at the same\ntime they acquire new strength and lustre from the discoveries of the\nlearned. The Deity\u2019s acting and interposing in the universe, show that\nhe governs as well as formed it; and the depth of his counsels, even in\nconducting the material universe, of which a great part surpasses our\nknowledge, keeps up an inward veneration and awe of this great Being,\nand disposes us to receive what may be otherwise revealed to us\nconcerning him. It has been justly observed, that some of the laws of\nnature now known to us must have escaped us if we had wanted the sense\nof seeing. It may be in his power to bestow upon us other senses, of\nwhich we have at present no idea; without which it may be impossible for\nus to know all his works, or to have more adequate ideas of himself. In\nour present state, we know enough to be satisfied of our dependency upon\nhim, and of the duty we owe to him, the Lord and Disposer of all things.\nHe is not the object of sense; his essence, and, indeed, that of all\nother substances, are beyond the reach of all our discoveries; but his\nattributes clearly appear in his admirable works. We know that the\nhighest conceptions we are able to form of them, are still beneath his\nreal perfections; but his power and dominion over us, and our duty\ntoward him, are manifest.\n\n4. Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself, says Mr. Locke,\nyet, having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed\nwith, he hath not left himself without a witness; since we have sense,\nperception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him as long as\nwe carry ourselves about us. To show, therefore, that we are capable of\nknowing, that is, of being certain that there is a God, and how we may\ncome by this certainty, I think we need go no farther than ourselves,\nand that undoubted knowledge we have of our own existence. I think it is\nbeyond question, that man has a clear perception of his own being; he\nknows certainly that he exists, and that he is something. In the next\nplace, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no\nmore produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles.\nIf, therefore, we know there is some real Being, it is an evident\ndemonstration, that from eternity there has been something; since what\nwas not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be\nproduced by something else. Next it is evident, that what has its being\nfrom another must also have all that which is in, and belongs to, its\nbeing from another too; all the powers it has must be owing to, and\nderived from, the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being\nmust be also the source and original of all power; and so this eternal\nBeing must be also the most powerful. Again: man finds in himself\nperception and knowledge: we are certain, then, that there is not only\nsome Being, but some knowing, intelligent Being, in the world. There was\na time, then, when there was no knowing Being, or else there has been a\nknowing Being from eternity. If it be said there was a time when that\neternal Being had no knowledge, I reply, that then it is impossible\nthere should have ever been any knowledge; it being as impossible that\nthings wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any\nperception, should produce a knowing Being, as it is impossible that a\ntriangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones.\nThus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in\nour own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this\ncertain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and\nknowing Being, which, whether any one will call God, it matters not. The\nthing is evident; and from this idea, duly considered, will easily be\ndeduced all those other attributes we ought to ascribe to this eternal\nBeing. From what has been said, it is plain to me, that we have a more\ncertain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our\nsenses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say\nthat we more certainly know that there is a God, than that there is any\nthing else without us. When I say we _know_, I mean, there is such a\nknowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply\nour minds to that as we do to several other inquiries. It being then\nunavoidable for all rational creatures to conclude that something has\nexisted from eternity, let us next see what kind of thing that must be.\nThere are but two sorts of beings in the world that man knows or\nconceives; such as are purely material without sense or perception, and\nsensible, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be. These two\nsorts we shall call cogitative and incogitative beings; which to our\npresent purpose are better than material and immaterial. If, then, there\nmust be something eternal, it is very obvious to reason that it must be\na cogitative being; because it is as impossible to conceive that bare\nincogitative matter should ever produce a thinking, intelligent being,\nas that nothing should of itself produce matter. Let us suppose any\nparcel of matter eternal, we shall find it in itself unable to produce\nany thing. Let us suppose its parts firmly at rest together, if there\nwere no other being in the world, must it not eternally remain so, a\ndead inactive lump? Is it possible to conceive that it can add motion to\nitself, or produce any thing? Matter, then, by its own strength cannot\nproduce in itself so much as motion. The motion it has must also be from\neternity, or else added to matter by some other being, more powerful\nthan matter. But let us suppose motion eternal too, yet matter,\nincogitative matter, and motion could never produce thought: knowledge\nwill still be as far beyond the power of nothing to produce. Divide\nmatter into as minute parts as you will, vary its figure and motion as\nmuch as you please, it will operate no otherwise upon other bodies of\nproportionable bulk, than it did before this division. The minutest\nparticles of matter knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the\ngreater do; so that if we suppose nothing eternal, matter can never\nbegin to be; if we suppose bare matter without motion eternal, motion\ncan never begin to be; if we suppose only matter and motion to be\neternal, thought can never begin to be; for it is impossible to conceive\nthat matter, either with or without motion, could have originally in and\nfrom itself, sense, perception, and knowledge, as is evident from hence,\nthat then sense, perception, and knowledge must be a property eternally\ninseparable from matter, and every particle of it. Since, therefore,\nwhatsoever is the first eternal Being must necessarily be cogitative;\nand whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it,\nand actually have, at least all the perfections that can ever after\nexist, it necessarily follows, that the first eternal Being cannot be\nmatter. If, therefore, it be evident that something must necessarily\nexist from eternity, it is also evident that that something must\nnecessarily be a cogitative Being. For it is as impossible that\nincogitative matter should produce a cogitative Being, as that nothing,\nor the negation of all being, should produce a positive Being or matter.\n\nThis discovery of the necessary existence of an eternal mind\nsufficiently leads us to the knowledge of God. For it will hence follow,\nthat all other knowing beings that have a beginning must depend upon\nhim, and have no other ways of knowledge or extent of power than what he\ngives them; and therefore if he made those, he made also the less\nexcellent pieces of this universe, all inanimate bodies, whereby his\nomniscience, power, and providence will be established, and from thence\nall his other attributes necessarily follow.\n\n5. In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God;\nsuch an attempt would have been entirely useless, because the fact was\nuniversally admitted. The error of men consisted, not in denying a God,\nbut in admitting too many; and one great object of the Bible is to\ndemonstrate that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments, however,\nare employed in it for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded\nin the history of the Jews, from which it appears that they were always\nvictorious and prosperous so long as they served the only living and\ntrue God, Jehovah, the name by which the Almighty made himself known to\nthem, and uniformly unsuccessful when they revolted from him to serve\nother gods. What argument could be so effectual to convince them that\nthere was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel? The sovereignty\nand universal providence of the Lord Jehovah are proved by predictions\ndelivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and\nof empires, specifying distinctly their rise, the duration of their\npower, and the causes of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God\nruled among the nations, and made them the unconscious instruments of\npromoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the\nattributes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning; they are\nsimply affirmed and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular\ndeduction of doctrines and conclusions from a few admitted principles,\nwe are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional\nexpressions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God.\nThese circumstances point out a marked singularity in the Scriptures,\nconsidered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers,\ngenerally speaking, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do\nnot attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to\nrouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what\nmight have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commission,\nand armed with undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions.\n\n6. In three distinct ways do the sacred writers furnish us with\ninformation on this great and essential subject, the existence and the\ncharacter of God; from the _names_ by which he is designated; from the\n_actions_ ascribed to him; and from the _attributes_ with which he is\ninvested in their invocations and praises; and in those lofty\ndescriptions of his nature which, under the inspiration of the Holy\nSpirit, they have recorded for the instruction of the world. These\nattributes will be considered under their respective heads; but the\nimpression of the general view of the divine character, as thus\nrevealed, is too important to be omitted.\n\n7. The _names_ of God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of\noverwhelming greatness and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousness\nwith which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals,\nthe divine essence and mode of existence must ever be invested. Though\nONE he is \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd, ELOHIM, GODS, _persons adorable_. He is \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, JEHOVAH,\nself-_existing_; \u05d0\u05dc, EL, _strong_, _powerful_; \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4, EHIEH, _I am_, _I\nwill be_, _self-existence_, _independency_, _all-sufficiency_,\n_immutability_, _eternity_; \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9, SHADDAI, _almighty_, _all-sufficient_;\n\u05d0\u05d3\u05df, ADON, _Supporter_, _Lord_, _Judge_. These are among the adorable\nappellatives of God which are scattered throughout the revelation that\nhe has been pleased to make of himself: but on one occasion he was\npleased more particularly to declare his _name_, that is, such of the\nqualities and attributes of the divine nature as mortals are the most\ninterested in knowing; and to unfold, not only his natural, but also\nthose of his moral attributes by which his conduct toward his creatures\nis regulated. \u201cAnd the Lord passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord\nGod, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and\ntruth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression,\nand sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the\niniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children\u2019s\nchildren, unto the third and fourth generation,\u201d Exodus xxxiv. This is\nthe most ample and particular description of the character of God, as\ngiven by himself in the sacred records; and the import of the several\ntitles by which he has thus in his infinite condescension manifested\nhimself, has been thus exhibited. He is not only JEHOVAH,\n_self-existent_, and EL, _the strong or mighty God_; but he is, says Dr.\nA. Clarke, \u201c\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05dd, ROCHUM, _the merciful Being_, who is full of\ntenderness and compassion; \u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05df, CHANUN, _the gracious One_, he whose\nnature is goodness itself, the loving God. \u05d0\u05e8\u05da \u05e4\u05d9\u05dd, EREC APAYIM,\n_long-suffering_, the Being who, because of his tenderness, is not\neasily irritated, but suffers long and is kind; \u05d3\u05d1 RAB, _the great or\nmighty One_: \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3, CHESED, _the bountiful Being_, he who is exuberant in\nhis beneficence; \u05d0\u05e4\u05ea, EMETH, _the Truth_, or _True One_, he alone who\ncan neither deceive nor be deceived; \u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3, NOTSER CHESED, _the\nPreserver of bountifulness_, he whose beneficence never ends, keeping\nmercy for thousands of generations, showing compassion and mercy while\nthe world endures; \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05e4\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d4, NOSE AVON VAPESHA VECHATAAH, _he\nwho bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin_; properly the\n_Redeemer_, the _Pardoner_, the _Forgiver_, the Being whose prerogative\nit is to forgive sin, and save the soul; \u05e0\u05e7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e0\u05e7\u05d4, NAKEH LO YINNAKEH,\n_the righteous Judge_, who distributes justice with an impartial hand;\nand \u05e4\u05e7\u05d3 \u05e2\u05d9\u05df, PAKED AVON, &c, _he who visits iniquity_, he who punishes\ntransgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape; the God of\nretributive and vindictive justice.\u201d\n\n8. The second means by which the Scriptures convey to us the knowledge\nof God, is by the _actions_ which they ascribe to him. They contain,\nindeed, the important record of his dealings with men in every age which\nis comprehended within the limit of the sacred history; and, by\nprophetic declaration, they also exhibit the principles on which he will\ngovern the world to the end of time: so that the whole course of the\ndivine administration may be considered as exhibiting a singularly\nillustrative comment upon those attributes of his nature which, in their\nabstract form, are contained in such declarations as those which have\nbeen just quoted. The first act ascribed to God is that of creating the\nheavens and the earth out of nothing; and by his fiat alone arranging\ntheir parts, and peopling them with living creatures. By this were\nmanifested--his _eternity and self-existence_, as he who creates must be\nbefore all creatures, and he who gives being to others can himself\nderive it from none:--his _almighty power_, shown both in the act of\ncreation and in the number and vastness of the objects so produced:--his\n_wisdom_, in their arrangement, and in their fitness to their respective\nends:--and his _goodness_, as the whole tended to the happiness of\n_sentient_ beings. The foundations of his natural and moral government\nare also made manifest by his creative acts. In what he made out of\nnothing he had an absolute right and prerogative: it awaited his\nordering, and was completely at his disposal; so that to alter or\ndestroy his own work, and to prescribe the laws by which the intelligent\nand rational part of his creatures should be governed, are rights which\nnone can question. Thus on the one hand his character of _Lord_ or\n_Governor_ is established, and on the other our duty of lowly _homage_\nand absolute _obedience_.\n\n9. Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created, he was placed under a\nrule of conduct. Obedience was to be followed with the continuance of\nthe divine favour; transgression, with death. The event called forth new\nmanifestations of the character of God. His tender _mercy_, in the\ncompassion showed to the fallen pair; his _justice_, in forgiving them\nonly in the view of a satisfaction to be hereafter offered to his\njustice by an innocent representative of the sinning race; his _love_ to\nthat race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the\nfulness of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and his\n_holiness_, in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the\nmeans of restoring him to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image\nof God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divine\n_mercy_ are traced from age to age, in his establishing his own worship\namong men, and remitting the punishment of individual and national\noffences in answer to prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in\ndependence upon the typified or actually offered universal\nsacrifice:--of his _condescension_, in stooping to the cases of\nindividuals; in his dispensations both of providence and grace, by\nshowing respect to the poor and humble; and, principally, by the\nincarnation of God in the form of a servant, admitting men into familiar\nand friendly intercourse with himself, and then entering into heaven to\nbe their patron and advocate, until they should be received unto the\nsame glory, \u201cand so be for ever with the Lord:\u201d--of his strictly\n_righteous government_, in the destruction of the old world, the cities\nof the plain, the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, upon their\n\u201cfilling up the measure of their iniquities;\u201d and, to show that \u201che will\nby no means clear the guilty;\u201d in the numerous and severe punishments\ninflicted even upon the chosen seed of Abraham, because of their\ntransgressions:--of his _long-suffering_, in frequent warnings, delays,\nand corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations, before\nsentence of utter excision and destruction:--of _faithfulness_ and\n_truth_, in the fulfilment of promises, often many ages after they were\ngiven, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the possession of the\nland of Canaan by his seed, and in all the \u201cpromises made to the\nfathers\u201d respecting the advent, vicarious death, and illustrious offices\nof the \u201cChrist,\u201d the Saviour of the world:--of his _immutability_, in\nthe constant and unchanging laws and principles of his government, which\nremain to this day precisely the same, in every thing universal, as when\nfirst promulgated, and have been the rule of his conduct in all places\nas well as through all time:--of his _prescience_ of future events,\nmanifested by the predictions of Scripture:--and of the depth and\nstability of his _counsel_, as illustrated in that plan and purpose of\nbringing back a revolted world to obedience and felicity, which we find\nsteadily kept in view in the Scriptural history of the acts of God in\nformer ages; which is still the end toward which all his dispensations\nbend, however wide and mysterious their sweep; and which they will\nfinally accomplish, as we learn from the prophetic history of the\nfuture, contained in the Old and New Testaments.\n\nThus the course of divine operation in the world has from age to age\nbeen a manifestation of the divine character, continually receiving new\nand stronger illustrations until the completion of the Christian\nrevelation by the ministry of Christ and his inspired followers, and\nstill placing itself in brighter light and more impressive aspects as\nthe scheme of human redemption runs on to its consummation. From all the\nacts of God as recorded in the Scriptures, we are taught that he alone\nis God; that he is present every where to sustain and govern all things;\nthat his wisdom is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power\nirresistible; that he is holy, just, and good; the Lord and the Judge,\nbut the Father and the Friend, of man.\n\n10. More at large do we learn what God is, from the declarations of the\ninspired writings. As to his _substance_, that \u201cGod is a Spirit.\u201d As to\nhis _duration_, that \u201cfrom everlasting to everlasting he is God;\u201d \u201cthe\nKing, eternal, immortal, invisible.\u201d That, after all the manifestations\nhe has made of himself, he is, from the infinite perfection and glory of\nhis nature, _incomprehensible_: \u201cLo, these are but parts of his ways,\nand how little a portion is heard of him!\u201d \u201cTouching the Almighty, we\ncannot find him out.\u201d That he is _unchangeable_: \u201cThe Father of Lights,\nwith whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.\u201d That \u201che\nis the fountain of life,\u201d and the only independent Being in the\nuniverse: \u201cWho only hath immortality.\u201d That every other being, however\nexalted, has its existence from him: \u201cFor by him were all things\ncreated, which are in heaven and in earth, whether they are visible or\ninvisible.\u201d That the existence of every thing is upheld by him, no\ncreature being for a moment independent of his support: \u201cBy him all\nthings consist;\u201d \u201cupholding all things by the word of his power.\u201d That\nhe is _omnipresent_: \u201cDo not I fill heaven and earth with my presence,\nsaith the Lord?\u201d That he is _omniscient_: \u201cAll things are naked and open\nbefore the eyes of him with whom we have to do.\u201d That he is the absolute\nLord and _Owner_ of all things: \u201cThe heavens, even the heaven of\nheavens, are thine, and all the parts of them:\u201d \u201cThe earth is thine, and\nthe fulness thereof, the world and them that dwell therein:\u201d \u201cHe doeth\naccording to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants\nof the earth.\u201d That his _providence_ extends to the minutest objects:\n\u201cThe hairs of your head are all numbered:\u201d \u201cAre not two sparrows sold\nfor a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without\nyour Father.\u201d That he is a Being of unspotted _purity_ and perfect\n_rectitude_: \u201cHoly, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts!\u201d \u201cA God of truth, and\nin whom is no iniquity:\u201d \u201cOf purer eyes than to behold iniquity.\u201d That\nhe is _just_ in the administration of his government: \u201cShall not the\nJudge of the whole earth do right?\u201d \u201cClouds and darkness are round about\nhim; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne.\u201d That his\n_wisdom_ is unsearchable: \u201cO the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of\nGod! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!\u201d\nAnd, finally, that he is _good_ and _merciful_: \u201cThou art good, and thy\nmercy endureth for ever:\u201d \u201cHis tender mercy is over all his works:\u201d\n\u201cGod, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,\neven when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ:\u201d\n\u201cGod was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing\ntheir trespasses unto them:\u201d \u201cGod hath given to us eternal life, and\nthis life is in his Son.\u201d\n\n11. Under these deeply awful but consolatory views, do the Scriptures\npresent to us the supreme object of our worship and trust; and they\ndwell upon each of the above particulars with inimitable sublimity and\nbeauty of language, and with an inexhaustible variety of illustration.\nNor can we compare these views of the divine nature with the conceptions\nof the most enlightened of Pagans, without feeling how much reason we\nhave for everlasting gratitude, that a revelation so explicit, and so\ncomprehensive, should have been made to us on a subject which only a\nrevelation from God himself could have made known. It is thus that\nChristian philosophers, even when they do not use the language of the\nScriptures, are able to speak on this great and mysterious doctrine, in\nlanguage so clear, and with conceptions so noble; in a manner too so\nequable, so different from the sages of antiquity, who, if at any time\nthey approach the truth when speaking of the divine nature, never fail\nto mingle with it some essentially erroneous or grovelling conception.\n\u201cBy the Word of God,\u201d says Dr. Barrow, \u201cwe mean a Being of infinite\nwisdom, goodness, and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things,\nto whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience\nand immensity, perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and\nveracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, and supreme right of\ndominion belong; and to whom the highest veneration, and most profound\nsubmission and obedience are due.\u201d \u201cOur notion of Deity,\u201d says Bishop\nPearson, \u201cdoth expressly signify a Being or Nature of infinite\nperfection; and the infinite perfection of a being or nature consists in\nthis, that it be absolutely and essentially necessary; an actual Being\nof itself; and potential, or causative of all beings beside itself,\nindependent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by\nwhich all things else are governed.\u201d \u201cGod is a Being,\u201d says Lawson, \u201cand\nnot any kind of being; but a substance, which is the foundation of other\nbeings. And not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are\nperfect in their kind, yet limited and finite. But God is absolutely,\nfully, and every way infinitely perfect; and therefore above spirits,\nabove angels, who are perfect comparatively. God\u2019s infinite perfection\nincludes all the attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all\ndependency, borrowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality,\ncontingency, ignorance, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all\nimperfections whatever. It includes necessity of being, independency,\nperfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most\nperfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, and all\nthese in the highest degree. We cannot pierce into the secrets of this\neternal Being. Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can\nproceed no farther, faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can\nunderstand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason; but reason\nitself dictates unto us, that we must believe far more of God than it\ncan inform us of.\u201d To these we may add an admirable passage from Sir\nIsaac Newton: \u201cThe word GOD frequently signifies _Lord_; but every lord\nis not God; it is the dominion of a spiritual Being or Lord that\nconstitutes God; true dominion, true God; supreme, the Supreme; feigned,\nthe false god. From such true dominion it follows, that the true God is\nliving, intelligent, and powerful; and from his other perfections, that\nhe is supreme, or supremely perfect; he is eternal and infinite;\nomnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to\neternity; and is present from infinity to infinity. He governs all\nthings that exist, and knows all things that are to be known; he is not\neternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or\nspace, but he endures and is present; he endures always, and is present\nevery where; he is omnipresent, not only virtually, but also\nsubstantially; for power without substance cannot subsist. All things\nare contained and move in him, but without any mutual passion; he\nsuffers nothing from the motions of bodies; nor do they undergo any\nresistance from his omnipresence. It is confessed, that God exists\nnecessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and every where.\nHence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, all ear, all arm, all\nthe power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but after a manner\nnot at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of men, after a\nmanner wholly to us unknown. He is destitute of all body, and all bodily\nshape; and therefore cannot be seen, heard, or touched; nor ought he to\nbe worshipped under the representation of any thing corporeal. We have\nideas of the attributes of God, but do not know the substance of even\nany thing; we see only the figures and colours of bodies, hear only\nsounds, touch only the outward surfaces, smell only odours, and taste\ntastes; and do not, cannot, by any sense, or reflex act, know their\ninward substances; and much less can we have any notion of the substance\nof God. We know him by his properties and attributes.\u201d\n\n12. Many able works in proof of the existence of God have been written,\nthe arguments of which are too copious for us even to analyze. It must\nbe sufficient to say that they all proceed, as it is logically termed,\neither _\u00e0 priori_, from cause to effect, or, which is the safest and\nmost satisfactory mode, _\u00e0 posteriori_, from the effect to the cause.\nThe irresistible argument from the marks of _design_ with which all\nnature abounds, to one great intelligent, designing Cause, is by no\nwriters brought out in so clear and masterly a manner as by Howe, in his\n\u201cLiving temple,\u201d and Paley, in his \u201cNatural Theology.\u201d\n\nGODS, in the plural, is used of the false deities of the Heathens, many\nof which were only creatures to whom divine honours and worship were\nsuperstitiously paid. The Greeks and Latins, it is observable, did not\nmean, by the name _God_, an all-perfect being, whereof eternity,\ninfinity, omnipresence, &c, were essential attributes: with them the\nword only implied an excellent and superior nature; and, accordingly,\nthey give the appellation _gods_ to all beings of a rank or class,\nhigher or more perfect than that of men, and especially to those who\nwere inferior agents in the divine administration, all subject to the\none Supreme. Thus men themselves, according to their system, might\nbecome gods after death, inasmuch as their souls might attain to a\ndegree of excellence superior to what they were capable of in life. The\nfirst idols, or false gods, that are said to have been adored were the\nstars, sun, moon, &c, on account of the light, heat, and other benefits\nwhich we derive from them. (See _Idolatry_.) Afterward the earth came to\nbe deified, for furnishing fruits necessary for the subsistence of men\nand animals: then fire and water became objects of divine worship, for\ntheir usefulness to human life. In process of time, and by degrees, gods\nbecame multiplied to infinity; and there was scarce any thing but the\nweakness or caprice of some devotee or other, elevated into the rank of\ndeity: things useless or even destructive not excepted. The principal of\nthe ancient gods, whom the Romans called _dii majorum gentium_, and\nCicero celestial gods, Varro select gods, Ovid _nobiles deos_, others\n_consentes deos_, were Jupiter, Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana,\nVenus, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Vulcan, and Apollo. Jupiter is considered\nas the god of heaven; Neptune, as god of the sea; Mars, as the god of\nwar; Apollo, of eloquence, poetry, and physic; Mercury, of thieves;\nBacchus, of wine; Cupid, of love, &c. A second sort of gods, called\ndemi-gods, _semi-dii_, _dii minorum gentium_, _indigetes_, or gods\nadopted, were men canonized and deified. As the greater gods had\npossession of heaven by their own right, these secondary deities had it\nby merit and donation, being translated into heaven because they had\nlived as gods upon earth.\n\n2. The Heathen gods may be all reduced to the following classes: (1.)\nCreated spirits, angels, or demons, whence good and evil gods; Genii,\nLares, Lemures, Typhones, guardian gods, infernal gods, &c. (2.)\nHeavenly bodies; as, the sun, moon, and other planets; also, the fixed\nstars, constellations, &c. (3.) Elements; as air, earth, ocean, Ops,\nVesta; the rivers, fountains, &c. (4.) Meteors. Thus the Persians adored\nthe wind: thunder and lightning were honoured under the name of Geryon;\nand several nations of India and America have made themselves gods of\nthe same. Castor, Pollux, Helena, and Iris, have also been preferred\nfrom meteors to be gods; and the like has been practised in regard to\ncomets: witness that which appeared at the murder of C\u00e6sar. (5.) They\nerected minerals or fossils into deities. Such was the B\u00e6tylus. The\nFinlanders adored stones; the Scythians, iron; and many nations, silver\nand gold. (6.) Plants have been made gods. Thus leeks and onions were\ndeities in Egypt; the Sclavi, Lithuanians, Celt\u00e6, Vandals, and\nPeruvians, adored trees and forests; the ancient Gauls, Britons, and\nDruids, paid a particular devotion to the oak; and it was no other than\nwheat, corn, seed, &c, that the ancients adored under the names of Ceres\nand Proserpina. (7.) They took themselves gods from among the waters.\nThe Syrians and Egyptians adored fishes; and what were the Tritons, the\nNereids, Syrens, &c, but fishes? Several nations have adored serpents;\nparticularly the Egyptians, Prussians, Lithuanians, Samogitians, &c.\n(8.) Insects, as flies and ants, had their priests and votaries. (9.)\nAmong birds, the stork, raven, sparrowhawk, ibis, eagle, grisson, and\nlapwing have had divine honours; the last in Mexico, the rest in Egypt\nand at Thebes. (10.) Four-footed beasts have had their altars; as the\nbull, dog, cat, wolf, baboon, lion, and crocodile, in Egypt and\nelsewhere; the hog in the island of Crete; rats and mice in the Troas,\nand at Tenedos; weasels at Thebes; and the porcupine throughout all\nZoroaster\u2019s school. (11.) Nothing was more common than to place men\namong the number of deities; and from Belus or Baal, to the Roman\nemperors before Constantine, the instances of this kind are innumerable:\nfrequently they did not wait so long as their deaths for the apotheosis.\nNebuchadnezzar procured his statue to be worshipped while living; and\nVirgil shows that Augustus had altars and sacrifices offered to him; as\nwe learn from other hands that he had priests called _Augustales_, and\ntemples at Lyons, Narbona, and several other places, and he must be\nallowed the first of the Romans in whose behalf idolatry was carried to\nsuch a pitch. The Ethiopians deemed all their kings gods: the Velleda of\nthe Germans, the Janus of the Hungarians, and the Thaut, Woden, and Assa\nof the northern nations, were indisputably men. (12.) Not men only, but\nevery thing that relates to man, has also been deified; as labour, rest,\nsleep, youth, age, death, virtues, vices, occasion, time, place,\nnumbers, among the Pythagoreans; the generative power, under the name of\nPriapus. Infancy alone had a cloud of deities; as, Vagetanus, Levana,\nRumina, Edufa, Potina, Cuba, Cumina, Carna, Ossilago, Statulinus,\nFabulinus, &c. They also adored the gods Health, Fever, Fear, Love,\nPain, Indignation, Shame, Impudence, Opinion, Renown, Prudence, Science,\nArt, Fidelity, Felicity, Calumny, Liberty, Money, War, Peace, Victory,\nTriumph, &c. Lastly, Nature, the universe, or \u03c4\u1f78 \u03d6\u1f70\u03bd, was reputed a\ngreat god.\n\n3. Hesiod has a poem under the title of \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, that is, \u201cThe\nGeneration of the Gods,\u201d in which he explains their genealogy and\ndescent, sets forth who was the first and principal, who next descended\nfrom him, and what issue each had: the whole making a sort of system of\nHeathen theology. Beside this popular theology, each philosopher had his\nsystem, as may be seen from the \u201cTim\u00e6us\u201d of Plato, and Cicero \u201c_De\nNatura Deorum_.\u201d Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix,\nLactantius, Eusebius, St. Augustine, and Theodoret, show the vanity of\nthe Heathen gods. It is very difficult to discover the real sentiments\nof the Heathens with respect to their gods: they are exceedingly\nintricate and confused, and even frequently contradictory. They admitted\nso many superior and inferior gods, who shared the empire, that every\nplace was full of gods. Varro reckons up no less than thirty thousand\nadored within a small extent of ground, and yet their number was every\nday increasing. In modern oriental Paganism they amount to many\nmillions, and are, in fact, innumerable.\n\n4. The name of God, in Hebrew, _Elohim_, is very ambiguous in Scripture.\nThe true God is often called so, as are sometimes angels, judges, and\nprinces, and sometimes idols and false gods; for example: \u201cGod created\nthe heaven and the earth,\u201d Gen. i, 1. The Hebrew _Elohim_ denotes, in\nthis place, the true God. \u201cHe who sacrificeth unto any god, (_Elohim_,)\nshall be put to death,\u201d Exodus xxii, 20. And again: \u201cAmong the gods\nthere is none like unto thee,\u201d Psalm lxxxvi, 8. Princes, magistrates,\nand great men are called gods in the following passages: \u201cIf a slave is\ndesirous to continue with his master, he shall be brought to the\njudges,\u201d Exod. xxi, 6, in the original, to the _gods_. Again: \u201cIf the\nthief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto\nthe judges,\u201d Exod. xxii, 8, in the original, to the gods; and in the\ntwenty-eighth verse of the same chapter, \u201cThou shalt not speak evil of\nthe gods;\u201d that is, of the judges or great men. The Psalmist says that\nthe Lord \u201cjudgeth among the gods,\u201d Psalm lxxxii, 1. And again, God says\nto Moses, \u201cI have made thee a god to Pharaoh,\u201d Exod. vii, 1. The pious\nIsraelites had so great an aversion and such an extreme contempt for\nstrange gods, that they scorned even to mention them; they disguised and\ndisfigured their names by substituting in the room of them some term of\ncontempt; for example, instead of _Elohim_, they called them _Elilim_,\n\u201cnothings, gods of no value;\u201d instead of _Mephibaal_, _Meribaal_, and\n_Jerubaal_, they said \u201cMephibosheth, Meribosheth, and Jeribosheth.\u201d\n_Baal_ signifies master, husband; and _bosheth_, something to be ashamed\nof, something apt to put one in confusion. God forbade the Israelites to\nswear by strange gods, and to pronounce the names of them in their\noaths, Exod. xxiii, 13.\n\nGODLINESS, strictly taken, signifies right worship, or devotion; but, in\ngeneral, it imports the whole of practical religion, 1 Tim. iv, 8; 2\nPeter i, 6.\n\nGOEL, \u05d2\u05d0\u05dc, the avenger of blood. The inhabitants of the east, it is well\nknown, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If,\ntherefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent\nhands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to\navenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with\nunceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force\nor by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia, and it appears to have\nbeen alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening\nto kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the\ncountry, saying, \u201cWhy should I be bereft of you both in one day?\u201d Gen.\nxxvii, 15. She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the\nmurderer, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine;\nand Isaac was much too partial to Esau for her to entertain any\nexpectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would\ntherefore appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the\nblood avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the\n_goel_ was in use before the time of Moses; and it was probably filled\nby the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of redeeming a\nmortgage field is given to him. To prevent the unnecessary loss of life\nthrough a sanguinary spirit of revenge, the Hebrew legislator made\nvarious enactments concerning the blood avenger. In most ages and\ncountries, certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being\nasylums; Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the murderer would\nflee to the altar, commanded that when the crime was deliberate and\nintentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death,\nExod. xxi, 14. But in the case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer\nwas enjoined to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, which were\nappropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was\nenacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual\nmight meet with no impediment whatever in his way, Deut. xix, 3. If the\n_goel_ overtook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to\ndeath, he was not considered as guilty of blood; but if the man-slayer\nhad reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an\ninquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and\nasylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour\u2019s death\nundesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was\njudicially delivered to the _goel_, who might put him to death in\nwhatever way he chose; but in the former case the homicide continued in\nthe place of refuge until the high priest\u2019s death, when he might return\nhome in perfect security. If, however, the _goel_ found him without the\ncity, or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of\nblood, Numbers xxxv, 26, 27. Farther, to guard the life of man, and\nprevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the\nreceiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation,\nNumbers xxxv, 31. It would seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or\nif he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty\nof the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus\nwe find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and\nthat Solomon, in obedience to his father\u2019s dying entreaty, actually\ndischarged it by putting that murderer to death, 1 Kings ii, 5; vi,\n28\u201334. There is a beautiful allusion to the blood avenger in Heb. vi,\n17, 18.\n\nThe following extracts will prove how tenaciously the eastern people\nadhere to the principle of revenging the death of their relations and\nfriends:--\u201cAmong the Circassians,\u201d says Pallas, \u201call the relatives of\nthe murderers are considered as guilty. This customary infatuation to\nrevenge the blood of relations generates most of the feuds, and\noccasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for unless\npardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two\nfamilies, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding\ngenerations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to\nthe family of the deceased, this tribute is called _thlil-uasa_, or,\n\u2018the price of blood;\u2019 but neither princes nor usdens accept such\ncompensation, as it is an established law among them to demand blood for\nblood.\u201d \u201cThe Nubians,\u201d observes Light, \u201cpossess few traces among them of\ngovernment, or law, or religion. They know no master, although the\ncashief claims a nominal command of the country. They look for redress\nof injuries to their own means of revenge, which, in cases of blood,\nextends from one generation to another, till blood is repaid by blood.\nOn this account they are obliged to be ever on the watch, and armed: and\nin this manner even their daily labours are carried on; the very boys\nare armed.\u201d \u201cIf one Nubian,\u201d remarks Burckhardt, \u201chappen to kill\nanother, he is obliged to pay the debt of blood to the family of the\ndeceased, and a fine to the governors of six camels, a cow, and seven\nsheep, or they are taken from his relations. Every wound inflicted has\nits stated fine, consisting of sheep and _dhourra_, but varying in\nquantity, according to the parts of the body wounded.\u201d \u201cWhen a man or\nwoman is murdered,\u201d says Malcolm, \u201cthe moment the person by whom the act\nwas perpetrated is discovered, the heir-at-law to the deceased demands\nvengeance for the blood. Witnesses are examined, and if the guilt be\nestablished, the criminal is delivered into his hands, to deal with as\nhe chooses. It is alike legal for him to forgive him, to accept a sum of\nmoney as the price of blood, or to put him to death. It is only a few\nyears ago that the English resident at Abusheher saw three persons\ndelivered into the hands of the relations of those whom they had\nmurdered. They led their victims bound to the burial ground, where they\nput them to death; but the part of the execution that appeared of the\nmost importance, was to make the infant children of the deceased stab\nthe murderers with knives, and imbrue their little hands in the blood of\nthose who had slain their father. The youngest princes of the blood that\ncould hold a dagger were made to stab the assassins of Aga Mahomed Khan.\nWhen they were executed, the successor of Nadir Shah sent one of the\nmurderers of that monarch to the females of his harem, who, we are told,\nwere delighted to become his executioners.\u201d\n\nGOG AND MAGOG. Moses speaks of Magog, son of Japheth, but says nothing\nof Gog, Gen. x, 2. According to Ezekiel, Gog was prince of Magog, Ezek.\nxxxviii, 2, 3, &c; xxxix, 1, 2, &c. Magog signifies the country or\npeople, and Gog the king of that country; the general name of the\nnorthern nations of Europe and Asia, or the districts north of the\nCaucasus, or Mount Taurus. The prophecy of Ezekiel, xxxix, 1\u201322, seems\nto be revived in the Apocalypse, where the hosts of Gog and Magog are\nrepresented as coming to invade \u201cthe beloved city,\u201d and perishing with\nimmense slaughter likewise in Armageddon, \u201cthe mount of Mageddo,\u201d or\nMegiddo, Rev. xvi, 14\u201316; xx, 7\u201310.\n\nGOLD, \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1, Gen. xxiv, 22, and very frequently in all other parts of the\nOld Testament; \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. xxiii, 16, 17, &c; the most perfect and\nvaluable of the metals. In Job xxviii, 15\u201318, 19, gold is mentioned five\ntimes, and four of the words are different in the original: 1. \u05e1\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8,\nwhich may mean \u201cgold in the mine,\u201d or \u201cshut up,\u201d as the root signifies,\n\u201cin the ore.\u201d 2. \u05db\u05ea\u05dd, _kethem_, from \u05db\u05ea\u05dd, _catham_, \u201cto sign,\u201d \u201cseal,\u201d\nor \u201cstamp;\u201d gold made current by being coined; standard gold, exhibiting\nthe stamp expressive of its value. 3. \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1, wrought gold, pure, highly\npolished gold. 4. \u05e4\u05d6, denoting solidity, compactness, and strength;\nprobably gold formed into different kinds of plate, or vessels. Jerom,\nin his comment on Jer. x, 9, writes \u201c_Septem dominibus apud Hebr\u00e6os\nappellatur aurum_.\u201d The seven names, which he does not mention, are as\nfollows, and thus distinguished by the Hebrews: 1. _Zahab_, gold in\ngeneral. 2. _Zahab tob_, good gold, of a more valuable kind, Gen. ii,\n12. 3. _Zahab Ophir_, gold of Ophir, 1 Kings ix, 28, such as was brought\nby the navy of Solomon. 4. _Zahab muphaz_, solid gold, pure, wrought\ngold, translated, 1 Kings x, 18, \u201cthe best gold.\u201d 5. _Zahab shachut_,\nbeaten gold, 2 Chron. ix, 15. 6. _Zahab segor_, shut up gold; either as\nmentioned above, gold in the ore, or as the rabbins explain it, \u201cgold\nshut up in the treasuries,\u201d gold in bullion. 7. _Zahab parvaim_, 2\nChron. iii, 6. To these Buxtorf adds three others: 1. \u05db\u05ea\u05dd, pure gold of\nthe circulating medium. 2. \u05dc\u05e6\u05e8, gold in the treasury. 3. \u05d7\u05e8\u05e6\u05d6, choice,\nfine gold. Arabia had formerly its golden mines. \u201cThe gold of Sheba,\u201d\nPsalm lxxii, 15, is, in the Septuagint and Arabic versions, \u201cthe gold of\nArabia.\u201d Sheba was the ancient name of Arabia Felix. Mr. Bruce, however,\nplaces it in Africa, at Azab. The gold of Ophir, so often mentioned,\nmust be that which was procured in Arabia, on the coast of the Red Sea.\nWe are assured by Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Eusebius, and by\nHerodotus, that the Phenicians carried on a considerable traffic with\nthis gold even before the days of Job, who speaks of it, xxii, 24.\n\nGOLIATH, a famous giant of the city of Gath, who was slain by David, 1\nSam. xvii, 4, 5, &c. See GIANTS.\n\nGOMER, the eldest son of Japheth, by whom a great part of Asia Minor was\nfirst peopled, and particularly that extensive tract which was called\nPhrygia, including the sub-divisions of Mysia, Galatia, Bithynia,\nLycaonia, &c. The colonies of Gomer extended into Germany, Gaul, (in\nboth of which traces of the name are preserved,) and Britain, which was\nundoubtedly peopled from Gaul. Among the descendants of the ancient\ninhabitants of this island, namely, the Welsh, the words _Kumero_ and\n_Kumeraeg_, the names of the people and the language, sufficiently point\nout their origin. In fact, under the names of Cimmerii, Cimbri, Cymrig,\nCumbri, Umbri, and Cambri, the tribes of Gomerians extended themselves\nfrom the Euxine to the Atlantic, and from Italy to the Baltic; having\nadded to their original names those of Celts, Gauls, Galat\u00e6, and Gaels,\nsuperadded.\n\nGOMORRAH, one of the five cities of the Pentapolis, consumed by fire,\nGenesis xix, 24, &c. See DEAD SEA.\n\nGOSHEN. This was the most fertile pasture ground in the whole of Lower\nEgypt; thence called Goshen, from _gush_, in Arabic, signifying \u201ca\nheart,\u201d or whatsoever is choice or precious. There was also a Goshen in\nthe territory of the tribe of Judah, so called for the same reason,\nJoshua x, 41. Hence Joseph recommended it to his family as \u201cthe best of\nthe land,\u201d Gen. xlvii, 11, and \u201cthe fat of the land,\u201d Gen. xlv, 18. The\nland of Goshen lay along the most easterly branch of the Nile, and on\nthe east side of it; for it is evident that, at the time of the exode,\nthe Israelites did not cross the Nile. In ancient times, the fertile\nland was considerably more extensive, both in length and breadth, than\nat present, in consequence of the general failure of the eastern\nbranches of the Nile; the main body of the river verging more and more\nto the west continually, and deepening the channels on that side.\n\nGOSPEL, a history of the life, actions, death, resurrection, ascension,\nand doctrine of Jesus Christ. The word is Saxon, and of the same import\nwith the Latin term _evangelium_, or the Greek \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which\nsignifies \u201cglad tidings,\u201d or \u201cgood news;\u201d the history of our Saviour\nbeing the best history ever published to mankind. This history is\ncontained in the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St.\nJohn, who from thence are called evangelists. The Christian church never\nacknowledged any more than these four Gospels as canonical:\nnotwithstanding which, several apocryphal gospels are handed down to us,\nand others are entirely lost. The four Gospels contain each of them the\nhistory of our Saviour\u2019s life and ministry; but we must remember, that\nno one of the evangelists undertook to give an account of all the\nmiracles which Christ performed, or of all the instructions which he\ndelivered. They are written with different degrees of conciseness; but\nevery one of them is sufficiently full to prove that Jesus was the\npromised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, who had been predicted by a\nlong succession of prophets, and whose advent was expected at the time\nof his appearance, both by Jews and Gentiles.\n\n2. That all the books which convey to us the history of events under the\nNew Testament were written and immediately published by persons\ncontemporary with the events, is most fully proved by the testimony of\nan unbroken series of authors, reaching from the days of the evangelists\nto the present times; by the concurrent belief of Christians of all\ndenominations; and by the unreserved confession of avowed enemies to the\nGospel. In this point of view the writings of the ancient fathers of the\nChristian church are invaluable. They contain not only frequent\nreferences and allusions to the books of the New Testament, but also\nsuch numerous professed quotations from them, that it is demonstratively\ncertain that these books existed in their present state a few years\nafter the conclusion of Christ\u2019s ministry upon earth. No unbeliever in\nthe apostolic age, in the age immediately subsequent to it, or, indeed,\nin any age whatever, was ever able to disprove the facts recorded in\nthese books; and it does not appear that in the early times any such\nattempt was made. The facts, therefore, related in the New Testament\nmust be admitted to have really happened. But if all the circumstances\nof the history of Jesus, that is, his miraculous conception in the womb\nof the virgin, the time at which he was born, the place where he was\nborn, the family from which he was descended, the nature of the\ndoctrines which he preached, the meanness of his condition, his\nrejection, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, with many other\nminute particulars; if all these various circumstances in the history of\nJesus exactly accord with the predictions of the Old Testament relative\nto the promised Messiah, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be\nblessed, it follows that Jesus was that Messiah. And again: if Jesus\nreally performed the miracles as related in the Gospels, and was\nperfectly acquainted with the thoughts and designs of men, his divine\nmission cannot be doubted. Lastly: if he really foretold his own death\nand resurrection, the descent of the Holy Ghost, its miraculous effects,\nthe sufferings of the Apostles, the call of the Gentiles, and the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, it necessarily follows that he spake by the\nauthority of God himself. These, and many other arguments, founded in\nthe more than human character of Jesus, in the rapid propagation of the\nGospel, in the excellence of its precepts and doctrines, and in the\nconstancy, intrepidity, and fortitude of its early professors,\nincontrovertibly establish the truth and divine origin of the Christian\nreligion, and afford to us, who live in these latter times, the most\npositive confirmation of the promise of our Lord, that \u201cthe gates of\nhell shall not prevail against it.\u201d\n\n3. The Gospels recount those wonderful and important events with which\nthe Christian religion and its divine Author were introduced into the\nworld, and which have produced so great a change in the principles, the\nmanners, the morals, and the temporal as well as spiritual condition of\nmankind. They relate the first appearance of Christ upon earth, his\nextraordinary and miraculous birth, the testimony borne to him by his\nforerunner, John the Baptist, the temptation in the wilderness, the\nopening of his divine commission, the pure, the perfect, and sublime\nmorality which he taught, especially in his inimitable sermon on the\nmount, the infinite superiority which he showed to every other moral\nteacher, both in the matter and manner of his discourses, more\nparticularly by crushing vice in its very cradle, in the first risings\nof wicked desires and propensities in the heart, by giving a decided\npreference to the mild, gentle, passive, conciliating virtues, before\nthat violent, vindictive, high-spirited, unforgiving temper, which has\nbeen always too much the favourite character of the world; by requiring\nus to forgive our very enemies, and to do good to them that hate us; by\nexcluding from our devotions, our alms, and all our virtues, all regard\nto fame, reputation, and applause; by laying down two great general\nprinciples of morality, love to God, and love to mankind, and deducing\nfrom thence every other human duty; by conveying his instructions under\nthe easy, familiar, and impressive form of parables; by expressing\nhimself in a tone of dignity and authority unknown before; by\nexemplifying every virtue that he taught in his own unblemished and\nperfect life and conversation; and, above all, by adding those awful\nsanctions, which he alone, of all moral instructers, had the power to\nhold out, eternal rewards to the virtuous, and eternal punishments to\nthe wicked. The sacred narratives then represent to us the high\ncharacter that he assumed; the claim he made to a divine original; the\nwonderful miracles he wrought in proof of his divinity; the various\nprophecies which plainly marked him out as the Messiah, the great\nDeliverer of the Jews; the declarations he made that he came to offer\nhimself a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind; the cruel indignities,\nsufferings, and persecutions to which, in consequence of this great\ndesign, he was exposed; the accomplishment of it, by the painful and\nignominious death to which he submitted, by his resurrection after three\ndays from the grave, by his ascension into heaven, by his sitting there\nat the right hand of God, and performing the office of a Mediator and\nIntercessor for the sinful sons of men, till he shall come a second time\nin his glory to sit in judgment on all mankind, and decide their final\ndoom of happiness or misery for ever. These are the momentous, the\ninteresting, truths on which the Gospels principally dwell.\n\n4. We find in the ancient records a twofold order, in which the\nevangelists are arranged. They stand either thus, Matthew, John, Luke,\nMark; or thus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The first is made with\nreference to the character and the rank of the persons, according to\nwhich the Apostles precede their assistants and attendants (\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n_comitibus_.) It is observed in the oldest Latin translations and in the\nGothic; sometimes also in the works of Latin teachers; but among all the\nGreek MSS. only in that at Cambridge. But the other, namely, Matthew,\nMark, Luke, and John, is, in all the old translations of Asia and\nAfrica, in all catalogues of the canonical books, and in Greek MSS. in\ngeneral, the customary and established one as it regarded not personal\ncircumstances, but as it had respect to chronological; which is to us a\nplain indication what accounts concerning the succession of the\nevangelists, the Asiatic, and Greek churches, and also those of Africa,\nhad before them, when the Christian books were arranged in collections.\nIt is a considerable advantage, says Micha\u00eblis, that a history of such\nimportance as that of Jesus Christ has been recorded by the pens of\nseparate and independent writers, who, from the variations which are\nvisible in these accounts, have incontestably proved that they did not\nunite with a view of imposing a fabulous narrative on mankind. That St.\nMatthew had never seen the Gospel of St. Luke, nor St. Luke the Gospel\nof St. Matthew, is evident from a comparison of their writings. The\nGospel of St. Mark, which was written later, must likewise have been\nunknown to St. Luke; and that St. Mark had ever read the Gospel of St.\nLuke, is at least improbable, because their Gospels so frequently\ndiffer. It is a generally received opinion, that St. Mark made use of\nSt. Matthew\u2019s Gospel in the composition of his own; but this is an\nunfounded hypothesis. The Gospel of St. John, being written after the\nother three, supplies what they had omitted. Thus have we four distinct\nand independent writers of one and the same history; and, though\ntrifling variations may seem to exist in their narratives, yet these\nadmit of easy solutions; and in all matters of consequence, whether\ndoctrinal or historical, there is such a manifest agreement between them\nas is to be found in no other writings whatever. Though we have only\nfour original writers of the life of Jesus, the evidence of the history\ndoes not rest on the testimony of four men. Christianity had been\npropagated in a great part of the world before any of them had written,\non the testimony of thousands and tens of thousands, who had been\nwitnesses of the great facts which they have recorded; so that the\nwriting of these particular books is not to be considered as the cause,\nbut rather the effect, of the belief of Christianity; nor could those\nbooks have been written and received as they were, namely, as authentic\nhistories, of the subject of which all persons of that age were judges,\nif the facts they have recorded had not been well known to be true.\n\n5. The term Gospel is often used in Scripture to signify the whole\nChristian doctrine: hence, \u201cpreaching the Gospel\u201d is declaring all the\ntruths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity. This is\ntermed, \u201cthe Gospel of the grace of God,\u201d because it flows from God\u2019s\nfree love and goodness, Acts xx, 24; and when truly and faithfully\npreached, is accompanied with the influences of the divine Spirit. It is\ncalled, \u201cthe Gospel of the kingdom,\u201d because it treats of the kingdom of\ngrace, and shows the way to the kingdom of glory. It is styled, \u201cthe\nGospel of Christ,\u201d because he is the Author and great subject of it,\nRomans i, 16; and \u201cthe Gospel of peace and salvation,\u201d because it\npublishes peace with God to the penitent and believing, gives, to such,\npeace of conscience and tranquillity of mind, and is the means of their\nsalvation, present and eternal. As it displays the glory of God and of\nChrist, and ensures to his true followers eternal glory, it is entitled,\n\u201cthe glorious Gospel,\u201d and, \u201cthe everlasting Gospel,\u201d because it\ncommenced from the fall of man, is permanent throughout all time, and\nproduces effects which are everlasting.\n\nGOVERNMENT OF THE HEBREWS. The posterity of Jacob, while remaining in\nEgypt, maintained, notwithstanding the augmentation of their numbers,\nthat patriarchal form of government which is so prevalent among the\nnomades. Every father of a family exercised a father\u2019s authority over\nthose of his own household. Every tribe obeyed its own _prince_, \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0,\nwho was originally the first-born of the founder of the tribe, but who,\nin process of time, appears to have been elected. As the people\nincreased in numbers, various heads of families united together, and\nselected some individual from their own body, who was somewhat\ndistinguished, for their leader. Perhaps the choice was made merely by\ntacit consent; and, without giving him the title of ruler in form, they\nwere willing, while convinced of his virtues, to render submission to\nhis will. Such a union of families was denominated \u201cthe house of the\nfather;\u201d and \u201cthe house of the father of the families,\u201d Num. iii, 24,\n30, 35. In other instances, although the number varied, being sometimes\nmore and sometimes less than a thousand, it was denominated, \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd,\n_a thousand_. \u201cNow therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your\ntribes, and by your _thousands_;\u201d \u201cthe thousands of Judah;\u201d \u201cthe\nthousands of Israel,\u201d &c, 1 Sam. x, 19; xxiii, 23; Judges vi, 15; Num.\nxxvi, 5\u201350. The heads of these united families were designated \u201cheads of\nthousands,\u201d Num. i, 16; x, 4. They held themselves in subjection to the\n\u201cprinces of the tribes.\u201d Both the princes and heads of families are\nmentioned under the common names of \u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, _seniors_ or _senators_, and\n\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd _heads of tribes_. Following the law of reason, and the rules\nestablished by custom, they governed with a paternal authority the\ntribes and united families; and, while they left the minor concerns to\nthe heads of individual families, aimed to superintend and promote the\nbest interests of the community generally. Originally, it fell to the\nprinces of the tribes themselves to keep genealogical tables:\nsubsequently, they employed scribes especially for this purpose, who, in\nthe progress of time, acquired so great authority, that under the name\nof \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, translated, in the English version, _officers_, they were\npermitted to exercise a share in the government of the nation. It was by\nmagistrates of this description that the Hebrews were governed while\nthey remained in Egypt; and the Egyptian kings made no objection to it,\nExod. iii, 16; v, 1, 14, 15, 19.\n\n2. The posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were set apart and\ndestined to the great object of preserving and transmitting the true\nreligion, Gen. xviii, 16\u201320; xvii, 9\u201314; xii, 3; xxii, 18; xxviii, 14.\nHaving increased in numbers, it appeared very evident that they could\nnot live among nations given to idolatry without running the hazard of\nbecoming infected with the same evil. They were, therefore, in the\nprovidence of God, assigned to a particular country, the extent of which\nwas so small, that they were obliged, if they would live independently\nof other nations, to give up in a great measure the life of shepherds,\nand devote themselves to agriculture. Farther: very many of the Hebrews\nduring their residence in Egypt had fallen into idolatrous habits. These\nwere to be brought back again to the knowledge of the true God, and all\nwere to be excited to engage in those undertakings which should be found\nnecessary for the support of the true religion. All the Mosaic\ninstitutions aim at the accomplishment of these objects. The fundamental\nprinciple, therefore, of those institutions was this,--that the true\nGod, the Creator and Governor of the universe, and none other, ought to\nbe worshipped. To secure this end the more certainly, God became king to\nthe Hebrews. Accordingly, the land of Canaan, which was destined to be\noccupied by them, was declared to be the land of Jehovah, of which he\nwas to be the king, and the Hebrews merely the hereditary occupants. God\npromulgated, from the clouds of Mount Sinai, the prominent laws for the\ngovernment of his people, considered as a religious community, Exod. xx.\nThese laws were afterward more fully developed and illustrated by Moses.\nThe rewards which should accompany the obedient, and the punishments\nwhich should be the lot of the transgressor, were at the same time\nannounced, and the Hebrews promised by a solemn oath to obey, Exodus\nxxi-xxiv; Deut. xxvii-xxx.\n\n3. In order to keep the true nature of the community fully and\nconstantly in view, all the ceremonial institutions had reference to\nGod, not only as the Sovereign of the universe, but as the King of the\npeople. The people were taught to feel that the tabernacle was not only\nthe temple of Jehovah, but the palace of their King; that the priests\nwere the royal servants, and were bound to attend not only to sacred but\nto secular affairs, and were to receive, as their salary, the first\ntithes, which the people, as subjects, were led to consider a part of\nthat revenue which was due to God, their immediate Sovereign. Other\nthings of a less prominent and important nature had reference to the\nsame great end. Since, therefore, God was the Sovereign, in a civil\npoint of view as well as others, of Palestine and its inhabitants, the\ncommission of idolatry by any inhabitant of that country, even a\nforeigner, was a defection from the true King. It was, in fact, treason;\nwas considered a crime equal in aggravation to that of murder; and was,\nconsequently, attended with the severest punishment. Whoever invited or\nexhorted to idolatry was considered seditious, and was obnoxious to the\nsame punishment. Incantations also, necromancy, and other practices of\nthis nature, were looked upon as arts of a kindred aspect with idolatry\nitself; and the same punishment was to be inflicted upon the\nperpetrators of them as upon idolaters. The same rigour of inquiry after\nthe perpetrators of idolatry was enforced, that was exhibited in respect\nto other crimes of the deepest aggravation; and the person who knew of\nthe commission of idolatry in another was bound by the law to complain\nof the person thus guilty before the judge, though the criminal\nsustained the near relationship of a wife or a brother, a daughter or a\nson.\n\n4. Many things in the administration of the government remained the same\nunder the Mosaic economy, as it had been before. The authority which\nthey had previously possessed, was continued in the time of Moses and\nafter his time, to the princes of the tribes, to the heads of families\nand combinations of families, and to the genealogists, Num. xi, 16;\nDeut. xvi, 18; xx, 5; xxxi, 28. Yet Moses, by the advice of Jethro, his\nfather-in-law, increased the number of rulers by the appointment of an\nadditional number of judges; some to judge over ten, some over fifty,\nsome over a hundred, and some over a thousand, men, Exodus xviii, 13\u201326.\nThese judges were elected by the suffrages of the people from those who,\nby their authority and rank, might be reckoned among the rulers or\nprinces of the people. The inferior judges, that is, those who\nsuperintended the judicial concerns of the smaller numbers, were\nsubordinate to the superior judges, or those who judged a larger number;\nand cases, accordingly, of a difficult nature went up from the inferior\nto the superior judges. Those of a very difficult character, so much so\nas to be perplexing to the superior judges, were appealed to Moses\nhimself, and in some cases from Moses to the high priest. The judges, of\nwhom we have now spoken, sustained a civil as well as a judicial\nauthority, and were included in the list of those who are denominated\nthe elders and princes of Israel: that is to say, supposing they were\nchosen from the elders and princes, they did not forfeit their seat\namong them by accepting a judicial office; and, on the contrary, the\nrespectability attached to their office, supposing they were not chosen\nfrom them, entitled them to be reckoned in their number, Deut. xxxi, 28;\nJoshua viii, 33; xxiii, 2; xxiv, 1. The various civil officers that have\nbeen mentioned, namely, judges, heads of families, genealogists, elders,\nprinces of the tribes, &c, were dispersed, as a matter of course, in\ndifferent parts of the country. Those of them, accordingly, who dwelt in\nthe same city, or the same neighbourhood, formed the _comitia_, senate\nor legislative assembly of their immediate vicinity, Deut. xix, 12; xxv,\n8, 9; Judges viii, 14; ix, 3\u201346; xi, 5; 1 Sam. viii, 4; xvi, 4. When all\nthat dwelt in any particular tribe were convened, they formed the\nlegislative assembly of the tribe; and when they were convened in one\nbody from all the tribes, they formed in like manner the legislative\nassembly of the nation, and were the representatives of all the people,\nJoshua xxiii, 1, 2; xxiv, 1. The priests, who were the learned class of\nthe community, and beside were hereditary officers in the state, being\nset apart for civil as well as religious purposes, had, by the divine\ncommand, a right to a sitting in this assembly, Exod. xxxii, 29; Num.\nxxxvi, 15; viii, 5\u201326. Being thus called upon to sustain very different\nand yet very important offices, they became the subjects of that envy\nwhich would naturally be excited by the honour and the advantages\nattached to their situation. In order to confirm them in the duties\nwhich devolved upon them, and to throw at the greatest distance the mean\nand lurking principle just mentioned, God, after the sedition of Korah,\nDathan, and Abiram, sanctioned the separation of the whole tribe, which\nhad been previously made to the service of religion and the state, by a\nmost evident and striking miracle, Num. xvi, 1\u20137.\n\n5. Each tribe was governed by its own rulers, and consequently to a\ncertain extent constituted a civil community, independent of the other\ntribes, Judges xx, 11\u201346; 2 Sam. ii, 4; Judges i, 21. If any affair\nconcerned the whole or many of the tribes, it was determined by them in\nconjunction in the legislative assembly of the nation, Judges xi, 1\u201311;\n1 Chron. v, 10, 18, 19; 2 Sam. iii, 17; 1 Kings xii, 1\u201324. If one tribe\nfound itself unequal to the execution of any proposed plan, it might\nconnect itself with another, or even a number of the other tribes,\nJudges i, 1\u20133, 22; iv, 10; vii, 23, 24; viii, 1\u20133. But, although in many\nthings each tribe existed by itself, and acted separately, yet in others\nthey were united, and formed but one community: for all the tribes were\nbound together, so as to form one church and one civil community, not\nonly by their common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not only by\nthe common promises which they had received from those ancestors; not\nonly by the need in which they stood of mutual counsel and assistance;\nbut also by the circumstance that God was their common King, and that\nthey had a common tabernacle for his palace, and a common sacerdotal and\nLevitical order for his ministers. Accordingly, every tribe exerted a\nsort of inspection over the others, as respected their observance of the\nlaw. If any thing had been neglected, or any wrong had been done, the\nparticular tribe concerned was amenable to the others; and, in case\njustice could not be secured in any other way, might be punished with\nwar, Joshua xxii, 9\u201334; Judges xx, 1, &c.\n\n6. When we remember that God was expressly chosen the King of the\npeople, and that he enacted laws and decided litigated points of\nimportance, Numbers xvii, 1\u201311; xxvii, 1\u201311; xxxvi, 1\u201310; when we\nremember also that he answered and solved questions proposed, Num. xv,\n32\u201341; Joshua vii, 16\u201322; Judges i, 1, 2; xx, 18, 27, 28; 1 Sam. xiv,\n37; xxiii, 9\u201312; xxx, 8; 2 Sam. ii, 1; that he threatened punishment,\nand that, in some instances, he actually inflicted it upon the hardened\nand impenitent, Num. xi, 33\u201335; xii, 1\u201315; xvi, 1\u201350; Lev. xxvi, 3\u201346;\nDeut. xxvi-xxx; when, finally, we take into account, that he promised\nprophets, who were to be, as it were, his ambassadors, Deut. xviii, and\nafterward sent them according to his promise, and that, in order to\npreserve the true religion, he governed the whole people by a striking\nand peculiar providence, we are at liberty to say, that God was, in\nfact, the Monarch of the people, and that the government was a\ntheocracy. But, although the government of the Jews was a theocracy, it\nwas not destitute of the usual forms which exist in civil governments\namong men. God, it is true, was the King, and the high priest, if we may\nbe allowed so to speak, was his minister of state; but still the\npolitical affairs were in a great measure under the disposal of the\nelders, princes, &c. It was to them that Moses gave the divine commands,\ndetermined expressly their powers; and submitted their requests to the\ndecision of God, Num. xiv, 5; xvi, 4, &c; xxvii, 5; xxxvi, 5, 6. It was\nin reference to the great power possessed by these men, who formed the\nlegislative assembly of the nation, that Josephus pronounced the\ngovernment to be aristocratical. But from the circumstance that the\npeople possessed so much influence, as to render it necessary to submit\nlaws to them for their ratification, and that they even took upon\nthemselves sometimes to propose laws or to resist those which were\nenacted; from the circumstance also that the legislature of the nation\nhad not the power of laying taxes, and that the civil code was regulated\nand enforced by God himself, independently of the legislature, Lowman\nand Micha\u00eblis are in favour of considering the Hebrew government a\ndemocracy. In support of their opinion such passages are exhibited as\nthe following, Exodus xix, 7, 8; xxiv, 3\u20138; Deut. xxix, 9\u201314; Joshua ix,\n18, 19; xxiii, 1, &c; xxiv, 2, &c; 1 Samuel x, 24; xi, 14, 15; Num.\nxxvii, 1\u20138; xxxvi, 1\u20139. The truth seems to lie between these two\nopinions. The Hebrew government, putting out of view its theocratical\nfeature, was of a mixed form, in some respects approaching to a\ndemocracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character.\n\n7. From what has been said, it is clear, that the Ruler and supreme Head\nof the political community in question was God, who, with the design of\npromoting the good of his subjects, condescended to exhibit his visible\npresence in the tabernacle, wherever it travelled and wherever it dwelt.\nIf, in reference to the assertion, that God was the Ruler of the Jewish\nstate, it should be inquired what part was sustained by Moses, the\nanswer is, that God was the Ruler, the people were his subjects, and\nMoses was the mediator or internuncio between them. But the title most\nappropriate to Moses, and most descriptive of the part he sustained, is\nthat of legislator of the Israelites and their deliverer from the\nEgyptians. If the same question should be put in respect to Joshua, the\nanswer would be, that he was not properly the successor of Moses, and\nthat, so far from being the ruler of the state, he was designated by the\nruler to sustain the subordinate office of military leader of the\nIsraelites in their conquest of the land of Canaan.\n\n8. But, although the Hebrew state was so constituted, that beside God,\nthe invisible King, and his visible servant, the high priest, there was\nno other general ruler of the commonwealth, yet it is well known that\nthere were rulers of a high rank, appointed at various times, called\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8, a word which not only signifies a _judge_ in the usual sense of\nthe term, but any governor, or administrator of public affairs, 1 Sam.\nviii, 20; Isaiah xi, 4; 1 Kings iii, 9. The power lodged in these\nrulers, who are called judges in the Scriptures, seems to have been in\nsome respects paramount to that of the general _comitia_ of the nation,\nand we find that they declared war, led armies, concluded peace; and\nthat this was not the whole, if indeed it was the most important part,\nof their duties. For many of the judges, for instance, Jair, Ibzan,\nElon, Abdon, Eli, and Samuel, ruled the nation in peace. They might\nappropriately enough be called the supreme executive, exercising all the\nrights of sovereignty, with the exception of enacting laws, and imposing\ntaxes. They were honoured, but they bore no external badges of\ndistinction; they were distinguished, but they enjoyed no special\nprivileges themselves, and communicated none to their posterity. They\nsubserved the public good without emolument, that the state might be\nprosperous, that religion might be preserved, and that God alone might\nbe King in Israel. It ought to be observed, however, that not all the\njudges ruled the whole nation: some of them presided over only a few\nseparate tribes.\n\n9. God, in the character of King, had governed the Israelites for\nsixteen ages. He ruled them, on the terms which he himself, through the\nagency of Moses, had proposed to them, namely, that if they observed\ntheir allegiance to him, they should be prosperous; if not, adversity\nand misery would be the consequence, Exod. xix, 4, 5; xxiii, 20\u201333; Lev.\nxxvi, 3\u201346; Deut. xxviii-xxx. We may learn from the whole book of\nJudges, and from the first eight chapters of Samuel, how exactly the\nresult, from the days of Joshua down to the time of Samuel, agreed with\nthese conditions. But in the time of Samuel, the government, in point of\nform, was changed into a monarchy. The election of king, however, was\ncommitted to God, who chose one by lot: so that God was still the Ruler,\nand the king the vicegerent. The terms of the government, as respected\nGod, were the same as before, and the same duties and principles were\ninculcated on the Israelites as had been originally, 1 Sam. viii, 7; x,\n17\u201323; xii, 14, 15, 20\u201322, 24, 25. In consequence of the fact, that Saul\ndid not choose at all times to obey the commands of God, the kingdom was\ntaken from him and given to another, 1 Sam. xiii, 5\u201314; xv, 1\u201331. David,\nthrough the agency of Samuel, was selected by Jehovah for king, who thus\ngave a proof that he still retained, and was disposed to exercise, the\nright of appointing the ruler under him, 1 Samuel xvi, 1\u20133. David was\nfirst made king over Judah; but as he received his appointment from God,\nand acted under his authority, the other eleven tribes submitted to him,\n2 Sam. v, 1\u20133; 1 Chron. xxviii, 4\u20136. David expressly acknowledged God as\nthe Sovereign, and, as having a right to appoint the immediate ruler of\nthe people, 1 Chron. xxviii, 7\u201310; he religiously obeyed his statutes,\nthe people adhered firmly to God, and his reign was prosperous. The\nparamount authority of God, as the King of the nation, and his right to\nappoint one who should act in the capacity of his vicegerent, are\nexpressly recognized in the books of Kings and Chronicles.\n\n10. On the subversion of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus, the founder of\nthe Persian monarchy, (B. C. 543,) he authorized the Jews, by an edict,\nto return into their own country, with full permission to enjoy their\nlaws and religion, and caused the city and temple of Jerusalem to be\nrebuilt. In the following year, part of the Jews returned under\nZerubbabel, and renewed their sacrifices: but the re\u00ebrection of the city\nand temple being interrupted for several years by the treachery and\nhostility of the Samaritans or Cutheans, the avowed enemies of the Jews,\nthe completion and dedication of the temple did not take place until the\nyear B. C. 511, six years after the accession of Cyrus. The rebuilding\nof Jerusalem was accomplished, and the reformation of their\necclesiastical and civil polity was effected, by the two divinely\ninspired and pious governors, Ezra and Nehemiah; but the theocratic\ngovernment does not appear to have been restored. The new temple was\nnot, as formerly, God\u2019s palace; and the cloud of his presence did not\ntake possession of it. After their death the Jews were governed by their\nhigh priests, in subjection however to the Persian kings, to whom they\npaid tribute, Ezra iv, 13; vii, 24, but with the full enjoyment of their\nother magistrates, as well as their liberties, civil and religious.\nNearly three centuries of uninterrupted prosperity ensued, until the\nreign of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were most cruelly\noppressed, and compelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the\nable conduct of Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, and his valiant brothers, the\nJews maintained a religious war for twenty-six years with five\nsuccessive kings of Syria; and after destroying upward of two hundred\nthousand of their best troops, the Maccabees finally established the\nindependence of their own country and the aggrandizement of their\nfamily. This illustrious house, whose princes united the regal and\npontifical dignity in their own persons, administered the affairs of the\nJews during a period of one hundred and twenty-six years; until,\ndisputes arising between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the\nlatter was defeated by the Romans under Pompey, who captured Jerusalem,\nand reduced Judea to dependence, B. C. 59.\n\nGOVERNOR. Judea having been reduced into a province by the Romans, they\nsent governors thither, who were subject not only to the emperors, but\nalso to the governors of Syria, whereof Judea made a part.\n\nGOURD, \u05e7\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05df, Jonah iv, 6, 7, 9, 10. Micha\u00eblis, in his remarks on this\nsubject, says, \u201cCelsius appears to me to have proved that it is the\n_kiki_ of the Egyptians.\u201d He refers it to the class of the _ricinus_,\nthe great _catapucus_. According to Dioscorides, it is of rapid growth,\nand bears a berry from which an oil is expressed. In the Arabic version\nof this passage, which is to be found in Avicenna, it is rendered, \u201cfrom\nthence is pressed the oil which they call oil of _kiki_, which is the\noil of Alkeroa.\u201d So Herodotus says: \u201cThe inhabitants of the marshy\ngrounds in Egypt make use of an oil, which they term the _kiki_,\nexpressed from the Sillicyprian plant. In Greece this plant springs\nspontaneously, without any cultivation; but the Egyptians sow it on the\nbanks of the river and of the canals; it there produces fruit in great\nabundance, but of a very strong odour. When gathered, they obtain from\nit, either by friction or pressure, an unctuous liquid, which diffuses\nan offensive smell, but for burning it is equal in quality to the oil of\nolives.\u201d This plant rises with a strong herbaceous stalk to the height\nof ten or twelve feet; and is furnished with very large leaves, not\nunlike those of the plane tree. Rabbi Kimchi says that the people of the\neast plant them before their shops for the sake of the shade, and to\nrefresh themselves under them. Niebuhr says, \u201cI saw, for the first time\nat Basra, the plant _ei-keroa_, mentioned in Micha\u00eblis\u2019s \u2018Questions.\u2019 It\nhas the form of a tree. The trunk appeared to me rather to resemble\nleaves than wood; nevertheless, it is harder than that which bears the\nAdam\u2019s fig. Each branch of the keroa has but one large leaf, with six or\nseven foldings in it. This plant was near to a rivulet, which watered it\namply. At the end of October, 1765, it had risen in five months\u2019 time\nabout eight feet, and bore at once flowers and fruit, ripe and unripe.\nAnother tree of this species, which had not had so much water, had not\ngrown more in a whole year. The flowers and leaves of it which I\ngathered withered in a few minutes; as do all plants of a rapid growth.\nThis tree is called at Aleppo, _palma Christi_. An oil is made from it\ncalled _oleum de keroa_; _oleum cicinum_; _oleum ficus infernalis_. The\nChristians and Jews of Mosul (Nineveh) say, it was not the _keroa_ whose\nshadow refreshed Jonah, but a sort of gourd, _el-kera_, which has very\nlarge leaves, very large fruit, and lasts but about four months.\u201d The\nepithet which the prophet uses in speaking of the plant, \u201cson of the\nnight it was, and, as a son of the night it died,\u201d does not compel us to\nbelieve that it grew in a single night, but, either by a strong oriental\nfigure that it was of rapid growth, or akin to night in the shade it\nspread for his repose. The figure is not uncommon in the east, and one\nof our own poets has called the rose \u201cchild of the summer.\u201d Nor are we\nbound to take the expression \u201con the morrow,\u201d as strictly importing the\nvery next day, since the word has reference to much more distant time,\nExod. xiii, 14; Deut. vi, 20; Joshua iv, 6. It might be simply taken as\n_afterward_. But the author of \u201cScripture Illustrated\u201d justly remarks,\n\u201cAs the history in Jonah expressly says, _the_ Lord prepared this plant,\nno doubt we may conceive of it as an extraordinary one of its kind,\nremarkably rapid in its growth, remarkably hard in its stem, remarkably\nvigorous in its branches, and remarkable for the extensive spread of its\nleaves and the deep gloom of their shadow; and, after a certain\nduration, remarkable for a sudden withering, and a total uselessness to\nthe impatient prophet.\u201d\n\n2. We read of the wild gourd in 2 Kings iv, 39; that Elisha, being at\nGilgal during a great famine, bade one of his servants prepare something\nfor the entertainment of the prophets who were in that place. The\nservant, going into the field, found, as our translators render it, some\n_wild gourds_, gathered a lapful of them, and, having brought them with\nhim, cut them in pieces and put them into a pot, not knowing what they\nwere. When they were brought to table, the prophets, having tasted them,\nthought they were mortal poison. Immediately, the man of God called for\nflour, threw it into the pot, and desired them to eat without any\napprehensions. They did so, and perceived nothing of the bitterness\nwhereof they were before sensible. This plant or fruit is called in\nHebrew \u05e4\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea and \u05e4\u05e7\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd. There have been various opinions about it.\nCelsius supposes it the _colocynth_. The leaves of the plant are large,\nplaced alternate; the flowers white, and the fruit of the gourd kind, of\nthe size of a large apple, which, when ripe, is yellow, and of a\npleasant and inviting appearance, but, to the taste intolerably bitter,\nand proves a drastic purgative. It seems that the fruit, whatever it\nmight have been, was early thought proper for an ornament in\narchitecture. It furnished a model for some of the carved work of cedar\nin Solomon\u2019s temple, 1 Kings vi, 18; vii, 24.\n\nGRACE. This word is understood in several senses: for beauty, graceful\nform, and agreeableness of person, Prov. i, 9; iii, 22. For favour,\nfriendship, kindness, Gen. vi, 8; xviii, 3; Rom. xi, 6; 2 Tim. i, 9. For\npardon, mercy, undeserved remission of offences, Eph. ii, 5; Col. i, 6.\nFor certain gifts of God, which he bestows freely, when, where, and on\nwhom, he pleases; such are the gifts of miracles, prophecy, languages,\n&c, Rom. xv, 15; 1 Cor. xv, 10; Eph. iii, 8, &c. For the Gospel\ndispensation, in contradistinction to that of the law, Rom. vi, 14; 1\nPeter v, 12. For a liberal and charitable disposition, 2 Cor. viii, 7.\nFor eternal life, or final salvation, 1 Peter i, 13. In theological\nlanguage grace also signifies divine influence upon the soul; and it\nderives the name from this being the effect of the great grace or favour\nof God to mankind. Austin defines inward actual grace to be the\ninspiration of love, which prompts us to practise according to what we\nknow, out of a religious affection and compliance. He says, likewise,\nthat the grace of God is the blessing of God\u2019s sweet influence, whereby\nwe are induced to take pleasure in that which he commands, to desire and\nto love it; and that if God does not prevent us with this blessing, what\nhe commands, not only is not perfected, but is not so much as begun in\nus. Without the inward grace of Jesus Christ, man is not able to do the\nleast thing that is good. He stands in need of this grace to begin,\ncontinue, and finish all the good he does, or rather, which God does in\nhim and with him, by his grace. This grace is free; it is not due to us:\nif it were due to us, it would be no more grace; it would be a debt,\nRom. xi, 6; it is in its nature an assistance so powerful and\nefficacious, that it surmounts the obstinacy of the most rebellious\nhuman heart, without destroying human liberty. There is no subject on\nwhich Christian doctors have written so largely, as on the several\nparticulars relating to the grace of God. The difficulty consists in\nreconciling human liberty with the operation of divine grace; the\nconcurrence of man with the influence and assistance of the Almighty.\nAnd who is able to set up an accurate boundary between these two things?\nWho can pretend to know how far the privileges of grace extend over the\nheart of man, and what that man\u2019s liberty exactly is, who is prevented,\nenlightened, moved, and attracted by grace?\n\nGRAPE, \u05e2\u05e0\u05d1, the fruit of the vine. There were fine vineyards and\nexcellent grapes in the promised land. The bunch of grapes which was cut\nin the valley of Eshcol, and was brought upon a staff between two men to\nthe camp of Israel at Kadeshbarnea, Num. xiii, 23, may give us some\nidea, of the largeness of the fruit in that country. It would be easy to\nproduce a great number of witnesses to prove that the grapes in those\nregions grow to a prodigious size. By Calmet, Scheuchzer, and Harmer,\nthis subject has been exhausted. Doubdan assures us, that in the valley\nof Eshcol were clusters of grapes to be found of ten or twelve pounds.\nMoses, in the law, commanded that when the Israelites gathered their\ngrapes, they should not be careful to pick up those that fell, nor be so\nexact as to leave none upon the vines: what fell, and what were left\nbehind, the poor had liberty to glean, Lev. xix, 10; Deut. xxiv, 21, 22.\nFor the same beneficent purpose the second vintage was reserved: this,\nin those warm countries, was considerable, though never so good nor so\nplentiful as the former. The wise son of Sirach says, \u201cI waked up last\nof all, as one that gleaneth after grape gatherers. By the blessing of\nthe Lord, I profited, and filled my wine-press like a gatherer of\ngrapes,\u201d Ecclus. xxxiii, 16. It is frequent in Scripture to describe a\ntotal destruction by the similitude of a vine, stripped in such a\nmanner, that there was not a bunch of grapes left for those who came to\nglean. The prophecy, \u201cHe shall wash his clothes in wine, and his\ngarments in the blood of the grape,\u201d Gen. xlix, 11, means that he shall\nreside in a country where grapes were in abundance. The vineyards of\nEngedi and of Sorek, so famous in Scripture, were in the tribe of Judah;\nand so was the valley of Eshcol, whence the spies brought those\nextraordinary clusters. \u201cIt appears,\u201d says Manti, \u201cthat the cultivation\nof the vine was never abandoned in this country. The grapes, which are\nwhite, and pretty large, are, however, not much superior in size to\nthose of Europe. This peculiarity seems to be confined to those in this\nneighbourhood; for at the distance of only six miles to the south, is\nthe rivulet and valley called Escohol, celebrated in Scripture for its\nfertility, and for producing very large grapes. In other parts of Syria,\nalso, I have seen grapes of such an extraordinary size, that a bunch of\nthem would be a sufficient burden for one man. It is not at all\nsurprising, therefore, that when the spies, sent by Moses to reconnoitre\nthe promised land, returned to give him an account of its fertility, it\nrequired two of them to carry a bunch of grapes, which they brought with\nthem suspended from a pole placed upon their shoulders.\u201d Many eye\nwitnesses assure us, that in Palestine the vines, and bunches of grapes,\nare almost of an incredible size. \u201cAt Beidtdjin,\u201d says Schultz, a\n\u201cvillage near Ptolemais, we took our supper under a large vine, the stem\nof which was nearly a foot and a half in diameter, the height about\nthirty feet, and covered with its branches and shoots (for the shoots\nmust be supported) a hut of more than fifty feet long and broad. The\nbunches of these grapes are so large that they weigh from ten to twelve\npounds, and the grapes may be compared to our plumbs. Such a bunch is\ncut off and laid on a board, round which they seat themselves, and each\nhelps himself to as many as he pleases.\u201d Forster, in his Hebrew\nDictionary, (under the word Eshcol,) says, that he knew at Nurnburg, a\nmonk of the name of Acacius, who had resided eight years in Palestine,\nand had also preached at Hebron, where he had seen bunches of grapes\nwhich were as much as two men could conveniently carry.\n\nThe wild grapes, \u05d0\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd, are the fruit of the wild or bastard vine; sour\nand unpalatable, and good for nothing but to make verjuice. In Isaiah v,\n2\u20134, the Lord complains that he had planted his people as a choice vine,\nexcellent as that of Sorek; but that its degeneracy had defeated his\npurpose, and disappointed his hopes: when he expected that it should\nbring forth choice fruit, it yielded only such as was bad; not merely\nuseless and unprofitable grapes, but clusters offensive and noxious. By\nthe force and intent of the allegory, says Bishop Lowth, \u201cgood grapes\u201d\nought to be opposed \u201cto fruit of a dangerous and pernicious quality,\u201d\nas, in the application of it, to judgment is opposed tyranny, and to\nrighteousness oppression. Hasselquist is inclined to believe that the\nprophet here means the _solanum incanum_, \u201choary nightshade,\u201d because it\nis common in Egypt and Palestine, and the Arabian name agrees well with\nit. The Arabs call it _aneb el dib_, \u201cwolf\u2019s grapes.\u201d The prophet could\nnot have found a plant more opposite to the vine than this; for it grows\nmuch in the vineyards, and is very pernicious to them. It is likewise a\nvine. Jeremiah uses the same image, and applies it to the same purpose,\nin an elegant paraphrase of this part of Isaiah\u2019s parable, in his\nflowing and plaintive manner: \u201cI planted thee a Sorek, a scion perfectly\ngenuine. How then art thou changed, and become to me the degenerate\nshoot of a strange vine!\u201d Jer. ii, 21. From some sort of poisonous\nfruits of the grape kind, Moses, Deut. xxxii, 32, 33, has taken those\nstrong and highly poetical images with which he has set forth the future\ncorruption and extreme degeneracy of the Israelites, in an allegory\nwhich has a near relation, both in its subject and imagery, to this of\nIsaiah:--\n\n                 \u201cTheir vine is from the vine of Sodom,\n                 And from the fields of Gomorrah.\n                 Their grapes are grapes of gall;\n                 And their clusters are bitter.\n                 Their wine is the poison of dragons,\n                 And the deadly venom of aspics.\u201d\n\nGRASS, \u05d3\u05e9\u05d0, Gen. i, 11, the well known vegetable upon which flocks and\nherds feed, and which decks our fields, and refreshes our sight with its\ngrateful verdure. Its feeble frame and transitory duration are mentioned\nin Scripture as emblematic of the frail condition and fleeting existence\nof man. The inspired poets draw this picture with such inimitable beauty\nas the laboured elegies on mortality of ancient and modern times have\nnever surpassed. See Psalm xc, 6, and particularly Isaiah xl, 6\u20138: \u201cThe\nvoice said, Cry! And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and\nall the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass\nwithereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth\nupon it. Verily this people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower\nfadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever.\u201d As, in their\ndecay, the herbs of the fields strikingly illustrate the shortness of\nhuman life, so, in the order of their growth, from seeds dead and\nburied, they give a natural testimony to the doctrine of a resurrection.\nThe Prophet Isaiah, and the Apostle Peter, both speak of bodies rising\nfrom the dead, as of so many seeds springing from the ground to\nrenovated existence and beauty, although they do not, as some have\nabsurdly supposed, consider the resurrection as in any sense analogous\nto the process of vegetation, Isaiah xxvi, 19; 1 Peter i, 24, 25.\n\nIt is a just remark of Grotius, that the Hebrews ranked the whole\nvegetable system under two classes, \u05e2\u05e5, and \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1. The first is rendered\n\u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, or \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, _tree_: to express the second, the LXX have adopted\n\u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, as their common way to translate one Hebrew word by one Greek\nword, though not quite proper, rather than by a circumlocution. It is\naccordingly used in their version of Genesis i, 11, where the\ndistinction first occurs, and in most other places. Nor is it with\ngreater propriety rendered _grass_ in English than \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in Greek. The\nsame division occurs in Matt. vi, 30, and Rev. viii, 7, where our\ntranslators have in like manner had recourse to the term _grass_. Dr.\nCampbell prefers and uses the word _herbage_, as coming nearer the\nmeaning of the sacred writer. Under the name _herb_ is comprehended\nevery sort of plant which has not, like trees and shrubs, a perennial\nstalk. That many, if not all, sorts of shrubs were included by the\nHebrews under the denomination, _tree_, is evident from Jotham\u2019s\napologue of the trees choosing a king, Judges ix, 7, where the bramble\nis mentioned as one. See HAY.\n\nGRASSHOPPER, \u05d7\u05d2\u05d1, Lev. xi, 22; Num. xiii, 33; 2 Chron. vii, 13; Eccles.\nxii, 5; Isaiah xl, 22; 2 Esdras iv, 24; Wisdom xvi, 9; Eccles. xliii,\n17. Bochart supposes that this species of the locust has its name from\nthe Arabic verb _hajaba_, \u201cto veil,\u201d because, when they fly, as they\noften do, in great swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun. \u201cBut\nI presume,\u201d says Parkhurst, \u201cthis circumstance is not peculiar to any\nparticular kind of locust: I should rather, therefore, think it denotes\nthe _cucullated_ species, so denominated by naturalists from the\n_cucullus_, \u201ccowl\u201d or \u201chood,\u201d with which they are furnished, and which\ndistinguishes them from the other kinds. In Scheuchzer may be seen\nseveral of this sort; and it will appear that this species nearly\nresemble our grasshopper.\u201d Our translators render the Hebrew word\n_locust_ in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, 2\nChron. vii, 13, and with propriety. But it is rendered _grasshopper_, in\nEccles. xii, 5, where Solomon, describing the infelicities of old age,\nsays, \u201cThe grasshopper shall be a burden.\u201d \u201cTo this insect,\u201d says Dr.\nSmith, \u201cthe preacher compares a dry, shrunk, shrivelled, crumpling,\ncraggy old man; his backbone sticking out, his knees projecting forward,\nhis arms backward, his head downward, and the apophyses or bunching\nparts of the bones in general enlarged. And from this exact likeness,\nwithout all doubt, arose the fable of Tithonus, who, living to extreme\nold age, was at last turned into a grasshopper.\u201d Dr. Hodgson, referring\nit to the custom of eating locusts, supposes it to imply that luxurious\ngratification will become insipid; and Bishop Reynolds, that the\nlightest pressure of so small a creature shall be uncomfortable to the\naged, as not being able to bear any weight. Other commentators suppose\nthe reference to the chirping noise of the grasshopper, which must be\ndisagreeable to the aged and infirm, who naturally love quiet, and are\ncommonly unable to bear much noise. It is probable that here, also, a\nkind of locust is meant; and these creatures are proverbially\nloquacious. They make a loud, screaking, and disagreeable noise with\ntheir wings. If one begins, others join, and the hateful concert becomes\nuniversal. A pause then ensues, and, as it were, on a signal given, it\nagain commences; and in this manner they continue squalling for two or\nthree hours without intermission. The Prophet Isaiah contrasts the\ngrandeur and power of God, and every thing reputed great in this world,\nby a very expressive reference to this insect: Jehovah sitteth on the\ncircle of the earth, and the inhabitants are to him as grasshoppers,\nIsaiah xl, 22. What atoms and inanities are they all before him, who\nsitteth on the circle of the immense heavens, and views the potentates\nof the earth in the light of grasshoppers, those poor insects that\nwander over the barren heath for sustenance, spend the day in\ninsignificant chirpings, and take up their contemptible lodging at night\non a blade of grass! See LOCUST.\n\nGRECIA, or GREECE, both names occurring in the English Scriptures. The\nboundaries of the country which received this name differed under the\ndifferent governments which ruled over it. Thus the Greece of the Old\nTestament is not exactly the same as that of the New: the former\nincluding Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Hellas or Greece Proper, and the\nPeloponnesus or Morea; while the latter excludes Macedonia, Thessaly,\nand Epirus. But the Romans, in the time of the Apostles, had, in fact,\nmade two divisions of these countries. The first, which was that of\nMacedonia, included also Thessaly and Epirus; and the other, that of\nAchaia, all the rest of Greece, which is, properly speaking, the Greece\nof the New Testament. But the term _Greek_ admits of a larger\ninterpretation, and applies not only to the inhabitants of Greece\nProper, but to those of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, over nearly the\nwhole of the former of which countries, and great part of the two\nlatter, Grecian colonies and the Grecian language had extended\nthemselves. In fact, in the two books of the Maccabees, and in those of\nthe New Testament, the word _Greek_ commonly implies a Gentile.\n\n2. The Scripture has but little reference to Greece till the time of\nAlexander, whose conquests extended into Asia, where Greece had hitherto\nbeen of no importance. Yet that some intercourse was maintained with\nthese countries from Jerusalem, may be inferred from the desire of\nBaasha to shut up all passage between Jerusalem and Joppa, which was its\nport, by the building of Ramah; and the anxiety of Asa to counteract his\nscheme, 1 Kings xv, 2, 17. Greece was certainly intended by the Prophet\nDaniel under the symbol of the single-horned goat; and it is probable\nthat when he calls Greece Chittim, he spoke the language of the Hebrew\nnation, rather than that of the Persian court. After the establishment\nof the Grecian dynasties in Asia, Judea could not but be considerably\naffected by them; and the books of the Maccabees afford proofs of this.\nThe Roman power, superseding the Grecian establishments, yet left traces\nof Greek language, customs, &c, to the days of the Herods, when the\nGospel history commences. By the activity of the Apostles, and\nespecially by that of St. Paul, the Gospel was propagated in those\ncountries which used the Grecian dialects: hence, we are interested in\nthe study of this language. Moreover as Greece, like all other\ncountries, had its peculiar manners, we are not able to estimate\nproperly an epistle written to those who dwell where they prevailed,\nwithout a competent acquaintance with the manners themselves, with the\nsentiments and reasonings of those who practised them, and with the\narguments employed in their defence by those who adhered to them.\n\nGREEK LANGUAGE. It was because of the wide diffusion of this language\nthat the New Testament was written in Greek. Its diction is not,\nhowever, that of the classical Greek, but it was chosen, no doubt, with\na view to greater usefulness. In the age which succeeded Alexander the\nGreat, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double\nnature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, \u1f21 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with\nnot a few provincialisms; but a language of popular intercourse was also\nformed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes,\nheretofore separate, were more or less mingled together, while the\nMacedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language\nconstitutes the basis of the diction employed by the LXX, the writers of\nthe Apocrypha, and of the New Testament. The style of the New Testament\nhas a considerable affinity with that of the Septuagint version which\nwas executed at Alexandria, although it approaches somewhat nearer to\nthe idiom of the Greek language; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew\nphraseology are discernible throughout: the language of the New\nTestament being formed by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions\nwith those which are properly Greek. Hence it has, by some philologers,\nbeen termed _Hebraic Greek_, and (from the Jews having acquired the\nGreek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in\nwhose countries they resided in large communities) _Hellenistic Greek_.\nThe propriety of this appellation was severely contested toward the\nclose of the seventeenth, and in the early part of the eighteenth,\ncentury; and numerous publications were written on both sides of the\nquestion, with considerable asperity, which, together with the\ncontroversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interesting\nto the philological antiquarian, is after all a mere \u201cstrife of words;\u201d\nand as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek is sufficiently\ncorrect for the purpose of characterizing the language of the New\nTestament, it is now generally adopted. A large proportion, however, of\nthe phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Greek; that\nis to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in\nMacedonia, and that in which Polybius wrote his Roman history. It should\nfarther be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament, words that\nexpress both doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the\nGreeks; and also words bearing widely different interpretations from\nthose which are ordinarily found in Greek writers. It contains examples\nof all the dialects occurring in the Greek language, as the \u00c6olic,\nB\u0153tic, Doric, Ionic, and especially of the Attic; which, being most\ngenerally in use on account of its elegance, pervades every book of the\nNew Testament.\n\n2. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the New\nTestament was written in Greek. The true reason is, that it was the\nlanguage most generally understood both by writers and readers; being\nspoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire,\nand particularly in the eastern provinces. To the universality of the\nGreek language, Cicero, Seneca, and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and\nthe circumstances of the Jews having long had political, civil, and\ncommercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through\nvarious parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated\nthe philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New\nTestament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the\nGreek language. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus,\nhad motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason, at\nleast there is no general presumption, why the first publishers of the\nGospel might not use the Greek language. It is indeed probable, that\nmany of the common people were acquainted with it; though it is also\ncertain the Christian churches being in many countries composed chiefly\nof that class of persons, some did not understand Greek. But in every\nchurch, says Macknight, there were persons endowed with the gift of\ntongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn\nthe Apostles\u2019 Greek epistles into the language of the church to which\nthey were sent. In particular, the president or the spiritual man, who\nread the Apostle\u2019s Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public\nassemblies, could without any hesitation render it into the Hebrew\nlanguage, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And\nwith respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native\nlanguage of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for\ntheir use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in\nthe Hebrew, which few of them understood. Farther, it was proper that\nall the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language,\nbecause the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and\nexplained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more\nadvantage be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in\none language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been\nexpressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were\nsent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to\nwrite the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally\nunderstood, and in which there were many books extant; that treated of\nall kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be\npreserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would\nbe enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage\nnone of the provincial dialects used in the Apostles\u2019 days could pretend\nto. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused;\nand few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be\npreserved, the meaning of such of the Apostles\u2019 letters as were composed\nin the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained.\n\nGREEK CHURCH. As the Gospel spread in the first ages both east and west,\nthe first Christian churches were so denominated. From the languages\nrespectively used in their devotions, they were also called the Greek\nand Latin or Roman churches. For the first seven centuries these\nchurches preserved a friendly communion with each other, notwithstanding\nthey disagreed as to the time of keeping Easter, and some other points.\nBut about the middle of the eighth century, disputes arose, which\nterminated in a schism, that continues to this day. It arose out of a\ncontroversy respecting the use of images in the churches. It happened\nthat at this time both churches were under prelates equally dogmatical\nand ambitious. The patriarch of Constantinople insisted on putting down\nthe use of all images and pictures, not only in his own church, but at\nRome also, which the pope resented with equal violence and asperity.\nThey mutually excommunicated each other; and the pope of Rome\nexcommunicated not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but the emperor\nalso. The controversy respecting images engendered another, no less\nbitter, respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father\nand the Son, which the Greeks flatly denied, and charged the Romans with\ninterpolating the word _filioque_ into the ancient creeds. These\ncontroversies occupied the eighth and ninth centuries, after which some\nintervals of partial peace occurred; but in the eleventh century, the\nflame broke out afresh, and a total separation took place. At that time,\nthe Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who was desirous to free himself from\nthe papal authority, published an invective against the Latin church,\nand accused its members of maintaining various errors. Pope Leo retorted\nthe charge, and sent legates from Rome to Constantinople. The Greek\npatriarch refused to see them; upon which they excommunicated him and\nhis adherents, publicly, in the church of St. Sophia, A. D. 1054. The\nGreek patriarch excommunicated those legates, with all their adherents\nand followers, in a public council; and procured an order of the emperor\nfor burning the act of excommunication which they had pronounced against\nthe Greeks. Thus the separation was completed, and at this day a very\nconsiderable part of the world profess the religion of the Greek or\neastern church. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds, with the exception of\nthe words above-mentioned, are the symbols of their faith.\n\n2. The principal points which distinguish the Greek church from the\nLatin, are as follows: they maintain that the Holy Ghost proceeds from\nthe Father only, and not from the Father and Son. They disown the\nauthority of the pope, and deny that the church of Rome is the only true\ncatholic church. They do not affect the character of infallibility, and\nutterly disallow works of supererogation, and indulgences. They admit of\nprayers and services for the dead, as an ancient and pious custom; but\nthey will not admit the doctrine of purgatory, nor determine any thing\ndogmatically concerning the state of departed souls. In baptism they\npractise triune immersion, or dip three times; but some, as the\nGeorgians, defer the baptism of their children till they are three,\nfour, or more years of age. The chrism, or baptismal unction,\nimmediately follows baptism. This chrism, solemnly consecrated on\nMaunday Thursday, is called the unction with ointment, and is a mystery\npeculiar to the Greek communion, holding the place of confirmation in\nthat of the Roman: it is styled, \u201cthe seal of the gift of the Holy\nGhost.\u201d They administer the Lord\u2019s Supper in both kinds, dipping the\nbread in the cup of wine, in which a small portion of warm water is also\ninserted. They give it both to the clergy and laity, and to children\nafter baptism. They exclude confirmation and extreme unction out of the\nnumber of sacraments; but they use the holy oil, which is not confined\nto persons in the close of life, like extreme unction, but is\nadministered, if required, to all sick persons. Three priests, at least,\nare required to administer this sacrament, each priest, in his turn,\nanointing the sick person, and praying for his recovery. They deny\nauricular confession to be a divine command; but practise confession\nattended with absolution, and sometimes penance. Though they believe in\ntransubstantiation, or rather consubstantiation, they do not worship the\nelements. They pay a secondary kind of adoration to the virgin and other\nsaints. They do not admit of images or figures in bas-relief, or\nembossed work; but use paintings and silver shrines. They admit\nmatrimony to be a sacrament, and celebrate it with great formality.\nTheir secular clergy, under the rank of bishops, are allowed to marry\nonce, and laymen twice; but fourth marriages they hold in abomination.\nThey observe a great number of holy days, and keep four fasts in the\nyear more solemn than the rest, of which Good Friday is the chief.\n\n3. The service of the Greek church is too long and complicated to be\nparticularly described in this work; the greater part consists in psalms\nand hymns. Five orders of priesthood belong to the Greek church; namely,\nbishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, and readers; which last includes\nsingers, &c. The episcopal order is distinguished by the titles of\nmetropolitan, archbishops, and bishops. The head of the Greek church,\nthe patriarch of Constantinople, is elected by twelve bishops, who\nreside nearest that famous capital. This prelate calls councils by his\nown authority to govern the church. The other patriarchs are those of\nJerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all nominated by the patriarch of\nConstantinople, who enjoys a most extensive jurisdiction. For the\nadministration of ecclesiastical affairs, a synod, convened monthly, is\ncomposed of the heads of the church resident in Constantinople. In this\nassembly, the patriarch of Constantinople presides, with those of\nAntioch and Jerusalem, and twelve archbishops. In regard to discipline\nand worship, the Greek church has the same division of the clergy into\nregular and secular, the same spiritual jurisdiction of bishops and\ntheir officials, the same distinction of ranks and offices, with the\nchurch of Rome.\n\n4. The Greek church comprehends a considerable part of Greece, the\nGrecian isles, Wallachia, Moldavia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, Lybia,\nArabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, and Palestine; Alexandria, Antioch,\nand Jerusalem; the whole of the Russian empire in Europe; great part of\nSiberia in Asia, Astrachan, Casan, and Georgia.\n\nGRIND. See MILL.\n\nGROVE. It is proper to observe, that in order the more effectually to\nguard the Israelites from idolatry, the blessed God, in instituting the\nrites of his own worship, went directly counter to the practice of the\nidolatrous nations. Thus, because they worshipped in groves, he\nexpressly forbade \u201cthe planting a grove of trees near his altar,\u201d Deut.\nxvi, 21. Nor would he suffer his people to offer their sacrifices on the\ntops of hills and mountains, as the Heathens did, but ordered that they\nshould be brought to one altar in the place which he appointed, Deut.\nxii, 13, 14. And as for the groves, which the Canaanites had planted,\nand the idols and altars which they had erected on the tops of high\nmountains and hills for the worship of their gods, the Israelites are\ncommanded utterly to destroy them, Deut. xii, 2, 3. The groves and high\nplaces do not seem to have been different, but the same places, or\ngroves planted on the tops of hills, probably round an open area, in\nwhich the idolatrous worship was performed, as may be inferred from the\nfollowing words of the Prophet Hosea: \u201cThey sacrifice upon the tops of\nmountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks, and poplars, and\nelms,\u201d Hosea iv, 13. The use of groves for religious worship is\ngenerally supposed to have been as ancient as the patriarchal ages; for\nwe are informed, that \u201cAbraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called\nthere on the name of the Lord,\u201d Gen. xxi, 33. However, it is not\nexpressly said, nor can it by this passage be proved, that he planted\nthe grove for any religious purpose; it might only be designed to shade\nhis tent. And this circumstance perhaps is recorded to intimate his\nrural way of living, as well as his religious character; that he dwelt\nin a tent, under the shade of a grove, or tree, as the word \u05d0\u05e9\u05dc,\n_eshel_, may more properly be translated; and in this humble habitation\nled a very pious and devout life. The reason and origin of planting\nsacred groves is variously conjectured; some imagining it was only\nhereby intended to render the service more agreeable to the worshippers,\nby the pleasantness of the shade; whereas others suppose it was to\ninvite the presence of the gods. The one or the other of these reasons\nseems to be intimated in the fore-cited passage of Hosea: \u201cThey burn\nincense under oaks, and poplars, and elms, because the shade thereof is\ngood,\u201d Hosea iv, 13. Others conceive their worship was performed in the\nmidst of groves, because the gloom of such a place is apt to strike a\nreligious awe upon the mind; or else, because such dark concealments\nsuited the lewd mysteries of their idolatrous worship. Another\nconjecture, which seems as probable as any, is, that this practice began\nwith the worship of demons, or departed souls. It was an ancient custom\nto bury the dead under trees, or in woods. \u201cDeborah was buried under an\noak, near Bethel,\u201d Genesis xxxv, 8; and the bones of Saul and Jonathan\nunder a tree at Jabesh, 1 Samuel xxxi, 13. Now an imagination prevailing\namong the Heathen, that the souls of the deceased hover about their\ngraves, or at least delight to visit their dead bodies, the idolaters,\nwho paid divine honours to the souls of their departed heroes, erected\nimages and altars for their worship in the same groves where they were\nburied; and from thence it grew into a custom afterward to plant groves,\nand build temples, near the tombs of departed heroes, 2 Kings xxiii, 15,\n16, and to surround their temples and altars with groves and trees; and\nthese sacred groves being constantly furnished with the images of the\nheroes or gods that were worshipped in them, a grove and an idol came to\nbe used as convertible terms, 2 Kings xxiii, 6.\n\n\nHABAKKUK, the author of the prophecy bearing his name, Habakkuk i, 1,\n&c. Nothing is certainly known concerning the tribe or birth place of\nHabakkuk. He is said to have prophesied about B. C. 605, and to have\nbeen alive at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by\nNebuchadnezzar. It is generally believed that he remained and died in\nJudea. The principal predictions contained in this book are, the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of the Jews by the Chaldeans\nor Babylonians; their deliverance from the oppressor \u201cat the appointed\ntime;\u201d and the total ruin of the Babylonian empire. The promise of the\nMessiah is confirmed; the overruling providence of God is asserted; and\nthe concluding prayer, or rather hymn, recounts the wonders which God\nhad wrought for his people, when he led them from Egypt into Canaan, and\nexpresses the most perfect confidence in the fulfilment of his promises.\nThe style of Habakkuk is highly poetical, and the hymn in the third\nchapter is perhaps unrivalled for sublimity, simplicity, and power.\n\nHABITS. The dress of oriental nations, to which the inspired writers\noften allude, has undergone almost no change from the earliest times.\nTheir stuffs were fabricated of various materials; but wool was\ngenerally used in their finer fabrics; and the hair of goats, camels,\nand even of horses, was manufactured for coarser purposes, especially\nfor sackcloth, which they wore in time of mourning and distress.\nSackcloth of black goat\u2019s hair was manufactured for mournings; the\ncolour and the coarseness of which being reckoned more suitable to the\ncircumstances of the wearer, than the finer and more valuable texture\nwhich the hair of white goats supplied. This is the reason why a clouded\nsky is represented, in the bold figurative language of Scripture, as\ncovered with sackcloth and blackness, the colour and dress of persons in\naffliction. In Egypt and Syria, they wore also fine linen, cotton, and\nbyssus, probably fine muslin from India, in Hebrew \u05db\u05d5\u05e6, the finest cloth\nknown to the ancients. In Canaan, persons of distinction were dressed in\nfine linen of Egypt; and according to some authors, in silk, and rich\ncloth, shaded with the choicest colours, or, as the Vulgate calls it,\nwith feathered work, embroidered with gold. The beauty of their clothes\nconsisted in the fineness and colour of the stuffs; and it seems, the\ncolour most in use among the Israelites, as well as among the Greeks and\nRomans, was white, not imparted and improved by the dyer\u2019s art, but the\nnative colour of the wool. The general use of this colour seems to be\nrecognized by Solomon in his direction: \u201cLet thy garments be always\nwhite,\u201d Eccles. ix, 8. But garments in the native colour of the wool\nwere not confined to the lower orders; they were also in great esteem\namong persons of superior station, and are particularly valued in\nScripture, as the emblem of knowledge and purity, gladness and victory,\ngrace and glory. The priests of Baal were habited in black; a colour\nwhich appears to have been peculiar to themselves, and which few others\nin those countries, except mourners, would choose to wear. Blue was a\ncolour in great esteem among the Jews, and other oriental nations. The\nrobe of the ephod, in the gorgeous dress of the high priest, was made\nall of blue; it was a prominent colour in the sumptuous hangings of the\ntabernacle; and the whole people of Israel were required to put a fringe\nof blue upon the border of their garments, and on the fringe a riband of\nthe same colour. The palace of Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, was\nfurnished with curtains of this colour, on a pavement of red, and blue,\nand white marble; a proof that it was not less esteemed in Persia than\non the Jordan. And from Ezekiel we learn, that the Assyrian nobles were\nhabited in robes of this colour: \u201cShe doated on the Assyrians, her\nneighbours, which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of\nthem desirable young men.\u201d\n\n2. The Jewish nobles and courtiers, upon great and solemn occasions,\nappeared in scarlet robes, dyed, not as at present with madder, with\ncochineal, or with any modern tincture, but with a shrub, whose red\nberries give an orient tinge to the cloth. Crimson or vermilion, a\ncolour, as the name imports, from the blood of the worm, was used in the\ntemple of Solomon, and by many persons of the first quality; sometimes\nthey wore purple, the most sublime of all earthly colours, says Mr.\nHarmer, having the gaudiness of red, of which it retains a shade,\nsoftened with the gravity of blue. This was chiefly dyed at Tyre, and\nwas supposed to take the tincture from the liquor of a shell fish,\nanciently found in the adjacent sea; though Mr. Bruce, in his Travels,\ninclines to the opinion, that the murex, or purple fish at Tyre, was\nonly a concealment of their knowledge of cochineal, as, if the whole\ncity of Tyre had applied to nothing else but fishing, they would not\nhave coloured twenty yards of cloth in a year. The children of wealthy\nand noble families were dressed in vestments of different colours. This\nmark of distinction may be traced to the patriarchal age; for Joseph was\narrayed, by his indulgent and imprudent father, in a coat of many\ncolours. A robe of divers colours was anciently reserved for the kings\u2019\ndaughters who were virgins; and in one of these was Tamar, the virgin\ndaughter of David, arrayed, when she was met by her brother.\n\n3. In these parts of the world, the fashion is in a state of almost\ndaily fluctuation, and different fashions are not unfrequently seen\ncontending for the superiority; but in the east, where the people are by\nno means given to change, the form of their garments continues nearly\nthe same from one age to another. The greater part of their clothes are\nlong and flowing, loosely cast about the body, consisting only of a\nlarge piece of cloth, in the cutting and sewing of which very little art\nor industry is employed. They have more dignity and gracefulness than\nours, and are better adapted to the burning climates of Asia. From the\nsimplicity of their form, and their loose adaptation to the body, the\nsame clothes might be worn, with equal ease and convenience, by many\ndifferent persons. The clothes of those Philistines whom Samson slew at\nAskelon required no altering to fit his companions; nor the robe of\nJonathan, to answer his friend. The arts of weaving and fulling seem to\nhave been distinct occupations in Israel, from a very remote period, in\nconsequence of the various and skilful operations which were necessary\nto bring their stuffs to a suitable degree of perfection; but when the\nweaver and the fuller had finished their part, the labour was nearly at\nan end; no distinct artizan was necessary to make them into clothes;\nevery family seems to have made their own. Sometimes, however, this part\nof the work was performed in the loom; for they had the art of weaving\nrobes with sleeves all of one piece: of this kind was the coat which our\nSaviour wore during his abode with men. The loose dresses of these\ncountries, when the arm is lifted up, expose its whole length: to this\ncircumstance the Prophet Isaiah refers: \u201cTo whom is the arm of the Lord\nrevealed?\u201d that is, uncovered: who observes that he is about to exert\nthe arm of his power?\n\n4. The chosen people were not allowed to wear clothes of any materials\nor form they chose; they were forbidden by their law to wear a garment\nof woollen and linen. This law did not prevent them from wearing many\ndifferent substances together, but only these two; nor did the\nprohibition extend to the wool of camels and goats, (for the hair of\nthese animals they called by the same name,) but only to that of sheep.\nIt was lawful for any man who saw an Israelite dressed in such a garment\nto fall upon him and put him to death. In the opinion of Maimonides,\nthis was principally intended as a preservative from idolatry; for the\nHeathen priests of those times wore such mixed garments of woollen and\nlinen, in the superstitious hope, it was imagined, of having the\nbeneficial influence of some lucky conjunction of the planets or stars,\nto bring down a blessing upon their sheep and their flax. The second\nrestraint referred to the sexes, of which one was not to wear the dress\nappropriated to the other. This practice is said to be an abomination to\nthe Lord; which plainly intimates that the law refers to some idolatrous\ncustom, of which Moses and the prophets always spoke in terms of the\nutmost abhorrence. Nothing, indeed, was more common among the Heathen,\nin the worship of some of their false deities, than for the males to\nassist in women\u2019s clothes, and the females in the dress appropriated to\nmen; in the worship of Venus, in particular, the women appeared before\nher in armour, and the men in women\u2019s apparel; and thus the words\nliterally run in the original Scriptures, \u201cWomen shall not put on the\narmour of a man, nor a man the stole of a woman.\u201d Maimonides says he\nfound this precept in an old magical book, \u201cThat men ought to stand\nbefore the star of Venus in the flowered garments of women, and women to\nput on the armour of men before the star of Mars.\u201d But whatever there\nmay be in these observations, it is certain that, if there were no\ndistinction of sexes made by their habits, there would be danger of\ninvolving mankind in all manner of licentiousness and impurity.\n\n5. The ancient Jews very seldom wore any covering upon the head, except\nwhen they were in mourning, or worshipping in the temple, or in the\nsynagogue. To pray with the head covered, was, in their estimation, a\nhigher mark of respect for the majesty of heaven, as it indicated the\nconscious unworthiness of the suppliant to lift up his eyes in the\ndivine presence. To guard themselves from the wind or the storm, or from\nthe still more fatal stroke of the sun-beam, to which the general custom\nof walking bare headed particularly exposed them, they wrapped their\nheads in their mantles, or upper garments. But during their long\ncaptivity in Babylon, the Jews began to wear turbans, in compliance with\nthe customs of their conquerors; for Daniel informs us, that his three\nfriends were cast into the fiery furnace with their hats, or, as the\nterm should be rendered, their turbans. It is not, however, improbable,\nthat the bulk of the nation continued to follow their ancient custom;\nand that the compliance prevailed only among those Jews who were\nconnected with the Babylonish court; for many ages after that, we find\nAntiochus Epiphanes introducing the habits and fashions of the Grecians\namong the Jews; and as the history of the Maccabees relates, he brought\nthe chief young men under his subjection, and made them wear a hat, or\nturban. Their legs were generally bare; and they never wore any thing\nupon the feet, but soles fastened in different ways, according to the\ntaste or fancy of the wearer.\n\nHADAD, son to the king of East Edom, was carried into Egypt by his\nfather\u2019s servants, when Joab, general of David\u2019s troops, extirpated the\nmales of Edom. Hadad was then a child. The king of Egypt gave him a\nhouse, lands, and every necessary subsistence, and married him to the\nsister of Tahpenes, his queen. By her he had a son, named Genubath, whom\nQueen Tahpenes educated in Pharaoh\u2019s house with the king\u2019s children.\nHadad being informed that David was dead, and that Joab was killed,\ndesired leave to return into his own country. Pharaoh wished to detain\nhim, but at last permitted his return to Edom. Here he began to raise\ndisturbances against Solomon; but the Scripture does not mention\nparticulars. Josephus says, that Hadad did not return to Edom till long\nafter the death of David, when Solomon\u2019s affairs began to decline, by\nreason of his impieties. He also observes, that, not being able to\nengage the Edomites to revolt, because of the strong garrisons which\nSolomon had placed there, Hadad got together such people as were\nwilling, and carried them to Razon, then in rebellion against Hadadezer,\nking of Syria. Razon received Hadad with joy, and assisted him in\nconquering part of Syria, where he reigned, and from whence he insulted\nSolomon\u2019s territories.\n\nHAGAR. After ten years\u2019 residence in the land of Canaan, Abram, by the\npersuasion of his wife, who had been barren heretofore, and now\ndespaired of bearing children herself when she was seventy-five years\nold, took, as a second wife, or concubine, her handmaid, Hagar, an\nEgyptian. When Hagar conceived, she despised her mistress, who dealt\nhardly with her, Abram giving her up to his wife\u2019s discretion; so that\nshe fled toward Egypt from the face of her mistress, but was stopped in\nher flight by the angel of the Lord, who foretold that she should bear a\nson called Ishmael, because the Lord heard her affliction, and that his\nrace should be numerous, warlike, and unconquered; a prediction, as seen\nunder the article _Arabia_, remarkably fulfilled to the present day.\nAbram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael. When Isaac was\nweaned, Ishmael, the son of Hagar, who was now about fifteen years of\nage, offended Sarah by some mockery or ill treatment of Isaac; the\noriginal word signifies elsewhere, \u201cto skirmish,\u201d or \u201cfight,\u201d 2 Samuel\nii, 14; and St. Paul represents Ishmael as \u201cpersecuting\u201d him, Gal. iv,\n29. Sarah therefore complained to Abraham, and said, \u201cCast out this\nbond-woman and her son, for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir\nwith my son Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham\u2019s sight,\nbecause of his son Ishmael;\u201d but God approved of Sarah\u2019s advice, and\nagain excluded Ishmael from the special covenant of grace: \u201cFor in Isaac\nshall thy seed be called: nevertheless, the son of the bond-woman will I\nmake a nation also, because he is thy seed.\u201d God renewed this promise\nalso to Hagar, during her wanderings in the wilderness of Beersheba,\nwhen she despaired of support: \u201cArise, lift up the lad, and hold him in\nthine hands, for I will make him a great nation. And God was with the\nlad, and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and became an\narcher. And his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.\u201d See\nABRAHAM and ISHMAEL.\n\nWe do not know when Hagar died. The rabbins say she was Pharaoh\u2019s\ndaughter; but Chrysostom asserts that she was one of those slaves which\nPharaoh gave to Abraham, Gen. xii, 16. The Chaldee paraphrasts, and many\nof the Jews, believe Hagar and Keturah to be the same person; but this\nis not credible. Philo thinks that Hagar embraced Abraham\u2019s religion,\nwhich is very probable. The Mussulmans and Arabians, who are descended\nfrom Ishmael, the son of Hagar, speak mightily in her commendation. They\ncall her in eminency, Mother Hagar, and maintain that she was Abraham\u2019s\nlawful wife; the mother of Ishmael, his eldest son; who, as such,\npossessed Arabia, which very much exceeds, say they, both in extent and\nriches, the land of Canaan, which was given to his younger son Isaac.\n\nHAGARENES, the descendants of Ishmael: called also Ishmaelites and\nSaracens, or Arabians, from their country. Their name, Saracens, is not\nderived, as some have thought, from Sarah, Abraham\u2019s wife, but from the\nHebrew _sarak_, which signifies \u201cto rob\u201d or \u201cto steal;\u201d because they\nmostly carry on the trade of thieving: or from Sahara, the desert;\nSaracens, inhabitants of the desert. But some writers think Hagarene\nimports _south_, conformably to the Arabic; hence Hagar, that is, the\nsouthern woman; and Mount Sinai is called Hagar, that is, the southern\nmountain, Gal. iv, 25. But there seems also to have been a particular\ntribe who bore this name more exclusively, as the Hagarenes are\nsometimes mentioned in Scripture distinct from the Ishmaelites, Psalm\nlxxxiii, 6; 1 Chron. v, 19.\n\nHAGGAI was one of the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem in\nconsequence of the edict of Cyrus; and it is believed that he was born\nduring the captivity, and that he was of the sacerdotal race. His\nprophecy consists of four distinct revelations, all which took place in\nthe second year of Darius, king of Persia, B. C. 520. The prophet\nreproves the people for their delay in building the temple of God, and\nrepresents the unfruitful seasons which they had experienced as a divine\npunishment for this neglect. He exhorts them to proceed in the important\nwork; and by way of encouragement predicts, that the glory of the second\ntemple, however inferior in external magnificence, shall exceed that of\nthe first; which was accomplished by its being honoured with the\npresence of the Saviour of mankind. He farther urges the completion of\nthe temple by promises of divine favour, and under the type of\nZerubbabel he is supposed by some to foretel the great revolutions which\nshall precede the second advent of Christ. The style of Haggai is in\ngeneral plain and simple; but in some passages it rises to a\nconsiderable degree of sublimity.\n\nHAIR. The eastern females wear their hair, which the prophet\nemphatically calls the \u201cinstrument of their pride,\u201d very long, and\ndivided into a great number of tresses. In Barbary, the ladies all\naffect to have their hair hang down to the ground, which, after they\nhave collected into one lock, they bind and plait with ribands. Where\nnature has been less liberal in its ornaments, the defect is supplied by\nart, and foreign is procured to be interwoven with the natural hair. The\nApostle\u2019s remark on this subject corresponds entirely with the custom of\nthe east, as well as with the original design of the Creator: \u201cDoes not\neven nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a\nshame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for\nher hair is given her for a covering,\u201d 1 Cor. xi, 14. The men in the\neast, Chardin observes, are shaved; the women nourish their hair with\ngreat fondness, which they lengthen by tresses, and tufts of silk down\nto the heels. But among the Hebrews the men did not shave their heads;\nthey wore their natural hair, though not long; and it is certain that\nthey were, at a very remote period, initiated in the art of cherishing\nand beautifying the hair with fragrant ointments. The head of Aaron was\nanointed with a precious oil, compounded after the art of the\napothecary; and in proof that they had already adopted the practice, the\ncongregation were prohibited, under pain of being cut off, to make any\nother like it, after the composition of it, Exod. xxx, 32, 33. The royal\nPsalmist alludes to the same custom in the twenty-third Psalm: \u201cThou\nanointest my head with oil.\u201d We may infer from the direction of Solomon,\nthat the custom had at least become general in his time: \u201cLet thy\ngarments be always white, and let thy head lack no ointment,\u201d Eccles.\nix, 8. After the hair is plaited and perfumed, the eastern ladies\nproceed to dress their heads, by tying above the lock into which they\ncollect it, a triangular piece of linen, adorned with various figures in\nneedlework. This, among persons of better fashion, is covered with a\n_sarmah_, as they call it, which is made in the same triangular shape,\nof thin flexible plates of gold or silver, carefully cut through, and\nengraven in imitation of lace, and might therefore answer to \u05d4\u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd,\nthe moonlike ornament mentioned by the prophet in his description of the\ntoilette of a Jewish lady, Isaiah iii, 18. Cutting off the hair was a\nsign of mourning, Jer. vii, 29; but sometimes in mourning they suffered\nit to grow long. In ordinary sorrows they neglected their hair; and in\nviolent paroxysms they plucked it off with their hands.\n\nJohn Baptist was clothed in a garment made of camel\u2019s hair, not with a\ncamel\u2019s skin, as painters and sculptors represent him, but with coarse\ncamlet made of camel\u2019s hair. The coat of the camel in some places yields\nvery fine silk, of which are made stuffs of very great price; but in\ngeneral this animal\u2019s hair is hard, and scarcely fit for any but coarse\nhabits, and a kind of hair cloth. Some are of opinion that camlet\nderives its name from the camel, being originally composed of the wool\nand hair of camels; but at present there is no camel\u2019s hair in the\ncomposition of it, as it is commonly woven and sold among us.\n\nHAM, or CHAM, \u05d7\u05dd, son of Noah, and brother to Shem and Japheth, is\nbelieved to have been Noah\u2019s youngest son. Ham, says Dr. Hales,\nsignifies _burnt_ or _black_, and this name was peculiarly significant\nof the regions allotted to his family. To the Cushites, or children of\nhis eldest son, Cush, were allotted the hot southern regions of Asia,\nalong the coasts of the Persian Gulf, Susiana or Chusistan, Arabia, &c;\nto the sons of Canaan, Palestine and Syria; to the sons of Misraim,\nEgypt and Libya, in Africa. The Hamites, in general, like the Canaanites\nof old, were a sea-faring race, and sooner arrived at civilization and\nthe luxuries of life than their simpler pastoral and agricultural\nbrethren of the other two families. The first great empires of Assyria\nand Egypt were founded by them; and the republics of Tyre, Sidon, and\nCarthage, were early distinguished for their commerce: but they sooner\nalso fell to decay; and Egypt, which was one of the first, became the\nlast and \u201cbasest of the kingdoms,\u201d Ezek. xxix, 15; and has been\nsuccessively in subjection to the Shemites, and Japhethites; as have\nalso the settlements of the other branches of the Hamites. See CANAAN.\n\nHAMAN, son of Hammedatha, the Amalekite, of the race of Agag; or,\naccording to other copies, son of Hamadath the Bugean or Gogean, that\nis, of the race of Gog; or it may be read, Haman the son of Hamadath,\nwhich Haman was Bagua or Bagoas, eunuch, that is, officer to the king of\nPersia. We have no proof of Haman\u2019s being an Amalekite; but Esther iii,\n1, reads of the race of Agag. In the apocryphal Greek, Esther ix, 24,\nand the Latin, Esther xvi, 10, he is called a Macedonian, _animo et\ngente Macedo_. King Ahasuerus, having taken him into favour, promoted\nhim above all the princes of his court, who bent the knee to him\n(probably prostrated themselves wholly before him, as to a deity) when\nhe entered the palace: this Mordecai the Jew declined, for which slight,\nHaman plotted the extirpation of the whole Jewish nation; which was\nprovidentially prevented. He was hanged on a gibbet fifty cubits high,\nwhich he had prepared for Mordecai; his house was given to Queen Esther;\nand his employments to Mordecai. His ten sons were likewise executed.\nSee ESTHER.\n\nHAMATH, a city of Syria, capital of a province of the same name, lying\nupon the Orontes, Joshua xiii, 5; Judges iii, 3; 2 Kings xiv, 25; 2\nChron. vii, 8. The king of Hamath cultivated a good understanding with\nDavid, 2 Sam. viii, 9. This city was taken by the kings of Judah, and\nafterward retaken by the Syrians, and recovered from them by Jeroboam\nthe Second, 2 Kings xiv, 28.\n\nHAND sometimes denotes the vengeance of God: \u201cThe hand of the Lord was\nheavy upon them of Ashdod,\u201d after they had taken the ark, 1 Samuel v, 6,\n7. To pour water on any one\u2019s hands, signifies to serve him, 2 Kings\niii, 11. To wash one\u2019s hands, denotes innocence: Pilate washed his hands\nto denote his being innocent of the blood of Jesus, Matthew xxvii, 24.\nTo kiss one\u2019s hand, is an act of adoration, 1 Kings xix, 18. \u201cIf I\nbeheld the sun when it shined, and my mouth hath kissed my hand,\u201d Job\nxxxi, 27. To fill one\u2019s hands, is to take possession of the priesthood,\nto perform the functions of that office; because in this ceremony, those\nparts of the victim which were to be offered, were put into the hand of\nthe newly created priest, Judges xvii, 5, 12; 1 Kings xiii, 33. To lean\nupon any one\u2019s hand, is a mark of familiarity and superiority. The king\nof Israel had a confident on whom he thus leaned, 2 Kings vii, 17. The\nking of Syria leaned on the hand or arm of Naaman when he went up to the\ntemple of Rimmon, 2 Kings v, 18. To lift up one\u2019s hand, is a way of\ntaking an oath which has been in use among all nations. To give one\u2019s\nhand, signifies to grant peace, to swear friendship, to promise entire\nsecurity, to make alliance, 2 Kings x, 15. The Jews say, they were\nobliged to give the hand to the Egyptians and Assyrians, that they might\nprocure bread, 2 Macc. xiii, 22; that is, to surrender to them, to\nsubmit. To stretch out one\u2019s hand, signifies to chastise, to exercise\nseverity or justice, Ezek. xxv, 7. God delivered his people with a high\nhand, and arm stretched out; by performing many wonders, and inflicting\nmany chastisements, on the Egyptians. To stretch out one\u2019s hand,\nsometimes denotes mercy: \u201cI have spread out my hands,\u201d entreated, \u201call\nthe day unto a rebellious people,\u201d Isaiah lxv, 2. Hand is also\nfrequently taken for the power and impression of the Holy Spirit felt by\na prophet: \u201cThe hand of the Lord was on Elijah,\u201d 1 Kings xviii, 46. It\nis said that God gave his law by the hand of Moses, that he spoke by the\nhand of prophets, &c; that is, by their means, by them, &c. The right\nhand denotes power, strength. The Scripture generally imputes to God\u2019s\nright hand all the effects of his omnipotence: \u201cThy right hand, O Lord,\nhath dashed in pieces the enemy,\u201d Exodus xv, 6. The Son of God is often\nrepresented as sitting at the right hand of his heavenly Father: \u201cThe\nLord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,\u201d Psalm cx, 1; thou hast\ndone thy work upon earth, now take possession of that sovereign kingdom\nand glory which by right belongeth unto thee; do thou rule with\nauthority and honour, as thou art Mediator. The right hand commonly\ndenotes the south, as the left does the north; for the Hebrews speak of\nthe quarters of the world, in respect of themselves, having their faces\nturned to the east, their backs to the west, their right hands to the\nsouth, and their left to the north. For example: \u201cDoth not David hide\nhimself with us in strong holds, in the woods, in the hill of Hachilah,\nwhich is on the south of Jeshimon?\u201d in Hebrew, \u201con the _right hand_ of\nJeshimon.\u201d The accuser was commonly at the right hand of the accused:\n\u201cLet Satan stand at his right hand,\u201d Psalm cix, 6. And in Zech. iii, 1,\nSatan was at the right hand of the high priest Joshua, to accuse him.\nOften, in a contrary sense, to be at one\u2019s right hand signifies to\ndefend, to protect, to support him: \u201cI have set the Lord always before\nme; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved,\u201d Psalm xvi, 8.\nTo turn from the law of God, neither to the right hand nor to the left,\nis a frequent Scripture expression, the meaning of which is, that we\nmust not depart from it at all. Our Saviour, in Matt, vi, 3, to show\nwith what privacy we should do good works, says that our left hand\nshould not know what our right hand does. Above all things, we should\navoid vanity and ostentation in all the good we undertake to do, and\nshould not think that thereby we merit any thing. Laying on hands, or\nimposition of hands, is understood in different ways both in the Old and\nNew Testament. It is often taken for ordination and consecration of\npriests and ministers, as well among the Jews as Christians, Num. viii,\n10; Acts vi, 6; xiii, 3; 1 Tim. iv, 14. It is sometimes also made use of\nto signify the establishment of judges and magistrates, on whom it was\nusual to lay hands when they were entrusted with these employments.\nThus, when Moses constituted Joshua his successor, God appointed him to\nlay his hands upon him, Numbers xxvii, 18. Jacob laid his hands on\nEphraim and Manasseh, when he gave them his last blessing, Gen. xlviii,\n14. The high priest stretched out his hands to the people, as often as\nhe recited the solemn form of blessing, Lev. ix, 22. The Israelites, who\npresented sin offerings at the tabernacle, confessed their sins while\nthey laid their hands upon them, Lev. i, 4. This testified that the\nperson acknowledged himself worthy of death, that he laid his sins upon\nthe sacrifice, that he trusted in Christ for the expiation of his sins,\nand that he devoted himself to God. Witnesses laid their hands upon the\nhead of the accused person, as it were to signify that they charged upon\nhim the guilt of his blood, and freed themselves from it, Deut. xiii, 9;\nxvii, 7. Our Saviour laid his hands upon the children that were\npresented to him, and blessed them, Mark x, 16. And the Holy Ghost was\nconferred on those who were baptized by the laying on of the hands of\nthe Apostles, Acts viii, 17; xix, 6.\n\nHANNAH. See SAMUEL.\n\nHARAN, the eldest son of Terah, and brother to Abraham and Nahor. He was\nthe father of Lot, Milcah, and Iscah, Gen. xi, 26, &c. Haran died before\nhis father Terah.\n\n2. HARAN, otherwise called Charran, in Mesopotamia, a city celebrated\nfor having been the place to which Abraham removed first, after he left\nUr, Gen. xi, 31, 32, and where Terah was buried. Thither it was likewise\nthat Jacob repaired to Laban, when he fled from Esau, Gen. xxvii, 43;\nxxviii, 10, &c. Haran was situated in the north-western part of\nMesopotamia on a river of the same name running into the Euphrates. Mr.\nKinneir says, that Haran, which is still so called, or rather Harran, is\nnow peopled by a few families of wandering Arabs, who have been led\nthither by a plentiful supply of good water from several small streams.\nIt is situated in 36\u00b0 52\u00b4 north latitude, and 39\u00b0 5\u00b4 east longitude; in\na flat and sandy plain. Some think that it was built by Terah, or by\nHaran, his eldest son.\n\nHARE, \u05d0\u05e8\u05e0\u05d1\u05ea, Arabic _arneb_, Lev. xi, 6; Deut. xiv, 7. This name is\nderived, as Bochart and others suppose, from \u05d0\u05e8\u05d4, _to crop_, and \u05e0\u05d9\u05d1,\n_the produce of the ground_; these animals being remarkable for\ndevouring young plants and herbage. This animal resembles the rabbit,\nbut is larger, and somewhat longer in proportion to its thickness. The\nhare in Syria, says Dr. Russel, is distinguished into two species,\ndiffering considerably in point of size. The largest is the Turkman\nhare, and chiefly haunts the plains; the other is the common hare of the\ndesert: both are abundant. The difficulty as to this animal is, that\nMoses says the _arnabeth_ chews the cud, which our hares do not: but\nAristotle takes notice of the same circumstance, and affirms that the\nstructure of its stomach is similar to that of ruminating animals. The\nanimal here mentioned may then be a variety of the species.\n\nHAROSHETH OF THE GENTILES, a city supposed to be situated near Hazor, in\nthe northern parts of Canaan, called afterward Upper Galilee, or Galilee\nof the Gentiles, for the same reason that this place probably obtained\nthat title, namely, from being less inhabited by Jews, and being near\nthe great resorts of the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon. This is said to have\nbeen the residence of Sisera, the general of the armies of Jabin, king\nof Canaan, who reigned at Hazor.\n\nHARP, a stringed musical instrument. The Hebrew word _kinaor_, which is\ntranslated \u201charp\u201d in our English version, very probably denoted all\nstringed instruments. By the Hebrews, the harp was called the _pleasant_\nharp; and it was employed by them, not only in their devotions, but also\nat their entertainments and pleasures. It is probable, that the harp was\nnearly the earliest, if not the earliest, instrument of music. David\ndanced when he played on the harp: the Levites did the same. Hence it\nappears, that it was light and portable, and that its size was\nrestricted within limits which admitted of that service, and of that\nmanner of using it.\n\nHART, \u05d0\u05d9\u05dc, Deut. xii, 15; xiv, 5; Psalm xlii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 6, the\nstag, or male deer. Dr. Shaw considers its name in Hebrew as a generic\nword including all the species of the deer kind; whether they are\ndistinguished by round horns, as the stag; or by flat ones, as the\nfallow deer; or by the smallness of the branches, as the roe. Mr. Good\nobserves that the hind and roe, the hart and the antelope, were held,\nand still continue to be, in the highest estimation in all the eastern\ncountries, for the voluptuous beauty of their eyes, the delicate\nelegance of their form, or their graceful agility of action. The names\nof these animals were perpetually applied, therefore, to persons,\nwhether male or female, who were supposed to be possessed of any of\ntheir respective qualities. In 2 Sam. i, 19, Saul is denominated \u201cthe\nroe of Israel;\u201d and in the eighteenth verse of the ensuing chapter, we\nare told that \u201cAsahel was as light of foot as a wild roe:\u201d a phraseology\nperfectly synonymous with the epithet _swift-footed_, which Homer has so\nfrequently bestowed upon his hero Achilles. Thus again: \u201cHer princes are\nlike harts which find no pasture; they are fled without strength before\ntheir pursuers,\u201d Lam. i, 6. \u201cThe Lord Jehovah is my strength; he will\nmake my feet like hinds\u2019 feet; he will cause me to tread again on my own\nhills,\u201d Hab. iii, 19. See HIND.\n\nHARVEST. Three months intervened between the seed time and the first\nreaping, and a month between this and the full harvest. Barley is in\nfull ear all over the Holy Land, in the beginning of April; and about\nthe middle of the same month, it begins to turn yellow, particularly in\nthe southern districts; being as forward near Jericho in the latter end\nof March, as it is in the plains of Acre a fortnight afterward. The\nreaping continues till the middle of Sivan, or till about the end of May\nor beginning of June, which, as the time of wheat harvest, finishes this\npart of the husbandman\u2019s labours.\n\n2. The reapers in Palestine and Syria make use of the sickle in cutting\ndown their crops, and, according to the present custom in this country,\n\u201cfill their hand\u201d with the corn, and those who bind up the sheaves,\ntheir \u201cbosom,\u201d Psalm cxxix, 7; Ruth ii, 5. When the crop is thin and\nshort, which is generally the case in light soils, and with their\nimperfect cultivation, it is not reaped with the sickle, but plucked up\nby the root with the hand. By this mode of reaping, they leave the most\nfruitful fields as naked as if nothing had ever grown on them; and as no\nhay is made in the east, this is done, that they may not lose any of the\nstraw, which is necessary for the sustenance of their cattle. The\npractice of plucking up with the hand is perhaps referred to in these\nwords of the Psalmist, to which reference has already been made: \u201cLet\nthem be as the grass upon the house tops, which withereth afore it\ngroweth up; wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor he that\nbindeth sheaves his bosom.\u201d The tops of the houses in Judea are flat,\nand, being covered with plaster of terrace, are frequently grown over\nwith grass. As it is but small and weak, and from its elevation exposed\nto the scorching sun, it is soon withered. A more beautiful and striking\nfigure, to display the weak and evanescent condition of wicked men,\ncannot easily be conceived.\n\n3. The reapers go to the field very early in the morning, and return\nhome betimes in the afternoon. They carry provisions along with them,\nand leathern bottles, or dried bottle gourds, filled with water. They\nare followed by their own children, or by others, who glean with much\nsuccess, for a great quantity of corn is scattered in the reaping, and\nin their manner of carrying it. The greater part of these circumstances\nare discernible in the manners of the ancient Israelites. Ruth had not\nproposed to Naomi, her mother-in-law, to go to the field, and glean\nafter the reapers; nor had the servant of Boaz, to whom she applied for\nleave, so readily granted her request, if gleaning had not been a common\npractice in that country. When Boaz inquired who she was, his overseer,\nafter informing him, observes, that she came out to the field in the\nmorning; and that the reapers left the field early in the afternoon, as\nDr. Russel states, is evident from this circumstance, that Ruth had time\nto beat out her gleanings before evening. They carried water and\nprovisions with them; for Boaz invited her to come and drink of the\nwater which the young men had drawn; and at meal-time, to eat of the\nbread, and dip her morsel in the vinegar. And so great was the\nsimplicity of manners in that part of the world, and in those times,\nthat Boaz himself, although a prince of high rank in Judah, sat down to\ndinner in the field with his reapers, and helped Ruth with his own hand.\nNor ought we to pass over in silence the mutual salutation of Boaz and\nhis reapers, when he came to the field, as it strongly marks the state\nof religious feeling in Israel at the time, and furnishes another proof\nof the artless, the happy, and unsuspecting simplicity, which\ncharacterized the manners of that highly favoured people. \u201cAnd, behold,\nBoaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with\nyou. And they answered him, The Lord bless thee,\u201d Ruth ii, 4.\n\n4. It appears from the beautiful history of Ruth, that, in Palestine,\nthe women lent their assistance in cutting down and gathering in the\nharvest; for Boaz commands her to keep fast by his maidens. The women in\nSyria shared also in the labours of the harvest; for Dr. Russel informs\nus, they sang the _ziraleet_, or song of thanks, when the passing\nstranger accepted their present of a handful of corn, and made a\nsuitable return. It was another custom among the Jews to set a\nconfidential servant over the reapers, to see that they executed their\nwork properly, that they had suitable provisions, and to pay them their\nwages: the Chaldees call him _rab_, the master, ruler, or governor of\nthe reapers. Such was the person who directed the labours of the reapers\nin the field of Boaz. The right of the poor in Israel to glean after the\nreapers was secured by a positive law, couched in these words: \u201cAnd when\nye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners\nof thy land; neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And\nthou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape\nof thy vineyard: thou shalt leave them to the poor and the stranger: I\nam the Lord your God,\u201d Lev. xix, 9. It is the opinion of some writers,\nthat, although the poor were allowed the liberty of gleaning, the\nIsraelitish proprietors were not obliged to admit them immediately into\nthe field, as soon as the reapers had cut down the corn, and bound it up\nin sheaves, but when it was carried off: they might choose, also, among\nthe poor, whom they thought most deserving, or most necessitous. These\nopinions receive some countenance from the request which Ruth presented\nto the servant of Boaz, to permit her to glean \u201camong the sheaves;\u201d and\nfrom the charge of Boaz to his young men, \u201cLet her glean even among the\nsheaves;\u201d a mode of speaking which seems to insinuate that though they\ncould not legally hinder Ruth from gleaning in the field, they had a\nright, if they chose to exercise it, to prohibit her from gleaning among\nthe sheaves, or immediately after the reapers.\n\nHATE. To hate is not always to be understood rigorously, but frequently\nsignifies merely a less degree of love. \u201cIf a man have two wives, one\nbeloved and another hated,\u201d Deut. xxi, 15; that is, less beloved. Our\nSaviour says that he who would follow him must hate father and mother;\nthat is, he must love them less than Christ, less than his own\nsalvation, and not prefer them to God. \u201cJacob have I loved, and Esau\nhave I hated;\u201d that is, have deprived of the privileges of his\nprimogeniture, through his own profanity; and visited him with severe\njudgment on account of his sins.\n\nHAURAN. The tract of country of this name is mentioned only twice in\nScripture, Ezek. xlvii, 16, 18. It was probably of small extent in the\ntime of the Jews; but was enlarged under the Romans, by whom it was\ncalled Auranitis. At present it extends from about twenty miles south of\nDamascus to a little below Bozra, including the rocky district of El\nLedja, the ancient Trachonitis, and the mountainous one of the Djebel\nHaouran. Within its limits are also included, beside Trachonitis, Itur\u00e6a\nor Ittur, now called Djedour, and part of Batan\u00e6a or Bashan. It is\nrepresented by Burckhardt as a volcanic region, consisting of a porous\ntufa, pumice, and basalt, with the remains of a crater on the Tel Shoba,\non its eastern side. It produces, however, crops of corn, and has many\npatches of luxuriant herbage, which are frequented in the summer by the\nArab tribes for pasturage. It abounds, also, with many interesting\nremains of cities, scattered over its surface, with Grecian\ninscriptions. The chief of these are Bozra, Ezra, Medjel, Shoba, Shakka,\nSouerda, Kanouat, Hebran, Zarle, Oerman, and Aatyl; with Messema, Berak,\nand Om Ezzeitoun, in the Ledja.\n\nHAVILAH, the son of Cush, Genesis x, 7. There must have been other, and\nperhaps many, Havilahs beside the original one, a part of the numerous\nand wide-spread posterity of Cush. By one and the first of these, it is\nprobable that the western shores of the Persian Gulf were peopled; by\nanother, the country of Colchis; and by another, the parts about the\nsouthern border of the Dead Sea and the confines of Judea, the country\nafterward inhabited by the Amalekites.\n\nHAWK, \u05e0\u05e5, from the root \u05e0\u05e6\u05d4, _to fly_, because of the rapidity and\nlength of flight for which this bird is remarkable, Lev. xi, 16; Deut.\nxiv, 15; Job xxxix, 26. _Naz_ is used generically by the Arabian writers\nto signify both falcon and hawk; and the term is given in both these\nsenses by Meninski. There can be little doubt that such is the real\nmeaning of the Hebrew word, and that it imports various species of the\nfalcon family, as jer-falcon, goshawk, and sparrow-hawk. As this is a\nbird of prey, cruel in its temper, and gross in its manners, it was\nforbidden as food, and all others of its kind, in the Mosaic ritual. The\nGreeks consecrated the hawk to Apollo; and among the Egyptians no animal\nwas held in so high veneration as the ibis and the hawk. Most of the\nspecies of hawk, we are told; are birds of passage. The hawk, therefore,\nis produced, in Job xxxix, 26, as a specimen of that astonishing\ninstinct which teaches birds of passage to know their times and seasons,\nwhen to migrate out of one country into another for the benefit of food,\nor a warmer climate, or both. The common translation does not give the\nfull force of the passage: \u201cDoth the hawk fly by thy wisdom?\u201d The real\nmeaning is, \u201cDoth she know, through thy skill or wisdom, the precise\nperiod for taking flight, or migrating and stretching her wings toward a\nsouthern or warmer climate?\u201d The passage is well rendered by Sandys:--\n\n               \u201cDoth the wild haggard tower into the sky,\n               And to the south by thy direction fly?\u201d\n\nHer migration is not conducted by the wisdom and prudence of man, but by\nthe superintending and upholding providence of the only wise God.\n\nHAY, \u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8. In the two places where this word occurs, Prov. xxvii, 25,\nand Isaiah xv, 16, our translators have very improperly rendered it\n\u201chay.\u201d But in those countries they made no hay; and, if they did, it\nappears from inspection that hay could hardly be the meaning of the word\nin either of those texts. The author of \u201cFragments,\u201d in continuation of\nCalmet, has the following remarks: \u201cThere is a gross impropriety in our\nversion of Prov. xxvii, 25: \u2018The hay appeareth, and the tender grass\nshoweth itself, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered.\u2019 Now,\ncertainly, if the tender grass is but just beginning to show itself, the\nhay, which is grass cut and dried after it has arrived at maturity,\nought by no means to be associated with it, still less ought it to be\nplaced before it. And this leads me to observe, that none of the\ndictionaries which I have seen seem to me to give the accurate import of\nthe word, which, I apprehend, means _the first shoots_, _the rising_,\n_budding_, _spires of grass_. So, in the present passage, \u05d2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8, \u2018the\ntender shoots of the grass rise up; and the buddings of grass,\u2019 grass in\nits early state, as is the peculiar import of \u05e8\u05e9\u05d0, \u2018appear; and the\ntufts of grass,\u2019 proceeding from the same root, \u2018collect themselves\ntogether, and, by their union, begin to clothe the mountain tops with a\npleasing verdure.\u2019\u201d Surely, the beautiful progress of vegetation, as\ndescribed in this passage, must appear too poetical to be lost; but what\nmust it be to an eastern beholder! to one who had lately witnessed all\nsurrounding sterility, a grassless waste!\n\nHAZAEL. Elisha coming to Damascus, the capital of Syria, Benhadad, the\nreigning monarch, being then indisposed, sent Hazael, who was one of his\nprincipal officers, to wait upon the prophet, and consult him as to the\nissue of his disorder, 2 Kings viii, 7\u201313. The prophet told Hazael that\ncertainly his master might recover, because his complaint was not\nmortal; yet he was very well assured that he would not recover; and,\nlooking him steadfastly in the face, Elisha burst into tears. Surprised\nat this conduct, Hazael inquired the cause. \u201cBecause I know,\u201d said the\nprophet, \u201cthe evil that thou wilt do to the children of Israel: their\nstrong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay\nwith the sword, and wilt dash their infants against the stones, and rip\nup their women with child.\u201d Hazael indignantly exclaimed, \u201cIs thy\nservant a dog, that he should do this great thing?\u201d Elisha merely\nanswered, \u201cThe Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria,\u201d\n2 Kings viii, 7\u201313. On his return home, Hazael concealed from his master\nBenhadad the prophet\u2019s answer, and inspired him with hopes of recovery;\nbut on the following day, he took effectual means to prevent it, by\nstifling the king with a thick cloth dipped with water; and, as Benhadad\nhad no son, and Hazael was a man much esteemed in the army, he was,\nwithout difficulty declared his successor, A. M. 3120. Hazael soon\ninflicted upon Israel all the cruelties which Elisha had foretold. For\nwhen Jehu broke up the siege of Ramoth-Gilead, and came with his army to\nSamaria, Hazael took advantage of his absence to fall upon his\nterritories beyond Jordan, destroying all the land of Gilead, Gad,\nReuben, and Manasseh, from Aroer to Bashan, 2 Kings x, 32. Some years\npassed after this before Hazael undertook any thing against the kingdom\nof Judah, it being remote from Damascus; but in the reign of Joash, the\nson of Jehoahaz, A. M. 3165, he besieged the city of Gath, and, having\ntaken it, marched against Jerusalem, 2 Kings xii, 17, 18. But Joash,\nconscious of his inferiority, bribed him at the price of all the money\nhe could raise, to evacuate Judea, with which he for the moment\ncomplied; yet, in the following year, the army of Hazael returned,\nentered the territories of Judah, and the city of Jerusalem, slew all\nthe princes of the people, and sent a valuable booty to their royal\nmaster, 2 Kings xiii, 22; 2 Chron. xxiv, 23.\n\nHEAD. This word has several significations, beside its natural one,\nwhich denotes the head of a man. It is sometimes used in Scripture for\nthe whole man: \u201cBlessings are upon the head of the just,\u201d Prov. x, 6;\nthat is, upon their persons. God says of the wicked, \u201cI will recompense\ntheir way upon their head,\u201d Ezek. ix, 10. It signifies a chief or\ncapital city: \u201cThe head of Syria is Damascus,\u201d Isaiah vii, 8. It denotes\na chief or principal members in society: \u201cThe Lord will cut off from\nIsrael head and tail. The ancient and honourable he is the head,\u201d Isaiah\nix, 14, 15. \u201cThe seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the\nserpent,\u201d Gen. iii, 15; that is, Christ Jesus, the blessed seed of the\nwoman, shall overthrow the power, policy, and works of the devil. The\nriver in paradise was divided into four heads or branches. In times of\ngrief, the mourners covered their heads: they cut and plucked off their\nhair. Amos, speaking of unhappy times, says, \u201cI will bring baldness upon\nevery head,\u201d Amos viii, 10. In prosperity, they anointed their heads\nwith sweet oils: \u201cLet thy head lack no\u201d perfumed \u201cointment,\u201d Eccles. ix,\n8. To shake the head at any one, expresses contempt: \u201cThe virgin, the\ndaughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the\ndaughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee,\u201d Isaiah xxxvii, 22.\n\nHead is taken for one that hath rule and pre\u00ebminence over others. Thus\nGod is the head of Christ; as Mediator, from him he derives all his\ndignity and authority. Christ is the only spiritual head of the church,\nboth in respect of eminence and influence; he communicates life, motion,\nand strength to every believer. Also the husband is the head of his\nwife, because by God\u2019s ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen. iii, 16;\nalso in regard to pre\u00ebminence of sex, 1 Peter iii, 7, and excellency of\nknowledge, 1 Cor. xiv, 35. The Apostle mentions this subordination of\npersons in 1 Cor. xi, 3: \u201cBut I would have you know, that the head of\nevery man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head\nof Christ is God.\u201d \u201cThe stone which the builders rejected was made the\nhead of the corner,\u201d Psalm cxviii, 22. It was the first in the angle,\nwhether it were disposed at the top of that angle to adorn and crown it,\nor at the bottom to support it. This, in the New Testament, is applied\nto Christ, who is the strength and beauty of the church, to unite the\nseveral parts of it, namely both Jews and Gentiles together.\n\nHEAR, HEARING. This word is used in several senses in Scripture. In its\nobvious and literal acceptation, it denotes the exercise of that bodily\nsense of which the ear is the organ; and as hearing is a sense by which\ninstruction is conveyed to the mind, and the mind is excited to\nattention and to obedience, so the ideas of attention and obedience are\nalso grafted on the expression or sense of hearing. God is said,\nspeaking after the manner of men, to hear prayer, that is, to attend to\nit, and comply with the requests it contains: \u201cI love the Lord, because\nhe hath heard,\u201d hath attended to, hath complied with, \u201cthe voice of my\nsupplication,\u201d Psalm cxvi, 1. On the contrary, God is said not to hear,\nthat is, not to comply with, the requests of sinners, John ix, 31. Men\nare said to hear, when they attend to, or comply with, the request of\neach other, or when they obey the commands of God: \u201cHe who is of God\nheareth,\u201d obeyeth, practiseth, \u201cGod\u2019s words,\u201d John viii, 47. \u201cMy sheep\nhear my voice,\u201d and show their attention to it, by following me, John x,\n27. \u201cThis is my beloved Son: hear ye him,\u201d Matt. xvii, 5. This seems to\nbe an allusion to Deut. xviii, 15, 18, 19: \u201cThe Lord shall raise up unto\nyou a prophet; him shall ye hear;\u201d which is also expressly applied in\nActs iii, 22. The other senses which may be attached to the word \u201chear,\u201d\nseem to rise from the preceding, and may be referred to the same ideas.\n\nHEART. The Hebrews regarded the heart as the source of wit,\nunderstanding, love, courage, grief, and pleasure. Hence are derived\nmany modes of expression. \u201cAn honest and good heart,\u201d Luke viii, 15, is\na heart studious of holiness, being prepared by the Spirit of God to\nreceive the word with due affections, dispositions, and resolutions. We\nread of a broken heart, a clean heart, an evil heart, a liberal heart.\nTo \u201cturn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the\nchildren to their fathers,\u201d Mal. iv, 6, signifies to cause them to be\nperfectly reconciled, and that they should be of the same mind. To want\nheart, sometimes denotes to want understanding and prudence: \u201cEphraim is\nlike a silly dove, without heart,\u201d Hosea vii, 11. \u201cO fools, and slow of\nheart,\u201d Luke xxiv, 25; that is, ignorant, and without understanding.\n\u201cThis people\u2019s heart is waxed gross, lest they should understand with\ntheir heart,\u201d Matt. xiii, 15; their heart is become incapable of\nunderstanding spiritual things; they resist the light, and are proof\nagainst all impressions of truth. \u201cThe prophets prophesy out of their\nown heart,\u201d Ezekiel xiii, 2; that is, according to their own\nimagination, without any warrant from God.\n\nThe heart is said to be dilated by joy, contracted by sadness, broken by\nsorrow, to grow fat, and be hardened by prosperity. The heart melts\nunder discouragement, forsakes one under terror, is desolate in\naffliction, and fluctuating in doubt. To speak to any one\u2019s heart is to\ncomfort him, to say pleasing and affecting things to him. The heart\nexpresses also the middle part of any thing: \u201cTyre is in the heart of\nthe seas,\u201d Ezekiel xxvii, 4; in the midst of the seas. \u201cWe will not fear\nthough the mountains be carried into the heart (middle) of the sea,\u201d\nPsalm xlvi, 2.\n\nThe heart of man is naturally depraved and inclined to evil, Jer. xvii,\n9. A divine power is requisite for its renovation, John iii, 1\u201311. When\nthus renewed, the effects will be seen in the temper, conversation, and\nconduct at large. Hardness of heart is that state in which a sinner is\ninclined to, and actually goes on in, rebellion against God.\n\nHEATH, \u05e2\u05e8\u05e2\u05e8, Jer. xvii, 6; xlviii, 6. \u201cHe shall be like the heath in the\ndesert. He shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched\nplaces in the wilderness, a salt land.\u201d The LXX and Vulgate render\n_oror_, \u201cthe tamarisk;\u201d and this is strengthened by the affinity of the\nHebrew name of this tree with the Turkish _\u0153r\u0153r_. Taylor and\nParkhurst render it, \u201ca blasted tree stripped of its foliage.\u201d If it be\na particular tree, the tamarisk is as likely as any. Celsius thinks it\nto be the juniper; but from the mention of it as growing in a salt land,\nin parched places, the author of \u201cScripture Illustrated\u201d is disposed to\nseek it among the _lichens_, a species of plants which are the last\nproduction of vegetation under the frozen zone, and under the glowing\nheat of equatorial deserts; so that it seems best qualified to endure\nparched places, and a salt land. Hasselquist mentions several kinds seen\nby him in Egypt, Arabia, and Syria. In Jer. xlviii, 6, the original word\nis \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05e8, which the Septuagint translators have read \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8, for they\nrender it \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _wild ass_; and, as this seems best to agree with\nthe flight recommended in the passage, it is to be preferred. See WILD\nASS.\n\nHEAVEN, the place of the more immediate residence of the Most High, Gen.\nxiv, 19. The Jews enumerated three heavens: the first was the region of\nthe air, where the birds fly, and which are therefore called \u201cthe fowls\nof heaven,\u201d Job xxxv, 11. It is in this sense also that we read of the\ndew of heaven, the clouds of heaven, and the wind of heaven. The second\nis that part of space in which are fixed the heavenly luminaries, the\nsun, moon, and stars, and which Moses was instructed to call \u201cthe\nfirmament or expanse of heaven,\u201d Gen. i, 8. The third heaven is the seat\nof God and of the holy angels; the place into which Christ ascended\nafter his resurrection, and into which St. Paul was caught up, though it\nis not like the other heavens perceptible to mortal view.\n\n2. It is an opinion not destitute of probability, that the construction\nof the tabernacle, in which Jehovah dwelt by a visible symbol, termed\n\u201cthe cloud of glory,\u201d was intended to be a type of heaven. In the\nholiest place of the tabernacle, \u201cthe glory of the Lord,\u201d or visible\nemblem of his presence, rested between the cherubims; by the figures of\nwhich, the angelic host surrounding the throne of God in heaven was\ntypified; and as that holiest part of the tabernacle was, by a thick\nvail, concealed from the sight of those who frequented it for the\npurposes of worship, so heaven, the habitation of God, is, by the vail\nof flesh, hidden from mortal eyes. Admitting the whole tabernacle,\ntherefore, in which the worship of God was performed according to a\nritual of divine appointment, to be a representation of the universe, we\nare taught by it this beautiful lesson, that the whole universe is the\ntemple of God; but that in this vast temple there is \u201ca most holy\nplace,\u201d where the Deity resides and manifests his presence to the\nangelic hosts and redeemed company who surround him. This view appears\nto be borne out by the clear and uniform testimony of Scripture; and it\nis an interesting circumstance, that heaven, as represented by \u201cthe\nholiest of all,\u201d is heaven as it is presented to the eye of Christian\nfaith, the place where our Lord ministers as priest, to which believers\nnow come in spirit, and where, they are gathered together in the\ndisembodied state. Thus, for instance, St. Paul tells the believing\nHebrews, \u201cYe are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living\nGod, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to\nthe general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written,\u201d\nor are enrolled, \u201cin heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the\nspirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new\ncovenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things\nthan the blood of Abel,\u201d Heb. xii, 22\u201324. Here we are presented with the\nantitype of almost every leading circumstance of the Mosaic\ndispensation. Instead of the land of Canaan, we have heaven; for the\nearthly Jerusalem, we have the heavenly, the city of the living God; in\nplace of the congregation of Israel after the flesh, we have the general\nassembly and church of the first-born, that is, all true believers \u201cmade\nperfect;\u201d for just men in the imperfect state of the old dispensation,\nwe have just men made perfect in evangelical knowledge and holiness;\ninstead of Moses, the mediator of the old covenant, we have Jesus the\nMediator of the new and everlasting covenant; and instead of the blood\nof slaughtered animals, which was sprinkled upon the Israelites, the\ntabernacle, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, to make a typical\natonement, we have the blood of the Son of God, which was shed for the\nremission of the sins of the whole world; that blood which doth not,\nlike the blood of Abel, call for vengeance but for mercy, which hath\nmade peace between heaven and earth, effected the true and complete\natonement for sin, and which therefore communicates peace to the\nconscience of every sinner that believes the Gospel.\n\n3. Among the numerous refinements of modern times that is one of the\nmost remarkable which goes to deny the locality of heaven. \u201cIt is a\nstate,\u201d say many, \u201cnot a place.\u201d But if that be the case, the very\nlanguage of the Scriptures, in regard to this point, is calculated to\nmislead us. For that God resides in a particular part of the universe,\nwhere he makes his presence known to his intelligent creatures by some\ntranscendent, visible glory, is an opinion that has prevailed among Jews\nand Christians, Greeks and Romans, yea, in every nation, civilized or\nsavage, and in every age; and, since it is confirmed by revelation, why\nshould it be doubted? Into this most holy place, the habitation of the\nDeity, Jesus, after his resurrection, ascended; and there, presenting\nhis crucified body before the manifestation of the divine presence,\nwhich is called \u201cthe throne of the Majesty in the heavens,\u201d he offered\nunto God the sacrifice of himself, and made atonement for the sins of\nhis people. There he is sat down upon his throne, crowned with glory and\nhonour, as king upon his holy hill of Zion, and continually officiates\nas our great High Priest, Advocate, and Intercessor, within the vail.\nThere is his Father\u2019s house, into which he is gone before, to prepare\nmansions of bliss for his disciples; it is the kingdom conferred upon\nhim as the reward of his righteousness, and of which he has taken\npossession as their forerunner, Acts i, 11; Heb. vi, 19, 20.\n\n4. Some of the ancients imagined that the habitation of good men, after\nthe resurrection, would be the sun; grounding this fanciful opinion on a\nmistaken interpretation of Psalm xix, 4, which they rendered, with the\nLXX and Vulgate, \u201cHe has set his tabernacle in the sun.\u201d Others, again,\nhave thought it to lie beyond the starry firmament, a notion less\nimprobable than the former. Mr. Whiston supposes the air to be the\nmansion of the blessed, at least for the present; and he imagines that\nChrist is at the top of the atmosphere, and other spirits nearer to or\nmore remote from him according to the degree of their moral purity, to\nwhich he conceives the specific gravity of their inseparable vehicles to\nbe proportionable. Mr. Hallet has endeavoured to prove that they will\ndwell upon earth, when it shall be restored to its paradisaical state.\nThe passages of Scripture, however, on which he grounds his hypothesis,\nare capable of another and very different interpretation. After all, we\nmay observe, that the place of the blessed is a question of\ncomparatively little importance; and we may cheerfully expect and pursue\nit, though we cannot answer a multitude of curious questions, relating\nto various circumstances that pertain to it. We have reason to believe\nthat heaven will be a social state, and that its happiness will, in some\nmeasure, arise from mutual communion and converse, and the expressions\nand exercises of mutual benevolence. All the views presented to us of\nthis eternal residence of good men are pure and noble; and form a\nstriking contrast to the low hopes, and the gross and sensual\nconceptions of a future state, which distinguish the Pagan and\nMohammedan systems. The Christian heaven may be described to be a state\nof eternal communion with God, and consecration to hallowed devotional\nand active services; from which will result an uninterrupted increase of\nknowledge, holiness, and joy, to the glorified and immortalized assembly\nof the redeemed.\n\nHEBER, or EBER, the father of Peleg, and the son of Salah, who was the\ngrandson of Shem, one of Noah\u2019s sons, was born A. M. 1723; B. C. 2281.\nFrom him some have supposed that Abraham and his descendants derived the\nappellation of Hebrews. But others have suggested, with greater\nprobability, that Abraham and his family were thus called, because they\ncame from the other side of the Euphrates into Canaan; Heber signifying\nin the Hebrew language _one that passes_, or, _a passage_, that is, of\nthe river Euphrates. According to this opinion, Hebrew signifies much\nthe same as foreigner among us, or one that comes from beyond sea. Such\nwere Abraham and his family among the Canaanites; and his posterity,\nlearning and using the language of the country, still retained the\nappellation originally given them, even when they became possessors and\nsettled inhabitants.\n\n2. HEBER the Kenite, of Jethro\u2019s family, husband to Jael, who killed\nSisera, Judges iv, 17, &c.\n\nHEBREW OF THE HEBREWS, an appellation which the Apostle Paul applies to\nhimself, Phil. iii, 5, concerning the meaning of which there has been\nsome difference of opinion. Godwin, in his \u201cMoses and Aaron,\u201d\nunderstands by this expression, a Hebrew both by father\u2019s and mother\u2019s\nside. But if it meant no more than this, there was little occasion for\nthe Apostle\u2019s using it immediately after having declared that he was \u201cof\nthe stock of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin,\u201d which, on Godwin\u2019s\nsupposition, is the same as a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for the Jews were\nnot allowed to marry out of their own nation. Beside, it is not likely\nthat St. Paul would have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and\nhonour, that his parents were not proselytes. It is more probable that a\nHebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by nation and language,\nwhich many of Abraham\u2019s posterity, in those days, were not; or one of\nthe Hebrew Jews who performed their public worship in the Hebrew tongue;\nfor such were reckoned more honourable than the Jews born out of Judea,\nand who spoke the Greek tongue. See HELLENISTS.\n\nHEBREW LANGUAGE, called also absolutely Hebrew, is the language spoken\nby the Hebrews, and in which all the books of the Old Testament are\nwritten; whence it is also called the holy or sacred language. It is\nsaid to have been preserved in the midst of the confusion at Babel, in\nthe family of Heber, or Eber, who, as it is alleged, was not concerned\nin the building of Babel, and, consequently, did not share in the\npunishment inflicted on the actual transgressors. The Jews, in general,\nhave been of opinion, that the Hebrew was the language of Heber\u2019s\nfamily, from whom Abraham sprung. On the other hand, it has been\nmaintained that Heber\u2019s family, in the fourth generation after the\ndispersion, lived in Chaldea, where Abraham was born, Gen. xi, 27, 28,\nand that there is no reason to think they used a different language from\ntheir neighbours around them. It appears, moreover, that the Chaldee,\nand not the Hebrew, was the language of Abraham\u2019s country, and of his\nkindred, Gen. xxiv, 4; xxxi, 46, 47; and it is probable that Abraham\u2019s\nnative language was Chaldee, and that the Hebrew was the language of the\nCanaanites, which Abraham and his posterity learned by travelling among\nthem. It is surprising that this adoption of the Phenician language by\nthe patriarchs should have escaped the notice of several intelligent\nreaders of the Bible. Jacob and Laban, it is clear, by the names they\ngave to the cairn, or memorial of stones, spoke two different dialects;\nand it is nearly equally evident, that the language of Laban was the\ndialect of Ur of the Chaldees, the original speech of the Hebrew race.\nAs the patriarchs disused the true Hebrew dialect, it is manifest that\nthey had conformed to the speech of Canaan; and that this conformity was\ncomplete, is proved by the identity between all the remains of\nCanaanitish names. At the same time, it must be remarked, that the\nPhenician and the Chaldean were merely different dialects of the same\nprimitive language which had been spoken by the first ancestors of\nmankind.\n\n2. There is no work in all antiquity written in pure Hebrew, beside the\nbooks of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee.\nThe Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the\nworld; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr.\nSharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language;\nnot indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first\nparents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion;\nand, however it might have been improved and altered from the first\nspeech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages,\nor almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in\nthe world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius\nof the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original\nlanguage, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of\nwhich it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The\nnames of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental\ncircumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined;\nand it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish\nother cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian,\nPhenician, &c.\n\nThe period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered\nthe golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from\nthat time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several\nforeign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political\nintercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and\nBabylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew\nlanguage. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the\nBabylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so\nmany foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not\ninaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years\u2019\ncaptivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost\ntheir native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from\ntheir adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they\nhad resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a\ndialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was,\nthat, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret\nthem to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe\nbrought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the\nLevites are said to have caused the people to understand the law,\nbecause \u201cthey read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave\nthe sense, and caused them to understand the reading,\u201d Nehem. viii, 8.\nSome time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be\nspoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by\nthe priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be\nenabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it\nappears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general\ncontents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the\nleaden age of the language.\n\nThe present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and\nof a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has\nbeen most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in\nEusebius\u2019s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by\nJoseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church,\ntranscribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square\nletters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those\nJews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than\nthat of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the\nold character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This\nopinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as\nfrom rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such\ncharacters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of\nthis point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck\nbefore the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten\ntribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same\nwith the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their\nforms, occasioned by the depredations of time.\n\nHEBREWS, sometimes called Israelites, from their progenitor, Jacob,\nsurnamed Israel, and in modern times Jews, as the descendants of Judah,\nthe name of this leading tribe being given to all. See JEWS.\n\nHEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. Though the genuineness of this epistle has been\ndisputed both in ancient and modern times, its antiquity has never been\nquestioned. It is generally allowed that there are references to it,\nalthough the author is not mentioned, in the remaining works of Clement\nof Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr; and that it contains, as\nwas first noticed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, internal evidence of\nhaving been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, Heb. viii, 4;\nix, 25; x, 11, 37; xiii, 10. The earliest writer now extant who quotes\nthis epistle as the work of St. Paul is Clement of Alexandria, toward\nthe end of the second century; but, as he ascribes it to St. Paul\nrepeatedly and without hesitation, we may conclude that in his time no\ndoubt had been entertained upon the subject, or, at least, that the\ncommon tradition of the church attributed it to St. Paul. Clement is\nfollowed by Origen, by Dionysius and Alexander, both bishops of\nAlexandria, by Ambrose, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerom,\nChrysostom, and Cyril, all of whom consider this epistle as written by\nSt. Paul; and it is also ascribed to him in the ancient Syriac version,\nsupposed to have been made at the end of the first century. Eusebius\nsays, \u201cOf St. Paul there are fourteen epistles manifest and well known;\nbut yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, urging for their\nopinion that it is contradicted by the church of the Romans, as not\nbeing St. Paul\u2019s.\u201d In Dr. Lardner we find the following remark: \u201cIt is\nevident that this epistle was generally received in ancient times by\nthose Christians who used the Greek language, and lived in the eastern\nparts of the Roman empire.\u201d And in another place he says, \u201cIt was\nreceived as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers in the fourth,\nfifth, and sixth centuries.\u201d The earlier Latin writers take no notice of\nthis epistle, except Tertullian, who ascribes it to Barnabas. It\nappears, indeed, from the following expression of Jerom, that this\nepistle was not generally received as canonical Scripture by the Latin\nchurch in his time: \u201c_Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas\nScripturas non recipiat_.\u201d [Although the usage of the Latin church does\nnot receive it among the canonical Scriptures.] The same thing is\nmentioned in other parts of his works. But many individuals of the Latin\nchurch acknowledged it to be written by St. Paul, as Jerom himself,\nAmbrose, Hilary, and Philaster; and the persons who doubted its\ngenuineness were those the least likely to have been acquainted with the\nepistle at an early period, from the nature of its contents not being so\ninteresting to the Latin churches, which consisted almost entirely of\nGentile Christians, ignorant, probably, of the Mosaic law, and holding\nbut little intercourse with Jews.\n\n2. The moderns, who, upon grounds of internal evidence, contend against\nthe genuineness of this epistle, rest principally upon the two following\narguments, the omission of the writer\u2019s name, and the superior elegance\nof the style in which it is written. It is indeed certain that all the\nacknowledged epistles of St. Paul begin with a salutation in his own\nname, and that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is nothing of that\nkind; but this omission can scarcely be considered as conclusive against\npositive testimony. St. Paul might have reasons for departing, upon this\noccasion, from his usual mode of salutation, which we at this distant\nperiod cannot discover. Some have imagined that he omitted his name,\nbecause he knew that it would not have much weight with the Hebrew\nChristians, to whom he was in general obnoxious, on account of his zeal\nin converting the Gentiles, and in maintaining that the observance of\nthe Mosaic law was not essential to salvation: it is, however, clear,\nthat the persons to whom this epistle was addressed knew from whom it\ncame, as the writer refers to some acts of kindness which he had\nreceived from them, and also expresses a hope of seeing them soon,\nHebrews x, 34; xiii, 18, 19, 23. As to the other argument, it must be\nowned that there does not appear to be such superiority in the style of\nthis epistle, as should lead to the conclusion that it was not written\nby St. Paul. Those who have thought differently have mentioned Barnabas,\nSt. Luke, and Clement, as authors or translators of this epistle. The\nopinion of Jerom was, that the sentiments are the Apostle\u2019s, but the\nlanguage and composition that of some one else, who committed to writing\nthe Apostle\u2019s sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the\nthings spoken by his master. Dr. Lardner says, \u201cMy conjecture is, that\nSt. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great\nmaster of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the Apostle\u2019s\nsentiments in his own elegant Greek; but who this assistant of the\nApostle was, is altogether unknown.\u201d But surely the writings of St.\nPaul, like those of other authors, may not all have the same precise\ndegree of merit; and if, upon a careful perusal and comparison, it\nshould be thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews is written with\ngreater elegance than the acknowledged compositions of this Apostle; it\nshould also be remembered that the apparent design and contents of this\nepistle suggest the idea of more studied composition, and yet, that\nthere is nothing in it which amounts to a marked difference of style: on\nthe other hand, there is the same concise, abrupt, and elliptical mode\nof expression, and it contains many phrases and sentiments which are\nfound in no part of Scripture, except in St. Paul\u2019s Epistles. We may\nfarther observe, that the manner in which Timothy is mentioned in this\nepistle makes it probable that it was written by St. Paul. Compare Heb.\nxiii, 23, with 2 Cor. i, 1, and Col. i, 1. It was certainly written by a\nperson who had suffered imprisonment in the cause of Christianity; and\nthis is known to have been the case of St. Paul, but of no other person\nto whom this epistle has been attributed. Upon the whole, both the\nexternal and internal evidence appear to preponderate so greatly in\nfavour of St. Paul\u2019s being the author of this epistle, that it cannot\nbut be considered as written by that Apostle.\n\n3. \u201cThey of Italy salute you,\u201d is the only expression in the epistle\nwhich can assist us in determining from whence it was written. The Greek\nwords are, \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 which should have been translated, \u201cThose\nfrom Italy salute you;\u201d and the only inference to be drawn from them\nseems to be, that St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was at a place\nwhere some Italian converts were. This inference is not incompatible\nwith the common opinion, that this epistle was written from Rome, and\ntherefore we consider it as written from that city. It is supposed to\nhave been written toward the end of St. Paul\u2019s first imprisonment at\nRome, or immediately after it, because the Apostle expresses an\nintention of visiting the Hebrews shortly: we therefore place the date\nof this epistle in the year 63.\n\n4. Clement, of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerom, thought that this\nepistle was originally written in the Hebrew language; but all the other\nancient fathers who have mentioned this subject speak of the Greek as\nthe original work; and as no one pretends to have seen this epistle in\nHebrew, as there are no internal marks of the Greek being a translation,\nand as we know that the Greek language was at this time very generally\nunderstood at Jerusalem, we may accede to the more common opinion, both\namong the ancients and moderns, and consider the present Greek as the\noriginal text. It is no small satisfaction to reflect, that those who\nhave denied either the genuineness or the originality of this epistle\nhave always supposed it to have been written or translated by some\nfellow labourer or assistant of St. Paul, and that almost every one\nadmits that it carries with it the sanction and authority of the\ninspired Apostle.\n\n5. There has been some little doubt concerning the persons to whom this\nepistle was addressed; but by far the most general and most probable\nopinion is, that it was written to those Christians of Judea who had\nbeen converted to the Gospel from Judaism. That it was written,\nnotwithstanding its general title, to the Christians of one certain\nplace or country, is evident from the following passages: \u201cI beseech you\nthe rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner,\u201d Heb.\nxiii, 19. \u201cKnow ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with\nwhom, if he come shortly, I will see you,\u201d Heb. xiii, 23. And it appears\nfrom the following passage in the Acts, \u201cWhen the number of the\ndisciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians\nagainst the Hebrews,\u201d Acts vi, 1, that certain persons were at this time\nknown at Jerusalem by the name of Hebrews. They seem to have been native\nJews, inhabitants of Judea, the language of which country was Hebrew,\nand therefore they were called Hebrews, in contradistinction to those\nJews who, residing commonly in other countries, although they\noccasionally came to Jerusalem, used the Greek language, and were\ntherefore called Grecians.\n\n6. The general design of this epistle was to confirm the Jewish\nChristians in the faith and practice of the Gospel, which they might be\nin danger of deserting, either through the persuasion or persecution of\nthe unbelieving Jews, who were very numerous and powerful in Judea. We\nmay naturally suppose, that the zealous adherents to the law would\ninsist upon the majesty and glory which attended its first promulgation,\nupon the distinguished character of their legislator, Moses, and upon\nthe divine authority of the ancient Scriptures; and they might likewise\nurge the humiliation and death of Christ as an argument against the\ntruth of his religion. To obviate the impression which any reasoning of\nthis sort might make upon the converts to Christianity, the writer of\nthis epistle begins with declaring to the Hebrews, that the same God who\nhad formerly, upon a variety of occasions, spoken to their fathers by\nmeans of his prophets, had now sent his only Son for the purpose of\nrevealing his will; he then describes, in most sublime language, the\ndignity of the person of Christ, Heb. i; and thence infers the duty of\nobeying his commands, the divine authority of which was established by\nthe performance of miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he\npoints out the necessity of Christ\u2019s incarnation and passion, Heb. ii;\nhe shows the superiority of Christ to Moses, and warns the Hebrews\nagainst the sin of unbelief, Heb. iii; he exhorts to steadfastness in\nthe profession of the Gospel, and gives an animated description of\nChrist as our high priest, Heb. iv-vii; he shows that the Levitical\npriesthood and the old covenant were abolished by the priesthood of\nChrist, and by the new covenant, Heb. viii; he points out the efficacy\nof the ceremonies and sacrifices of the law, and the sufficiency of the\natonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, Heb. ix, x; he fully explains\nthe nature, merit, and effects of faith, Heb. xi; and in the last two\nchapters he gives a variety of exhortations and admonitions, all\ncalculated to encourage the Hebrews to bear with patience and constancy\nany trials to which they might be exposed. He concludes with the\nvaledictory benediction usual in St. Paul\u2019s Epistles: \u201cGrace be with you\nall. Amen.\u201d The most important articles of our faith are explained, and\nthe most material objections to the Gospel are answered with great\nforce, in this celebrated epistle. The arguments used in it, as being\naddressed to persons who had been educated in the Jewish religion, are\nprincipally taken from the ancient Scriptures; and the connection\nbetween former revelations and the Gospel of Christ, is pointed out in\nthe most perspicuous and satisfactory manner.\n\n7. In addition, it may be observed, that Mr. Stuart, an American critic,\nhas published an ample investigation of several of the points referred\nto in the above remarks, and the following are the _results_:--\n\n(1.) As to the place in which the persons lived to whom the epistle is\naddressed, I have now examined all the objections against the opinion,\nthat the Epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, which I have\nmet with, and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve\nattention. I am unable to perceive that they are very weighty; and\nsurely they come quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the\npositive proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and\nfalls short of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the\nepistle itself would possess. But uniting the whole of it together;\nconsidering the intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong\nattachment to their ritual, and the special danger of defection from\nChristianity in consequence of it, which the whole texture of the\nepistle necessarily supposes, and combining these things with the other\ncircumstances above discussed, I cannot resist the impression, that the\nuniversal opinion of the ancient church respecting the persons to whom\nthis epistle was addressed, was well founded, being built upon early\ntradition and the contents of the epistle; and that the doubts and\ndifficulties thrown in the way by modern and recent critics, are not of\nsufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the belief that\nPalestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews.\nThousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are believed\nand treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion that\nhas now been examined.\n\n(2.) As to the author, we now come to the result of this investigation.\nIn the Egyptian and eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a\npretty early period, some who had doubts whether St. Paul wrote the\nEpistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is\ndefinitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is\nmanifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter,\nany important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the\nchurch, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable\nrespectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the\nchurch, for the negative of the question which we are considering. What\nJerom avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, _Ab ecclesiis orientis\net ab omnibus retr\u00f2 ecclesiasticis Gr\u00e6ci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi\nApostoli Pauli suscipi_. In the western churches a diversity of opinion\nprevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can\nbe adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerom and Augustine\nleave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the\nwestern churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times,\nwe have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his\nepistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation.\nWhat produced a change of opinion in the west, we are left to\nconjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times\nafford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from\nbeing a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the\nchurches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little\nable to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured\nto show, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the\neast to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in\nwhich the Epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable,\nthat an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself,\nshould have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have\nwith more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome\nagainst the Montanist party, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was\nsupposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the\nreception again into the bosom of the church of those persons who had so\nlapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in\nHeb. vi, 4\u20138, and x, 26\u201331, at least seem strongly to favour the views\nwhich they maintained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against\nthe Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics have been\nled to believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected\nby them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a\nmatter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical\nevidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this\nsubject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the Epistle to the\nHebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Roman church.\nMany such instances might be produced from the history of the church.\nThe Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern\nsects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it\nstood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many\nof the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the\nChiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that\nLuther himself rejected the Epistle of James, because he viewed it as\nthwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so\nfar as to give it the appellation of _epistola straminea_? [an epistle\nof straw.] It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church,\nexceedingly imbittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have\ngradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of the epistle;\nbecause it was to their adversaries a favourite source of appeal, and\nbecause, unlike St. Paul\u2019s other epistles, it was anonymous. That all,\neven of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our\nepistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active\npart in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of\nsuch an origin, or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever\nmight have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty\ngenerally rejected by the churches of the west, the fact that it was so\ncannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the\nlatter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem\nto have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as St. Paul\u2019s;\nalthough there were some among them who did receive it. It remains,\nthen, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The\nearly testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And\nthere seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as\nuniform for the first century after the apostolic age as in respect to\nmany other books of the New Testament; and more so, than in respect to\nseveral. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of evidence from\ntradition is altogether preponderant in favour of the opinion, that St.\nPaul was the author of our epistle.\n\n(3.) As to the language in which the epistle was originally written,\nthere has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient\nand modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Paul wrote to the\nHebrews in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke carefully translated\nit into Greek. Eusebius in the same manner says, that Paul wrote to the\nHebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report,\neither Luke or Clement translated it. So Jerom, also, _scripserat ut\nHebr\u00e6us Hebr\u00e6is Hebraic\u00e8_; [as a Hebrew he had written to the Hebrews in\nHebrew;] and then he adds that this epistle was translated into Greek,\nso that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from\nthat of St. Paul\u2019s. Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was\nClement, of Alexandria; and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that\nthe thoughts contained in the epistle were St. Paul\u2019s, while the diction\nor costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the\nsentiments of the Apostle. By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably\ndoubt, that these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken\nin the days of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long\nceased to be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these\nfathers were led to the conclusion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was\noriginally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief, so\nuniversal in ancient times, of its having been addressed to some church,\nor to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a\nconclusion; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews in all\nprobability be more acceptable, if written in their own vernacular\nlanguage? Moreover, St. Paul was well acquainted with that language, for\nhe was brought up at Jerusalem, and \u201cat the feet of Gamaliel;\u201d and when\nhe had visited that city, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who\nwere excited against him, in their native tongue, Acts xxii, 1, 2. Why\nshould it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, this epistle was\noriginally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that\ncountry? So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned;\nalthough other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not\nappear to have coincided in opinion with those to whom I have just\nreferred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to\ndefend the same opinion; and particularly Micha\u00eblis, who has discussed\nthe subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do\nnot think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind\nthey appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an\nexegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, would deduce a\nvery strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a\nmeaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have\nexpressed a different idea, and that the translator mistook his meaning.\nHe then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have\nbeen. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations\nwholly _\u00e0 priori_; as if these were admissible in a question of mere\nfact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls _wrong\ntranslation_, which wears the appearance of any considerable\nprobability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well\nacquainted with the Aramean language, who has gone through with the New\nTestament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of\ntranslation from Aramean documents, confesses, that, in respect to this\nepistle, he finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an\nAramean original, and no marks that there ever was such an original.\nThis testimony is of considerable importance in respect to the question\nbefore us, as it comes from a critic who spent many years on the study\nof that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under\nconsideration, namely, the detection of the Aramean originals of the\nvarious parts of the New Testament.\n\n(4.) The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original are deduced\nfrom two sources: That Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to whom the\nHebrew language would have been more acceptable and intelligible, and\nmany of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly could not\nread it: That the diversity of style in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so\ngreat, when compared with that of St. Paul\u2019s epistles, that, unless we\nsuppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be\nled to the conclusion that St. Paul did not write it. Both of these\ntopics have been already discussed. I merely add here, therefore, that\nin case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide\ncirculation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most\nfeasible method of accomplishing this. Beside, if St. Paul did address\nit to the church at C\u00e6sarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in\nGreek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did\nnot, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for in every\nconsiderable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood\nthe Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position established\nbeyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug\u2019s \u201cIntroduction to the New\nTestament,\u201d vol. ii, pp. 32\u201350. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he\ndid not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his\nepistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common in Rome.\nIf St. Paul understood the Latin language, which is no where affirmed,\nand he had not resided when he wrote this epistle, in any of the\ncountries where it was commonly used, still he understood Greek so much\nbetter that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar\nreason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable,\nthat he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At\nthe time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty-five years at least,\nin Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period,\nonly a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek,\nnot Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then,\nthat, after twenty-five years\u2019 incessant labour or preaching,\nconversing, and writing, in this language, he should have preferred\nwriting in it? Indeed, can it be probable, that, under circumstances\nlike these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his\nnative dialect of Palestine? I cannot think it strange, therefore, that\nalthough the Epistle to the Hebrews was in all probability directed to\nsome part of Palestine, yet it was written by St. Paul in Greek, and not\nin Hebrew. But, whatever may be the estimation put upon arguments of\nthis nature, there are internal marks of its having been originally\ncomposed in Greek, which cannot well be overlooked.\n\nHEBRON, one of the most ancient cities in the world; for it was built\nseven years before Zoan, the capital of Lower Egypt, Numbers xiii, 22.\nNow, as the Egyptians gloried much in the antiquity of their cities, and\ntheir country was indeed one of the first that was peopled after the\ndispersion of Babel, it may be from hence concluded that it was one of\nthe most ancient. Some think it was founded by Arba, one of the oldest\ngiants in Palestine; for which reason it was called Kirjath-arba, or\nArba\u2019s city, Joshua xiv, 15; which name was afterward changed to that of\nHebron, Joshua xv, 13. Arba was the father of Anak; and from Anak the\ngiants, called Anakim, took their name, who were still dwelling at\nHebron when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. When it was first\ncalled Hebron, is uncertain; some think, not till it was conquered by\nCaleb, and that he called it so from his son of that name. But Calmet is\nof opinion that the name of Hebron is more ancient; and that Caleb, to\ndo honour to his son, named him after this ancient and celebrated place.\nHebron was situated upon an eminence, twenty miles southward from\nJerusalem, and twenty miles north from Beersheba. Abraham, Sarah, and\nIsaac were buried near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, or the double\ncave, which Abraham bought of Ephron, Genesis xxiii, 7\u20139. Hebron was the\nallotment of Judah. The Lord assigned it for the inheritance of Caleb,\nJoshua xiv, 13; x, 3, 23, 37. Joshua first took Hebron, and killed the\nking, whose name was Hoham. But afterward Caleb again made a conquest of\nit, assisted by the troops of his tribe, and the valour of Othniel,\nJudges i, 12, 13. It was appointed to be a dwelling for priests, and\ndeclared to be a city of refuge, Joshua xxi, 13. David, after the death\nof Saul, fixed the seat of his government there, 2 Sam. ii, 2\u20135. At\nHebron, Absalom began his rebellion, 2 Sam. xv, 7, 8, &c. During the\ncaptivity of Babylon, the Edomites having invaded the southern parts of\nJudea, made themselves masters of Hebron; hence Josephus sometimes makes\nit a part of Edom. Here Zacharias and Elizabeth are believed to have\ndwelt; and it is supposed to have been the birth place of John the\nBaptist. Hebron is now called El Khalil; though not a town of large\ndimensions, it has a considerable population. According to Ali Bey, it\ncontains about four hundred families of Arabs; but he does not notice\neither the Jews, who are numerous, or the Turks. He describes it as\nsituated on the slope of a mountain, and having a strong castle.\nProvisions, he says, are abundant, and there is a considerable number of\nshops. The streets are winding, and the houses unusually high. The\ncountry is well cultivated, to a considerable extent. Hebron is computed\nto be twenty-seven miles south-west of Jerusalem.\n\nHEIFER, a young cow, used in sacrifice at the temple, Num. xix, 1\u201310.\nMoses and Aaron were instructed to deliver the divine command to the\nchildren of Israel that they should procure \u201ca red heifer, without\nspot,\u201d that is, one that was entirely red, without one spot of any other\ncolour; \u201cfree from blemish, and on which the yoke had never yet come,\u201d\nthat is, which had never yet been employed in ploughing the ground or in\nany other work; for according to the common sense of all mankind, those\nanimals which had been made to serve other uses, became unfit to be\noffered to God,--a sentiment which we find in Homer and other Heathen\nwriters. The animal was to be delivered to the priest, who was to lead\nher forth out of the camp, and there to slay her: the priest was then to\ntake of the blood with his finger, and sprinkle it seven times before\nthe tabernacle, and afterward to burn the carcass: then to take cedar\nwood and hyssop, and scarlet wood, and cast them into the flames. The\nashes were to be gathered up, and preserved in a secure and clean place,\nfor the use of the congregation, by the sprinkling of which ashes in\nwater, it became a water of separation, by means of which a typical or\nceremonial purification for sin was effected, Heb. ix, 13.\n\nHELIOPOLIS. See ON.\n\nHELL. This is a Saxon word, which is derived from a verb which signifies\n_to hide_ or _conceal_. A late eminent Biblical critic, Dr. Campbell,\nhas investigated this subject with his usual accuracy; and the following\nis the substance of his remarks. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word\n_sheol_ frequently occurs, and uniformly, he thinks, denotes the state\nof the dead in general, without regard to the virtuous or vicious\ncharacters of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating\nthat word, the LXX have almost invariably used the Greek term \u1f05\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2,\n_hades_, which means the receptacle of the dead, and ought rarely to\nhave been translated _hell_, in the sense in which we now use it,\nnamely, as the place of torment. To denote this latter object, the New\nTestament writers always make use of the Greek word \u03b3\u03ad\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1, which is\ncompounded of two Hebrew words, _Ge Hinnom_, that is, \u201cThe Valley of\nHinnom,\u201d a place near Jerusalem, in which children were cruelly\nsacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites, 2 Chron.\nxxxiii, 6. This place was also called _Tophet_, 2 Kings xxiii, 10,\nalluding, as is supposed, to the noise of drums, (_toph_ signifying a\ndrum,) there raised to drown the cries of helpless infants. As in\nprocess of time this place came to be considered an emblem of hell, or\nthe place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a\nfuture state, the name _Tophet_ came gradually to be used in this sense,\nand at length to be confined to it. In this sense, also, the word\n_gehenna_, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New\nTestament, where it occurs about a dozen times. The confusion that has\narisen on this subject has been occasioned not only by our English\ntranslators having rendered the Hebrew word _sheol_ and the Greek word\n_gehenna_ frequently by the term _hell_; but the Greek word _hades_,\nwhich occurs eleven times in the New Testament, is, in every instance,\nexcept one, translated by the same English word, which it ought never to\nhave been. In the following passages of the Old Testament it seems,\nhowever, that a future world of wo is expressed by _sheol_: \u201cThey,\u201d the\nwicked, \u201cspend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to\n_sheol_,\u201d Job xxi, 13. \u201cThe wicked shall be turned into _sheol_, and all\nthe nations that forget God,\u201d Psalm ix, 17, 18. \u201cHer feet go down to\ndeath, her steps take hold on _sheol_,\u201d Prov. v, 5. \u201cBut he knoweth not\nthat the ghosts are there, and that her guests are in the depths of\nsheol,\u201d Prov. ix, 18. \u201cThou shalt beat him with a rod, and shalt deliver\nhis soul from _sheol_,\u201d Prov. xxiii, 14. Thus, as Stuart observes, in\nhis \u201cEssay on Future Punishment,\u201d while the Old Testament employs\n_sheol_, in most cases to designate the grave, the region of the dead,\nthe place of departed spirits, it employs it also, in some cases, to\ndesignate along with this idea the adjunct one of the place of misery,\nplace of punishment, region of wo]. In this respect it accords fully\nwith the New Testament use of _hades_. For though _hades_ signifies the\ngrave, and often the invisible region of separate spirits, without\nreference to their condition, yet, in Luke xvi, 23, \u201cIn hades \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f85\u03b4\u03b7,\nhe lifted up his eyes, being in torments,\u201d it is clearly used for a\nplace and condition of misery. The word _hell_ is also used by our\ntranslators for _gehenna_, which means the world of future punishment,\n\u201cHow shall ye escape the damnation of hell, \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2?\u201c\n\nHELL, _Gates of_. See GATES.\n\nHELLENISTS. On this appellation, Dr. Jennings observes, There is a very\nremarkable appellation which the Apostle Paul, after glorying in his\nbeing \u201cof the stock of Israel, and of the tribe of Benjamin,\u201d applies to\nhimself, namely, that he was \u201ca Hebrew of the Hebrews,\u201d Phil. iii, 5. By\nthis expression Godwin understands a Hebrew both by father\u2019s and\nmother\u2019s side. But if this be all that the phrase imports, there seems\nto be very little occasion for the Apostle\u2019s using it immediately after\nhaving declared, that he was \u201cof the stock of Israel, and the tribe of\nBenjamin;\u201d which, on Godwin\u2019s supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of\nthe Hebrews; for the Jews were not allowed to marry out of their own\nnation; or if they sometimes married proselytes, yet their number was\ncomparatively so small among them, especially while they were under\noppression, as they were at that time by the Romans, that methinks Paul\nwould hardly have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and honour,\nthat neither of his parents were proselytes. It is therefore a much more\nprobable sense, that a Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by\nnation and language, which multitudes of Abraham\u2019s posterity, in those\ndays, were not; or one of the Hebrew Jews, who performed their public\nworship in the Hebrew tongue; for such were reckoned more honourable\nthan the Hellenistic Jews, who in their dispersion having, in a manner,\nlost the Hebrew, used the Greek language _in sacris_, and read the\nScripture out of the Septuagint version. We meet with this distinction\namong the converted Jews, in the Acts of the Apostles: \u201cIn those days,\nwhen the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring\nof the Grecians or Hellenists against the Hebrews,\u201d Acts vi, 1. This is\nwhat St. Paul probably meant by his being a Hebrew, as distinguished\nfrom an Israelite: \u201cAre they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So\nam I,\u201d 2 Corinthians xi, 22. In one sense, these were convertible terms,\nboth signifying Jews by nation and religion; but in the sense just\nmentioned, there were many, in those days, who were Israelites, but not\nHebrews. St. Paul was both, not only an Israelite by birth, but a\nHebrew, and not a Hellenistic Jew. Godwin expresses himself\ninaccurately, when he says that those who lived in Palestine, and who,\nas using the Hebrew text in their public worship, were opposed to the\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u03b1\u03af, are called Hebrews, or Jews. For, though Hebrew and Jew are\nconvertible terms, when opposed to Gentiles, as denoting the seed of\nAbraham, and professors of the Mosaic religion, see Jer. xxxiv, 9; yet,\nas opposed to the \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u03b1\u1f76, they are not convertible terms, there being\nHebrew Jews and Hellenistic Jews; for it is said, that when \u201cthey, who\nwere scattered by the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled\ninto several countries, preaching the word to none but Jews only,\u201d yet\nthey spoke, \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u1f70\u03c2, to the Hellenists or Grecians, Acts xi,\n19, 20. In order to confirm the sense which is here given of the word\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u03b1\u1f76, in opposition to the appellation Hebrews, it is proper we\nshould take notice of the distinction between the \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u03b1\u1f76.\nThe former were Greeks by nation, and as such distinguished from Jews,\nActs xvi, 1; xix, 10; and the Greek empire having been rendered by\nAlexander in a manner universal, and their language being then the most\ncommon and general, the appellation Greeks is sometimes given to the\nwhole Heathen world, or to all who were not Jews, Rom. i, 16; ii, 9.\nThese Greeks, called \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 by Josephus, are always styled \u1f1d\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\nin the New Testament. On which account Grotius, understanding by the\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u03b1\u1f76, or \u201cGrecians, to whom some of those who were dispersed on the\npersecution which arose about Stephen, preached the Lord Jesus,\u201d Acts\nxi, 19, 20, Greeks by nation, concludes there is a mistake in the text,\nand alters it according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions: \u201c_Cert\u00e8\nlegendum_,\u201d [it ought certainly to be read,] saith he, \u201c\u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\u201d So indeed the Alexandrian manuscript reads, but it is\nsupported by no other copy. And this is decisive against it--that from\nthe words immediately preceding, it is evident that these Grecians were\nby nation Jews, and not Greeks; it being expressly said, that those who\nwere scattered on the persecution \u201cpreached the Gospel to the Jews\nonly.\u201d As for the \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, or Greeks mentioned in St. John\u2019s Gospel, as\nbeing come to Jerusalem at the passover to worship in the temple, John\nxii, 20, and likewise those mentioned in the Acts, as worshipping along\nwith the Jews in the synagogues, Acts xiv, 1; xviii, 4; they were\ndoubtless Greeks by birth and nation, yet proselytes to the Jewish\nreligion. There is a distinction made between Jews and proselytes, Acts\nii, 10; but none between Hebrews and proselytes, because a proselyte\nmight be either a Hebrew or a Hellenist, according to the language in\nwhich he performed public worship. That the Hellenists or Grecians, were\nJews, is farther argued from the account we have, that when at Jerusalem\nSt. Paul \u201cdisputed against the Grecians, they went about to slay him,\u201d\nActs ix, 29, as the Jews at Damascus had done before, Acts ix, 23. Now\nhad these Grecians been strangers of a different nation, it cannot be\nimagined they durst have attempted to kill a Jew, among his own\ncountrymen, in the capital, and without a formal accusation of him\nbefore any of their tribunals. Upon the whole, the \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03db\u03b1\u1f76, or\nGrecians being Jews who used the Greek tongue in their sacred exercises,\nthe Hebrew Jews and Grecian Jews were distinguished in those days, in\nlike manner as the Portuguese and Dutch Jews are among us, not so much\nby the place of their birth, (many being born in England, others\nabroad,) as by the language they use in their public prayers and\nsermons.\n\nAmong the wonderful dealings of God, says Dr. Neander, by which the\ncoming of Christianity was prepared, must be placed the spreading of the\nJews among the Greeks and Romans. Those among them who belonged to the\nPharisees gave themselves much trouble to obtain proselytes; and the\nloss of respect for the old popular religion, and the unsatisfied\nreligious wants of multitudes, farthered their views. Reverence for the\nnational God of the Jews, as a mighty Being, and reverence for the\nsecret sanctuary of the splendid temple of Jerusalem, had long gained\nadmittance among the Heathen. Jewish goet\u00e6 (enchanters, jugglers, &c)\npermitted themselves to make use of a thousand acts of delusion, in\nwhich they were very skilful, to make an impression of astonishment on\nthe minds of those around them. Confidence in Judaism had in consequence\nmade such wide progress, especially in large capital towns, that the\nRoman writers in the time of the first emperors openly complain of it;\nand Seneca, in his book upon superstition, said of the Jews, \u201cThe\nconquered have given laws to the conquerors.\u201d The Jewish\nproselyte-makers, \u201cblind leaders of the blind,\u201d who had themselves no\nconception of the real nature, of religion, could give to others no\ninsight into it. They often allowed their converts to take up a kind of\ndead monotheism, and merely exchange one kind of superstition for\nanother; they taught them, that, by the mere outward worship of one God,\nand outward ceremonials, they were sure of the grace of God, without\nrequiring any change of life; and they gave to them only new means of\nsilencing their conscience, and new support in the sins which they were\nunwilling to renounce: and hence our Saviour reproached these\nproselyte-makers, that they made their converts ten times more the\nchildren of hell, than they themselves were. But we must here accurately\ndistinguish between the two classes of proselytes. The proselytes in the\nstrict sense of the word, the proselytes of righteousness, who underwent\ncircumcision and took upon themselves the whole of the ceremonial law,\nwere very different from the proselytes of the gate, who only bound\nthemselves to renounce idolatry, to the worship of the one God, and to\nabstinence from all Heathenish excess, as well as from every thing which\nappeared to have any connection with idolatry. The former often embraced\nall the fanaticism and superstition of the Jews, and allowed themselves\nto be blindly led by their Jewish teachers. The more difficult it had\nbeen to them to subject themselves to the observance of the Jewish\nceremonial law, necessarily so irksome to a Greek or a Roman, the less\ncould they find it in their hearts to believe, that all this had been in\nvain, that they had obtained no advantage by it, and that they must\nrenounce their presumed holiness. What Justin Martyr says to the Jews,\nholds good of these proselytes: \u201cThe proselytes not only do not believe,\nbut they calumniate the name of Christ twice as much as you, and they\nwish to murder and torture us who believe on him, because they are\ndesirous to resemble you in every thing.\u201d The proselytes of the gate, on\nthe contrary, had taken many of the most admirable truths out of\nJudaism. Without becoming entirely Jews, they had become acquainted with\nthe Holy Scriptures of the Jews, they had heard of the promised\nmessenger from God, of the King armed with power from God, of whom a\nreport had been spread, as Suetonius says in the life of Vespasian, over\nthe whole of the east. Much of that which they had heard from their\nJewish teachers, whose writings they had read, had remained dark to\nthem, and they were still to seek in them. By the notions which they had\nreceived from the Jews, of one God, of the divine government of the\nworld, of God\u2019s judgment, and of the Messiah, they were more prepared\nfor the Gospel than other Heathens; and because they still thought that\nthey had too little, because they had no determined religious system,\nand were curious after more instruction in divine things, and because\nthey had not received many of the prejudices which swayed the Jews, they\nwere more fitted to receive the Gospel than many of the Jews. From the\nvery beginning they must have been attentive to the preaching of the\nGospel, which secured to them, without making them Jews, a full share in\nthe fulfilment of those promises of which the Jews had spoken to them.\nTo these proselytes of the gate, (the \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, the \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\nof the New Testament,) passed, therefore, according to the Acts, the\npreaching of the Gospel, when it had been rejected by the blinded Jews;\nand here the seed of the divine word found a fitting soil in hearts\ndesirous of holiness. There were, however, doubtless, among the\nproselytes of the gate, some who, wanting in proper earnestness in their\nsearch after religious truth, only desired, in every case, an easy road\nto heaven, which did not require any self-denial; and who, in order to\nbe sure of being on the safe side, whether power and truth lay with the\nJews or the Heathens, sometimes worshipped in the synagogue of Jehovah,\nsometimes in the temples of the gods, and who, therefore, fluttered in\nsuspense between Judaism and Heathenism.\n\nHEMLOCK, \u05e8\u05d5\u05e9 and \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9, Deut. xxix, 18; xxxii, 32; Psalm lxix, 21; Jer.\nviii, 14; ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam. iii, 5, 19; Hosea x, 4; Amos vi, 12.\nIn the two latter places our translators have rendered the word\n_hemlock_ in the others, _gall_. Hiller supposes it the _centaureum_,\ndescribed by Pliny; but Celsius shows it to be the hemlock. It is\nevident, from Deut. xxix, 18, that some herb or plant is meant of a\nmalignant or nauseous kind, being there joined with _wormwood_, and in\nthe margin of our Bibles explained to be \u201ca poisonful herb.\u201d In like\nmanner see Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; and xxiii, 15. In Hosea x, 4, the\ncomparison is to a bitter herb, which, growing among grain, overpowers\nthe useful vegetable, and substitutes a pernicious weed. \u201cIf,\u201d says the\nauthor of \u201cScripture Illustrated,\u201d \u201cthe comparison be to a plant growing\nin the furrows of the field, strictly speaking, then we are much\nrestricted in our plants likely to answer this character; but if we may\ntake the ditches around, or the moist or sunken places within the field\nalso, which I partly suspect, then we may include other plants; and I do\nnot see why hemlock may not be intended. Scheuchzer inclines to this\nrather than _wormwood_ or _agrostes_, as the LXX have rendered it. The\nprophet appears to mean a vegetable which should appear wholesome, and\nresemble those known to be salutary, as judgment, when just, properly\nis; but experience would demonstrate its malignity, as unjust judgment\nis when enforced. Hemlock is poisonous, and water-hemlock especially;\nyet either of these may be mistaken, and some of their parts, the root\nparticularly, may deceive but too fatally.\u201d\n\nHEN, \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2, 2 Esdras i, 30; Matt. xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34. In these\nlast two passages our Saviour exclaims, \u201cO Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how\noften would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen\ngathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!\u201d The metaphor\nhere used is a very beautiful one. When the hen sees a bird of prey\ncoming, she makes a noise to assemble her chickens, that she may cover\nthem with her wings from the danger. The Roman eagle was about to fall\nupon the Jewish state; our Lord invited them to himself in order to\nguard them from threatened calamities: they disregarded his invitations\nand warnings, and fell a prey to their adversaries. The affection of the\nhen to her brood is so strong as to have become proverbial. There is a\nbeautiful Greek epigram in the Anthologia, which affords a very fine\nillustration of the affection of this bird in another view. It has been\nthus translated:--\n\n            \u201cBeneath her fostering wing the hen defends\n            Her darling offspring, while the snow descends;\n            And through the winter\u2019s day unmoved defies\n            The chilling fleeces and inclement skies;\n            Till vanquish'd by the cold and piercing blast,\n            True to her charge she perishes at last.\u201d\n\nPlutarch, in his book _De Philostorgi\u00e2_, represents this parental\nattachment and care in a very pleasing manner: \u201cDo we not daily observe\nwith what care the hen protects her chickens; giving some shelter under\nher wings, supporting others upon her back, calling them around her, and\npicking out their food; and if any animal approaches that terrifies\nthem, driving it away with a courage and strength truly wonderful?\u201d\n\nHENOTICON, a decree or edict of the Emperor Zeno, which was dated at\nConstantinople in the year 482, and by which he intended to unite all\nthe parties in religion under one faith. For this reason the decree was\ncalled _henoticon_, which signifies \u201cunion\u201d or \u201cuniting.\u201d It is\ngenerally agreed that it was published by the advice of Acacius, bishop\nof Constantinople, who wished to reconcile the contending parties. This\ndecree repeated and confirmed all that had been enacted in the councils\nof Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians,\nNestorians, and Eutychians, without particularly mentioning the council\nof Chalcedon. The _henoticon_ was approved by all those of the two\ncontending parties who were remarkable for their candour and moderation;\nbut it was opposed by the violent and obstinate, who complained that it\nwas injurious to the honour and authority of the most holy council of\nChalcedon. Hence arose new contests and new divisions not less\ndeplorable than those which this decree was intended to suppress. The\nCatholics opposed it with all their strength; and it was condemned in\nform by Pope Felix II.\n\nHERESY, _h\u00e6resis_, \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, from \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9, _I choose_, signifies an error\nin some essential point of Christian faith, publicly avowed, and\nobstinately maintained; or, according to the legal definition,\n\u201c_Sententia rerum divinarum humano sensu excogitata, palam docta, et\npertinaciter defensa_.\u201d [An opinion of divine things invented by human\nreason, openly taught, and obstinately defended.] Among the ancients,\nthe word _heresy_ appears to have had nothing of that odious\nsignification which has been attached to it by ecclesiastical writers in\nlater times. It only signified a peculiar opinion, dogma, or sect,\nwithout conveying any reproach; being indifferently used, either of a\nparty approved, or of one disapproved, by the writer. In this sense they\nspoke of the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, Epicureans, &c,\nmeaning the sect or peculiar system of these philosophers. In the\nhistorical part of the New Testament, the word seems to bear very nearly\nthe same signification, being employed indiscriminately to denote a sect\nor party, whether good or bad. Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the\nSadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c. See Acts v, 17; xv,\n5; xxiv, 5; xxvi, 5; xxviii, 22. In the two former of these passages,\nthe term _heresy_ seems to be adopted by the sacred historian merely for\nthe sake of distinction, without the least appearance of any intention\nto convey either praise or blame. In Acts xxvi, 4, 5, St. Paul, in\ndefending himself before King Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was\nmanifestly his design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and\nto give their system the preference over every other system of Judaism,\nboth with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals.\n\n2. It has been suggested that the acceptation of the word \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in the\nepistles is different from what it has been observed to be in the\nhistorical books of the New Testament. In order to account for this\ndifference, it may be observed that the word _sect_ has always something\nrelative in it; and therefore, although the general import of the term\nbe the same, it will convey a favourable or an unfavourable idea,\naccording to the particular relation which it bears in the application.\nWhen it is used along with the proper name, by way of distinguishing one\nparty from another, it conveys neither praise nor reproach. If any thing\nreprehensible or commendable be meant, it is suggested, not by the word\n\u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 itself, but by the words with which it stands connected in\nconstruction. Thus we may speak of a strict sect, or a lax sect; or of a\ngood sect, or a bad sect. Again: the term may be applied to a party\nformed in a community, when considered in reference to the whole. If the\ncommunity be of such a nature as not to admit of such a subdivision,\nwithout impairing or corrupting its constitution, a charge of splitting\ninto sects, or forming parties, is equivalent to a charge of corruption\nin that which is most essential to the existence and welfare of the\nsociety. Hence arises the whole difference in the word, as it is used in\nthe historical part of the New Testament, and in the epistles of St.\nPeter and St. Paul; for these are the only Apostles who employ it. In\nthe history, the reference is always of the first kind; in the epistles,\nit is always of the second. In these last, the Apostles address\nthemselves only to Christians, and either reprehend them for, or warn\nthem against, forming sects among themselves, to the prejudice of\ncharity, to the production of much mischief within their community, and\nof great scandal to the unconverted world without. In both applications,\nhowever, the radical import of the word is the same; and even in the\nlatter it has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false. During\nthe early ages of Christianity, the term _heresy_ gradually lost the\ninnocence of its original meaning, and came to be applied, in a\nreproachful sense, to any corruption of what was considered as the\northodox creed, or even to any departure from the established rites and\nceremonies of the church.\n\n3. The heresies chiefly alluded to in the apostolical epistles are,\nfirst, those of the Judaizers, or rigid adherents to the Mosaic rites,\nespecially that of circumcision; second, those of converted Hellenists,\nor Grecian Jews, who held the Greek eloquence and philosophy in too high\nan estimation, and corrupted, by the speculations of the latter, the\nsimplicity of the Gospel; and third, those who endeavoured to blend\nChristianity with a mixed philosophy of magic, demonology, and\nPlatonism, which was then highly popular in the world. With respect to\nthe latter, the remarks of Hug will tend to illustrate some passages in\nthe writings of St. Paul:--Without being acquainted with the notions of\nthose teachers who caused the Apostle so much anxiety and so much\nvexation, a considerable part of these treatises must necessarily remain\ndark and unintelligible. From the criteria by which the Apostle points\nthem out, at one time some deemed that they recognised the Gnostics;\nothers perceived none but the Essenes; and every one found arguments for\nhis assertions from the similarity of the doctrines, opinions, and\nmorals. It would, however, be as difficult to prove that the Gnostic\nschool had at that time indeed perfectly developed itself, as it is\nunjust to charge the Essenes with that extreme of immorality of which\nSt. Paul accused these seducers, since the contemporaries and\nacquaintances of this Jewish sect mention them with honour and respect,\nand extol its members as the most virtuous men of their age. The\nsimilarity of the principles and opinions, which will have been observed\nin both parties compared with St. Paul\u2019s declarations, flows from a\ncommon source, from the philosophy of that age, whence both the one and\nthe other have derived their share. We shall therefore go less astray,\nif we recede a step, and consider the philosophy itself, as the general\nmodeller of these derivative theories. It found its followers among\nJudaism as well as among the Heathens; it both introduced its\nspeculative preparations into Christianity, and endeavoured to unite\nthem or to adjust them to it, as well as they were able, by which means\nChristianity would have become deformed and unlike to itself, and would\nhave been merged in the ocean of philosophical reveries, unless the\nApostles had on this occasion defended it against the follies of men. An\noriental, or, as it is commonly called, a Babylonian or Chaldean,\ndoctrinal system had already long become known to the Greeks, and even\nto the Romans, before Augustus, and still more so in the Augustan age,\nand was in the full progress of its extension over Asia and Europe. It\nset up different deities and intermediate spirits in explanation of\ncertain phenomena of nature, for the office of governing the world, and\nfor the solution of other metaphysical questions, which from time\nimmemorial were reckoned among the difficult propositions of philosophy.\nThe practical part of this system was occupied with the precepts by\nmeans of which a person might enter into communication with these\nspirits or demons. But the result which they promised to themselves from\nthis union with the divine natures, was that of acquiring, by their\nassistance, superhuman knowledge, that of predicting future events, and\nof performing supernatural works. These philosophers were celebrated\nunder the name of magi and Chaldeans; who, for the sake of better\naccommodating themselves to the western nations, modified their system\nafter the Greek forms, and then, as it appears, knew how to unite it\nwith the doctrine of Plato, from whence afterward arose the Neo-Platonic\nand in Christendom the Gnostical school. These men forced their way even\nto the throne. Tiberius had received instruction in their philosophy,\nand was very confident that by means of an intelligence with the demons,\nit was possible to learn and perform extraordinary things. Nero caused a\ngreat number of them to be brought over from Asia, not unfrequently at\nthe expense of the provinces. The supernatural spirits would not always\nappear, yet he did not discard his belief of them. The magi and\nChaldeans were the persons who were consulted on great undertakings,\nwho, when conspiracies arose, predicted the issue; who invoked spirits,\nprepared offerings, and in love affairs were obliged to afford aid from\ntheir art. Even the force of the laws, to which recourse was frequently\nnecessary to be had at Rome, tended to nothing but the augmentation of\ntheir authority. As they found access and favour with people of all\nclasses in the capital, so did they also in the provinces. Paul found a\nmagus at the court of the proconsul at Paphos, Acts xiii, 6. Such was\nthat Simon in Samaria, Acts viii, 10, who was there considered as a\nhigher being of the spiritual class. The expression is remarkable, as it\nis a part of the technical language of the Theurgists; they called him\n\u0394\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, \u201cThe great power of God.\u201d So also Pliny calls\nsome of the demons and intermediate spirits, by whose co\u00f6peration\nparticular results were effected, _potestates_. [Powers.] Justin Martyr,\nthe fellow countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some technical\nexpressions of his followers. He says that they ascribed to him the high\ntitle \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03d6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. [Far above all\nprincipality, and power, and might.] Of these classes of spirits, which\nappear under such different appellations, the superior were those who\nruled; but the inferior, who had more of a material substance, and who,\non that account, were able to connect themselves immediately with\nmatter, were those who executed the commands of the superior. By an\nintelligence with the superior spirits a person might have the subaltern\nat his service and assistance; for the more powerful demons thus\ncommanded the inferior to execute certain commissions in the material\nworld: \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cBy the prince of the devils,\u201d Matt.\nxii, 24.\n\n4. The Syrian philosopher, Jamblichus, of Chalcis, has furnished us with\na circumstantial representation of this system and its several\nvarieties, in his book on the mysteries of the Chaldeans and\nEgyptians:--The nature of the gods is a pure, spiritual, and perfect\nunity. With this highest and perfect immateriality no influence on\nmatter is conceivable, consequently, no creation and dominion of the\nworld. Certain subordinate deities must therefore be admitted, which are\nmore compounded in their nature, and can act upon gross matter. These\nare the \u201ccreators of the world,\u201d \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, and the \u201crulers of the\nworld,\u201d \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2. The superior deities are, however, the real cause\nof all that exists; and from their fulness, from their \u03d6\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, it\nderives its existence. The succession from the highest deities down to\nthe lowest is not by a sudden descent, but by a continually graduating\ndecrease from the highest, pure, and spiritual natures, down to those\nwhich are more substantial and material, which are the nearest related\nto the gross matter of the creation, and which consequently possess the\nproperty of acting upon it. In proportion to their purer quality, or\ncoarser composition, they occupy different places as their residence,\neither in a denser atmosphere, or in higher regions. The highest among\nthese classes of spirits are called \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9, or, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd. Others\namong the \u201cdivine natures,\u201d \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, are \u201cintermediate beings,\u201d\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. Those which occupy themselves with the laws of the world are also\ncalled \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and \u201cthe ministering spirits\u201d are \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.\nThe archangels are not generally recognised in this theory; this class\nis said to have been of a later origin, and to have been first\nintroduced by Porphyry. (See _Archangel_.) If we take here also into\nconsideration the \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, of which Justin has before spoken, we shall\nhave enumerated the greater part of the technical appellations of this\ndemonology. But to arrive at a union with the higher orders of the\nspiritual world, in which alone the highest bliss of man consists, it is\nnecessary, before all things, to become disengaged from the servitude of\nthe body, which detains the soul from soaring up to the purely\nspiritual. Matrimony, therefore, and every inclination to sexual\nconcupiscence, must be renounced before the attainment of this\nperfection. Hence, the offerings and initiations of the magi cannot,\nwithout great injury, be even communicated to those who have not as yet\nemancipated themselves from the _libido procreandi_, and the\npropensities to corporeal attachments. To eat meat, or to partake in\ngeneral of any slain animal, nay, to even touch it, contaminates. Bodily\nexercises and purifications, though not productive of the gifts of\nprophecy, are nevertheless conducive to them. Though the gods only\nattend to the pure, they nevertheless sometimes mislead men to impure,\nactions. This may perhaps proceed from the totally different ideas of\nthat which is good and righteous, which subsist between them and\nmankind.\n\n5. This philosophy of which the elements had already existed a long time\nin the east, formed itself, in its progress to the west, into a\ndoctrinal system, which found there far more approbation and celebrity\nthan it ever had deserved. It was principally welcome in those\ncountries, to which the epistles of the Apostle are directed. When St.\nPaul had preached at Ephesus, a quantity of magical and theurgical books\nwere brought forward by their possessors and burned before his eyes,\nActs xix, 19. This city had long since been celebrated for them, and the\n\u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1, and \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, were spells highly extolled by\nthe ancients for the purpose of procuring an authority over the demons.\nAs late even as the fourth century, the synod at Laodicea was obliged to\ninstitute severe laws against the worship of angels, against magic, and\nagainst incantations. These opinions had taken such a deep root in the\nmind, that some centuries did not suffice for the extinction of the\nrecollection of them. Now, there are passages in the Apostle which\nstrikingly characterize this theory. He calls the doctrinal system of\nhis opponents \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u1f78\u03bd, \u201ca philosophy incompatible with\nChristianity,\u201d Col. ii, 8; \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u201ca worship of angels,\u201d\nCol. ii, 18; \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u201ca demonology,\u201d 1 Tim. iv, 1. He\ncalls it still farther \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, 2 Tim. iii, 13. This is the peculiar\nexpression by which the ancients denoted magical arts and necromantic\nexperiments; \u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c2 is, according to Hesychius, \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03be, \u03d6\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\nand \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1fb6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9. \u03bb. St. Paul compares\nthese teachers to Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy iii, 8. These two\npersons are, according to the ancient tradition, the magicians who\nwithstood Moses by their arts. They were from time immemorial names so\nnotorious in the magical science, that they did not remain unknown even\nto the Neo-Platonics. When the Apostle enjoins the Ephesians to array\nthemselves in the arms of faith, and courageously to endure the combat,\nEphes. vi, 12, he says that it is the more necessary, because their\ncombat is not against human force, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03d6\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 [not against] \u1f04\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1,\n\u201cflesh and blood,\u201d but against superhuman natures. Where he mentions\nthese, he enumerates in order the names of this magico-spiritual world,\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, particularly the \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cprincipalities,\u201d\n\u201cpowers,\u201d \u201crulers;\u201d and likewise fixes their abode in the upper a\u00ebrial\nregions, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. In like manner, in the\nEpistle to the Colossians, for the sake of representing to them\nChristianity in an exalted and important light, and of praising the\ndivine nature of Jesus, he says, that all that exists is his creation,\nand is subjected to him, not even the spiritual world excepted. He then\nselects the philosophic appellations to demonstrate that this\nsupposititious demonocracy is wholly subservient to him; whether they be\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, or \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, [thrones, dominions,\nprincipalities, powers,] Col. i, 16. Finally, to destroy completely and\ndecisively the whole doctrinal system, he demonstrates, that Christ,\nthrough the work of redemption, has obtained the victory over the entire\nspiritual creation, that he drags in triumph the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 [principalities]\nand \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 [powers] as vanquished, and that henceforth their dominion\nand exercise of power have ceased, Col. ii, 15. But what he says\nrespecting the seared consciences of these heretics, respecting their\ndeceptions, their avarice, &c, is certainly more applicable to this\nclass of men, than to any other. None throughout all antiquity are more\naccused of these immoralities, than those pretended confidents of the\noccult powers. If he speaks warmly against any distinction of meats,\nagainst abstinence from matrimony, this also applies to them; and if he\nrejects bodily exercises, it was because they recommended them, because\nthey imposed baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparations, as\nthe conditions by which alone the connection with the spirits became\npossible. These, then, are the persons who passed before the Apostle\u2019s\nmind, and who, when they adopted Christianity, established that sect\namong the professors of Jesus, which gave to it the name of Gnostics,\nand which, together with the different varieties of this system, is\naccused by history of magical arts. Other adherents of this system among\nthe Heathens, to which the Syrian philosophers, as well as some\nEgyptian, such as Plotinus and his scholars, belonged, formed the sect\nof Neo-Platonism.\n\n6. But in the above remarks of this learned German, some considerations\nare wanting, necessary to the right understanding of several of the\nabove passages quoted from St. Paul. The philosophic system above\nmentioned was built on the Scripture doctrine of good and evil angels,\nand so had a basis of truth, although abused to a gross superstition,\nand even idolatry. It was grounded, too, upon the notion of different\norders among both good and evil spirits, with subordination and\ngovernment; which also is a truth of which some intimation is given in\nScripture. The Apostle then could use all these terms without giving any\nsanction to the errors of the day. He knew that the spiritual powers\nthey had converted into subordinate deities, were either good or evil\nangels in their various ranks, and he uproots the whole superstition, by\nshowing that the \u201cthrones and dominions\u201d of heaven are submissive\ncreated servants of Christ; and that the evil spirits, the rulers of\n\u201cthe darkness of this world,\u201d are put under his feet.\n\nHERMON, a celebrated mountain in the Holy Land, often spoken of in\nScripture. It was in the northern boundary of the country, beyond\nJordan, and in the territories which originally belonged to Og, king of\nBashan, Joshua xii, 5; xiii, 5. The Psalmist connects Tabor and Hermon\ntogether, upon more than one occasion, Psalm lxxxix, 12; cxxxiii, 3;\nfrom which it may be inferred that they lay contiguous to each other.\nThis is agreeable to the account that is given us by travellers. Mr.\nMaundrell, in his journey from Aleppo, says that in three hours and a\nhalf from the river Kishon, he came to a small brook near which was an\nold village and a good kane, called Legune; not far from which his\ncompany took up their quarters for the night, and from whence they had\nan extensive prospect of the plain of Esdra\u00eblon. At about six or seven\nhours\u2019 distance eastward, stood, within view, Nazareth, and the two\nmountains Tabor and Hermon. He adds that they were sufficiently\ninstructed by experience what the holy Psalmist means by the dew of\nHermon; their tents being as wet with it as if it had rained all night,\nPsalm cxxxiii, 3.\n\nHEROD, surnamed the Great, king of the Jews, second son of Antipater the\nIdumean, born B. C. 71. At the age of twenty-five he was made by his\nfather governor of Galilee, and distinguished himself by the suppression\nof a band of robbers, with the execution of their leader, Hezekiah, and\nseveral of his comrades. As he had performed this act of heroism by his\nown authority, and had executed the culprits without the form of trial,\nhe was summoned before the sanhedrim, but, through the strength of his\nparty and zeal of his friends, he escaped any censure. In the civil war\nbetween the republican and C\u00e6sarian parties, Herod joined Cassius, and\nwas made governor of C\u0153lo-Syria; and when Mark Antony arrived\nvictorious in Syria, Herod and his brother found means to ingratiate\nthemselves with him, and were appointed as tetrarchs in Judea; but in a\nshort time an invasion of Antigonus, who was aided by the Jews, obliged\nHerod to make his escape from Jerusalem, and retire first to Idumea, and\nthen to Egypt. He at length arrived at Rome, and obtained the crown of\nJudea upon occasion of a difference between the two branches of the\nAsmodean family. Hyrcanus had been for a considerable time prince and\nhigh priest of the Jewish nation; but while the Roman empire was in an\nunsettled state, after the death of Julius C\u00e6sar, Antigonus, son of\nAristobulus, brother of Hyrcanus, made himself master of the city and\nall Judea. In this state Herod found things when he came to Rome, and\nthe most that he then aimed at was to obtain the kingdom for\nAristobulus, his wife\u2019s brother; but the senate of Rome, moved by the\nrecommendations of Mark Antony, conferred the kingdom of Judea upon\nHerod himself. Having met with this unexpected success at Rome, he\nreturned without delay to Judea, and in about three years got possession\nof the whole country. He had, however, to fight his way to the throne,\nwhich, as we have seen, was in the possession of Antigonus. Though aided\nby the Roman army, he was obliged to lay siege to Jerusalem, which held\nout for six months, when it was carried by assault, and a vast slaughter\nwas made of the inhabitants, till the intercession and bribes of Herod\nput an end to it. Antigonus was taken prisoner and put to death, which\nopened the way to Herod\u2019s quiet possession of the kingdom. His first\ncares were to replenish his coffers, and to repress the faction still\nattached to the Asmodean race, and which regarded him as a usurper. He\nwas guilty of many extortions and cruelties in the pursuit of these\nobjects. Shortly after this, an accusation was lodged against Herod\nbefore Mark Antony by Cleopatra, who had been influenced to the deed by\nhis mother-in-law, Alexandra. He was summoned to answer to the charges\nexhibited against him before the triumvir; and on this occasion he gave\na most remarkable display of the conflict of opposite passions in a\nferocious heart. Doatingly fond of his wife, Mariamne, and not being\nable to bear the thought of her falling into the hands of another, he\nexacted a solemn promise from Joseph, whom he appointed to govern in his\nabsence, that should the accusation prove fatal to him he would put the\nqueen to death. Joseph disclosed the secret to Mariamne, who, abhorring\nsuch a savage proof of his love, from that moment conceived the deepest\nand most settled aversion to her husband. Herod, by great pecuniary\nsacrifices, made his peace with Antony, and returned in high credit.\nSome hints were thrown out respecting Joseph\u2019s familiarity with Mariamne\nduring his absence; he communicated his suspicions to his wife, who,\nrecriminating, upbraided him with his cruel order concerning her. His\nrage was unbounded; he put Joseph to death for communicating the secret\nentrusted to him alone, and he threw his mother-in-law, Alexandra, into\nprison.\n\n2. In the war between Antony and Octavius, Herod raised an army for the\npurpose of joining the former; but he was obliged first to engage\nMalchus, king of Arabia, whom he defeated and obliged to sue for peace.\nAfter the battle of Actium, his great object was to make terms with the\nconqueror; and, as a preliminary step, he put to death Hyrcanus, the\nonly surviving male of the Asmodeans; and, having secured his family, he\nembarked for Rhodes, where Augustus at that time was. He appeared before\nthe master of the Roman world in all the regal ornaments excepting his\ndiadem, and with a noble confidence related the faithful services he had\nperformed for his benefactor, Antony, concluding that he was ready to\ntransfer the same gratitude to a new patron, from whom he should hold\nhis crown and kingdom. Augustus was struck with the magnanimity of the\ndefence, and replaced the diadem on the head of Herod, who remained the\nmost favoured of the tributary sovereigns. When the emperor afterward\ntravelled through Syria, in his way to and from Egypt, he was\nentertained with the utmost magnificence by Herod; in recompense for\nwhich he restored to him all his revenues and dominions, and even\nconsiderably augmented them. His good fortune as a prince, was poisoned\nby domestic broils, and especially by the insuperable aversion of\nMariamne, whom at length he brought to trial, convicted, and executed.\nShe submitted to her fate with all the intrepidity of innocence, and was\nsufficiently avenged by the remorse of her husband, who seems never\nafter to have enjoyed a tranquil hour.\n\n3. His rage being quenched, Herod endeavoured to banish the memory of\nhis evil acts from his mind by scenes of dissipation; but the charms of\nhis once loved Mariamne haunted him wherever he went: he would\nfrequently call aloud upon her name, and insist upon his attendants\nbringing her into his presence, as if willing to forget that she was no\nlonger among the living. At times he would fly from the sight of men,\nand on his return from solitude, which was ill suited to a mind\nconscious of the most ferocious deeds, he became more brutal than ever,\nand in fits of fury spared neither foes nor friends. Alexandra, whose\nmalignity toward her daughter has been noticed, was an unpitied victim\nto his rage. At length he recovered some portion of self-possession, and\nemployed himself in projects of regal magnificence. He built at\nJerusalem a stately theatre and amphitheatre, in which he celebrated\ngames in honour of Augustus, to the great displeasure of the zealous\nJews, who discovered an idolatrous profanation in the theatrical\nornaments and spectacles. Nothing, it is said, gave them so much offence\nas some trophies which he had set round his theatre in honour of\nAugustus, and in commemoration of his victories, but which the Jews\nregarded as images devoted to the purposes of idol worship. For this and\nother acts of the king a most serious conspiracy was formed against him,\nwhich he, fortunately for himself, discovered; and he exercised the most\nbrutal revenge on all the parties concerned in it. He next built\nSamaria, which he named Sebaste, and adorned it with the most sumptuous\nedifices; and for his security he built several fortresses throughout\nthe whole of Judea, of which the principal was called C\u00e6sarea, in honour\nof the emperor. In his own palace, near the temple of Jerusalem, he\nlavished the most costly materials and curious workmanship; and his\npalace Herodion, at some miles\u2019 distance from the capital, by the beauty\nof its situation, and other appropriate advantages, drew round it the\npopulation of a considerable city.\n\n4. To supply the place of his lost Mariamne, he married a new wife of\nthe same name, the beautiful daughter of a priest, whom he raised to the\nhigh rank of the supreme pontificate. He sent his two sons, by the first\nMariamne, to be educated at Rome, and so ingratiated himself with\nAugustus and his ministers, that he was appointed imperial procurator\nfor Syria. To acquire popularity among the Jews, and to exhibit an\nattachment to their religion, he undertook the vast enterprise of\nrebuilding the temple of Jerusalem, which he finished in a noble style\nof magnificence in about a year and a half. During the progress of this\nwork he visited Rome, and brought back his sons, who had attained to\nman\u2019s estate. These at length conspired against their father\u2019s person\nand government, and were tried, convicted, and executed. Another act\ndeserving of notice, performed by Herod, was the dedication of his new\ncity of C\u00e6sarea, at which time he displayed such profuse magnificence,\nthat Augustus said his soul was too great for his kingdom.\nNotwithstanding the execution of his sons, he was still a slave to\nconspiracies from his other near relations. In the thirty-third year of\nhis reign, OUR SAVIOUR was born. This event was followed, according to\nthe Gospel of St. Matthew, by the massacre of the children of Bethlehem.\nAbout this time, Antipater, returning from Rome, was arrested by his\nfather\u2019s orders, charged with treasonable practices, and was found\nguilty of conspiring against the life of the king. This and other\ncalamities, joined to a guilty conscience, preying upon a broken\nconstitution, threw the wretched monarch into a mortal disease, which\nwas doubtless a just judgment of Heaven on the many foul enormities and\nimpieties of which he had been guilty. His disorder was attended with\nthe most loathsome circumstances that can be imagined. A premature\nreport of his death caused a tumult in Jerusalem, excited by the\nzealots, who were impatient to demolish a golden eagle which he had\nplaced over the gate of the temple. The perpetrators of this rash act\nwere seized, and by order of the dying king, put to death. He also\ncaused his son Antipater to be slain in prison, and his remains to be\ntreated with every species of ignominy. He bequeathed his kingdom to his\nson Archelaus, with tetrarchies to his two other sons. Herod, on his\ndying bed, had planned a scheme of horrible cruelty which was to take\nplace at the instant of his own death. He had summoned the chief persons\namong the Jews to Jericho, and caused them to be shut up in the\nhippodrome, or circus, and gave strict orders to his sister Salome to\nhave them all massacred as soon as he should have drawn his last breath:\n\u201cfor this,\u201d said he, \u201cwill provide mourners for my funeral all over the\nland, and make the Jews and every family lament my death, who would\notherwise exhibit no signs of concern.\u201d Salome and her husband, Alexas,\nchose rather to break their oath extorted by the tyrant, than be\nimplicated in so cruel a deed; and accordingly, as soon as Herod was\ndead, they opened the doors of the circus, and permitted every one to\nreturn to his own home. Herod died in the sixty-eighth year of his age.\nHis memory has been consigned to merited detestation, while his great\ntalents, and the active enterprise of his reign, have placed him high in\nthe rank of sovereigns.\n\nHEROD ANTIPAS. See ANTIPAS.\n\nHERODIANS, a sect among the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ, mentioned\nMatt. xxii, 16; Mark iii, 6; viii, 15; xii, 13; but passed over in\nsilence both by Josephus and Philo. The critics and commentators on the\nNew Testament are very much divided with regard to the Herodians; some\nmaking them to be a political party, and others a religious sect. The\nformer opinion is favoured by the author of the Syriac version, who\ncalls them the domestics of Herod; and also by Josephus\u2019s having passed\nthem over in silence, though he professes to give an account of the\nseveral religious sects of the Jews. The latter opinion is countenanced\nby our Lord\u2019s caution against \u201cthe leaven of Herod,\u201d which implies that\nthe Herodians were distinguished from the other Jews by some doctrinal\ntenets. M. Basnage supposes, that one thing meant by the leaven of the\nHerodians might be a conformity to Roman customs in some points which\nwere forbidden the Jews: if this was the case, it is not strange that\nthey are not mentioned by Josephus among the Jewish sects. St. Jerom, in\nhis Dialogue against the Luciferians, takes the name to have been given\nto such as owned Herod for the Messiah; and Tertullian, Epiphanius,\nChrysostom, and Theophylact, among the ancients; and Grotius, and other\nmoderns, are of the same sentiment. But the same St. Jerom, in his\nComment on St. Matthew, treats this opinion as ridiculous; and indeed it\nmust be highly improbable. He maintains that the Pharisees gave this\nappellation, by way of derision, to Herod\u2019s soldiers, who paid tribute\nto the Romans; agreeably to which the Syriac interpreters render the\nword by the domestics of Herod, that is, his courtiers. M. Simon, in his\nnotes on the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew, advances a more\nprobable opinion. The name Herodian, he imagines to have been given to\nsuch as adhered to Herod\u2019s party and interest, and were for preserving\nthe government in his family, about which there were, at that time,\ngreat divisions among the Jews. F. Hardouin will have the Herodians and\nSadducees to have been the same; nor is it at all improbable that the\nHerodians were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; since that which is\ncalled by St. Mark \u201cthe leaven of Herod,\u201d is by St. Matthew styled \u201cthe\nleaven of the Sadducees.\u201d\n\n2. Dr. Prideaux is of opinion that they derived their name from Herod\nthe Great, and that they were distinguished from the other Jews by their\nconcurrence with Herod\u2019s scheme of subjecting himself and his dominions\nto the Romans, and likewise by complying with many of their Heathen\nusages and customs. In their zeal for the Roman authority they were\ndiametrically opposite to the Pharisees, who esteemed it unlawful to\nsubmit or pay taxes to the Roman emperor; an opinion which they grounded\non their being forbidden by the law to set a stranger over them, who was\nnot one of their own nation, as their king. The conjunction of the\nHerodians, therefore, with the Pharisees, against Christ, is a memorable\nproof of the keenness of their resentment and malice against him;\nespecially when we consider that they united together in proposing to\nhim an ensnaring question, on a subject which was the ground of their\nmutual dissension; namely, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to\nC\u00e6sar. And provided he answered in the negative, the Herodians would\naccuse him of treason against the state; and should he reply in the\naffirmative, the Pharisees were as ready to excite the people against\nhim, as an enemy of their civil liberties and privileges. Herod had\nintroduced several Heathen idolatrous usages; for, as Josephus says, he\nbuilt a temple to C\u00e6sar, near the head of the river Jordan; he erected a\nmagnificent theatre at Jerusalem, instituted Pagan games, and placed a\ngolden eagle over the gate of the temple of Jehovah; and he furnished\nthe temples, which he reared in several places out of Judea, with images\nfor idolatrous worship, in order to ingratiate himself with the emperor\nand the people of Rome; though to the Jews he pretended that he did it\nagainst his will, and in obedience to the imperial command. The\nHerodians probably complied with, acquiesced in, or approved these\nidolatrous usages. This symbolizing with idolatry upon views of interest\nand worldly policy, was probably that leaven of Herod, against which our\nSaviour cautioned his disciples.\n\nHERON, \u05d0\u05e0\u05e4\u05d4, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18. This word has been variously\nunderstood. Some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others\nthe curlieu, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane.\nThe root, \u05d0\u05e0\u05e4, signifies _to breathe short_ through the nostrils, _to\nsnuff_, as in anger; hence to be angry; and it is supposed that the word\nis sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable\ndisposition. Bochart, however, thinks it the mountain falcon; the same\nthat the Greeks call \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1, mentioned by Homer; and this bears a\nstrong resemblance to the Hebrew name.\n\nHESHBON, a celebrated city beyond Jordan, twenty miles eastward of that\nriver, according to Eusebius. It was given to the tribe of Reuben, Josh.\nxiii, 17. It was probably made over to Gad, since we meet with it among\nthe cities which were given to the Levites, Joshua xxi, 39.\n\nHETERODOX, formed of the Greek \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c2, a compound of \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n_alter_, and \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, _opinion_, something that is contrary to the faith or\ndoctrine established in the true church. Thus, we say, a heterodox\nopinion, a heterodox divine, &c. The word stands in opposition to\northodox.\n\nHETEROUSH, HETEROUSIANS, composed of \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, _substance_, a\nsect or branch of Arians, the followers of A\u00ebtius, and from him\ndenominated A\u00ebtians. They were called Heterousii, because they held, not\nthat the Son of God was of a substance like, or similar to, that of the\nFather, which was the doctrine of another branch of Arians, thence\ncalled Homoousians, Homoousii; but that he was of another substance\ndifferent from that of the Father.\n\nHETH, the father of the Hittites, was the eldest son of Canaan, Gen. x,\n15, and dwelt southward of the promised land, probably about Hebron.\nEphron, who was an inhabitant of that city, was of the race of Heth; and\nin the time of Abraham the whole city were of the family of Heth.\n\nHEXAPLA, formed of \u1f15\u03be, _six_, and \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c9, _I open_, or _unfold_, a Bible\ndisposed in six columns, containing the text, and divers versions of it,\ncompiled and published by Origen, with a view of securing the sacred\ntext from future corruptions, and to correct those that had been already\nintroduced. Eusebius relates that Origen after his return from Rome\nunder Caracalla, applied himself to learn Hebrew, and began to collect\nthe several versions that had been made of the sacred writings, and of\nthese to compose his _Tetrapla_, and _Hexapla_: others, however, will\nnot allow him to have begun till the time of Alexander, after he had\nretired into Palestine, about the year 231. To conceive what this\n_Hexapla_ was, it must be observed that, beside the translation of the\nsacred writings called the Septuagint, made under Ptolemy Philadelphus,\nabove 280 years B. C., the Scripture had been since translated into\nGreek by other interpreters. The first of those versions, or, reckoning\nthe Septuagint, the second, was that of Aquila, a proselyte Jew, the\nfirst edition of which he published in the twelfth year of the Emperor\nAdrian, or about A. D. 128; the third was that of Symmachus, published\nas is commonly supposed, under Marcus Aurelius, but, as some say, under\nSeptimius Severus, about the year 200; the fourth was that of\nTheodotion, prior to that of Symmachus, under Commodus, or about the\nyear 175: these Greek versions, says Dr. Kennicott, were made by the\nJews from their corrupted copies of the Hebrew, and were designed to\nstand in the place of the LXX, against which they were prejudiced,\nbecause it seemed to favour the Christians. The fifth was found at\nJericho, in the reign of Caracalla, about the year 217; and the sixth\nwas discovered at Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander Severus, about\nthe year 228: lastly, Origen himself recovered part of a seventh,\ncontaining only the Psalms. Now, Origen, who had held frequent\ndisputations with the Jews in Egypt and Palestine, observing that they\nalways objected against those passages of Scripture quoted against them,\nand appealed to the Hebrew text, the better to vindicate those passages\nand confound the Jews, by showing that the LXX had given the sense of\nthe Hebrew, or rather, to show, by a number of different versions, what\nthe real sense of the Hebrew was, undertook to reduce all these several\nversions into a body, along with the Hebrew text, so as they might be\neasily confronted, and afford a mutual light to each other. He made the\nHebrew text his standard; and, allowing that corruptions might have\nhappened, and that the old Hebrew copies might and did read differently,\nhe contented himself with marking such words or sentences as were not in\nhis Hebrew text, nor the later Greek versions, and to add such words or\nsentences as were omitted in the LXX, prefixing an asterisk to the\nadditions, and an obelisk to the others. In order to this he made choice\nof eight columns: in the first he gave the Hebrew text in Hebrew\ncharacters; in the second, the same text in Greek characters: the rest\nwere filled with the several versions above mentioned; all the columns\nanswering verse for verse, and phrase for phrase; and in the Psalms\nthere was a ninth column for the seventh version. This work Origen\ncalled \u1f19\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1, _Hexapla_, that is, _sextuple_, or a work of six columns,\nas only regarding the first six Greek versions. Indeed, St. Epiphanius,\ntaking in likewise the two columns of the text, calls the work\n_Octapla_, as consisting of eight columns. This celebrated work, which\nMontfaucon imagines consisted of fifty large volumes, perished long ago,\nprobably with the library at C\u00e6sarea, where it was preserved, in the\nyear 653; though several of the ancient writers have preserved us\nportions of it, particularly St. Chrysostom on the Psalms, Philoponus in\nhis _Hexameron_, &c. Some modern writers have earnestly endeavoured to\ncollect fragments of the _Hexapla_, Flaminius Nobilius, Drusius, and\nespecially Montfaucon, in two folio volumes, printed at Paris in 1713.\nIn his edition, Montfaucon has prefixed prolegomena, explaining the form\nand detailing the history of the _Hexapla_.\n\nThe object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the then\nexisting copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted all the\nalterations which he discovered; and for the information of those who\nmight consult his work, he made use of the following marks: 1. Where any\npassages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew,\nhe designated them by an _obelus_ =\u00f7= with two bold points =:= annexed.\nThis mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but\nadded by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or\nfor the purpose of illustrating the sense. 2. To passages wanting in the\ncopies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek\nversions, he prefixed an asterisk ASTERISK with two bold points =:= also\nannexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived.\nThese supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerom, were for the\nmost part taken from Theodotion\u2019s translation; not unfrequently from\nthat of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus;\nand sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the\ninitial letter of each translator\u2019s name was placed immediately after\nthe asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage\nwas taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of\nDaniel, Theodotion\u2019s translation of that book was inserted entire. 3.\nFarther: not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied\nby Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also where that\nversion does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original,\nhaving noted the former reading with an _obelus_ =:=, he added the\ncorrect rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk\nsubjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the _lemniscus_ and\n_hypolemniscus_, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a\ndifference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to\ndetermine what they were. Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to\nhave been marks of better and more accurate renderings. These several\nmarks of distinction have been carefully observed, so far as they have\nbeen recovered from various quarters, in the very accurate edition of\nthe Septuagint commenced by our learned countryman, Dr. Holmes, and\ncontinued by his able successor, the Rev. J. Parsons, B. D.\n\nFor nearly fifty years was Origen\u2019s stupendous work buried in a corner\nof the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of\ntranscribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of\nprivate individuals; and here, perhaps, it might have perished in\noblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited\nit in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at C\u00e6sarea, where Jerome saw\nit about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account\nwhatever of Origen\u2019s autograph after this time, it is most probable that\nit perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs;\nand a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the\nSeptuagint and the caten\u00e6 of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain\nof a work, which, in the present improved state of sacred literature,\nwould most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism\nof the Old Testament. The Syro-Estrangelo translation of Origen\u2019s\nedition of the Greek Septuagint was executed in the former part of the\nseventh century; the author of it is not known. This version exactly\ncorresponds with the text of the Septuagint, especially in those\npassages in which the latter differs from the Hebrew. A manuscript of\nthis translation is in the Ambrosian library at Milan; it contains the\n_obelus_ and other marks of Origen\u2019s Hexapla; and a subscription at the\nend states it to have been literally translated from the Greek copy,\ncorrected by Eusebius himself, with the assistance of Pamphilus, from\nthe books of Origen, which were deposited in the library at C\u00e6sarea.\nFrom this version Norberg edited the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel\nin 1787; and Bugati, the book of Daniel, 1788.\n\nHEZEKIAH, king of Judah, was the son of Ahaz, and born in the year of\nthe world 3251. At the age of five-and-twenty he succeeded his father in\nthe government of the kingdom of Judah, and reigned twenty-nine years in\nJerusalem, namely, from the year of the world 3277 to 3306, 2 Kings\nxviii, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxix, 1. The reign of his father Ahaz had been\nmost unpropitious for his subjects. A war had raged between the kingdoms\nof Israel and Judah, in which Pekah, king of Israel, overthrew the army\nof Ahaz, destroying a hundred and twenty thousand of his men; after\nwhich he carried away two hundred thousand women and children as\ncaptives into his own country: they were, however, released and sent\nhome again, at the remonstrance of the Prophet Oded. As idolatry had\nbeen established in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, by the command of\nAhaz, and the service of the temple either intermitted, or converted\ninto an idolatrous worship, the first object of his son Hezekiah, on his\naccession to the throne, was to restore the legal worship of God, both\nin Jerusalem and throughout Judea. He cleansed and repaired the temple,\nand held a solemn passover. He improved the city, repaired the\nfortifications, erected magazines of all sorts, and built a new\naqueduct. In the fourth year of his reign, Salmanezer, king of Assyria,\ninvaded the kingdom of Israel, took Samaria, and carried away the ten\ntribes into captivity, replacing them by different people sent from his\nown country. But Hezekiah was not deterred by this alarming example from\nrefusing to pay that tribute to the Assyrians which had been imposed on\nAhaz: this brought on the invasion of Sennacherib, in the fourteenth\nyear of the reign of Hezekiah, of which we have a very particular\naccount in the writings of the Prophet Isaiah, who was then living,\nIsaiah xxxvi.\n\nImmediately after the termination of this war, Hezekiah \u201cwas sick unto\ndeath,\u201d owing, as the sacred historian strongly intimates, to his heart\nbeing improperly elevated on occasion of this miraculous deliverance,\nand not sufficiently acknowledging the hand of God in it, 2 Kings xx;\nIsaiah xxxviii. Isaiah was sent to bid him set his house in order, for\nhe should die and not live. Hezekiah had instant recourse to God by\nprayer and supplications for his recovery; and the prophet had scarcely\nproceeded out of the threshold, when the Lord commanded him to return to\nHezekiah, and to say to him, \u201cThus saith the Lord, I have heard thy\nprayer, and I have seen thy tears: I will heal thee: on the third day\nthou shalt go up to the house of the Lord, and I will add unto thy days\nfifteen years.\u201d And to confirm to him the certainty of all these tokens\nof the divine regard, the shadow of the sun on the dial of Ahaz, at his\nrequest, went backward ten degrees. After his recovery, he composed an\node of thanksgiving to the God of all his mercies, which the Prophet\nIsaiah has recorded in his writings, Isaiah xxxviii, 10, 11. Yet, as an\ninstance of human fickleness and frailty, we find Hezekiah, with all his\nexcellencies, again forgetting himself, and incurring the divine\ndispleasure. The king of Babylon having been informed of his sickness\nand recovery, sent ambassadors to congratulate him on his restoration:\nan honour with which the heart of Hezekiah was greatly elated; and, to\ntestify his gratitude, he made a pompous display to them of all his\ntreasures, his spices, and his rich vessels; and concealed from them\nnothing that was in his palace. In all this the pride of Hezekiah was\ngratified; and to humble him, Isaiah was sent to declare to him that his\nconduct was displeasing to God, and that a time should come when all the\ntreasures of which he had made so vain a display should be removed to\nBabylon, and even his sons be made eunuchs to serve in the palace of the\nking of Babylon. Hezekiah bowed submissively to the will of God, and\nacknowledged the divine goodness toward him, in ordaining peace and\ntruth to continue during the remainder of his reign. He accordingly\npassed the latter years of his life in tranquillity, and contributed\ngreatly to the prosperity of his people and kingdom. He died in the year\nof the world 3306, leaving behind him a son, Manasseh, who succeeded him\nin the throne: a son every way unworthy of such a father.\n\nHIDDEKEL. See EDEN.\n\nHIGH PLACES. The prophets reproach the Israelites for nothing with more\nzeal than for worshipping upon the high places. The destroying of these\nhigh places is a commendation given only to few princes in Scripture;\nand many, though zealous for the observance of the law, had not courage\nto prevent the people from sacrificing upon these eminences. Before the\ntemple was built, the high places were not absolutely contrary to the\nlaw, provided God only was there adored, and not idols. They seem to\nhave been tolerated under the judges; and Samuel offered sacrifices in\nseveral places where the ark was not present. Even in David\u2019s time they\nsacrificed to the Lord at Shiloh, Jerusalem, and Gibeon. But after the\ntemple was built at Jerusalem, and the ark had a fixed settlement, it\nwas no longer allowed to sacrifice out of Jerusalem. The high places\nwere much frequented in the kingdom of Israel. The people sometimes went\nupon those mountains which had been sanctified by the presence of\npatriarchs and prophets, and by appearances of God, to worship the true\nGod there. This worship was lawful, except as to its being exercised\nwhere the Lord had not chosen. But they frequently adored idols upon\nthese hills, and committed a thousand abominations in groves, and caves,\nand tents; and hence arose the zeal of pious kings and prophets to\nsuppress the high places. Dr. Prideaux thinks it probable that the\n_proseuch\u00e6_, open courts, built like those in which the people prayed at\nthe tabernacle and the temple, were the same as those called high places\nin the Old Testament. His reason is, that the _proseuch\u00e6_ had groves in\nor near them, in the same manner as the high places.\n\nHIN, \u05d4\u05d9\u05df, a liquid measure, as of oil, or of wine, Exodus xxix, 40; xxx,\n24; Lev. xxiii. According to Josephus, it contained two Attic _congii_,\nand was therefore the sixth part of an ephah. He says that they offered\nwith an ox half a hin of oil; in English measure, six pints, twenty-five\nthousand five hundred and ninety-eight solid inches. With a ram they\noffered the third part of a hin, or three pints, ten thousand four\nhundred and sixty-nine solid inches: with a lamb, the fourth part of a\nhin, or two pints, fifteen thousand and seventy-one solid inches.\n\nHIND, \u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4, Gen. xlix, 21; 2 Sam. xxii, 34; Job xxxix, 1; Psalm xviii,\n33; xxix, 9; Prov. v, 19; Cant. ii, 7; iii, 5; Jer. xiv, 5; Hab. iii,\n19; the mate or female of the stag. It is a lovely creature, and of an\nelegant shape. It is noted for its swiftness and the sureness of its\nstep as it jumps among the rocks. David and Habakkuk both allude to this\ncharacter of the hind. \u201cThe Lord maketh my feet like hinds\u2019 feet, and\ncauseth me to stand on the high places,\u201d Psalm xviii, 33; Hab. iii, 19.\nThe circumstance of their standing on the high places or mountains is\napplied to these animals by Xenophon. Our translators make Jacob,\nprophesying of the tribe of Naphtali, say, \u201cNaphtali is a hind let\nloose: he giveth goodly words,\u201d Gen. xlix, 21. There is a difficulty and\nincoherence here which the learned Bochart removes by altering a little\nthe punctuation of the original; and it then reads, \u201cNaphtali is a\nspreading tree, shooting forth beautiful branches.\u201d This, indeed,\nrenders the simile uniform; but another critic has remarked that \u201cthe\nallusion to a tree seems to be purposely reserved by the venerable\npatriarch for his son Joseph, who is compared to the boughs of a tree;\nand the repetition of the idea in reference to Naphtali is every way\nunlikely. Beside,\u201d he adds, \u201cthe word rendered \u2018let loose,\u2019 imports an\nactive motion, not like that of the branches of a tree, which, however\nfreely they wave, are yet attached to the parent stock; but an emission,\na dismission, or sending forth to a distance: in the present case, a\nroaming, roaming at liberty. The verb \u2018he giveth\u2019 may denote shooting\nforth. It is used of production, as of the earth, which shoots forth,\nyields, its increase, Lev. xxvi, 4. The word rendered \u2018goodly\u2019 signifies\n_noble_, _grand_, _majestic_; and the noun translated \u2018words\u2019 radically\nsignifies _divergences_, what is spread forth.\u201d For these reasons he\nproposes to read the passage, \u201cNaphtali is a deer roaming at liberty; he\nshooteth forth spreading branches,\u201d or \u201cmajestic antlers.\u201d Here the\ndistinction of imagery is preserved, and the fecundity of the tribe and\nthe fertility of their lot intimated. In our version of Psalm xxix, 9,\nwe read, \u201cThe voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve, and\ndiscovereth the forests.\u201d Mr. Merrick, in an ingenious note on the\nplace, attempts to justify the rendering; but Bishop Lowth, in his\n\u201cLectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews,\u201d observes that this\nagrees very little with the rest of the imagery, either in nature or\ndignity; and that he does not feel himself persuaded, even by the\nreasonings of the learned Bochart on this subject: whereas the oak,\nstruck with lightning, admirably agrees with the context. The Syriac\nseems, for \u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, _hinds_, to have read \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, _oaks_, or rather,\nperhaps, _terebinths_. The passage may be thus versified:--\n\n                  \u201cHark! his voice in thunder breaks,\n                  And the lofty mountain quakes;\n                  Mighty trees the tempests tear,\n                  And lay the spreading forests bare!\u201d\n\nHINNOM, VALLEY OF, called also Tophet, and by the Greeks Gehenna, a\nsmall valley on the south-east of Jerusalem, at the foot of Mount Zion,\nwhere the Canaanites, and afterward the Israelites, sacrificed their\nchildren to the idol Moloch, by making them \u201cpass through the fire,\u201d or\nburning them. To drown the shrieks of the victims thus inhumanly\nsacrificed, musical instruments, called in the Hebrew _tuph_, tympana or\ntimbrels, were played; whence the spot derived the name of Tophet. _Ge\nHinnom_, or \u201cThe Valley of Hinnom,\u201d from which the Greeks framed their\nGehenna, is sometimes used in Scripture to denote hell or hell fire. See\nHELL.\n\nHIRAM, king of Tyre, and son of Abibal, is mentioned by profane authors\nas distinguished for his magnificence, and for adorning the city of\nTyre. When David was acknowledged king by all Israel, Hiram sent\nambassadors with artificers, and cedar, to build his palace. Hiram also\nsent ambassadors to Solomon, to congratulate him on his accession to the\ncrown Solomon desired of him timber and stones for building the temple,\nwith labourers. These Hiram promised, provided Solomon would furnish him\nwith corn and oil. The two princes lived on the best terms with each\nother.\n\nHIRELING. Moses requires that the hireling should be paid as soon as his\nwork is over: \u201cThe wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee\nall night unto the morning,\u201d Lev. xix, 19. A hireling\u2019s days or year is\na kind of proverb, signifying a full year, without abating any thing of\nit: \u201cHis days are like the days of a hireling,\u201d Job vii, 1; the days of\nman are like those of a hireling; as nothing is deducted from them, so\nnothing, likewise is added to them. And again: \u201cTill he shall accomplish\nas a hireling his day,\u201d Job xiv, 6; to the time of death, which he waits\nfor as the hireling for the end of the day. The following passage from\nMorier\u2019s Travels in Persia, illustrates one of our Lord\u2019s parables: \u201cThe\nmost conspicuous building in Hamadan is the Mesjid Jumah, a large mosque\nnow falling into decay, and before it a maidan or square, which serves\nas a market place. Here we observed, every morning before the sun rose,\nthat a numerous band of peasants were collected with spades in their\nhands, waiting, as they informed us, to be hired for the day to work in\nthe surrounding fields. This custom, which I have never seen in any\nother part of Asia, forcibly struck me as a most happy illustration of\nour Saviour\u2019s parable of the labourers in the vineyard in Matt. xx;\nparticularly when, passing by the same place late in the day, we still\nfound others standing idle, and remembered his words, \u2018Why stand ye here\nall the day idle?\u2019 as most applicable to their situation; for in putting\nthe very same question to them, they answered us, \u2018Because no man hath\nhired us.\u2019\u201d\n\nHITTITES, the descendants of Heth, Gen. xv, 20.\n\nHIVITES, a people descended from Canaan, Gen. x, 17. They are also\nmentioned, Deut. ii, 23. The inhabitants of Shechem, and the Gibeonites,\nwere Hivites, Joshua xi, 19; Gen. xxxiv, 2. Mr. Bryant supposes the\nHivites to be the same as the Ophites, or ancient worshippers of the sun\nunder the figure of a serpent; which was, in all probability, the deity\nworshipped at Baal-Hermon.\n\nHOLY GHOST, the third person in the Trinity. The orthodox doctrine is,\nthat as Christ is God by an eternal _filiation_, so the Spirit is God by\n_procession_ from the Father and the Son. \u201cAnd I believe in the Holy\nGhost,\u201d says the Nicene Creed, \u201cthe Lord and Giver of life, who\n_proceedeth_ from the Father and the Son, who, with the Father and the\nSon together, is worshipped and glorified.\u201d And with this agrees the\nAthanasian Creed, \u201cThe Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,\nneither made, nor created, nor begotten, but _proceeding_.\u201d In the\nArticles of the English church it is thus expressed: \u201cThe Holy Ghost,\n_proceeding_ from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty,\nand glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.\u201d The Latin\nchurch introduced the term _spiration_, from _spiro_, \u201cto breathe,\u201d to\ndenote the manner of this procession: on which Dr. Owen remarks, \u201cAs the\nvital breath of a man has a continual emanation from him, and yet is\nnever separated utterly from his person, or forsaketh him, so doth the\nSpirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine\nemanation, still abiding one with them.\u201d On this refined view little can\nbe said which has clear Scriptural authority; and yet the very term by\nwhich the Third Person in the Trinity is designated, _Wind_ or _Breath_,\nmay, as to the Third Person, be designed, like the term _Son_ applied to\nthe Second, to convey, though imperfectly, some intimation of that\nmanner of being by which both are distinguished from each other, and\nfrom the Father; and it was a remarkable action of our Lord, and one\ncertainly which does not discountenance this idea, that when he imparted\nthe Holy Ghost to his disciples, \u201cHe _breathed_ on them, and saith unto\nthem, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,\u201d John xx, 22.\n\n2. But, whatever we may think as to the doctrine of _spiration_, the\n_procession_ of the Holy Ghost rests on more direct Scriptural\nauthority, and is thus stated by Bishop Pearson: \u201cNow this procession of\nthe Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly in\nrelation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. 1. It\nis expressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as\nour Saviour testifieth, \u2018When the Comforter is come, whom I will send\nunto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth\nfrom the Father, he shall testify of me,\u2019 John xv, 26. And this is also\nevident from what hath been already asserted; for being the Father and\nthe Spirit are the same God, and, being so the same in the unity of the\nnature of God, are yet distinct in the personality, one of them must\nhave the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been\nalready shown to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it\nfrom him. 2. Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that\nthe Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and Son, yet the substance of\nthe same truth is virtually contained there; because those very\nexpressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the\nFather, for that reason, because he proceedeth from the Father, are also\nspoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there\nmust be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son, which is\nexpressed in reference to the Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth from\nthe Father, therefore it is called \u2018the Spirit of God,\u2019 and \u2018the Spirit\nof the Father.\u2019 \u2018It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father\nwhich speaketh in you,\u2019 Matt. x, 20. For by the language of the Apostle,\n\u2018the Spirit of God\u2019 is the Spirit which is of God, saying, \u2018The things\nof God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. And we have received not\nthe spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God,\u2019 1 Cor. ii, 11,\n12. Now the same Spirit is also called \u2018the Spirit of the Son:\u2019 for\n\u2018because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our\nhearts,\u2019 Gal. iv, 6. \u2018The Spirit of Christ:\u2019 \u2018Now if any man have not\nthe Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,\u2019 Romans viii, 9; \u2018Even the\nSpirit of Christ which was in the prophets,\u2019 1 Peter i, 11. \u2018The Spirit\nof Jesus Christ,\u2019 as the Apostle speaks: \u2018I know that this shall turn to\nmy salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus\nChrist,\u2019 Phil. i, 19. If then the Holy Ghost be called \u2018the Spirit of\nthe Father,\u2019 because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that,\nbeing called also \u2018the Spirit of the Son,\u2019 he proceedeth also from the\nSon. Again: because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is\ntherefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath, by the original\ncommunication, a right of mission; as, \u2018the Comforter, which is the Holy\nGhost, whom the Father will send,\u2019 John xiv, 26. But the same Spirit\nwhich is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith, \u2018When\nthe Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you.\u2019 Therefore the Son\nhath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be\nacknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never\nsent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the\nFather sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him: in\nthe same manner, neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy\nSpirit; because neither of them received the divine nature from the\nSpirit: but both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because\nthe divine nature, common to the Father and the Son, was communicated by\nthem both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare\nexpressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father; so do they also\nvirtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son.\u201d\n\n3. Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by\nChrist, \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03db\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _the creature of a creature_. Some time\nafterward, his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was\nconsidered as the _exerted energy_ of God. This appears to have been the\nnotion of Socinus, and, with occasional modifications, has been adopted\nby his followers. They sometimes regard him as an attribute; and at\nothers, resolve the passages in which he is spoken of into a\nperiphrasis, or circumlocution, for God himself; or, to express both in\none, into a figure of speech.\n\n4. In establishing the proper personality and deity of the Holy Ghost,\nthe first argument may be drawn from the frequent association, in\nScripture, of a Person under that appellation with two other Persons,\none of whom, the Father, is by all acknowledged to be divine; and the\nascription to each of them, or to the three in union, of the same acts,\ntitles, and authority, with worship, of the same kind, and, for any\ndistinction that is made, of an equal degree. The manifestation of the\nexistence and divinity of the Holy Spirit may be expected in the law and\nthe prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced there with certainty. The\nSpirit is represented as an agent in creation, \u201cmoving upon the face of\nthe waters;\u201d and it forms no objection to the argument, that creation is\nascribed to the Father, and also to the Son, but is a great confirmation\nof it. That creation should be effected by all the three Persons of the\nGodhead, though acting in different respects, yet so that each should be\na Creator, and, therefore, both a Person and a divine Person, can be\nexplained only by their unity in one essence. On every other hypothesis\nthis Scriptural fact is disallowed, and therefore no other hypothesis\ncan be true. If the Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he is not a\nCreator, distinct from the Father and the Son, because he is not a\nPerson; but this is refuted both by the passage just quoted, and by\nPsalm xxxiii, 6: \u201cBy the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all\nthe host of them by the breath (Heb. _Spirit_) of his mouth.\u201d This is\nfarther confirmed by Job xxxiii, 4: \u201cThe Spirit of God hath made me, and\nthe _breath_ of the Almighty hath given me life;\u201d where the second\nclause is obviously exegetic of the former: and the whole text proves\nthat, in the patriarchal age, the followers of the true religion\nascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father; and that one\nof his appellations was, \u201cthe _Breath_ of the Almighty.\u201d Did such\npassages stand alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility in the\ncriticism which resolves them into a personification; but, connected as\nthey are with the whole body of evidence, as to the concurring doctrine\nof both Testaments, they are inexpugnable. Again: If the personality of\nthe Son and the Spirit be allowed, and yet it is contended that they\nwere but instruments in creation, through whom the creative power of\nanother operated, but which creative power was not possessed by them; on\nthis hypothesis, too, neither the Spirit nor the Son can be said to\ncreate, any more than Moses created the serpent into which his rod was\nturned, and the Scriptures are again contradicted. To this association\nof the three Persons in creative acts, may be added a like association\nin acts of preservation, which has been well called a _continued\ncreation_, and by that term is expressed in the following passage:\n\u201cThese wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due\nseason. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their\nbreath, they die, and return to dust: thou sendest forth thy Spirit,\nthey are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth,\u201d Psalm civ,\n27\u201330. It is not surely here meant, that the Spirit by which the\ngenerations of animals are perpetuated, is _wind_; and if he be called\nan attribute, _wisdom_, _power_, or both united, where do we read of\nsuch attributes being \u201csent,\u201d \u201csent forth from God?\u201d The personality of\nthe Spirit is here as clearly marked as when St. Paul speaks of God\n\u201csending forth the Spirit of his Son,\u201d and when our Lord promises to\n\u201csend\u201d the Comforter; and as the upholding and preserving of created\nthings is ascribed to the Father and the Son, so here they are ascribed,\nalso, to the Spirit, \u201csent forth from\u201d God to \u201ccreate and renew the face\nof the earth.\u201d\n\n5. The next association of the three Persons we find in the\n_inspiration_ of the prophets: \u201cGod spake unto our fathers by the\nprophets,\u201d says St. Paul, Heb. i, 1. St. Peter declares that these \u201choly\nmen of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,\u201d 2 Peter i, 21;\nand also that it was \u201cthe Spirit of Christ which was in them,\u201d 1 Peter\ni, 11. We may defy any Socinian to interpret these three passages by\nmaking the Spirit an influence or attribute, and thereby reducing the\nterm Holy Ghost into a figure of speech. \u201cGod,\u201d in the first passage,\nis, unquestionably, God the Father; and the \u201choly men of God,\u201d the\nprophets, would then, according to this view, be moved by the\n_influence_ of the Father; but the influence, according to the third\npassage, which was the source of their inspiration, was the Spirit, or\nthe _influence_ of \u201cChrist.\u201d Thus the passages contradict each other.\nAllow the trinity in unity, and you have no difficulty in calling the\nSpirit, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, or the\nSpirit of either; but if the Spirit be an influence, that influence\ncannot be the influence of two persons,--one of them God, and the other\na creature. Even if they allowed the pre-existence of Christ, with\nArians, these passages are inexplicable by the Socinians; but, denying\nhis pr\u00ebexistence, they have no subterfuge but to interpret, \u201cthe Spirit\nof Christ,\u201d _the spirit which prophesied of Christ_, which is a purely\ngratuitous paraphrase; or \u201cthe spirit of an anointed one, or prophet;\u201d\nthat is, the prophet\u2019s own spirit, which is just as gratuitous and as\nunsupported by any parallel as the former. If, however, the Holy Ghost\nbe the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, united in one essence, the\npassages are easily harmonized. In conjunction with the Father and the\nSon, he is the source of that prophetic inspiration under which the\nprophets spoke and acted. So the same Spirit which raised Christ from\nthe dead, is said by St. Peter to have preached by Noah while the ark\nwas preparing;--in allusion to the passage, \u201cMy Spirit shall not always\nstrive (contend, debate) with man.\u201d This, we may observe, affords an\neminent proof, that the writers of the New Testament understood the\nphrase, \u201cthe Spirit of God,\u201d as it occurs in the Old Testament,\n_personally_. For, whatever may be the full meaning of that difficult\npassage in St. Peter, Christ is clearly declared to have preached by the\nSpirit in the days of Noah; that is, he, by the Spirit, inspired Noah to\npreach. If, then, the Apostles understood that the Holy Ghost was a\nPerson, a point which will presently be established, we have, in the\ntext just quoted from the book of Genesis, a key to the meaning of those\ntexts in the Old Testament where the phrases, \u201cMy Spirit,\u201d \u201cthe Spirit\nof God,\u201d and \u201cthe Spirit of the Lord,\u201d occur; and inspired authority is\nthus afforded us to interpret them as of a Person; and if of a Person,\nthe very effort made by Socinians to deny his personality, itself,\nindicates that that Person must, from the lofty titles and works\nascribed to him, be inevitably divine. Such phrases occur in many\npassages of the Hebrew Scriptures; but, in the following, the Spirit is\nalso eminently distinguished from two other Persons: \u201cAnd now the Lord\nGod, and his Spirit, hath sent me,\u201d Isaiah xlviii, 16; or, rendered\nbetter, \u201chath sent me and his Spirit,\u201d both terms being in the\naccusative case. \u201cSeek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: for my\nmouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them,\u201d Isaiah\nxxxiv, 16. \u201cI am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts, according to the\nword that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit\nremaineth among you: fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I\nwill shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come,\u201d Hag.\nii, 4\u20137. Here, also, the Spirit of the Lord is seen collocated with the\nLord of Hosts and the Desire of all nations, who is the Messiah.\n\n6. Three Persons, and three only, are associated also, both in the Old\nand New Testament, as objects of supreme worship; and form the one\n\u201cname\u201d in which the religious act of solemn benediction is performed,\nand to which men are bound by solemn baptismal covenant. In the plural\nform of the name of God, each received equal adoration. This threefold\npersonality seems to have given rise to the standing form of triple\nbenediction used by the Jewish high priest. The very important fact,\nthat, in the vision of Isaiah, the Lord of hosts, who spake unto the\nprophet, is, in Acts xxviii, 25, said to be the Holy Ghost, while St.\nJohn declares that the glory which Isaiah saw was the glory of Christ,\nproves, indisputably, that each of the three Persons bears this august\nappellation; it gives also the reason for the threefold repetition,\n\u201cHoly, holy, holy!\u201d and it exhibits the prophet and the very seraphs in\ndeep and awful adoration before the Triune Lord of hosts. Both the\nprophet and the seraphim were, therefore, worshippers of the Holy Ghost\nand of the Son, at the very time and by the very acts in which they\nworshipped the Father; which proves that, as the three Persons received\nequal homage in a case which does not admit of the evasion of pretended\nsuperior and inferior worship, they are equal in majesty, glory, and\nessence.\n\n7. As in the tabernacle form of benediction, the Triune Jehovah is\nrecognised as the source of all grace and peace to his creatures; so\nalso we have the apostolic formula: \u201cThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,\nand the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you\nall. Amen.\u201d Here the personality of the three is kept distinct; and the\nprayer is, that Christians may have a common participation of the Holy\nSpirit, that is, doubtless, as he was promised by our Lord to his\ndisciples, as a Comforter, as the Source of light and spiritual life, as\nthe Author of regeneration. Thus the Spirit is acknowledged, equally\nwith the Father and the Son, to be the Source and the Giver of the\nhighest spiritual blessings; while this solemn ministerial benediction\nis, from its specific character, to be regarded as an act of prayer to\neach of the three Persons, and therefore is at once, an acknowledgment\nof the divinity and personality of each. The same remark applies to\nRevelation i, 4, 5: \u201cGrace be unto you, and peace, from Him which was,\nand which is, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are\nbefore his throne,\u201d (an emblematical reference, probably to the golden\nbranch with its seven lamps,) \u201cand from Jesus Christ.\u201d The style of this\nbook sufficiently accounts for the Holy Spirit being called \u201cthe seven\nspirits;\u201d but no created spirit or company of created spirits is ever\nspoken of under that appellation: and the place assigned to the seven\nspirits, between the mention of the Father and the Son, indicates, with\ncertainty, that one of the sacred Three, so eminent, and so exclusively\neminent in both dispensations, is intended.\n\n8. The form of baptism next presents itself with demonstrative evidence\non the two points before us, the personality and divinity of the Holy\nSpirit. It is the form of covenant by which the sacred Three become our\none or only God, and we become his people: \u201cGo ye, therefore, and teach\nall nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,\nand of the Holy Ghost.\u201d In what manner is this text to be disposed of,\nif the personality of the Holy Ghost is denied? Is the form of baptism\nto be so understood as to imply that baptism is in the name of one\n_God_, one _creature_, and one _attribute_? The grossness of this\nabsurdity refutes it, and proves that here, at least, there can be no\npersonification. If all the Three, therefore, are persons, are we to\nhave baptism in the name of one God and two creatures? This would be too\nnear an approach to idolatry, or, rather, it would be idolatry itself;\nfor, considering baptism as an act of dedication to God, the acceptance\nof God as our God, on our part, and the renunciation of all other\ndeities and all other religions, what could a Heathen convert conceive\nof the two creatures so distinguished from all other creatures in heaven\nand in earth, and so associated with God himself as to form together the\n_one name_, to which, by that act, he was devoted, and which he was\nhenceforward to profess and honour, but that they were equally divine,\nunless special care were taken to instruct him that but one of the Three\nwas God, and the two others but creatures? But of this care, of this\ncautionary instruction, though so obviously necessary upon this theory,\nno single instance can be given in all the writings of the Apostles.\n\n9. But other arguments are not wanting to prove both the personality and\nthe divinity of the Holy Spirit. With respect to the former, (1.) The\nmode of his subsistence in the sacred Trinity proves his personality. He\nproceeds from the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either.\nTo say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth, would be a gross\nabsurdity. (2.) Many passages of Scripture are wholly unintelligible and\neven absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as\nthose who take the phrase as ascribing no more than a figurative\npersonality to an attribute, make that attribute to be the _energy_ or\n_power of God_, they reduce such passages as the following to utter\nunmeaningness: \u201cGod anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power;\u201d\nthat is, with the power of God and with power. \u201cThat ye may abound in\nhope through the power of the Holy Ghost;\u201d that is, through the power of\npower. \u201cIn demonstration of the Spirit and of power;\u201d that is, in\ndemonstration of power and of power.\n\n(3.) Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which the Holy\nGhost is spoken of, impossible. The reality which this figure of speech\nis said to present to us, is either some of the attributes of God, or\nelse the doctrine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon\nthe following passages: \u201cHe shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever\nhe shall hear, that shall he speak.\u201d What attribute of God can here be\npersonified? And if the doctrine of the Gospel be arrayed with personal\nattributes, where is there an instance of so monstrous a prosopop\u0153ia\nas this passage would exhibit?--the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking\n\u201cof himself,\u201d but speaking \u201cwhatsoever he shall hear!\u201d--\u201cThe Spirit\nmaketh intercession for us.\u201d What attribute is capable of interceding,\nor how can the doctrine of the Gospel intercede? Personification, too,\nis the language of poetry, and takes place naturally only in excited and\nelevated discourse; but if the Holy Spirit be a personification, we find\nit in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narration and argumentative\ndiscourse in the New Testament, and in the most incidental\nconversations. \u201cHave ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? We\nhave not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.\u201d How\nimpossible is it here to extort, by any process whatever, even the\nshadow of a personification of either any attribute of God, or of the\ndoctrine of the Gospel! So again: \u201cThe Spirit said unto Philip, Go near,\nand join thyself to this chariot.\u201d Could it be any attribute of God\nwhich said this, or could it be the doctrine of the Gospel? Finally,\nthat the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an attribute, is proved by the\nuse of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New\nTestament, in connection with the neuter noun \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, _Spirit_, and also\nby many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as, \u201cto come,\u201d \u201cto\ngo,\u201d \u201cto be sent,\u201d \u201cto teach,\u201d \u201cto guide,\u201d \u201cto comfort,\u201d \u201cto make\nintercession,\u201d \u201cto bear witness,\u201d \u201cto give gifts,\u201d \u201cdividing them to\nevery man as he _will_,\u201d \u201cto be vexed,\u201d \u201cgrieved,\u201d and \u201cquenched.\u201d These\ncannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore\nestablish the Spirit\u2019s true personality.\n\n10. Some additional arguments to those before given to establish the\ndivinity of the Holy Ghost may also be adduced. The first is taken from\nhis being the subject of blasphemy: \u201cThe blasphemy against the Holy\nGhost shall not be forgiven unto men,\u201d Matt. xii, 31. This blasphemy\nconsisted in ascribing his miraculous works to Satan; and that he is\ncapable of being blasphemed proves him to be as much a person as the\nSon; and it proves him to be divine, because it shows that he may be\nsinned against, and so sinned against that the blasphemer shall not be\nforgiven. A person he must be, or he could not be blasphemed: a divine\nperson he must be, to constitute this blasphemy a sin against him in the\nproper sense, and of so malignant a kind as to place it beyond the reach\nof mercy. He is called God: \u201cWhy hath Satan filled thine heart to lie\nunto the Holy Ghost? Why hast thou conceived this in thine heart? Thou\nhast not lied unto men, but unto God,\u201d Acts v, 3, 4. Ananias is said to\nhave lied particularly \u201cunto the Holy Ghost,\u201d because the Apostles were\nunder his special direction in establishing the temporary regulation\namong Christians that they should have all things in common: the\ndetection of the crime itself was a demonstration of the divinity of the\nSpirit, because it showed his omniscience, his knowledge of the most\nsecret acts. In addition to the proof of his divinity thus afforded by\nthis history, he is also called God: \u201cThou hast not lied unto men, but\nunto God.\u201d He is also called the Lord: \u201cNow the Lord is that Spirit,\u201d 2\nCor. iii, 17. He is _eternal_: \u201cThe eternal Spirit,\u201d Heb. ix, 14.\n_Omnipresence_ is ascribed to him: \u201cYour body is the temple of the Holy\nGhost,\u201d 1 Cor. vi, 19. \u201cAs many as are led by the Spirit of God, they\nare the sons of God,\u201d Rom. viii, 14. For, as all true Christians are his\ntemples, and are led by him, he must be present to them at all times and\nin all places. He is _omniscient_: \u201cThe Spirit searcheth all things,\nyea, the deep things of God,\u201d 1 Cor. ii, 10. Here the Spirit is said to\nsearch or know \u201call things\u201d absolutely; and then, to make this more\nemphatic, that he knows even \u201cthe deep things of God,\u201d things hidden\nfrom every creature, the depths of his essence, and the secrets of his\ncounsels; for, that this is intended, appears from the next verse, where\nhe is said to know \u201cthe things of God,\u201d as the spirit of a man knows the\nthings of a man. _Supreme majesty_ is also attributed to him, so that to\n\u201clie\u201d to him, to \u201cblaspheme\u201d him, to \u201cvex\u201d him, to do him \u201cdespite,\u201d are\nsins, and as such render the offender liable to divine punishment. How\nimpracticable then is it to interpret the phrase, \u201cthe Holy Ghost,\u201d as a\nperiphrasis for God himself! A Spirit, which is the Spirit _of_ God,\nwhich is so often distinguished _from_ the Father, which \u201csees\u201d and\n\u201chears\u201d the Father, which searches \u201cthe deep things\u201d of God, which is\n\u201csent\u201d by the Father, which \u201cproceedeth\u201d from him, and who has special\nprayer addressed to him at the same time as the Father, cannot, though\n\u201cone with him,\u201d be the Father; and that he is not the Son is\nacknowledged on both sides. As a divine person, our regards are\ntherefore justly due to him as the object of worship and trust, of\nprayer and blessing.\n\n11. Various are the gracious offices of the Holy Spirit in the work of\nour redemption. He it is that first quickens the soul, dead in\ntrespasses and sins, to spiritual life; it is by him we are \u201cborn\nagain,\u201d and made new creatures; he is the living root of all the\nChristian graces, which are therefore called \u201cthe fruits\u201d of the Spirit;\nand by him all true Christians are aided in the \u201cinfirmities\u201d and\nafflictions of this present life. Eminently, he is promised to the\ndisciples as \u201cthe Comforter,\u201d which is more fully explained by St. Paul\nby the phrase \u201cthe Spirit of adoption;\u201d so that it is through him that\nwe receive a direct inward testimony to our personal forgiveness and\nacceptance through Christ, and are filled with peace and consolation.\nThis doctrine, so essential to the solid and habitual happiness of those\nwho believe in Christ, is thus clearly explained in a sermon on that\nsubject by the Rev. John Wesley:--\n\n\u201c(1.) But what is the witness of the Spirit? The original word,\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, may be rendered either, as it is in several places, _the\nwitness_, or, less ambiguously, _the testimony_, or, _the record_: so it\nis rendered in our translation: \u2018This is the record,\u2019 the testimony, the\nsum of what God testifies in all the inspired writings, \u2018that God hath\ngiven unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son,\u2019 1 John v, 11.\nThe testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to\nand with our spirit. He is the person testifying. What he testifies to\nus is, \u2018that we are the children of God.\u2019 The immediate result of this\ntestimony is, \u2018the fruit of the Spirit;\u2019 namely, \u2018love, joy, peace, long\nsuffering, gentleness, goodness.\u2019 And without these, the testimony\nitself cannot continue. For it is inevitably destroyed, not only by the\ncommission of any outward sin, or the omission of known duty, but by\ngiving way to any inward sin: in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy\nSpirit of God. (2.) I observed many years ago, It is hard to find words\nin the language of men to explain the deep things of God. Indeed, there\nare none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in\nhis children. But, perhaps, one might say, (desiring any who are taught\nof God to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression,) by the\n\u2018testimony of the Spirit,\u2019 I mean, an inward impression on the soul,\nwhereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses with my\nspirit, that I am a child of God; that \u2018Jesus Christ hath loved me, and\ngiven himself for me;\u2019 that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I,\nam reconciled to God. (3.) After twenty years\u2019 farther consideration, I\nsee no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any\nof these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more\nintelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will\npoint out any other expressions which are more clear, or more agreeable\nto the word of God, I will readily lay these aside. (4.) Meantime, let\nit be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies\nthis by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although\nhe may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies\nto the heart, though he often may, one or more texts of Scripture. But\nhe so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong,\nthough inexplicable, operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves\nsubside, and there is a sweet calm: the heart resting as in the arms of\nJesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that all his \u2018iniquities\nare forgiven, and his sins covered.\u2019 (5.) Now what is the matter of\ndispute concerning this? Not, whether there be a witness or testimony of\nthe Spirit. Not, whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that\nwe are the children of God. None can deny this, without flatly\ncontradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon the God of truth.\nTherefore, that there is a testimony of the Spirit, is acknowledged by\nall parties. (6.) Neither is it questioned, whether there is an indirect\nwitness or testimony, that we are the children of God. This is nearly,\nif not exactly, the same with \u2018the testimony of a good conscience toward\nGod;\u2019 and is the result of reason or reflection on what we feel in our\nown souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the\nword of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says,\nEvery one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God. Experience\nor inward consciousness tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit;\nand hence I rationally conclude, Therefore I am a child of God. This is\nlikewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy. (7.)\nNor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit,\nwithout the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the\nfruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony; not always\nindeed in the same degree even when the testimony is first given; and\nmuch less afterward: neither joy nor peace is always at one stay. No,\nnor love: as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and\nclear. (8.) But the point in question is, whether there be any direct\ntestimony of the Spirit at all; whether there be any other testimony of\nthe Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit. I\nbelieve there is, because that is the plain, natural meaning of the\ntext, \u2018The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are\nthe children of God.\u2019 It is manifest here are two witnesses mentioned,\nwho together testify the same thing, the Spirit of God, and our own\nspirit. The late bishop of London, in his sermon on this text, seems\nastonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very\nface of the words. Now, \u2018the testimony of our own spirit,\u2019 says the\nbishop, \u2018is one which is the consciousness of our own sincerity;\u2019 or, to\nexpress the same thing a little more clearly, the consciousness of the\nfruit of the Spirit. When our spirit is conscious of this, of love, joy,\npeace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers from these\npremises, that we are the children of God. It is true, that great man\nsupposes the other witness to be \u2018the consciousness of our own good\nworks.\u2019 This, he affirms, is \u2018the testimony of God\u2019s Spirit.\u2019 But this\nis included in the testimony of our own spirit: yea, and in sincerity,\neven according to the common sense of the word. So the Apostle: \u2018Our\nrejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity\nand godly sincerity we have our conversation in the world;\u2019 where it is\nplain, sincerity refers to our words and actions, at least, as much as\nto our inward dispositions. So that this is not another witness, but the\nvery same that he mentioned before: the consciousness of our good works\nbeing only one branch of the consciousness of our sincerity.\nConsequently, here is only one witness still. If therefore, the text\nspeaks of two witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our\ngood works, neither of our sincerity; all this being manifestly\ncontained in \u2018the testimony of our spirit.\u2019 What, then, is the other\nwitness? This might easily be learned, if the text itself were not\nsufficiently clear, from the verse immediately preceding: \u2018Ye have\nreceived, not the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby\nwe cry, Abba, Father.\u2019 It follows, \u2018The Spirit itself beareth witness\nwith our spirit, that we are the children of God.\u2019 This is farther\nexplained by the parallel text, Gal. iv, 6: \u2018Because ye are sons, God\nhath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,\nFather.\u2019 Is not this something immediate and direct, not the result of\nreflection or argumentation? Does not this Spirit cry, \u2018Abba, Father,\u2019\nin our hearts, the moment it is given? antecedently to any reflection\nupon our sincerity, yea, to any reasoning whatsoever? And is not this\nthe plain, natural sense of the words, which strikes any one as soon as\nhe hears them? All these texts, then, in their most obvious meaning,\ndescribe a direct testimony of the Spirit. That the testimony of the\nSpirit of God, must, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the\ntestimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration:\nWe must be holy in heart and life, before we can be conscious that we\nare so. But we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being\nthe root of all holiness. Now, we cannot love God, till we know he loves\nus: \u2018We love him, because he first loved us.\u2019 And we cannot know his\nlove to us, till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since,\ntherefore, the testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God and\nall holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness thereof.\u201d\n\n12. The precedence of the direct witness of the Spirit of God to the\nindirect witness of our own, and the dependence of the latter upon the\nformer, are also clearly stated by other divines of great authority.\nCalvin, on Romans viii, 16, says, \u201cSt. Paul means that the Spirit of God\ngives such a testimony to us, that he being our guide and teacher, our\nspirit concludes our adoption of God to be certain. For our own mind, of\nitself, independent of the preceding testimony of the Spirit, [_nisi\npr\u00e6unte Spirit\u00fbs testimonio_,] could not produce this persuasion in us.\nFor while the Spirit witnesses that we are the sons of God, he at the\nsame time inspires this confidence into our minds, that we are bold to\ncall God our Father.\u201d On the same passage Dr. John Owen says, \u201cThe\nSpirit itself beareth witness with our spirits that we are the sons of\nGod; the witness which our own spirits do give unto our adoption is the\nwork and effect of the Holy Spirit in us; if it were not, it would be\nfalse, and not confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit himself, who is\nthe Spirit of truth. \u2018And none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit\nof God,\u2019 1 Cor. ii, 11. If he declare not our sonship in us and to us,\nwe cannot know it. How doth he then bear witness to our spirits? What is\nthe distinct testimony? It must be some such act of his as evidenceth\nitself to be from him immediately, unto them that are concerned in it,\nthat is, those unto whom it is given.\u201d Poole on the same passage\nremarks, \u201cThe Spirit of adoption doth not only excite us to call upon\nGod as our Father, but it doth ascertain and assure us, as before, that\nwe are his children. And this it doth not by an outward voice, as God\nthe Father to Jesus Christ, nor by an angel, as to Daniel and the Virgin\nMary, but by an inward and secret suggestion, whereby he raiseth our\nhearts to this persuasion, that God is our Father, and we are his\nchildren. This is not the testimony of the graces and operations of the\nSpirit, but of the Spirit itself.\u201d Bishop Pearson, in his elaborate work\non the Creed, and Dr. Barrow, in his Sermons, are equally explicit in\nstating this Scriptural doctrine.\n\nHOMOIOUSIANS, a branch of the high Arians, who maintained that the\nnature of the Son, though not the same, was similar to that of the\nFather.\n\nHOMOOUSIANS, or HOMOUSIASTS, was, on the other hand, a name applied to\nthe Athanasians, who held the Son to be _homousios_, or consubstantial\nwith the Father, that is, of the same nature and substance.\n\nHONEY, \u05d3\u05d1\u05e9. It is probable, that it was in order to keep the Jews at a\ndistance from the customs of the Heathen, who were used to offer honey\nin their sacrifices, that God forbade it to be offered to him, that is\nto say, burnt upon the altar, Lev. ii, 11; but at the same time he\ncommanded that the first-fruits of it should be presented. These\nfirst-fruits and offerings were designed for the support and sustenance\nof the priests, and were not consumed upon the altar. In hot weather,\nthe honey burst the comb, and ran down the hollow trees or rocks, where,\nin the land of Judea, the bees deposited great store of it. This,\nflowing spontaneously, was the best and most delicious, as it was quite\npure, and clear from all dregs and wax. The Israelites called it \u05d9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4,\n_wood honey_. It is therefore improperly rendered \u201choneycomb,\u201d 1 Sam.\nxiv, 27; Cant. v, 1; in both which places it means the honey that has\ndistilled from the trees, as distinguished from the domestic, which was\neaten with the comb. Hasselquist says, that between Acra and Nazareth,\ngreat numbers of wild bees breed, to the advantage of the inhabitants;\nand Maundrell observes of the great plain near Jericho, that he\nperceived in it, in many places, a smell of honey and wax as strong as\nif he had been in an apiary. Milk and honey were the chief dainties of\nthe earlier ages, and continue to be so of the Bedoween Arabs now. So\nbutter and honey are several times mentioned in Scripture as among the\nmost delicious refreshments, 2 Sam. xvii, 29; Job xx, 17; Cant. iv, 11;\nIsaiah vii, 15. Thus Irby and Mangles, in their Travels, relate, \u201cThey\ngave us some honey and butter together, with bread to dip in it, Narsah\ndesiring one of his men to mix the two ingredients for us, as we were\nawkward at it. The Arab, having stirred the mixture up well with his\nfingers, showed his dexterity at consuming, as well as mixing, and\nrecompensed himself for his trouble by eating half of it.\u201d The _wild\nhoney_, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, mentioned to have been a part of the food of John\nthe Baptist, Matt. iii, 4, was probably such as he got in the rocks and\nhollows of trees. Thus, \u201choney out of the stony rock,\u201d Psalm lxxxi, 16;\nDeut. xxxii, 13.\n\nHOPHNI. See ELI.\n\nHOPKINSIANS, or HOPKINSONIANS, so called from the Rev. Samuel Hopkins,\nD.D., pastor of the first Congregational church at Newport, Rhode\nIsland, North America, about A. D. 1770. Dr. Hopkins, in his sermons and\ntracts, made several additions to the sentiments previously advanced by\nthe celebrated President Edwards, of New-Jersey College. The following\nis a summary of their distinguishing tenets:--\n\n1. That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested\nbenevolence. The object of benevolence is universal being, including\nGod, and all intelligent creatures. It wishes and seeks the good of\nevery individual, so far as is consistent with the greatest good of the\nwhole, which is comprised in the glory of God, and the perfection and\nhappiness of his kingdom. The law of God is the standard of all moral\nrectitude or holiness. This is reduced into love to God and to our\nneighbour; and universal good will comprehends all the love to God, our\nneighbour, and ourselves, required in the divine law, and therefore must\nbe the whole of holy obedience. Let any person reflect on what are the\nparticular branches of true piety, and he will find that disinterested\naffection is the distinguishing characteristic of each. For instance,\nall which distinguishes pious fear from the fear of the wicked consists\nin love. Holy gratitude is nothing but good will to God and man,\nourselves included, excited by a view of the good will and kindness of\nGod. Justice, truth, and faithfulness, are comprised in universal\nbenevolence. So are temperance and chastity; for an undue indulgence of\nour appetites and passions is contrary to benevolence, as tending to\nhurt ourselves or others, and so opposite to the general good, and the\ndivine command. In short, all virtue is nothing but love to God and our\nneighbour, made perfect in all its genuine exercises and expressions.\n\n2. That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested\naffection, by which a person sets himself up as the supreme or only\nobject of regard; and nothing is lovely in his view, unless suited to\npromote his private interest. This self-love is, in its whole nature,\nand every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law\nof God, and it is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the\nfoundation of all spiritual blindness, and the source of all idolatry\nand false religion. It is the foundation of all covetousness and\nsensuality; of all falsehood, injustice, and oppression; as it excites\nmankind, by undue methods, to invade the property of others. Self-love\nproduces all the violent passions, envy, wrath, clamour, and evil\nspeaking; and every thing contrary to the divine law is briefly\ncomprehended in this fruitful source of iniquity, self-love.\n\n3. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions\nof the unregenerate. For as far as men act from self-love, they act from\na bad end; for those who have no true love to God really fulfil no duty\nwhen they attend on the externals of religion. Also, that inability,\nwhich consists in disinclination, never renders any thing improper to be\nthe subject of a command.\n\n4. That the impotency of sinners, with respect to believing in Christ,\nis not natural, but moral; for it is a plain dictate of common sense,\nthat natural impossibility excludes all blame. But an unwilling mind is\nuniversally considered as a crime, and not as an excuse; and is the very\nthing wherein our wickedness consists.--Also,\n\n5. That in order to faith in Christ, a sinner must approve in his heart\nof the divine conduct, even though God should cast him off for ever;\nwhich, however, neither implies love to misery, nor hatred of happiness.\nBut as a particle of water is small, in comparison of a generous stream,\nso the man of humility feels small before the great family of his fellow\ncreatures. He values his soul; but, when he compares it to the great\nsoul of mankind, he almost forgets and loses sight of it: for the\ngoverning principle of his heart is, to estimate things according to\ntheir worth. When, therefore, he indulges an humble comparison with his\nMaker, he feels lost in the infinite fulness and brightness of divine\nlove, as a ray of light is lost in the sun, and a particle of water in\nthe ocean. It inspires him with the most grateful feelings of heart,\nthat he has opportunity to be in the hand of God, as clay in the hand of\nthe potter; and as he considers himself in this humble light, he submits\nthe nature and size of his future vessel entirely to God. As his pride\nis lost in the dust, he looks up with pleasure toward the throne of God,\nand rejoices, with all his heart, in the rectitude of the divine\nadministration. He also considers that, if the law be good, death is due\nto those who have broken it; and \u201cthe Judge of all the earth cannot but\ndo right,\u201d Gen. xviii, 25. It would bring everlasting reproach upon his\ngovernment to spare us, considered merely as in ourselves. When this is\nfelt in our hearts, and not till then, we shall be prepared to look to\nthe free grace of God, through Christ\u2019s redemption.\n\n6. That the infinitely wise and holy God has exerted his omnipotent\npower, in such a manner as he purposed should be followed with the\nexistence and entrance of moral evil in the system: for it must be\nadmitted, on all hands, that God has a perfect knowledge, foresight, and\nview of all possible existences and events. If that system and scene of\noperation, in which moral evil should never have existence, was actually\npreferred in the divine mind, certainly the Deity is infinitely\ndisappointed in the issue of his own operations. Dr. Hopkins maintains,\ntherefore, that \u201cGod was the author, origin, and positive cause of\nAdam\u2019s sin:\u201d yea, \u201cthat he is the origin and cause of moral evil, as\nreally as he is of the existence of any thing that he wills.\u201d\n\n7. That the introduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general\ngood. For the wisdom and power of the Deity are displayed in carrying on\ndesigns of the greatest good: and the existence of moral evil has,\nundoubtedly, occasioned a more full, perfect, and glorious discovery of\nthe infinite perfections of the divine nature, than could otherwise have\nbeen made to the view of creatures.\n\n8. That repentance is before faith in Christ. By this, is not intended,\nthat repentance is before a speculative conviction of the being and\nperfections of God, and of the person and character of Christ; but only,\nthat true repentance is previous to a saving faith in Christ, by which\nthe believer is united to Christ, and entitled to the benefits of his\nmediation and atonement. So Christ commanded, \u201cRepent ye, and believe\nthe Gospel;\u201d and Paul preached \u201crepentance toward God, and faith in our\nLord Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\n9. That though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine\nconstitution, yet they were and are accountable for no sins but\npersonal: for, (1.) Adam\u2019s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not\nthe act of his posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time\nthat he did. (2.) The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to\nthem afterward; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be\ntransferred from one person to another, than an act itself. (3.)\nTherefore Adam\u2019s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause,\nbut only the occasions of his posterity being sinners. Adam sinned, and\nnow God brings his posterity into the world sinners.\n\n10. That though believers are justified through Christ\u2019s righteousness,\nyet his righteousness is not transferred to them. For personal\nrighteousness cannot be transferred from one person to another, nor\npersonal sin; otherwise the sinner would become innocent, and Christ the\nsinner. The Scripture, therefore, represents believers as receiving only\nthe benefits of Christ\u2019s righteousness in justification, or their being\npardoned and accepted for Christ\u2019s righteousness\u2019 sake; and this is the\nproper Scripture notion of imputation. Jonathan\u2019s righteousness was\nimputed to Mephibosheth, when David showed kindness to him for his\nfather Jonathan\u2019s sake, 2 Samuel ix, 7.\n\n11. The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of the divine decrees,\nnot only particular election, but also reprobation; they hold also the\ntotal depravation of human nature, the special influences of the Spirit\nof God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final\nperseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom\nand absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since\nthe world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists.\nCalvinists, however, have demurred against several of these\npropositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in\nthe United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.)\nSelfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is\nconfessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our\naffections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--\u201cThou\nshalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d And the Scriptures teach us, that\n\u201cno man hateth his own flesh.\u201d Such a \u201cdisinterested benevolence,\u201d\ntherefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and\nhappiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be\nconvinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered\nout of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it\nis making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever\nunholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and\nstrange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can\nonly be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal\npoint on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God \u201cthe author and\nefficient cause of sin.\u201d It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that\n\u201cin causing or originating sin, there is no sin;\u201d this, however, is a\nposition so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common\nsense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no\nspeculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an\nexcuse for sin. \u201cIs God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?\u201d saith the\nApostle. \u201cGod forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?\u201d Rom. iii,\n5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully\ngratified in the \u201cContrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,\u201d by Ezra\nStyles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In\nthis country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that\nthe theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of\nmystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it\ndiffers from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.\n\nHOR. This mountain, in its general acceptation, is probably the same\nwith Mount Seir, Hor being the name by which that mountainous tract was\ndenominated before it was exchanged for Seir. But one particular\nmountain of this region retained the name of Hor long after; as it was a\nmountain of this name, \u201cby the coast of the land of Edom,\u201d that Aaron\nwas commanded to ascend, in order to die there, Num. xx, 23. This\nmountain, or at least the one to which tradition assigns the tomb of\nAaron, was visited by Burckhardt; from whose account it appears to form\na conspicuous object in the chain of the Djebel Shera, or Mount Seir,\nrising abruptly from the valley of El Araba, or desert of Zin, about\nfifty miles north of Akaba, or Ezion-Geber.\n\nHOREB, a mountain in Arabia Petr\u00e6a, a part of which, or near to which,\nwas Sinai. At Horeb God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exod.\niii, 1, &c. Hither Elijah retired to avoid the persecution of Jezebel, 1\nKings xix, 8. Sinai and Horeb seem to be two parts of the same mountain;\nhence the law is sometimes said to be given there.\n\nHORN. By horns the Hebrews sometimes understood an eminence, or angle, a\ncorner, or a rising. By horns of the altar of burnt offerings, many\nunderstand the angles of that altar; but there were also horns, or\neminences, at the corners of that altar, Exod. xxvii, 2; xxx, 2. Horn\nalso signifies glory, brightness, rays. God\u2019s \u201cbrightness was as the\nlight, he had horns coming out of his hand,\u201d Hab. iii, 4; that is,\nrefulgent beams issuing from the hollow of it. As the ancients\nfrequently used horns to hold liquors, vessels containing oil and\nperfumes are often called horns, whether made of horn or not. \u201cFill\nthine horn with oil,\u201d says the Lord to Samuel, \u201cand anoint David,\u201d 1\nSam. xvi, 1. Zadok took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and\nanointed Solomon, 1 Kings i, 39. Job called one of his daughters\nKerenhappuch, horn of antimony, or horn to put antimony (_stibium_) in,\nwhich the women of the east still use at this day, Job xliii, 14. The\nprincipal defence and strength of horned beasts consist in their horns;\nand hence the Scripture mentions the horn as a symbol of strength. The\nLord exalted the horn of David, the horn of his people; he breaketh the\nhorn of the ungodly; he cutteth off the horn of Moab; he cutteth off the\nhorn of Israel; he promiseth to make the horn of Israel to bud forth; to\nre\u00ebstablish the honour of it, and restore its former vigour. Moses\ncompares Joseph to a young bull, and says that he has horns like those\nof a unicorn. Kingdoms and great powers are often in Scripture described\nby the symbol of horns. In Daniel vii, viii, horns represent the power\nof the Persians, of the Greeks, of Syria, of Egypt, or of Pagan and\nPapal Rome. The prophet represents three animals as having many horns,\none of which grew from the other. This emblem is a natural one, since in\nthe east are rams which have many horns.\n\nHORNET, \u05d4\u05e6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4, Exod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Joshua xxiv, 12. The\nhornet, in natural history, belongs to the species _crabo_, of the genus\n_vespa_ or wasp. It is a most voracious insect, and is exceedingly\nstrong for its size, which is generally an inch in length, and sometimes\nmore. In each of the instances where this creature is mentioned in\nScripture, it is as sent among the enemies of the Israelites, to drive\nthem out of the land. Some explain the word metaphorically, as \u201cI will\nsend my terror as the hornet,\u201d &c. But Bochart contends that it is to be\ntaken in its proper literal meaning, and has accumulated examples of\nseveral other people having been chased from their habitations by\ninsects of different kinds. \u00c6lian records that the Phaselites, who dwelt\nabout the mountains of Solyma, were driven out of their country by\nwasps. As these people were Phenicians or Canaanites, it is probable\nthat the event to which he refers is the same as took place in the days\nof Joshua. How distressing and destructive a multitude of these fierce\nand severely stinging insects might be, any person may conjecture. No\narmour, no weapons could avail against them. A few thousands of them\nwould be sufficient to overthrow the best disciplined army and put it\ninto confusion and rout. From Joshua xxiv, 12, we find that two kings of\nthe Amorites were actually driven out of the land by these hornets, so\nthat the Israelites were not obliged to use either sword or bow in the\nconquest. One of these, according to the Jewish commentaries of R.\nNachman, was the nation of the Girgashites, who retired into Africa,\nfearing the power of God. And Procopius, in his history of the Vandals,\nmentions an ancient inscription in Mauritania Tingitana, stating, that\nthe inhabitants had fled thither from the face of Joshua, the son of\nNun. This account accords with Scripture, in which, though the\nGirgashites are included in the general list of the seven devoted\nnations either to be driven out or destroyed by the Israelites, Gen. xv,\n20, 21; Deut. vii, 1; Josh. iii, 10; xxiv, 11; yet they are omitted in\nthe list of those to be utterly destroyed, Deut. xx, 17; and among whom,\nin neglect of the divine decree, the Israelites lived and intermarried,\nJudges iii, 1\u20136. That the name of the Girgashites, however, was not\nextirpated, we may collect from the Gergesenes, in our Saviour\u2019s time,\ninhabiting the same country, Matt. viii, 28. Other tribes of the\nHivites, Canaanites, and Hittites, were also expelled by the hornet\ngradually; not in one year, lest the land should become desolate, and\nthe wild beasts multiply to the prejudice of the Israelites, Exod.\nxxiii, 28\u201330.\n\nThe \u201carms of Jove,\u201d to which Virgil refers, (_\u00c6neid_ viii, 355\u2013358,) in\ndescribing the flight of Saturn from the east, were the hornets sent by\nthe God of Israel, Iahoh, or by contraction Io, to which also his\ndescription of the Asilus exactly corresponds:--\n\n           _Plurimus--volitans, (cui nomen Asilo\n           Romanum est_; \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, _Graii vertere vocantes,)\n           Asper, acerba sonans, quo tota exterrita sylvis\n           Diffugiunt armenta_.\n                                             Georg. iii, 145.\n\n         \u201cAbout the Alburnian groves, with holly green,\n         Of winged insects mighty swarms are seen;\n         This flying plague, to mark its quality,\n         \u0152STROS the Grecians call; ASYLUS, we:\n         A fierce loud buzzing breeze; their stings draw blood,\n         And drive the cattle gadding through the wood.\n         Seized with unusual pains, they loudly cry.\u201d\n                                            DRYDEN.\n\nDr. Hales is of opinion, that the Latin _asilus_ and Greek \u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, were\nprobably only different pronunciations of the same oriental term, \u05d4\u05e6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4,\n_hatsiraah_, as this fly is called by Moses and Joshua. The vindictive\npower that presided over this dreadful scourge was worshipped at Ekron,\nin Palestine, through fear, the reigning motive of Pagan superstition,\nunder the title of _Baal-zebub_, \u201cmaster or lord of the hornet,\u201d whence\n_Beelzebub_, in the New Testament, \u201cthe prince of demons,\u201d Matt. xii,\n24. Isaiah, denouncing a wo against Abyssinia, describes it as \u201cthe land\nof the winged cymbal,\u201d (_tsaltsal canaphim_,) Isaiah xviii, 1; by the\nsame analogy that _tsaltsal_ signifies \u201ca locust,\u201d Deut. xxviii, 42; _a\nstreper\u00e2 voce sic dictam_. [So called from its streperous sound.] Bruce,\nin his Travels in Abyssinia, has given an accurate description of this\ntremendous fly, which in Arabic is called _zimb_, and by the Abyssinians\n_tsaltsal-ya_, \u201cthe cymbal of the Lord,\u201d from its sonorous buzzing. And\nin his Appendix he has given a drawing of it, magnified, for\ndistinctness\u2019 sake, something above twice the natural size: after which\nhe observes, \u201cHe has no sting, though he seems to me to be rather of the\nbee kind; but his motion is more rapid and sudden than that of the bee,\n(_volitans_,) and resembles that of the gad-fly in England. There is\nsomething particular in the sound or buzzing of this insect; it is a\njarring noise, together with a humming, (_acerba sonans_,) which induces\nme to believe it proceeds, in part at least, from a vibration made with\nthe three hairs at his snout.\u201d Bruce does not cite or refer to Virgil\u2019s\ndescription, though his account furnishes the most critical and exact\nexplanation of it. Such undesigned coincidences are most satisfactory\nand convincing; they show that the poet and the naturalist both copied\nfrom nature. And the terror impressed by this insect on all the cattle,\n_quo tota exterrita sylvis diffugiunt_, [affrighted at which the entire\nherds flee to the thickets,] according to Virgil, is thus illustrated by\nBruce: \u201cAs soon as this plague appears, and their buzzing is heard, all\nthe cattle forsake their food, and run wildly about the plain till they\ndie, worn out with fatigue, fright, and hunger. No remedy remains but to\nleave the black earth, where they breed, and hasten down to the sands of\nAtbara; and there they remain while the periodical rains last, this\ncruel enemy (_asper_) never daring to pursue them farther. The camel,\nemphatically called by the Arabs the ship of the desert, though his size\nis immense as is his strength, and his body covered with a thick skin,\ndefended with strong hair, still is not able to sustain the violent\npunctures the fly makes with his pointed proboscis. He must lose no time\nin removing to the sands of Atbara; for when once attacked by this fly,\nhis body, head, and legs, break out into large bosses, which swell,\nbreak, and putrefy, to the certain destruction of the creature. I have\nfound some of these tubercles upon almost every elephant and rhinoceros\nthat I have seen, and attribute them to this cause. All the inhabitants\nof the sea coast are obliged to put themselves in motion, and remove to\nthe next sand, in the beginning of the rainy season, to prevent all\ntheir stock of cattle from being destroyed. Nor is there any\nalternative, or means of avoiding this, though a hostile band was in the\nway, capable of spoiling them of half their substance, as was actually\nthe case when we were at Sennaar. Of such consequence is the weakest\ninstrument in the hand of Providence.\u201d See FLIES and BEELZEBUB.\n\nHORSE, \u05e1\u05d5\u05e1. Horses were very rare among the Hebrews in the early ages.\nThe patriarchs had none; and after the departure of the Israelites from\nEgypt, God expressly forbade their ruler to procure them: \u201cHe shall not\nmultiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to\nthe end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said,\nYe shall henceforth return no more that way,\u201d Deut. xvii, 16. As horses\nappear to have been generally furnished by Egypt, God prohibits these,\n1. Lest there should be such commerce with Egypt as might lead to\nidolatry. 2. Lest the people might depend on a well appointed cavalry,\nas a means of security, and so cease from trusting in the promised aid\nand protection of Jehovah. 3. That they might not be tempted to extend\ntheir dominion by means of cavalry, and so get scattered among the\nsurrounding idolatrous nations, and thus cease in process of time, to be\nthat distinct and separate people which God intended they should be, and\nwithout which the prophecies relative to the Messiah could not be known\nto have their due and full accomplishment. In the time of the Judges we\nfind horses and war chariots among the Canaanites, but still the\nIsraelites had none; and hence they were generally too timid to venture\ndown into the plains, confining their conquests to the mountainous parts\nof the country. In the reign of Saul, it would appear, that horse\nbreeding had not yet been introduced into Arabia; for, in a war with\nsome of the Arabian nations, the Israelites got plunder in camels,\nsheep, and asses, but no horses. David\u2019s enemies brought against him a\nstrong force of cavalry into the field; and in the book of Psalms the\nhorse commonly appears only on the side of the enemies of the people of\nGod; and so entirely unaccustomed to the management of this animal had\nthe Israelites still continued, that, after a battle, in which they took\na considerable body of cavalry prisoners, 2 Sam. viii, 4, David caused\nmost of the horses to be cut down, because he did not know what use to\nmake of them. Solomon was the first who established a cavalry force.\nUnder these circumstances, it is not wonderful that the Mosaic law\nshould take no notice of an animal which we hold in such high\nestimation. To Moses, educated as he was in Egypt, and, with his people,\nat last chased out by Pharaoh\u2019s cavalry, the use of the horse for war\nand for travelling was well known; but as it was his object to establish\na nation of husbandmen, and not of soldiers for the conquest of foreign\nlands, and as Palestine, from its situation, required not the defence of\ncavalry, he might very well decline introducing among his people the yet\nunusual art of horse breeding. Solomon, having married a daughter of\nPharaoh, procured a breed of horses from Egypt; and so greatly did he\nmultiply them, that he had four hundred stables, forty thousand stalls,\nand twelve thousand horsemen, 1 Kings iv, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 25. It seems\nthat the Egyptian horses were in high repute, and were much used in war.\nWhen the Israelites were disposed to place too implicit confidence in\nthe assistance of cavalry, the prophet remonstrated in these terms: \u201cThe\nEgyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, not spirit,\u201d\nIsaiah xxxi, 3.\n\nHORSE-LEECH, \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4, from a root which signifies _to adhere_, _stick\nclose_, or _hang fast_, Prov. xxx, 15. A sort of worm that lives in\nwater, of a black or brown colour, which fattens upon the flesh, and\ndoes not quit it till it is entirely full of blood. Solomon says, \u201cThe\nhorse-leech hath two daughters, Give, give.\u201d This is so apt an emblem of\nan insatiable rapacity and avarice, that it has been generally used by\ndifferent writers to express it. Thus Plautus makes one say, speaking of\nthe determination to get money, \u201cI will turn myself into a horse-leech,\nand suck out their blood;\u201d and Cicero, in one of his letters to Atticus,\ncalls the common people of Rome horse-leeches of the treasury. Solomon,\nhaving mentioned those that devoured the property of the poor as the\nworst of all the generations which he had specified, proceeds to state\nthe insatiable cupidity with which they prosecuted their schemes of\nrapine and plunder. As the horse-leech had two daughters, cruelty and\nthirst of blood, which cannot be satisfied, so the oppressor of the poor\nhas two dispositions, rapacity and avarice, which never say they have\nenough, but continually demand additional gratifications.\n\nHOSANNA, \u201cSave, I beseech thee,\u201d or, \u201cGive salvation,\u201d a well known form\nof blessing, Matthew xxi, 9, 15; Mark xi, 9, 10; John xii, 13.\n\nHOSEA, son of Beeri, the first of the minor prophets. He is generally\nconsidered as a native and inhabitant of the kingdom of Israel, and is\nsupposed to have begun to prophesy about B. C. 800. He exercised his\noffice sixty years; but it is not known at what periods his different\nprophecies now remaining were delivered. Most of them are directed\nagainst the people of Israel, whom he reproves and threatens for their\nidolatry and wickedness, and exhorts to repentance, with the greatest\nearnestness, as the only means of averting the evils impending over\ntheir country. The principal predictions contained in this book, are the\ncaptivity and dispersion of the kingdom of Israel; the deliverance of\nJudah from Sennacherib; the present state of the Jews; their future\nrestoration, and union with the Gentiles in the kingdom of the Messiah;\nthe call of our Saviour out of Egypt, and his resurrection on the third\nday. The style of Hosea is peculiarly obscure; it is sententious,\nconcise, and abrupt; the transitions of persons are sudden; and the\nconnexive and adversative particles are frequently omitted. The\nprophecies are in one continued series, without any distinction as to\nthe times when they were delivered, or the different subjects to which\nthey relate. They are not so clear and detailed, as the predictions of\nthose prophets who lived in succeeding ages. When, however, we have\nsurmounted these difficulties, we shall see abundant reason to admire\nthe force and energy with which this prophet writes, and the boldness of\nthe figures and similitudes which he uses.\n\n2. HOSEA, or HOSHEA, son of Elah, was the last king of Israel. Having\nconspired against Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, he killed him,\nA. M. 3265; B. C. 739. However, the elders of the land seem to have\ntaken the government into their hands; for Hoshea was not in possession\nof the kingdom till nine years after, 2 Kings xv, 30; xvii, 1. Hoshea\ndid evil in the sight of the Lord, but not equal to the kings of Israel\nwho preceded him; that is, say the Jewish doctors, he did not restrain\nhis subjects from going to Jerusalem to worship, if they would; whereas\nthe kings of Israel, his predecessors, had forbidden it, and had placed\nguards on the road to prevent it. Salmaneser, king of Assyria, being\ninformed that Hoshea meditated a revolt, and had concerted measures with\nSo, king of Egypt, to shake off the Assyrian yoke, marched against him,\nand besieged Samaria. After a siege of three years, in the ninth year of\nHoshea\u2019s reign, the city was taken, and was reduced to a heap of ruins,\nA. M. 3282. The king of Assyria removed the Israelites of the ten tribes\nto countries beyond the Euphrates, and thus terminated the kingdom of\nthe ten tribes.\n\nHOSPITALITY. Instances of ancient hospitality occur frequently in the\nOld Testament. So in the case of Abraham, Gen. xviii, where he invites\nthe angels who appeared in the form of men to rest and refreshment, \u201cAnd\nhe stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.\u201d \u201cNothing is more\ncommon in India,\u201d says Mr. Ward, \u201cthan to see travellers and guests\neating under the shade of trees. Even feasts are never held in houses.\nThe house of a Hindoo serves for the purposes of sleeping and cooking,\nand of shutting up the women; but is never considered as a sitting or a\ndining room.\u201d \u201cOn my return to the boat,\u201d says Belzony, \u201cI found the aga\nand all his retinue seated on a mat, under a cluster of palm trees,\nclose to the water. The sun was then setting, and the shades of the\nwestern mountains had reached across the Nile, and covered the town. It\nis at this time the people recreate themselves in various scattered\ngroups, drinking coffee, smoking their pipes, and talking of camels,\nhorses, asses, dhourra, caravans, or boats.\u201d \u201cThe aga having prepared a\ndinner for me,\u201d says Mr. Light, \u201cinvited several of the natives to sit\ndown. Water was brought in a skin by an attendant, to wash our hands.\nTwo fowls roasted were served up on wheaten cakes, in a wooden bowl,\ncovered with a small mat, and a number of the same cakes in another: in\nthe centre of these were liquid butter, and preserved dates. These were\ndivided, broken up, and mixed together by some of the party, while\nothers pulled the fowls to pieces: which done, the party began to eat as\nfast as they could: getting up, one after the other, as soon as their\nhunger was satisfied.\u201d \u201cHospitality to travellers,\u201d says Mr. Forbes,\n\u201cprevails throughout Guzerat: a person of any consideration passing\nthrough the province is presented, at the entrance of a village, with\nfruit, milk, butter, fire wood, and earthen pots for cookery; the women\nand children offer him wreaths of flowers. Small bowers are constructed\non convenient spots, at a distance from a well or lake, where a person\nis maintained by the nearest villages, to take care of the water jars,\nand supply all travellers gratis. There are particular villages, where\nthe inhabitants compel all travellers to accept of one day\u2019s provisions:\nwhether they be many or few, rich or poor, European or native, they must\nnot refuse the offered bounty.\u201d\n\n          \u201cSo when angelic forms to Syria sent\n          Sat in the cedar shade, by Abraham\u2019s tent,\n          A spacious bowl th\u2019 admiring patriarch fills\n          With dulcet water from the scanty rills;\n          Sweet fruits and kernels gathers from his hoard,\n          With milk and butter piles the plenteous board;\n          While on the heated hearth his consort bakes\n          Fine flour well kneaded in unleavened cakes,\n          The guests ethereal quaff the lucid flood,\n          Smile on their hosts, and taste terrestrial food;\n          And while from seraph lips sweet converse springs,\n          They lave their feet, and close their silver wings.\u201d\n                                           DARWIN.\n\nHOURS. See DAY.\n\nHOUSES. The following description of oriental houses will serve to\nillustrate several passages of Scripture. From the gate of the porch,\none is conducted into a quadrangular court, which, being exposed to the\nweather, is paved with stone, in order to carry off the water in the\nrainy season. The principal design of this quadrangle, is to give light\nto the house, and admit the fresh air into the apartments; it is also\nthe place where the master of the house entertains his company, who are\nseldom or never honoured with admission into the inner apartments. This\nopen space bears a striking resemblance to the _impluvium_, or _cava\n\u00e6dium_, of the Romans, which was also an uncovered area, from whence the\nchambers were lighted. For the accommodation of the guests, the pavement\nis covered with mats or carpets; and as it is secured against all\ninterruption from the street, is well adapted to public entertainments.\nIt is called, says Dr. Shaw, the middle of the house, and literally\nanswers to \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd of the evangelist, into which the man afflicted with\nthe palsy was let down through the ceiling, with his couch, before\nJesus, Luke v, 19. Hence, he conjectures that our Lord was at this time\ninstructing the people in the court of one of these houses; and it is by\nno means improbable, that the quadrangle was to him and his Apostles a\nfavourite situation, while they were engaged in disclosing the mysteries\nof redemption. To defend the company from the scorching sun-beams, or\n\u201cwindy storm and tempest,\u201d a veil was expanded upon ropes from one side\nof the parapet wall to the other, which might be unfolded or folded at\npleasure. The court is for the most part surrounded with a cloister,\nover which, when the house has a number of stories, a gallery is erected\nof the same dimensions with the cloister, having a balustrade, or else a\npiece of carved or latticed work, going round about, to prevent people\nfrom falling from it into the court. The doors of the enclosure round\nthe house are made very small; but the doors of the houses very large,\nfor the purpose of admitting a copious stream of fresh air into their\napartments. The windows which look into the street are very high and\nnarrow, and defended by lattice work; as they are only intended to allow\nthe cloistered inmate a peep of what is passing without, while he\nremains concealed behind the casement. This kind of window the ancient\nHebrews called _arubah_, which is the same term that they used to\nexpress those small openings through which pigeons passed into the\ncavities of the rocks, or into those buildings which were raised for\ntheir reception. Thus the prophet asks: \u201cWho are these that fly as a\ncloud, and as the doves, \u05d0\u05dc-\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd, to their small or narrow windows.\u201d\nThe word is derived from a root which signifies to lie in wait for the\nprey; and is very expressive of the concealed manner in which a person\nexamines through that kind of window an external object. Irwin describes\nthe windows in Upper Egypt as having the same form and dimensions; and\nsays expressly, that one of the windows of the house in which they\nlodged, and through which they looked into the street, more resembled a\npigeon hole than any thing else. But the sacred writers mention another\nkind of window, which was large and airy; it was called \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05df, and was\nlarge enough to admit a person of mature age being cast out of it; a\npunishment which that profligate woman Jezebel suffered by the command\nof Jehu, the authorized extirminator of her family. These large windows\nadmit the light and the breeze into spacious apartments of the same\nlength with the court, but which seldom or never communicate with one\nanother. In the houses of the fashionable and the gay, the lower part of\nthe walls is adorned with rich hangings of velvet or damask, tinged with\nthe liveliest colours, suspended on hooks, or taken down at pleasure. A\ncorrect idea of their richness and splendour may be formed from the\ndescription, which the inspired writer has given of the hangings in the\nroyal garden at Shushan, the ancient capital of Persia: \u201cWhere were\nwhite, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and\npurple, to silver rings and pillars of marble,\u201d Esther i, 6. The upper\npart of the walls is adorned with the most ingenious wreathings and\ndevices, in stucco and fret-work. The ceiling is generally of wainscot,\npainted with great art, or else thrown into a variety of pannels with\ngilded mouldings. In the days of Jeremiah the prophet, when the\nprofusion and luxury of all ranks in Judea were at their height, their\nchambers were ceiled with fragrant and costly wood, and painted with the\nrichest colours. Of this extravagance the indignant seer loudly\ncomplains: \u201cWo unto him that saith, I will build me a wide house and\nlarge chambers, and cutteth him out windows: and it is ceiled with\ncedar, and painted with vermilion,\u201d Jer. xxii, 14. The floors of these\nsplendid apartments were laid with painted tiles, or slabs of the most\nbeautiful marble. A pavement of this kind is mentioned in the book of\nEsther; at the sumptuous entertainment which Ahasuerus made for the\nprinces and nobles of his vast empire, \u201cthe beds,\u201d or couches, upon\nwhich they reclined, \u201cwere of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red\nand blue, and white and black marble.\u201d Plaster of terrace is often vised\nfor the same purpose; and the floor is always covered with carpets,\nwhich are for the most part of the richest materials. Upon these\ncarpets, a range of narrow beds, or mattresses, is often placed along\nthe sides of the wall, with velvet or damask bolsters, for the greater\nease and convenience of the company. To these luxurious indulgences the\nprophets occasionally seem to allude: Ezekiel was commanded to pronounce\na \u201cwo to the women that sew pillows to all armholes,\u201d Ezek. xiii, 18;\nand Amos denounces the judgments of his God against them \u201cthat lie upon\nbeds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the\nlambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall,\u201d\nAmos vi, 4. At one end of each chamber is a little gallery, raised three\nor four feet above the floor, with a balustrade in front, to which they\ngo up by a few steps. Here they place their beds; a situation frequently\nalluded to in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Jacob addressed his undutiful\nson, in his last benediction: \u201cThou wentest up to thy father\u2019s bed,--he\nwent up to my couch,\u201d Gen. xlix, 4. The allusion is again involved in\nthe declaration of Elijah to the king of Samaria: \u201cNow, therefore, thus\nsaith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art\ngone up, but shalt surely die,\u201d 2 Kings i, 4, 16. And the Psalmist sware\nunto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob, \u201cSurely I will\nnot come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed, until I\nfind out a place for the Lord,\u201d Psalm cxxxii, 3. This arrangement may\nlikewise illustrate the circumstance of Hezekiah\u2019s \u201cturning his face to\nthe wall, when he prayed,\u201d that the greatness of his sorrow, and the\nfervour of his devotion, might, as much as possible, be concealed from\nhis attendants, 2 Kings xx.\n\nThe roof is always flat, and often composed of branches of wood laid\nacross rude beams; and, to defend it from the injuries of the weather,\nto which it is peculiarly exposed in the rainy season, it is covered\nwith a strong plaster of terrace. It is surrounded by a wall\nbreast-high, which forms the partition with the contiguous houses, and\nprevents one from falling into the street on the one side, or into the\ncourt on the other. This answers to the battlements which Moses\ncommanded the people of Israel to make for the roof of their houses, for\nthe same reason. \u201cWhen thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a\nbattlement, \u05de\u05e2\u05e7\u05d4, for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine\nhouse, if any man fall from thence,\u201d Deut. xxii, 8. Instead of the\nparapet wall, some terraces are guarded, like the galleries, with\nbalustrades only, or latticed work. Of the same kind, probably, was the\nlattice or net, as the term \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05d4 seems to import, through which Ahaziah,\nthe king of Samaria, fell down into the court, 2 Kings i, 2. This\nincident proves the necessity of the law which was graciously dictated\nfrom Sinai, and furnishes a beautiful example of God\u2019s paternal care and\ngoodness; for the terrace was a place where many offices of the family\nwere performed, and business of no little importance was occasionally\ntransacted. Rahab concealed the spies on the roof, with the stalks of\nflax which she had laid in order to dry, Joshua ii, 6; the king of\nIsrael, according to the custom of his country, rose from his bed, and\nwalked upon the roof of his house, to enjoy the refreshing breezes of\nthe evening, 2 Sam. xi, 2; upon the top of the house the prophet\nconversed with Saul, about the gracious designs of God, respecting him\nand his family, 1 Sam. ix, 25; to the same place Peter retired to offer\nup his devotions, Acts x, 9; and in the feast of tabernacles, under the\ngovernment of Nehemiah, booths were erected, as well upon the terraces\nof their houses, as in their courts, and in the streets of the city,\nNeh. viii, 16. In Judea, the inhabitants sleep upon the tops of their\nhouses during the heats of summer, in arbours made of the branches of\ntrees, or in tents of rushes. When Dr. Pococke was at Tiberias, in\nGalilee, he was entertained by the sheik\u2019s steward, and with his company\nsupped upon the top of the house for coolness, according to their\ncustom, and lodged there likewise, in a sort of closet of about eight\nfeet square, formed of wicker-work, plastered round toward the bottom,\nbut without any door, each person having his cell. In like manner, the\nPersians take refuge during the day in subterraneous chambers, and pass\nthe night on the flat roofs of their houses.\n\nThe expression, \u201cto dig through houses,\u201d occurs, Job xxiv, 16.\n\u201cThieves,\u201d says Mr. Ward, \u201cin Bengal very frequently dig through the mud\nwalls, and under the clay floors of houses, and, entering unperceived,\nplunder them while the inhabitants are asleep.\u201d Our Lord\u2019s parable of\nthe foolish man who built his house on the sand derives illustration\nfrom the following passages in Ward\u2019s \u201cView,\u201d and Belzoni\u2019s \u201cTravels:\u201d\n\u201cThe fishermen in Bengal build their huts in the dry season on the beds\nof sand, from which the river has retired. When the rains set in, which\nthey often do very suddenly, accompanied by violent north-west winds,\nthe water pours down in torrents from the mountains. In one night\nmultitudes of these huts are frequently swept away, and the place where\nthey stood is the next morning undiscoverable.\u201d \u201cIt so happened, that we\nwere to witness one of the greatest calamities that have occurred in\nEgypt in the recollection of any one living. The Nile rose this season\nthree feet and a half above the highest mark left by the former\ninundation, with uncommon rapidity, and carried off several villages,\nand some hundreds of their inhabitants. I never saw any picture that\ncould give a more correct idea of a deluge than the valley of the Nile\nin this season. The Arabs had expected an extraordinary inundation this\nyear, in consequence of the scarcity of water the preceding season; but\nthey did not apprehend it would rise to such a height. They generally\nerect fences of earth and reeds around their villages, to keep the water\nfrom their houses; but the force of this inundation baffled all their\nefforts. Their cottages, being built of earth, could not stand one\ninstant against the current; and no sooner did the water reach them,\nthan it levelled them with the ground. The rapid stream carried off all\nthat was before it; men, women, children, cattle, corn, every thing was\nwashed away in an instant, and left the place where the village stood\nwithout any thing to indicate that there had ever been a house on the\nspot.\u201d\n\nHouse is taken for family: \u201cThe Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house,\u201d\nGen. xii, 17. \u201cWhat is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?\u201d 2\nSam. vii, 18. So Joseph was of the house of David, Luke i, 27; ii, 4;\nbut more especially he was of his royal lineage, or family; and, as we\nconceive, in the direct line or eldest branch of the family; so that he\nwas next of kin to the throne, if the government had still continued in\npossession of the descendants of David. House is taken for kindred: it\nis a Christian\u2019s duty to provide first for those of his own house, 1\nTim. v, 8, his family, his relatives.\n\nHUSBANDRY. In the primitive ages of the world, agriculture, as well as\nthe keeping of flocks, was a principal employment among men Gen. ii, 15;\niii, 17\u201319; iv, 2. It is an art which has ever been a prominent source,\nboth of the necessaries and the conveniences of life. Those states and\nnations, especially Babylon and Egypt, which made the cultivation of the\nsoil their chief business, arose in a short period to wealth and power.\nTo these communities just mentioned, which excelled in this particular\nall the others of antiquity, may be added that of the Hebrews, who\nlearned the value of the art while remaining in Egypt, and ever after\nthat time were famous for their industry in the cultivation of the\nearth. Moses, following the example of the Egyptians, made agriculture\nthe basis of the state. He accordingly apportioned to every citizen a\ncertain quantity of land, and gave him the right of tilling it himself,\nand of transmitting it to his heirs. The person who had thus come into\npossession could not alienate the property for any longer period than\nthe year of the coming jubilee: a regulation which prevented the rich\nfrom coming into possession of large tracts of land, and then leasing\nthem out in small parcels to the poor: a practice which anciently\nprevailed, and does to this day, in the east. It was another law of\nMoses, that the vender of a piece of land, or his nearest relative, had\na right to redeem the land sold, whenever they chose, by paying the\namount of profits up to the year of jubilee, Ruth iv, 4; Jer. xxxii, 7.\nAnother law enacted by Moses on this subject was, that the Hebrews, as\nwas the case among the Egyptians after the time of Joseph, should pay a\ntax of two-tenths of their income unto God, whose servants they were to\nconsider themselves to be, and whom they were to obey as their King and\nLord, Lev. xxvii, 30; Deut. xii, 17\u201319; xiv, 22\u201329; Gen. xxviii, 22. The\ncustom of marking the boundaries of lands by stones, although it\nprevailed a long time before, Job xxiv, 2, was confirmed and perpetuated\nin the time of Moses by an express law; and a curse was pronounced\nagainst him who without authority removed them. These regulations having\nbeen made in respect to the tenure, incumbrances, &c, of landed\nproperty, Joshua divided the whole country which he had occupied, first\namong the respective tribes, and then among individual Hebrews, running\nit out with the aid of a measuring line, Joshua xvii, 5, 14; Amos vii,\n17; Micah ii, 5; Psalm lxxviii, 55; Ezek. xl, 3. The word, \u05d7\u05d1\u05dc, _a\nline_, is accordingly used by a figure of speech, for the heritage\nitself, Psalm xvi, 6: \u201cThe _lines_ have fallen to me in pleasant places,\nyea I have a goodly heritage.\u201d Though Moses was the friend of the\nagriculturist, he by no means discouraged the keeper of the flock.\n\nThe occupation of the husbandman was held in honour, not only for the\nprofits which it brought, but from the circumstance that it was\nsupported and protected by the fundamental laws of the state. All who\nwere not set apart for religious duties, such as the priests and the\nLevites, whether inhabitants of the country, or of towns and cities,\nwere considered by the laws, and were, in fact, agriculturists. The rich\nand the noble, it is true, in the cultivation of the soil, did not\nalways put themselves on a level with their servants; but none were so\nrich or so noble as to disdain to put their hand to the plough, 1 Sam.\nxi, 7; 1 Kings xix, 19; 2 Chron. xxvi, 10. The priests and Levites were\nindeed engaged in other employments, yet they could not withhold their\nhonour from an occupation which supplied them with their income. The\nesteem in which agriculture was held diminished as luxury increased; but\nit never wholly came to an end. Even after the captivity, when many of\nthe Jews had become merchants and mechanics, the esteem and honour\nattached to this occupation still continued, especially under the\ndynasty of the Persians, who were agriculturists from motives of\nreligion.\n\nThe soil of Palestine is very fruitful, if the dews and vernal and\nautumnal rains are not withheld. The country, in opposition to Egypt, is\neulogized for its rains in Deut. xi, 10. The Hebrews, notwithstanding\nthe richness of the soil, endeavoured to increase its fertility in\nvarious ways. They not only divested it of stones, but watered it by\nmeans of canals, communicating with the rivers or brooks; and thereby\nimparted to their fields the richness of gardens, Psalm i, 3; lxv, 10;\nProv. xxi, 1; Isa. xxx, 25; xxxii, 2, 20. Springs, therefore, fountains,\nand rivulets, were held in as much honour and worth by husbandmen as by\nshepherds, Joshua xv, 9; Judges i, 15; and we accordingly find that the\nland of Canaan was extolled for those fountains of water of which Egypt\nwas destitute. The soil was enriched, also, in addition to the method\njust mentioned, by means of ashes; to which the straw, the stubble, the\nhusks, the brambles, and grass, that overspread the land during the\nsabbatical year, were reduced by fire. The burning over the surface of\nthe land had also another good effect, namely, that of destroying the\nseeds of the noxious herbs, Isa. vii, 23; xxxii, 13; Prov. xxiv, 31.\nFinally, the soil was manured with dung.\n\nThe Hebrew word, \u05d3\u05d2\u05df, which is translated variously by the English\nwords, _grain_, _corn_, &c, is of general signification, and comprehends\nin itself different kinds of grain and pulse, such as wheat, millet,\nspelt, wall-barley, barley, beans, lentils, meadow-cumin, pepperwort,\nflax, cotton; to these may be added various species of the cucumber, and\nperhaps rice. Rye and oats do not grow in the warmer climates; but their\nplace is, in a manner, supplied by barley. Barley, mixed with broken\nstraw, affords the fodder for beasts of burden, which is called \u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc.\nWheat, \u05d7\u05d8\u05d4, which, by way of eminence, is called \u05d3\u05d2\u05df, grew in Egypt in\nthe time of Joseph, as it now does in Africa, on several branches from\none stalk, each one of which produced an ear, Gen. xii, 47. This sort of\nwheat does not flourish in Palestine: the wheat of Palestine is of a\nmuch better kind.\n\nHUSKS, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Luke xv, 16; the husks of leguminous plants, so named\nfrom their resemblance to \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, _a horn_; but Bochart thinks that the\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 were the _ceretonia_, the husks or fruit of the carob tree, a\ntree very common in the Levant. We learn from Columella, that these pods\nafforded food for swine; and they are mentioned as what the prodigal\ndesired to eat, when reduced to extreme hunger.\n\nHUTCHINSONIANS, the followers of John Hutchinson, Esq., a learned and\nrespectable layman, who was born at Spennythorn, in Yorkshire, in 1674.\nIn 1724, he published the first part of that curious work, \u201cMoses\u2019s\n_Principia_,\u201d in which he ridiculed Dr. Woodward\u2019s \u201cNatural History of\nthe Earth,\u201d and exploded the doctrine of gravitation established in Sir\nIsaac Newton\u2019s \u201c_Principia_.\u201d In the second part of this work, published\nin 1727, he maintained, in opposition to the Newtonian system, that a\n_plenum_ is the principle of the Scripture philosophy. In this work he\nalso intimated that the idea of a Trinity is to be taken from the grand\nagents in the natural system, fire, light, and spirit. From this time he\ncontinued to publish a volume every year or two till his death; and a\ncorrect and elegant edition of his works, including the MSS. which he\nleft was published in 1748, in 12 vols. 8vo. Mr. Hutchinson thought that\nthe Hebrew Scriptures comprise a perfect system of natural philosophy,\ntheology, and religion. He entertained so high an opinion of the Hebrew\nlanguage, that he thought the Almighty must have employed it to\ncommunicate every species of knowledge, human and divine; and that,\naccordingly, every species of knowledge is to be found in the Old\nTestament. Both he and his followers laid a great stress on the evidence\nof Hebrew etymology. After Origen, and other eminent commentators, he\nasserted that the Scriptures are not to be understood and interpreted in\na literal but in a typical sense, and according to the radical import of\nthe Hebrew expressions; that even the historical parts, and particularly\nthose relating to the Jewish ceremonies and Levitical law, are to be\nconsidered in this light; and he also asserted that, agreeably to this\nmode of interpretation, the Hebrew Scriptures would be found amply to\ntestify concerning the nature and offices of Jesus Christ. His plan was\nto find natural philosophy in the Bible, where hitherto it had been\nthought no such thing was to be met with, or ever intended. His editors\ntell us, he found, upon examination, that the Hebrew Scriptures nowhere\nascribe motion to the body of the sun, nor fixedness to the earth; that\nthey describe the created system to be a _plenum_ without any vacuum at\nall, and reject the assistance of gravitation, attraction, or any such\noccult qualities, for performing the stated operations of nature, which\nare carried on by the mechanism of the heavens, in their threefold\ncondition of fire, light, and spirit, or air, the material agents set to\nwork at the beginning; that the heavens, thus framed by almighty Wisdom,\nare an instituted emblem and visible substitute of _Jehovah Aleim_, the\neternal Three, the co\u00ebqual and co-adorable Trinity in Unity; that the\nunity of substance in the heavens points out the unity of essence and\nthe distinction of conditions, the personality in Deity, without\nconfounding the persons or dividing the substance; and that, from their\nbeing made emblems, they are called in Hebrew _shemim_, the names,\nrepresentatives, or substitutes, expressing by their names that they are\nemblems, and, by their conditions or offices, what it is they are\nemblems of. He also found that the Hebrew Scriptures have some capital\nwords, which he has proved, or endeavoured to prove, contain, in their\nradical meaning, the greatest and most comfortable truths. Thus, the\nword _Elohim_, which we call God, or, as he reads it, _Aleim_, he refers\nto the oath or conditional execration, by which the eternal covenant of\ngrace among the persons in Jehovah was and is confirmed. The word\n_berith_, which our translation renders \u201ccovenant,\u201d signifies, \u201che or\nthat which purifies\u201d and so the Purifier or purification _for_, not\n_with_, man. The cherubim, which have been thought \u201cangels placed as a\nguard to deter Adam from breaking into Eden again,\u201d he explains to have\nbeen a hieroglyphic of divine construction, or a sacred image, to\ndescribe, as far as figures could go, the _Aleim_ and man taken in, or\nhumanity united to deity. In like manner, he treats several other words\nof similar, though not quite so solemn, import. Hence he drew this\nconclusion, \u201cthat all the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish\ndispensation were so many delineations of Christ, in what he was to be,\nto do, and to suffer; and that the early Jews knew them to be types of\nhis actions and sufferings, and, by performing them as such, were in so\nfar Christians, both in faith and practice.\u201d His followers maintain,\nthat the cherubim, and the glory around them, with the divine presence\nin them, were not only emblematical figures, representing the persons of\nthe ever blessed Trinity, as engaged in covenant for the redemption of\nman, but also that they were intended \u201cto keep or preserve the way of\nthe tree of life, to show man the way to life eternal, and keep him from\nlosing or departing from it.\u201d That Melchizedec was an eminent type of\nChrist, there can be little doubt; but that he was actually the second\nperson of the Trinity, in a human form, is a tenet of the\nHutchinsonians, though not entirely peculiar to them. Mr. Hutchinson\nsupposes that \u201cthe air exists in three conditions, fire, light, and\nspirit; the two latter are the finer and grosser parts of the air in\nmotion: from the earth to the sun, the air is finer and finer till it\nbecomes pure light near the confines of the sun, and fire in the orb of\nthe sun, or solar focus.\u201d From the earth toward the circumference of\nthis system, in which he includes the fixed stars, the air becomes\ngrosser and grosser till it becomes stagnant, in which condition it is\nat the utmost verge of this system; from whence, in his opinion, the\nexpression of \u201couter darkness,\u201d and \u201cblackness of darkness,\u201d used in the\nNew Testament, seems to be taken. These are some of the principal\noutlines of this author\u2019s doctrines, which have been patronized by\nseveral eminent divines, both of the church and among the Dissenters.\n\n2. The followers of Mr. Hutchinson have not erected themselves into a\nsect or separate community. Among them may be reckoned some eminent and\nrespectable divines, both in England and Scotland; but their numbers\nseem at present to be rather on the decrease. Of those who, in their\nday, were ranked in the list of Hutchinsonians, perhaps the most eminent\nwere the following: Mr. Julius Bate, and Mr. Parkhurst, the\nlexicographers; Mr. Holloway, author of \u201cOriginals,\u201d and \u201cLetter and\nSpirit;\u201d Dr. Hodges, provost of Oriel College, Oxford; Mr. Henry Lee,\nauthor of \u201cSophron, or Nature\u2019s Characteristics of the Truth;\u201d Dr.\nWetherell, late master of University College, Oxford; Mr. Romaine;\nBishop Horne; and Mr. William Jones, the bishop\u2019s learned friend and\nbiographer.\n\nHYMN, a song, or ode, composed in honour of God. The Jewish hymns were\naccompanied with trumpets, drums, and cymbals, to assist the voices of\nthe Levites and people. The word is used as synonymous with canticle,\nsong, or psalm, which the Hebrews scarcely distinguish, having no\nparticular term for a hymn, as distinct from a psalm or canticle. St.\nPaul requires Christians to edify one another with \u201cpsalms, and hymns,\nand spiritual songs.\u201d St. Matthew says, that Christ, having supped, sung\na hymn, and went out. He recited the hymns or psalms which the Jews were\nused to sing after the passover; which they called the _Halal_; that is,\nthe Hallelujah Psalms.\n\nHYPERBOLE. This figure, in its representation of things or objects,\neither magnifies or diminishes them beyond or below their proper limits:\nit is common in all languages, and is of frequent occurrence in the\nScriptures. Thus, things which are lofty are said to reach up to heaven,\nDeut. i, 28; ix, 1; Psalm cvii, 26. So things which are beyond the reach\nor capacity of man are said to be in \u201cheaven,\u201d in the \u201cdeep,\u201d or \u201cbeyond\nthe sea,\u201d Deut. xxx, 12; Rom. x, 6, 7. So a great quantity or number is\ncommonly expressed by the \u201csand of the sea,\u201d the \u201cdust of the earth,\u201d\nand the \u201cstars of heaven,\u201d Genesis xiii, 16; xli, 49; Judges vii, 12; 1\nSam. xiii, 5; 1 Kings iv, 29; 2 Chron. i, 9; Jer. xv, 8; Heb. xi, 12. In\nlike manner we meet with \u201csmaller than grasshoppers,\u201d Num. xiii, 33, to\ndenote extreme diminutiveness; \u201cswifter than eagles,\u201d 2 Sam. i, 23, to\nintimate extreme celerity; the \u201cearth trembled,\u201d the \u201cmountains melted,\u201d\nJudges v, 4, 5; the \u201cearth rent,\u201d 1 Kings i, 40. \u201cI make my bed to\nswim;\u201d \u201crivers of tears run down mine eyes.\u201d So we read of \u201cangels'\nfood,\u201d Psalm vi, 6; cxix, 136; lxxviii, 25; the \u201cface of an angel,\u201d Acts\nvi, 15; and the \u201ctongue of an angel,\u201d 1 Cor. xiii, 1. See also Gal. i,\n8; iv, 14. We read \u201csigh with the breaking of thy loins,\u201d Ezek. xxi, 6,\nthat is, most deeply. So we read that \u201cthe stones would cry out,\u201d and\n\u201cthey shall not leave in thee one stone upon another,\u201d Luke xix, 40, 44;\nthat is, there shall be a total desolation.\n\nHYPOCRITE, a word from the Greek, which signifies one who feigns to be\nwhat he is not; who puts on a masque or character, like actors in\ntragedies and comedies. It is generally applied to those who assume\nappearances of a virtue, without possessing it in reality. Our Saviour\naccused the Pharisees of hypocrisy. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew\nword _caneph_, which is rendered \u201chypocrite,\u201d \u201ccounterfeit,\u201d signifies\nalso a profane wicked man, a man polluted, corrupted, a man of impiety,\na deceiver. It was ingeniously said by Basil, that the hypocrite did not\nput off the old man, but put the new man upon it.\n\nHYPOSTATICAL UNION; the union of the divine and human natures of Christ\nin one person. This is the doctrine generally received in the church of\nChrist; but there have been some who have denied this, who yet\nacknowledge our Lord\u2019s divinity. Nestorius, who had been taught to\ndistinguish accurately between the divine and human nature of Christ,\nwas offended with some expressions commonly used by Christians in the\nbeginning of the fifth century, which seemed to destroy that\ndistinction, and particularly with their calling the Virgin Mary\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, as if it were possible for the Godhead to be born. His zeal\nprovoked opposition; in the eagerness of controversy he was led to use\nunguarded expressions; and he was condemned by the third of the general\ncouncils, the council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It is a matter of\ndoubt whether the opinions of Nestorius, if he had been allowed by his\nadversaries fairly to explain them, would have appeared inconsistent\nwith the doctrine established by the council of Ephesus, that Christ is\none person, in whom two natures were most closely united. But whatever\nwas the extent of the error of Nestorius, from him is derived that\nsystem concerning the incarnation of Christ, which is held by a large\nbody of Christians in Chaldea, Assyria, and other regions of the east,\nand which is known in the ecclesiastical history of the west by the name\nof the Nestorian heresy. The object of the Nestorians is to avoid every\nappearance of ascribing to the divinity of Christ the weakness of\nhumanity; and therefore they distinguish between Christ, and God who\ndwelt in Christ as in a temple. They say, that from the moment of the\nvirgin\u2019s conception, there commenced an intimate and indissoluble union\nbetween Christ and God, that these two persons presented in Jesus Christ\none \u03d6\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, or aspect, but that the union between them is merely a\nunion of will and affection, such in kind as that which subsists between\ntwo friends, although much closer in degree. Opposite to the Nestorian\nopinion is the Eutychian, which derives its name from Eutyches, an abbot\nof Constantinople, who, about the middle of the fifth century, in his\nzeal to avoid the errors of Nestorius, was carried to the other extreme.\nThose who did not hold the Nestorian opinions had been accustomed to\nspeak of the \u201cone incarnate nature\u201d of Christ. But Eutyches used this\nphrase in such a manner as to appear to teach that the human nature of\nChrist was absorbed in the divine, and that his body had no real\nexistence. This opinion was condemned in the year 451, by the council of\nChalcedon, the fourth general council, which declared, as the faith of\nthe catholic church, that Christ is one person; that in this unity of\nperson there are two natures, the divine and the human; and that there\nis no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that\neach retains its distinguishing properties. The decree of Chalcedon was\nnot universally submitted to. But many of the successors of Eutyches,\nwishing to avoid the palpable absurdity which was ascribed to him, of\nsupposing that one nature was absorbed by another, and anxious at the\nsame time to preserve that unity which the Nestorians divided, declared\ntheir faith to be, that in Christ there is one nature, but that this\nnature is twofold or compounded. From this tenet the successors of\nEutyches derive the name of Monophysites; and from Jacob Barad\u00e6us, who\nin the following century was a zealous and successful preacher, of the\nsystem of the Monophysites, they are more commonly known by the name of\nJacobites. The Monophysites, or Jacobites, are found chiefly near the\nEuphrates and Tigris; they are much less numerous than the Nestorians;\nand, although they profess to have corrected the errors which were\nsupposed to adhere to the Eutychian heresy, they may be considered as\nhaving formed their peculiar opinions upon the general principles of\nthat system. The Monothelites, an ancient sect, of whom a remnant is\nfound in the neighbourhood of Mount Libanus, disclaim any connection\nwith Eutyches, and agree with the Catholics in ascribing two natures to\nChrist; but they have received their name from their conceiving that\nChrist, being one person, can only have one will: whereas the Catholics,\nconsidering both natures as complete, think it essential to each to have\na will, and say that every inconvenience which can be supposed to arise\nfrom two wills in one person, is removed by the perfect harmony between\nthat will which belongs to the divine, and that which belongs to the\nhuman nature of Christ.\n\nHYSSOP, \u05d0\u05d6\u05d5\u05d1, Exod. xii, 22; Lev. xiv, 4, 6, 49, 51, 52; Num. xix, 6,\n18; 1 Kings iv, 33; Psalm li, 7; Matt, xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 36; \u1f51\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2,\nJohn xix, 29; Heb. ix, 19. It grows plentifully on the mountains near\nJerusalem. It is of a bitter taste; and, from being considered as\npossessing detersive and cleansing qualities, derived probably its\nHebrew name. The original word has been variously translated; and\nCelsius has devoted forty-two pages to remove difficulties, occasioned\nby the discordant opinions of the Talmudical writers, and to ascertain\nthe plant intended. That it is the hyssop seems most probable: the\npassage in Heb. ix, 19, sufficiently identifies it. Under the law, it\nwas commonly used in purifications as a sprinkler. When the children of\nIsrael came out of Egypt, they were commanded to take a bunch of hyssop,\nto dip it in the blood of the paschal lamb, and sprinkle it on the\nlintel and the two side-posts of the door. It was also used in\nsprinkling the leper. The hyssop is extremely well adapted to such\npurposes, as it grows in bunches, and puts out many suckers from a\nsingle root.\n\n\nICONIUM, the chief city of Lycaonia, in Asia Minor. An assault being\nmeditated at the place by the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles upon the\nApostles Paul and Barnabas, who, by preaching in the synagogue, had\nconverted many Jews and Greeks, they fled to Lystra; where the designs\nof their enemies were put in execution, and St. Paul miraculously\nescaped with his life, Acts xiv. The church planted at this place by St.\nPaul continued to flourish, until, by the persecutions of the Saracens,\nand afterward of the Seljukian Turks, who made it the capital of one of\ntheir sultanies, it was nearly extinguished. But some Christians of the\nGreek and Armenian churches, with a Greek archbishop, are yet found in\nthe suburbs of this city, who are not permitted to reside within the\nwalls. Iconium is now called Cogni, and is still a considerable city;\nbeing the capital of the extensive province of Caramania, as it was\nformerly of Lycaonia, and the seat of a Turkish beglerberg, or viceroy.\nIt is the place of chief strength and importance in the central parts of\nAsiatic Turkey, being surrounded by a strong wall of four miles in\ncircumference; but, as is the case with most eastern cities, much of the\nenclosed space is waste. It is situated about a hundred and twenty miles\ninland from the Mediterranean, on the lake Trogilis. Mr. Kinneir says,\nIconium, the capital of Lycaonia, is mentioned by Xenophon, and\nafterward by Cicero and Strabo; but does not appear to have been a place\nof any consideration until after the taking of Nice by the crusaders in\n1099, when the Seljukian sultans of Roum chose it as their residence.\nThese sultans rebuilt the walls, and embellished the city: they were,\nhowever, expelled in 1189 by Frederic Barbarossa, who took it by\nassault; but after his death they re\u00ebntered their capital, where they\nreigned in splendour till the irruption of Tchengis Khan, and his\ngrandson, Holukow, who broke the power of the Seljukians. Iconium, under\nthe name of Cogni, or Konia, has been included in the dominions of the\ngrand seignior ever since the time of Bajazet, who finally extirpated\nthe Ameers of Caramania. The modern city has an imposing appearance from\nthe number and size of its mosques, colleges, and other public\nbuildings; but these stately edifices are crumbling into ruins, while\nthe houses of the inhabitants consist of a mixture of small huts built\nof sun-dried bricks, and wretched hovels thatched with reeds. The city,\naccording to the same authority, contains about eighty thousand\ninhabitants, principally Turks, with only a small proportion of\nChristians. It is represented as enjoying a fine climate, and pleasantly\nsituated among gardens and meadows; while it is nearly surrounded, at\nsome distance, with mountains which rise to the regions of perpetual\nsnow. It was formerly the capital of an extensive government, and the\nseat of a powerful pasha, who maintained a military force competent to\nthe preservation of peace and order, and the defence of his territories.\nBut it has now dwindled into insignificance, and exhibits upon the whole\na mournful scene of desolation and decay.\n\nICONOCLASTES, image breakers; or ICONOMACHI, image opposers, were names\ngiven to those who rejected the use of images in churches, and, on\ncertain occasions, vented their zeal in destroying them. The great\nopposition to images began under Bardanes, a Greek emperor, in the\nbeginning of the eighth century; and was revived again, a few years\nafter, under Leo, the Isaurian, who issued an edict against image\nworship, which occasioned a civil war in the islands of the Archipelago,\nand afterward in Italy; the Roman pontiffs and Greek councils\nalternately supporting it. At length images were rejected by the Greek\nchurch, which however retains pictures in churches, though her members\ndo not worship them; but the Latin church, more corrupt, not only\nretained images, but made them the medium, if not the object, of their\nworship, and are therefore _Iconoduli_, or _Iconolatr\u00e6_, image\nworshippers.\n\nIDDO, a prophet of the kingdom of Judah, who wrote the actions of\nRehoboam\u2019s and Abijah\u2019s reigns, 2 Chron. xii, 15. It seems by 2 Chron.\nxiii, 22, that he had entitled his work, _Midrasch_, or, \u201cInquiries.\u201d We\nknow nothing particularly concerning the life of this prophet. It is\nprobable that he likewise wrote some prophecies against Jeroboam, the\nson of Nebat, 2 Chron. ix, 29, wherein part of Solomon\u2019s life was\nincluded. Josephus, and many others after him, are of opinion that it\nwas Iddo who was sent to Jeroboam, while he was at Bethel, and was there\ndedicating an altar to the golden calves; and that it was he who was\nkilled by a lion, 1 Kings xiii.\n\nIDOLATRY, from \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, composed of \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, _image_, and \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n_to serve_, the worship and adoration of false gods; or the giving those\nhonours to creatures, or the works of man\u2019s hands, which are only due to\nGod. Several have written of the origin and causes of idolatry: among\nthe rest, Vossius, Selden, Godwyn, Tenison, and Faber; but it is still a\ndoubt who was the first author of it. It is generally allowed, however,\nthat it had not its beginning till after the deluge; and many are of\nopinion, that Belus, who is supposed to be the same with Nimrod, was the\nfirst man that was deified. But whether they had not paid divine honours\nto the heavenly bodies before that time, cannot be determined; our\nacquaintance with those remote times being extremely slender. The first\nmention we find made of idolatry is where Rachel is said to have taken\nthe idols of her father; for though the meaning of the Hebrew word\n\u05ea\u05e8\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd, be disputed, yet it is pretty evident they were idols. Laban\ncalls them his gods, and Jacob calls them strange gods, and looks on\nthem as abominations. The original idolatry by image worship is by many\nattributed to the age of Eber, B. C. 2247, about a hundred and one years\nafter the deluge, according to the Hebrew chronology; four hundred and\none years according to the Samaritan; and five hundred and thirty-one\nyears according to the Septuagint; though most of the fathers place it\nno higher than that of Serug; which seems to be the more probable\nopinion, considering that for the first hundred and thirty-four years of\nEber\u2019s life all mankind dwelt in a body together; during which time it\nis not reasonable to suppose that idolatry broke in upon them; then some\ntime must be allowed after the dispersion of the several nations, which\nwere but small at the beginning, to increase and settle themselves; so\nthat if idolatry was introduced in Eber\u2019s time, it must have been toward\nthe end of his life, and could not well have prevailed so universally,\nand with that obstinacy which some authors have imagined. Terah, the\nfather of Abraham, who lived at Ur, in Chaldea, about B. C. 2000, was\nunquestionably an idolater; for he is expressly said in Scripture to\nhave served other gods. The authors of the Universal History think, that\nthe origin and progress of idolatry are plainly pointed out to us in the\naccount which Moses gives of Laban\u2019s and Jacob\u2019s parting, Gen. xxxi, 44,\n&c. From the custom once introduced of erecting monuments in memory of\nany solemn covenants, the transition was easy into the notion, that some\ndeity took its residence in them, in order to punish the first\naggressors; and this might be soon improved by an ignorant and\ndegenerate world, till not only birds, beasts, stocks, and stones, but\nsun, moon, and stars, were called into the same office; though used,\nperhaps, at first, by the designing part of mankind, as scare-crows, to\noverawe the ignorant.\n\nSanchoniathon, who wrote his \u201cPhenician Antiquities,\u201d apparently with a\nview to apologize for idolatry, traces its origin to the descendants of\nCain, the elder branch, who began with the worship of the sun, and\nafterward added a variety of other methods of idolatrous worship:\nproceeding to deify the several parts of nature, and men after their\ndeath; and even to consecrate the plants shooting out of the earth,\nwhich the first men judged to be gods, and worshipped as those that\nsustained the lives of themselves and of their posterity. The Chaldean\npriests, in process of time, being by their situation early addicted to\ncelestial observations, instead of conceiving as they ought to have done\nconcerning the omnipotence of the Creator and Mover of the heavenly\nbodies, fell into the impious error of esteeming them as gods, and the\nimmediate governors of the world, in subordination, however, to the\nDeity, who was invisible except by his works, and the effects of his\npower. Concluding that God created the stars and great luminaries for\nthe government of the world, partakers with himself and as his\nministers, they thought it but just and natural that they should be\nhonoured and extolled, and that it was the will of God they should be\nmagnified and worshipped. Accordingly, they erected temples, or\n_sacella_, to the stars, in which they sacrificed and bowed down before\nthem, esteeming them as a kind of mediators between God and man.\nImpostors afterward arose, who gave out, that they had received express\norders from God himself concerning the manner in which particular\nheavenly bodies should be represented, and the nature and ceremonies of\nthe worship which was to be paid them. When they proceeded to worship\nwood, stone, or metal, formed and fashioned by their own hands, they\nwere led to apprehend, that these images had been, in some way or other,\nanimated or informed with a supernatural power by supernatural means;\nthough Dr. Prideaux imagines, that, being at a loss to know how to\naddress themselves to the planets when they were below the horizon, and\ninvisible, they recurred to the use of images. But it will be sufficient\nto suppose, that they were persuaded that each star or planet was\nactuated by an intelligence; and that the virtues of the heavenly body\nwere infused into the image that represented it. It is certain, that the\n_sentient_ nature and divinity of the sun, moon, and stars, was\nstrenuously asserted by the philosophers, particularly by Pythagoras and\nhis followers, and by the Stoics, as well as believed by the common\npeople, and was, indeed, the very foundation of the Pagan idolatry. The\nheavenly bodies were the first deities of all the idolatrous nations,\nwere esteemed eternal, sovereign, and supreme; and distinguished by the\ntitle of the natural gods. Thus we find that the primary gods of the\nHeathens in general were Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Mercury, Venus,\nand Diana; by which we can understand no other than the sun and moon,\nand the five greatest luminaries next to these. Plutarch expressly\ncensures the Epicureans for asserting that the sun and moon, whom all\nmen worshipped, are void of intelligence.\n\nSanchoniathon represents the most ancient nations, particularly the\nPhenicians and Egyptians, as acknowledging only the natural gods, the\nsun, moon, planets, and elements; and Plato declares it as his opinion,\nthat the first Grecians likewise held these only to be gods, as many of\nthe barbarians did in his time. Beside these natural gods, the Heathens\nbelieved that there were certain spirits who held a middle rank between\nthe gods and men on earth, and carried on all intercourse between them;\nconveying the addresses of men to the gods, and the divine benefits to\nmen. These spirits were called demons. From the imaginary office\nascribed to them, they became the grand objects of the religious hopes\nand fears of the Pagans, of immediate dependence and divine worship. In\nthe most learned nations, they did not so properly share, as engross,\nthe public devotion. To these alone sacrifices were offered, while the\ncelestial gods were worshipped only with a pure mind, or with hymns and\npraises. As to the nature of these demons, it has been generally\nbelieved, that they were spirits of a higher origin than the human race;\nand, in support of this opinion, it has been alleged, that the supreme\ndeity of the Pagans is called the greatest demon; that demons are\ndescribed as beings placed between the gods and men; and that demons are\nexpressly distinguished from heroes, who were the departed souls of men.\nSome, however, have combatted this opinion, and maintained, on the\ncontrary, that by demons, such as were the more immediate objects of the\nestablished worship among the ancient nations, particularly the\nEgyptians, Greeks, and Romans, we are to understand beings of an earthly\norigin, or such departed human souls as were believed to become demons.\n\nAlthough the Hindoo inhabitants of the East Indies deny the charge of\nidolatry, using the same description of arguments as are so\ninconclusively urged by superstitious Europeans in defence of image\nworship, it is still evident that the mass of the Hindoos are addicted\nto gross idolatry. The gods of Rome were even less numerous, certainly\nless whimsical and monstrous, than those at Benares. In Moore\u2019s Hindoo\nPantheon are given exact portraits of many scores of deities worshipped,\nwith appropriate ceremonies, and under various forms and names, by\ndifferent sects of that grossly superstitious race. Some of these\nportraits are of images colossal to a degree perhaps unequalled by any\nexisting statues; others are exceedingly diminutive. Some are metallic\ncasts, and some apparently extremely ancient, which exhibit every\ngradation of art from the rudest imaginable specimen, up to a very\nrespectable portion of skill, so as to approach to elegance of form, and\nto ease and expression of attitude.\n\nThe principal causes which have been assigned for idolatry are, the\nindelible idea which every man has of God, and the evidence which he\ngives of it to himself; an inviolable attachment to the senses, and a\nhabit of judging and deciding by them, and them only; the pride and\nvanity of the human mind, which is not satisfied with simple truth, but\nmingles and adulterates it with fables; men\u2019s ignorance of antiquity, or\nof the first times, and the first men, of whom they had but very dark\nand confused knowledge by tradition, they having left no written\nmonuments, or books; the ignorance and change of languages; the style of\nthe oriental writings, which is figurative and poetical, and personifies\nevery thing; the scruples and fears inspired by superstition; the\nflattery and fictions of poets; the false relations of travellers; the\nimaginations of painters and sculptors; a smattering of physics, that\nis, a slight acquaintance with natural bodies and appearances, and their\ncauses; the establishment of colonies, and the invention of arts,\nmistaken by barbarous people; the artifices of priests; the pride of\ncertain men, who affected to pass for gods; the love and gratitude borne\nby the people to certain of their great men and benefactors; and,\nfinally, the historical events of the Scriptures ill understood. \u201cOne\ngreat spring and fountain of all idolatry,\u201d says Sir William Jones, \u201cwas\nthe veneration paid by men to the sun, or vast body of fire, which\n\u2018looks from his sole dominion like the god of this world;\u2019 and another,\nthe immoderate respect shown to the memory of powerful or virtuous\nancestors and warriors, of whom the sun and the moon were wildly\nsupposed to be the parents.\u201d But the Scriptural account of the matter\nrefers the whole to wilful ignorance and a corrupt heart: \u201cThey did not\nlike to retain God in their knowledge.\u201d To this may be added, what\nindeed proceeds from the same sources, the disposition to convert\nreligion into outward forms; the endeavour to render it more impressive\nupon the imagination through the senses; the substitution of sentiment\nfor real religious principle; and the license which this gave to\ninventions of men, which in process of time became complicated and\nmonstrous. That debasement of mind, and that alienation of the heart\nfrom God, and the gross immoralities and licentious practices which have\never accompanied idolatry, will sufficiently account for the severity\nwith which it is denounced, both in the Old and New Testaments.\n\nThe veneration which the Papists pay to the Virgin Mary, and other\nsaints and angels, and to the bread in the sacrament, the cross, relics,\nand images, affords ground for the Protestants to charge them with being\nidolaters, though they deny that they are so. It is evident that they\nworship these persons and things, and that they justify the worship, but\ndeny the idolatry of it, by distinguishing subordinate from supreme\nworship. This distinction is justly thought by Protestants to be futile\nand nugatory, and certainly has no support from Holy Writ.\n\nUnder the government of Samuel, Saul, and David, there was little or no\nidolatry in Israel. Solomon was the first Hebrew king, who, in\ncomplaisance to his foreign wives, built temples and offered incense to\nstrange gods. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who succeeded him in the\ngreater part of his dominions, set up golden calves at Dan and Bethel.\nUnder the reign of Ahab, this disorder was at its height, occasioned by\nJezebel, the wife of Ahab, who did all she could to destroy the worship\nof the true God, by driving away and persecuting his prophets. God,\ntherefore, incensed at the sins and idolatry of the ten tribes,\nabandoned those tribes to the kings of Assyria and Chaldea, who\ntransplanted them beyond the Euphrates, from whence they never returned.\nThe people of Judah were no less corrupted. The prophets give an awful\ndescription of their idolatrous practices. They were punished after the\nsame manner, though not so severely, as the ten tribes; being led into\ncaptivity several times, from which at last they returned, and were\nsettled in the land of Judea, after which we hear no more of their\nidolatry. They have been, indeed, ever since that period, distinguished\nfor their zeal against it. See Image.\n\nIDUM\u00c6A is properly the Greek name for the land of Edom, which lay to the\nsouth of Judea, and extended from the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf of\nthe Red Sea, where were the ports of Elath and Ezion-Gaber. But the\nIdum\u00e6a of the New Testament applies only to a small part adjoining Judea\non the south, and including even a portion of that country; which was\ntaken possession of by the Edomites, or Idum\u00e6ans, while the land lay\nunoccupied during the Babylonish captivity. The capital of this country\nwas Hebron, which had formerly been the metropolis of the tribe of\nJudah. These Idum\u00e6ans were so reduced by the Maccabees, that, in order\nto retain their possessions, they consented to embrace Judaism; and\ntheir territory became incorporated with Judea; although, in the time of\nour Saviour, it still retained its former name of Idum\u00e6a, Mark iii, 8.\nThe proper Idum\u00e6ans, or those who remained in the ancient land of Edom,\nbecame in process of time mingled with the Ishmaelites; the two people\nthus blended, being, from Nabaioth, or Nabath, the son of Ishmael,\ntermed Nabath\u00e6ans; under which names they are frequently mentioned in\nhistory. See EDOM.\n\nILLYRICUM, a province lying to the north and north-west of Macedonia,\nalong the eastern coast of the Adriatic Gulf, or Gulf of Venice. It was\ndistinguished into two parts: Liburnia to the north, where is now\nCroatia, and Dalmatia to the south, which still retains the same name,\nand to which, as St. Paul informs Timothy, Titus went, 2 Tim. iv, 10.\nSt. Paul says, that he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to\nIllyricum, Rom. xv, 19.\n\nIMAGE, in a religious sense, is an artificial representation of some\nperson or thing used as an object of adoration, and is synonymous with\nidol. Nothing can be more clear, full, and distinct, than the\nexpressions of Scripture prohibiting the making and worship of images,\nExod. xx, 4, 5; Deut. xvi, 22. No sin is so strongly and repeatedly\ncondemned in the Old Testament as that of idolatry, to which the Jews,\nin the early part of their history, were much addicted, and for which\nthey were constantly punished. St. Paul was greatly affected, when he\nsaw that the city of Athens was \u201cwholly given to idolatry,\u201d Acts xvii,\n16; and declared to the Athenians, that they ought not \u201cto think that\nthe Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and\nman\u2019s device,\u201d Acts xvii, 29. He condemns those who \u201cchanged the glory\nof the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man,\nand to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things,\u201d Romans i,\n23.\n\nThat the first Christians had no images, is evident from this\ncircumstance,--that they were reproached by the Heathens, because they\ndid not use them; and we find almost every ecclesiastical writer of the\nfirst four centuries arguing against the Gentile practice of image\nworship, from the plain declarations of Scripture, and from the pure and\nspiritual nature of God. The introduction of images into places of\nChristian worship, dates its origin soon after the times of Constantine\nthe Great; but the earlier Christians reprobated every species of image\nworship in the strongest language. It is sometimes pretended by the\nPapists, that they do not worship the images, but God through the medium\nof images; or, that the worship which they pay to images is inferior to\nthat which they pay to the Deity himself. These distinctions would be\nscarcely understood by the common people; and formerly an enlightened\nHeathen or Jew would probably have urged the same thing. The practice is\nin direct opposition to the second commandment, and notwithstanding\nevery sophistical palliation, it has always led to a transfer of human\ntrust from God to something else. Hence idolatry, in general, is\ncondemned in Scripture; and all use of images in the worship of God,\nmaking or bowing to any likeness, is absolutely forbidden. See\nICONOCLASTES and IDOLATRY.\n\nIMMATERIALITY, abstraction from matter; or what we understand by pure\nspirit.\n\nIMMORTAL. That which will endure to all eternity, as having in itself no\nprinciple of alteration or corruption. God is absolutely immortal,--he\ncannot die. Angels are immortal; but God, who made them, can terminate\ntheir being. Man is immortal in part, that is, in his spirit; but his\nbody dies. Inferior creatures are not immortal; they die wholly. Thus\nthe principle of immortality is differently communicated according to\nthe will of him who can render any creature immortal, by prolonging its\nlife; who can confer immortality on the body of man, together with his\nsoul; and will do so at the resurrection. God only is absolutely\nperfect, and, therefore, absolutely immortal. See SOUL.\n\nIMPOSITION OF HANDS. An ecclesiastical action, by which, among\nEpiscopalians, a bishop lays his hands on the head of a person, in\nordination, confirmation, or in uttering a blessing. In Presbyterian\nchurches, the imposition is by the hands of the presbytery. This\npractice is also frequently observed by the Independents and others at\ntheir ordinations, when all the ministers present place their hands on\nthe head of him whom they are ordaining, while one of them prays for a\nblessing on him and his future labours. This they retain as an ancient\npractice, justified by the example of the Apostles, when no\nextraordinary gifts were conveyed. However, Christians are not agreed as\nto the propriety of this ceremony; nor do they all consider it as an\nessential part of ordination.\n\nImposition of hands was a Jewish ceremony, introduced, not by any divine\nauthority, but by custom; it being the practice among that people,\nwhenever they prayed to God for any person, to lay their hands on his\nhead. Our Saviour observed the same custom, both when he conferred his\nblessing on children, and when he cured the sick. The Apostles likewise\nlaid hands on those upon whom they bestowed the Holy Ghost, but it was a\nform accompanied by _prayer_, through which only the blessing was\nobtained. And the Apostles themselves sometimes underwent the imposition\nof hands afresh, when they entered upon any new design. In the ancient\nchurch, imposition of hands was practised on persons when they married;\nwhich custom the Abyssinians still observe. But this ceremony of laying\non of hands is now restrained, by custom, chiefly to that imposition\nwhich is practised at the ordination of ministers.\n\n[In the Methodist Episcopal Church, a bishop is constituted by the\nelection of the general conference, and the laying on of the hands of\nthree bishops, or at least of one bishop and two elders; unless it\nhappen that, by death or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in the\nchurch: in this case, the general conference is empowered to elect a\nbishop, and the elders, or any three of them appointed by the general\nconference for that purpose, to ordain him. An elder is constituted by\nthe election of an annual conference, and the laying on of the hands of\na bishop and of two or more elders. A deacon, by the election of an\nannual conference, and the laying on of the hands of a bishop.]\n\nIMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. See JUSTIFICATION.\n\nINCENSE. _Thus_; so called by the dealers of drugs in Egypt from _thur_,\nor _thor_, the name of a harbour in the north bay of the Red Sea, near\nMount Sinai; thereby distinguishing it from the gum arabic, which is\nbrought from Suez, another port in the Red Sea, not far from Cairo. It\ndiffers also in being more pellucid and white. It burns with a bright\nand strong flame, not easily extinguished. It was used in the temple\nservice as an emblem of prayer, Psalm cxli, 2; Rev. viii, 3, 4. Authors\ngive it, or the best sort of it, the epithets white, pure, pellucid; and\nso it may have some connection with a word, derived from the same root,\nsignifying unstained, clear, and so applied to moral whiteness and\npurity, Psalm li, 7; Dan. xii, 10. This gum is said to distil from\nincisions made in the tree during the heat of summer. What the form of\nthe tree is which yields it, we do not certainly know. Pliny one while\nsays, it is like a pear tree; another, that it is like a mastic tree;\nthen, that it is like the laurel; and, in fine, that it is a kind of\nturpentine tree. It has been said to grow only in the country of the\nSabeans, a people in Arabia Felix; and Theophrastus and Pliny affirm\nthat it is found in Arabia. Dioscorides, however, mentions an Indian as\nwell as an Arabian frankincense. At the present day it is brought from\nthe East Indies, but not of so good a quality as that from Arabia. The\n\u201csweet incense,\u201d mentioned Exodus xxx, 7, and elsewhere, was a compound\nof several drugs, agreeably to the direction in the thirty-fourth verse.\nTo offer incense was an office peculiar to the priests. They went twice\na day into the holy place; namely, morning and evening, to burn incense\nthere. Upon the great day of expiation, the high priest took incense, or\nperfume, pounded and ready for being put into the censer, and threw it\nupon the fire, the moment he went into the sanctuary. One reason of this\nwas, that so the smoke which rose from the censer might prevent his\nlooking with too much curiosity on the ark and mercy-seat. God\nthreatened him with death upon failing to perform this ceremony, Lev.\nxvi, 13. Generally incense is to be considered as an emblem of the\n\u201cprayers of the saints,\u201d and is so used by the sacred writers.\n\nINCEST, an unlawful conjunction of persons related within the degrees of\nkindred prohibited by God. In the beginning of the world, and again,\nlong after the deluge, marriages between near relations were allowed. In\nthe time of Abraham and Isaac, these marriages were permitted, and among\nthe Persians much later: it is even said to be esteemed neither criminal\nnor ignominious among the remains of the old Persians at this day. Some\nauthors believe that marriages between near relations were permitted,\nor, at least, tolerated, till the time of Moses, who first prohibited\nthem among the Hebrews; and that among other people they were allowed\neven after him. Others hold the contrary; but it is hard to establish\neither of these opinions, for want of historical documents. The degrees\nof consanguinity within which marriage was prohibited are stated in Lev.\nxviii, 6\u201318. Most civilized people have looked on incests as abominable\ncrimes. St. Paul, speaking of the incestuous man of Corinth, says, \u201cIt\nis reported commonly, that there is fornication among you, and such\nfornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one\nshould have his father\u2019s wife,\u201d 1 Cor. v, 1. In order to preserve\nchastity in families, and between persons of different sexes, brought up\nand living together in a state of unreserved intimacy, it is necessary,\nby every method possible, to inculcate an abhorrence of incestuous\nconjunctions; which abhorrence can only be upholden by the absolute\nreprobation of all commerce of the sexes between near relations. Upon\nthis principle, the marriage, as well as other cohabitations, of\nbrothers and sisters, of lineal kindred, and of all who usually live in\nthe same family, may be said to be forbidden by the law of nature.\nRestrictions which extend to remoter degrees of kindred than what this\nreason makes it necessary to prohibit from intermarriage, are founded in\nthe authority of the positive law which ordains them, and can only be\njustified by their tendency to diffuse wealth, to connect families, or\nto promote some political advantage. The Levitical law, which is\nreceived in this country, and from which the rule of the Roman law\ndiffers very little, prohibits marriages between relations within three\ndegrees of kindred; computing the generations, not from, but through,\nthe common ancestor, and accounting affinity the same as consanguinity.\nThe issue, however, of such marriages are not bastardized, unless the\nparents be divorced during their life time.\n\nINCHANTMENTS. The law of God condemns inchantments and inchanters.\nSeveral terms are used in Scripture to denote inchantments: 1. \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9,\nwhich signifies _to mutter_, _to speak with a low voice_, like magicians\nin their evocations and magical operations, Psalm lviii, 6. 2. \u05dc\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd,\n_secrets_, whence Moses speaks of the inchantments wrought by Pharaoh\u2019s\nmagicians. 3. \u05db\u05e9\u05e3, meaning those who practise juggling, legerdemain,\ntricks, and witchery, deluding people\u2019s eyes and senses, 2 Chron.\nxxxiii, 6. 4. \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8, which signifies, properly, _to bind_, _assemble_,\n_associate_, _reunite_: this occurs principally among those who charm\nserpents, who tame them, and make them gentle and sociable, which before\nwere fierce, dangerous, and untractable, Deut. xviii, 11. We have\nexamples of each of these ways of inchanting. It was common for\nmagicians, sorcerers, and inchanters, to speak in a low voice, to\nwhisper: they are called _ventriloqui_, because they spake, as one would\nsuppose, from the bottom of their stomachs. They affected secrecy and\nmysterious ways, to conceal the vanity, folly, or infamy of their\npernicious art. Their pretended magic often consisted in cunning tricks\nonly, in sleight of hand, or some natural secrets, unknown to the\nignorant. They affected obscurity and night, or would show their skill\nonly before the uninformed or mean persons, and feared nothing so much\nas serious examinations, broad day-light, and the inspection of the\nintelligent. Respecting the inchantments practised by Pharaoh\u2019s\nmagicians, (see Exod. viii, 18, 19,) in order to imitate the miracles\nwhich were wrought by Moses, it must be said either that they were mere\nillusions, whereby they imposed on the spectators; or that, if they\nperformed such miracles, and produced real changes of their rods, and\nthe other things said to be performed by them, it must have been by a\nsupernatural power which God had permitted Satan to give them, but the\nfarther operation of which he afterward thought proper to prevent.\n\nINDEPENDENTS, a denomination of Protestants in England and Holland,\noriginally called Brownists. They derive their name from their\nmaintaining that every particular congregation of Christians has,\naccording to the New Testament, a full power of ecclesiastical\njurisdiction over its members, independent of the authority of bishops,\nsynods, presbyteries, or any other ecclesiastical assemblies. This\ndenomination appeared in England in the year 1616. John Robinson, a\nNorfolk divine, who, being banished from his native country for\nnon-conformity, afterward settled at Leyden, was considered as their\nfounder and father. He possessed sincere piety, and no inconsiderable\nshare of learning. Perceiving defects in the denomination of the\nBrownists, to which he belonged, he employed his zeal and diligence in\ncorrecting them and in new modelling the society. Though the\nIndependents considered their own form of ecclesiastical government as\nof divine institution, and as originally introduced by the authority of\nthe Apostles, nay, by the Apostles themselves; yet they did not always\nthink it necessary to condemn other denominations, but often\nacknowledged that true religion might flourish in those communities\nwhich were under the jurisdiction of bishops, or the government of\npresbyteries. They approved, also, of a regular and educated ministry;\nnor is any person among them now permitted to speak in public before he\nhas submitted to a proper examination of his capacity and talents, and\nhas been approved of by the church to which he belonged. Their grounds\nof separation from the established church are different from those of\nother puritans. Many of the latter objected chiefly to certain rites,\nceremonies, vestments, or forms, or to the government of the church;\nwhile yet they were disposed to arm the magistrate in support of the\ntruth, and regretted and complained that they could not on these\naccounts conform to it. But Robinson and his companions not only\nrejected the appointments of the church on these heads, but denied its\nauthority to enact them; contending, that every single congregation of\nChristians was a church, and independent of all legislation, save that\nof Christ; standing in need of no such provision or establishment as the\nstate can bestow, and incapable of soliciting or receiving it. Hence\nthey sought not to reform the church, but chose to dissent from it. They\nadmitted there were many godly men in its communion, and that it was\nreformed from the grossest errors of the man of sin; but thought it\nstill wanted some things essential to a true church of Christ; in\nparticular, a power of choosing its own ministers, and a stricter\ndiscipline among its members. The creed of the Independents is uniformly\nCalvinistic, though with considerable shades of difference; and many in\nScotland and Ireland have symbolized with the Sandemanians, or the\nScottish Baptist denominations. The Congregationalist and Independent\nhave been generally considered as convertible and synonymous: many,\nhowever, in the present day, prefer the former appellation, considering\nit desirable, in many cases, to unite, for mutual advice and support,\nmore closely than the term _independent_ seems to warrant.\n\nINDULGENCES. In the primitive church very severe penalties were\ninflicted on those who had been guilty of any sins, whether public or\nprivate; and, in particular, they were forbidden to partake, for a\ncertain time, of the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper, or to hold any\ncommunion with the church. General rules were formed upon these\nsubjects; but as it was often found expedient to make a discrimination\nin the degrees of punishment, according to the different circumstances\nof the offenders, and especially when they showed marks of contrition\nand repentance, power was given to bishops, by the council of Nice, to\nrelax or remit those punishments as they should see reason. Every favour\nof this kind was called an indulgence or pardon. After the bishops had\nenjoyed this privilege for some centuries, and had begun to abuse it,\nthe popes discovered that in their own hands it might be rendered a\npowerful instrument to promote both their ambition and their avarice.\nThey could not but perceive that if they could persuade men they had the\npower of granting pardon for sin, it would give them a complete\ninfluence over their consciences; and if they could at the same time\nprevail upon them to purchase these pardons for money, it must add\ngreatly to the wealth of the Roman see. In the eleventh century,\ntherefore, when the dominion of the popes was rising to its zenith, and\ntheir power was almost irresistible, they took to themselves the\nexclusive prerogative of dispensing indulgences, which they carried to a\nmost unwarrantable length. Instead of confining them, according to their\noriginal institution, to the ordinary purposes of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline, they extended them to the punishment of the wicked in the\nworld to come; instead of shortening the duration of earthly penance,\nthey pretended that they could deliver men from the pains of purgatory;\ninstead of allowing them gratuitously, and upon just grounds, to the\npenitent offender, they sold them in the most open and corrupt manner to\nthe profligate and abandoned, who still continued in their vices. They\ndid not scruple to call these indulgences a plenary remission of all\nsins, past, present, and future, and to offer them as a certain and\nimmediate passport from the troubles of this world to the eternal joys\nof heaven. To give some sort of colour and support to this infamous\ntraffic, they confidently asserted that the superabundant merits of\nChrist, and of his faithful servants, formed a fund of which the pope\nwas the sole manager; and that he could, at his own discretion, dispense\nthose merits, as the sure means of procuring pardon from God, in any\nproportions, for any species of wickedness, and to any person he\npleased. The bare statement of this doctrine is a sufficient refutation\nof it; and it is scarcely necessary to add, that it has no foundation\nwhatever in Scripture. It is an arrogant and impious usurpation of a\npower which belongs to God alone; and it has an obvious tendency to\npromote licentiousness and sin of every description, by holding out an\neasy and certain method of absolution. The popes derived very large sums\nfrom the sale of these indulgences; and it is well known that the gross\nabuses practised in granting them were among the immediate and principal\ncauses of bringing about the reformation. They continue still to be sold\nat Rome, and are to be purchased by any who are weak enough to buy them.\nThe sums required for indulgences were first published by Anthony Egane,\na Franciscan friar, in 1673; and the original pamphlet was republished\nby Baron Maseres, in 1809, in his last volume of \u201cOccasional Essays.\u201d\n\nINK. The ink of the ancients was not so fluid as ours. Demosthenes\nreproaches \u00c6schines with labouring in the grinding of ink, as painters\ndo in the grinding of their colours. The substance also found in an\ninkstand at Herculaneum, looks like a thick oil or paint, with which the\nmanuscripts there have been written in a relievo visible in the letters,\nwhen you hold a leaf to the light in a horizontal direction. Such\nvitriolic ink as has been used on the old parchment manuscripts would\nhave corroded the delicate leaves of the papyrus, as it has done the\nskins of the most ancient manuscripts of Virgil and Terence, in the\nVatican library; the letters are sunk into the parchment, and some have\neaten quite through it, in consequence of the corrosive acid of the\nvitriolic ink, with which they were written. The inkhorn is also\nmentioned in Scripture: \u201cAnd one man among them was clothed with linen,\nwith a writer\u2019s inkhorn by his side,\u201d Ezek. ix, 2. The eastern mode and\napparatus for writing differs so materially from those with which we are\nconversant, that it is necessary particularly to describe them.\nD'Arvieux informs us that \u201cthe Arabs of the desert, when they want a\nfavour of their emir, get his secretary to write an order agreeable to\ntheir desire, as if the favour were granted, this they carry to the\nprince, who, after having read it, sets his seal to it with ink, if he\ngrants it; if not, he returns the petitioner his paper torn, and\ndismisses him. These papers are without date, and have only the emir\u2019s\nflourish or cypher at the bottom, signifying the poor, the abject\nMohammed, son of Turabeye.\u201d Pococke says, that \u201cthey make the impression\nof their name with their seal, generally of cornelian, which they wear\non their finger, and which is blacked when they have occasion to seal\nwith it.\u201d The custom of placing the inkhorn by the side, Olearius says,\ncontinues in the east to this day. Dr. Shaw informs us, that, among the\nMoors in Barbary, \u201cthe _hojas_, that is, the writers or secretaries,\nsuspend their inkhorns in their girdles; a custom as old as the Prophet\nEzekiel, ix, 2.\u201d And in a note he adds, \u201cthat part of these inkhorns (if\nan instrument of brass may be so called) which passes between the girdle\nand the tunic, and holds their pens, is long and flat; but the vessel\nfor the ink which rests upon the girdle is square, with a lid to clasp\nover it.\u201d So Mr. Hanway: \u201cTheir writers carry their ink and pens about\nthem in a case, which they put under their sash.\u201d\n\nINN. The inns or caravanserais of the east, in which travellers are\naccommodated, are not all alike, some being simply places of rest, by\nthe side of a fountain, if possible, and at a proper distance on the\nroad. Many of these places are nothing more than naked walls; others\nhave an attendant, who subsists either by some charitable donation, or\nthe benevolence of passengers; others are more considerable\nestablishments, where families reside, and take care of them, and\nfurnish the necessary provisions. \u201cCaravanserais,\u201d says Campbell, \u201cwere\noriginally intended for, and are now pretty generally applied to, the\naccommodation of strangers and travellers, though, like every other good\ninstitution, sometimes perverted to the purposes of private emolument,\nor public job. They are built at proper distances through the roads of\nthe Turkish dominions, and afford to the indigent or weary traveller an\nasylum from the inclemency of the weather, are in general built of the\nmost solid and durable materials, have commonly one story above the\nground floor, the lower of which is arched, and serves for warehouses to\nstore goods, for lodgings, and for stables, while the upper is used\nmerely for lodgings; beside which they are always accommodated with a\nfountain, and have cooks\u2019 shops and other conveniences to supply the\nwants of lodgers. In Aleppo, the caravanserais are almost exclusively\noccupied by merchants, to whom they are, like other houses, rented.\u201d \u201cIn\nall other Turkish provinces,\u201d observes Antes, \u201cparticularly those in\nAsia, which are often thinly inhabited, travelling is subject to\nnumberless inconveniences, since it is necessary not only to carry all\nsorts of provisions along with one, but even the very utensils to dress\nthem in, beside a tent for shelter at night and in bad weather, as there\nare no inns, except here and there a caravanserai, where nothing but\nbare rooms, and those often very bad, and infested with all sorts of\nvermin, can be procured.\u201d \u201cThere are no inns anywhere,\u201d says Volney,\n\u201cbut the cities, and commonly the villages, have a large building called\na kan or kervanserai, which serves as an asylum for all travellers.\nThese houses of reception are always built without the precincts of\ntowns, and consist of four wings round a square court, which serves by\nway of enclosure for the beasts of burden. The lodgings are cells, where\nyou find nothing but bare walls, dust, and sometimes scorpions. The\nkeeper of this kan gives the traveller the key and a mat, and he\nprovides himself the rest; he must therefore carry with him his bed, his\nkitchen utensils, and even his provisions, for frequently not even bread\nis to be found in the villages. On this account the orientals contrive\ntheir equipage in the most simple and portable form. The baggage of a\nman who wishes to be completely provided, consists in a carpet, a\nmattress, a blanket, two sauce pans with lids contained within each\nother, two dishes, two plates, and a coffee pot, all of copper, well\ntinned, a small wooden box for salt and pepper, a round leathern table,\nwhich he suspends from the saddle of his horse, small leathern bottles\nor bags for oil, melted butter, water, and brandy, if the traveller be a\nChristian, a tinder box, a cup of cocoa nut, some rice, dried raisins,\ndates, Cyprus cheese, and, above all, coffee berries, with a roaster and\nwooden mortar to pound them.\u201d The Scriptures use two words to express a\ncaravanserai, in both instances translated inn: \u201cThere was no room for\nthem in the inn,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, Luke ii, 7; the place of untying, that is,\nof beasts for rest. \u201cAnd brought him to the inn,\u201d \u03d6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, Luke x,\n34, whose keeper is called in the next verse \u03d6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2. This word\nproperly signifies \u201ca receptacle open to all comers.\u201d \u201cThe serai or\nprincipal caravansary at Surat,\u201d observes Forbes, \u201cwas much neglected.\nMost of the eastern cities contain one, at least, for the reception of\nstrangers; smaller places, called choultries, are erected by charitable\npersons, or munificent princes, in forests, plains, and deserts, for the\naccommodation of travellers. Near them is generally a well, and a\ncistern for the cattle; a brahmin, or fakeer, often resides there to\nfurnish the pilgrim with food, and the few necessaries he may stand in\nneed of. In the deserts of Persia and Arabia, these buildings are\ninvaluable; in those pathless plains, for many miles together, not a\ntree, a bush, nor even a blade of grass, is to be seen; all is one\nundulating mass of sand, like waves on the trackless ocean. In these\nruthless wastes, where no rural village or cheerful hamlet, no inn or\nhouse of refreshment, is to be found, how noble is the charity that\nrears the hospitable roof, that plants the shady grove, and conducts the\nrefreshing moisture into reservoirs!\u201d\n\nINSPIRATION, the conveying of certain extraordinary and supernatural\nnotices or thoughts into the soul; or it denotes any supernatural\ninfluence of God upon the mind of a rational creature, whereby he is\nformed to a degree of intellectual improvement, to which he could not\nhave attained in his present circumstances in a natural way. In the\nfirst and highest sense, the prophets, evangelists, and Apostles are\nsaid to have spoken and written by divine inspiration. This inspiration\nof the Old Testament Scriptures is so expressly attested by our Lord and\nhis Apostles, that among those who receive them as a divine revelation\nthe only question relates to the inspiration of the New Testament. On\nthis subject it has been well observed:--\n\n1. That the inspiration of the Apostles appears to have been necessary\nfor the purposes of their mission; and, therefore, if we admit that\nJesus came from God, and that he sent them forth to make disciples, we\nshall acknowledge that some degree of inspiration is highly probable.\nThe first light in which the books of the New Testament lead us to\nconsider the Apostles, is, as the historians of Jesus. After having been\nhis companions during his ministry, they came forth to bear witness of\nhim; and as the benefit of his religion was not to be confined to the\nage in which he or they lived, they left in the four Gospels a record of\nwhat he did and taught. Two of the four were written by the Apostles\nMatthew and John. St. Mark and St. Luke, whose names are prefixed to the\nother two, were probably of the seventy whom our Lord sent out in his\nlife time; and we learn from the most ancient Christian historians, that\nthe Gospel of St. Mark was revised by St. Peter, and the Gospel of St.\nLuke by St. Paul, and that both were afterward approved by St. John; so\nthat all the four may be considered as transmitted to the church with\nthe sanction of apostolical authority. Now, if we recollect the\ncondition of the Apostles, and the nature of their history, we shall\nperceive that, even as historians, they stood in need of some measure of\ninspiration. Plato might feel himself at liberty to feign many things of\nhis master Socrates, because it mattered little to the world whether the\ninstruction that was conveyed to them proceeded from the one philosopher\nor from the other. But the servants of a divine teacher, who appeared as\nhis witnesses, and professed to be the historians of his life, were\nbound by their office to give a true record. And their history was an\nimposition upon the world, if they did not declare exactly and literally\nwhat they had seen and heard. This was an office which required not only\na love of the truth, but a memory more retentive and more accurate than\nit was possible for the Apostles to possess. To relate, at the distance\nof twenty years, long moral discourses, which were not originally\nwritten, and which were not attended with any striking circumstances\nthat might imprint them upon the mind; to preserve a variety of\nparables, the beauty and significancy of which depended upon particular\nexpressions; to record long and minute prophecies, where the alteration\nof a single phrase might have produced an inconsistency between the\nevent and the prediction; and to give a particular detail of the\nintercourse which Jesus had with his friends and with his enemies;--all\nthis is a work so very much above the capacity of unlearned men, that,\nhad they attempted to execute it by their own natural powers, they must\nhave fallen into such absurdities and contradictions as would have\nbetrayed them to every discerning eye. It was therefore highly\nexpedient, and even necessary, for the faith of future ages, that,\nbeside those opportunities of information which the Apostles enjoyed,\nand that tried integrity which they possessed, their understanding and\ntheir memory should be assisted by a supernatural influence, which might\nprevent them from mistaking the meaning of what they had heard, which\nmight restrain them from putting into the mouth of Jesus any words which\nhe did not utter, or omitting what was important, and which might thus\ngive us perfect security, that the Gospels are as faithful a copy as if\nJesus himself had left in writing those sayings and those actions which\nhe wished posterity to remember.\n\nBut we consider the Apostles in the lowest view, when we speak of them\nas barely the historians of their Master. In their epistles they assume\na higher character, which renders inspiration still more necessary. All\nthe benefit which they derived from the public and the private\ninstructions of Jesus before his death had not so far opened their minds\nas to qualify them for receiving the whole counsel of God. And he who\nknows what is in man declares to them, the night on which he was\nbetrayed, \u201cI have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear\nthem now,\u201d John xv, 12. The purpose of many of his parables, the full\nmeaning even of some of his plain discourses, had not been attained by\nthem. They had marvelled when he spake to them of earthly things. But\nmany heavenly things of his kingdom had not been told them; and they who\nwere destined to carry his religion to the ends of the earth themselves\nneeded, at the times of their receiving this commission, that some one\nshould instruct them in the doctrine of Christ. It is true that, after\nhis resurrection, Jesus opened their understandings, and explained to\nthem the Scriptures; and he continued upon earth forty days, speaking to\nthem of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. It appears,\nhowever, from the history which they have recorded in the book of Acts,\nthat some farther teaching was necessary for them, Acts i. Immediately\nbefore our Lord ascended, their minds being still full of the\nexpectation of a temporal kingdom, they say unto him, \u201cLord, wilt thou\nat this time restore the kingdom to Israel?\u201d It was not till some time\nafter they received the gift of the Holy Ghost, that they understood\nthat the Gospel had taken away the obligation to observe the ceremonies\nof the Mosaic law; and the action of St. Peter in baptizing Cornelius, a\ndevout Heathen, gave offence to some of the Apostles and brethren in\nJudea when they first heard it, Acts xi. Yet, in their epistles, we find\njust notions of the spiritual nature of the religion of Jesus as a\nkingdom of righteousness, the subjects of which are to receive remission\nof sins, and sanctification through his blood, and just notions also of\nthe extent of this religion as a dispensation the spiritual blessings of\nwhich are to be communicated to all, in every land, who receive it in\nfaith and love. These notions appear to us to be the explication both of\nthe ancient predictions, and of many particular expressions that occur\nin the discourses of our Lord. But it is manifest that they had not been\nacquired by the Apostles during the teaching of Jesus. They are so\nadverse to every thing which men educated in Jewish prejudices had\nlearned and had hoped, that they could not be the fruit of their own\nreflections; and therefore they imply the teaching of that Spirit who\ngradually impressed them upon the mind, guiding the Apostles gently, as\nthey were able to follow him, into all the truth connected with the\nsalvation of mankind. As inspiration was necessary to give the minds of\nthe Apostles possession of the system that is unfolded in their\nepistles, so many parts of that system are removed to such a distance\nfrom human discoveries, and are liable to such misapprehension, that\nunless we suppose a continued superintendence of the Spirit by whom it\nwas taught, succeeding ages would not have a sufficient security that\nthose who were employed to deliver it had not been guilty of gross\nmistakes in some most important doctrines.\n\nInspiration will appear still farther necessary, when we recollect that\nthe writings of the Apostles contain several predictions of things to\ncome. St. Paul foretels, in his epistles, the corruptions of the church\nof Rome, and many other circumstances which have taken place in the\nhistory of the Christian church; and the Revelation is a book of\nprophecy, of which part has been already fulfilled, while the rest will\nno doubt be explained by the events which are to arise in the course of\nProvidence. But prophecy is a kind of writing which implies the highest\ndegree of inspiration. When predictions, like those in Scripture, are\nparticular and complicated, and the events are so remote and so\ncontingent as to be out of the reach of human sagacity, it is plain that\nthe writers of the predictions do not speak according to the measure of\ninformation which they had acquired by natural means, but are merely the\ninstruments through which the Almighty communicates, in such measure and\nsuch language as he thinks fit, that knowledge of futurity which is\ndenied to man. And although the full meaning of their own predictions\nwas not understood by themselves, they will be acknowledged to be true\nprophets when the fulfilment comes to reflect light upon that language,\nwhich, for wise purposes, was made dark at the time of its being put\ninto their mouth.\n\nThus the nature of the writings of the Apostles suggests the necessity\nof their having been inspired. They could not be accurate historians of\nthe life of Jesus without divine inspiration, nor safe expounders of his\ndoctrine, nor prophets of distant events.\n\n2. Inspiration was promised by our Lord to his Apostles. It is not\nunfair reasoning to adduce promises contained in the Scriptures\nthemselves, as proofs of their divine inspiration. It were, indeed,\nreasoning in a circle, to bring the testimony of the Scriptures in proof\nof the divine mission of Jesus. But that being established by sufficient\nevidence, and the books of the New Testament having been proved to be\nthe authentic genuine records of the persons whose names they bear, we\nare warranted to argue, from the declarations contained in them, what is\nthe measure of inspiration which Jesus was pleased to bestow upon his\nservants. He might have been a divine teacher, and they might have been\nhis Apostles, although he had bestowed none at all. But his character\ngives us security that they possessed all that he promised. We read in\nthe Gospels that Jesus ordained twelve that they should be with him, and\nthat he might send them forth to preach, Mark iii, 14. And as this was\nthe purpose for which they were first called, so it was the charge left\nthem at his departure. \u201cGo,\u201d said he, \u201cpreach the Gospel to every\ncreature: make disciples of all nations,\u201d Mark xvi, 16; Matt. xxviii,\n19. His constant familiar intercourse with them was intended to qualify\nthem for the execution of this charge; and the promises made to them\nhave a special reference to the office in which they were to be\nemployed. When he sent them, during his life, to preach in the cities of\nIsrael, he said, \u201cBut when they deliver you up, take no thought how or\nwhat ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye\nshall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father\nwhich speaketh in you,\u201d Matt. x, 19, 20. And when he spake to them in\nhis prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, of the persecution which\nthey were to endure after his death, he repeats the same promise: \u201cFor I\nwill give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not\nbe able to gainsay nor resist,\u201d Luke xxi, 15. It is admitted that the\nwords in both these passages refer properly to that assistance which the\ninexperience of the Apostles was to derive from the suggestions of the\nSpirit, when they should be called to defend their conduct and their\ncause before the tribunals of the magistrates. But the fulfilment of\nthis promise was a pledge, both to the Apostles and to the world, that\nthe measure of inspiration necessary for the more important purpose\nimplied in their commission would not be withheld; and, accordingly,\nwhen that purpose came to be unfolded to the Apostles, the promise of\nthe assistance of the Spirit was expressed in a manner which applies it\nto the extent of their commission. In the long affectionate discourse\nrecorded by St. John, when our Lord took a solemn farewell of the\ndisciples, after eating the last passover with them, he said, \u201cAnd I\nwill pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he\nmay abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world\ncannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye\nknow him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. The Comforter,\nwhich is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall\nteach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,\nwhatsoever I have said unto you. I have yet many things to say unto you,\nbut you cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is\ncome, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of\nhimself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak; and he will\nshow you things to come,\u201d John xiv, 16, 17, 26; xvi, 12, 13. Here are\nall the degrees of inspiration which we have seen to be necessary for\nthe Apostles: the Spirit was to bring to their remembrance what they had\nheard; to guide them into the truth, which they were not then able to\nbear; and to show them things to come; and all this they were to derive,\nnot from occasional illapses, but from the perpetual inhabitation of the\nSpirit. That this inspiration was vouchsafed to them, not for their own\nsakes, but in order to qualify them for the successful discharge of\ntheir office as the messengers of Christ, and the instructers of\nmankind, appears from several expressions of that prayer which\nimmediately follows the discourse containing the promise of inspiration;\nparticularly from these words: \u201cNeither pray I for these alone, but for\nthem also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all\nmay be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they may be\none in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me,\u201d John\nxvii, 20, 21. In conformity to this prayer, so becoming him who was not\nmerely the friend of the Apostles, but the light of the world, is that\ncharge which he gives them immediately before his ascension: \u201cGo ye,\ntherefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe\nall things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you\nalway, even unto the end of the world,\u201d Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; I am with\nyou alway, not by my bodily presence; for immediately after he was taken\nout of their sight; but I am with you by the Holy Ghost, whom I am to\nsend upon you not many days hence, and who is to abide with you for\never.\n\nThe promise of Jesus, then, implies, according to the plain construction\nof the words, that the Apostles, in executing their commission, were not\nto be left wholly to their natural powers, but were to be assisted by\nthat illumination and direction of the Spirit which the nature of the\ncommission required; and we may learn the sense which our Lord had of\nthe importance and effect of this promise from one circumstance, that he\nnever makes any distinction between his own words and those of his\nApostles, but places the doctrines and commandments which they were to\ndeliver upon a footing with those which he had spoken: \u201cHe that heareth\nyou, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that\ndespiseth me, despiseth him that sent me,\u201d Luke x, 16. These words\nplainly imply that Christians have no warrant to pay less regard to any\nthing contained in the epistles than to that which is contained in the\nGospels; and teach us that every doctrine and precept clearly delivered\nby the Apostles comes to the Christian world with the same stamp of the\ndivine authority as the words of Jesus, who spake in the name of him\nthat sent him.\n\nThe Author of our religion having thus made the faith of the Christian\nworld to hang upon the teaching of the Apostles, gave the most signal\nmanifestation of the fulfilment of that promise which was to qualify\nthem for their office, by the miraculous gifts with which they were\nendowed on the day of pentecost, and by the abundance of those gifts\nwhich the imposition of their hands was to diffuse through the church.\nOne of the twelve, indeed, whose labours in preaching the Gospel were\nthe most abundant and the most extensive, was not present at this\nmanifestation; for St. Paul was not called to be an Apostle till after\nthe day of pentecost. But it is very remarkable that the manner of his\nbeing called was expressly calculated to supply this deficiency. As he\njourneyed to Damascus, about noon, to bring the Christians who were\nthere bound to Jerusalem, there shone from heaven a great light round\nabout him. And he heard a voice, saying, \u201cI am Jesus whom thou\npersecutest. And I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make\nthee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,\nand of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; and now I send\nthee to the Gentiles to open their eyes,\u201d Acts xxvi, 12\u201318. In reference\nto this manner of his being called, St. Paul generally inscribes his\nepistles with these words: \u201cPaul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the\nwill\u201d or \u201cby the commandment of God;\u201d and he explains very fully what he\nmeant by the use of this expression, in the beginning of his Epistle to\nthe Galatians, where he gives an account of his conversion: \u201cPaul, an\nApostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the\nFather, who raised him from the dead. I neither received the Gospel of\nman, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.\nWhen it pleased God, who separated me from my mother\u2019s womb, and called\nme by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among\nthe Heathen: immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither\nwent I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went\ninto Arabia,\u201d Gal. i, 1, 12, 15\u201317. All that we said of the necessity of\ninspiration, and of the import of the promise which Jesus made to the\nother Apostles, receives very great confirmation from this history of\nSt. Paul, who, being called to be an Apostle after the ascension of\nJesus, received the Gospel by immediate revelation from heaven, and was\nthus put upon a footing with the rest, both as to his designation, which\ndid not proceed from the choice of man, and as to his qualifications,\nwhich were imparted, not by human instruction, but by the teaching of\nthe Author of Christianity. The Lord Jesus who appeared to him might\nfurnish St. Paul with the same advantages which the other Apostles had\nderived from his presence on earth, and might give him the same\nassurance of the inhabitation of the Spirit that the promises, which we\nhave been considering, had imparted to those.\n\n3. Inspiration was claimed by the Apostles; and their claim may be\nconsidered as the interpretation of the promise of their Master. We\nshall not find the claim to inspiration formally advanced in the\nGospels. This omission has sometimes been stated by those superficial\ncritics, whose prejudices serve to account for their haste, as an\nobjection against the existence of inspiration. But if you attend to the\nreason of the omission, you will perceive that it is only an instance of\nthat delicate propriety which pervades all the New Testament. The\nGospels are the record of the great facts which vouch the truth of\nChristianity. These facts are to be received upon the testimony of men\nwho had been eye-witnesses of them. The foundation of Christian faith\nbeing laid in an assent to these facts, it would have been preposterous\nto have introduced in support of them that influence of the Spirit which\npreserved the minds of the Apostles from error. For there can be no\nproof of the inspiration of the Apostles, unless the truth of the facts\nbe previously admitted. The Apostles, therefore, bring forward the\nevidence of Christianity in its natural order, when they speak in the\nGospels as the companions and eye-witnesses of Jesus, claiming that\ncredit which is due to honest men who had the best opportunities of\nknowing what they declared. This is the language of St. John: \u201cMany\nother signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples. But these are\nwritten that ye may believe; and this is the disciple which testifieth\nthese things,\u201d John xx, 30, 31; xxi, 24. The Evangelist Luke appears to\nspeak differently in the introduction to his Gospel, Luke i, 1\u20134; and\nopposite opinions have been entertained respecting the information\nconveyed by that introduction.\n\nThere is a difference of opinion, first, with regard to the time when\nSt. Luke wrote his Gospel. It appears to some to be expressly intimated\nthat he wrote after St. Matthew and St. Mark, because he speaks of other\nGospels then in circulation; and it is generally understood that St.\nJohn wrote his after the other three. But the manner in which St. Luke\nspeaks of these other Gospels does not seem to apply to those of St.\nMatthew and St. Mark. He calls them many, which implies that they were\nmore than two, and which would confound these two canonical Gospels with\nimperfect accounts of our Lord\u2019s life, which we know from ancient\nwriters were early circulated, but were rejected after the four Gospels\nwere published. It is hardly conceivable that St. Luke would have\nalluded to the two Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark without\ndistinguishing them from other very inferior productions; and therefore\nit is probable that when he used this mode of expression, no accounts of\nour Lord\u2019s life were then in existence but those inferior productions.\nThere appears, also, to very sound critics, to be internal evidence that\nSt. Luke wrote first. He is much more particular than the other\nevangelists in his report of our Lord\u2019s birth, and of the meetings with\nhis Apostles after his resurrection. They might think it unnecessary to\nintroduce the same particulars into their Gospels after St. Luke. But if\nthey wrote before him, the want of these particulars gives to their\nGospels an appearance of imperfection which we cannot easily explain.\n\nThe other point suggested by this introduction, upon which there has\nbeen a difference of opinion, is, whether St. Luke, who was not an\nApostle, wrote his Gospel from personal knowledge, attained by his being\na companion of Jesus, or from the information of others. Our translation\ncertainly favours the last opinion; and it is the more general opinion,\ndefended by very able critics. Dr. Randolph, in the first volume of his\nworks, which contains a history of our Saviour\u2019s life, supports the\nfirst opinion, and suggests a punctuation of the verses, and an\ninterpretation of one word, according to which that opinion may be\ndefended. Read the second and third verses in connection: \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2\n\u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f41\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f1c\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76, \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03d6\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03d0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5, \u201cEven as they who were eye-witnesses and ministers of\nthe word from the beginning delivered them to us, it seemed good to me\nalso, having accurately traced,\u201d &c. By \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd is understood the Christian\nworld, who had received information, both oral and written, from those\nthat had been \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201ceye-witnesses and ministers.\u201d\n\u039a\u1f00\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 means St. Luke, who proposed to follow the example of those\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in writing what he knew; and he describes his own knowledge by\nthe word \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9, which is more precise than the circumlocution,\nby which it is translated, \u201chaving had understanding of all things.\u201d\nPerfect understanding may be derived from various sources; but\n\u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9 properly means, \u201cI go along with as a companion, and derive\nknowledge from my own observation.\u201d And it is remarkable that the word\nis used in this very sense by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who\npublished his history not many years after St. Luke wrote, and who, in\nhis introduction, represents himself as worthy of credit, because he had\nnot merely inquired of those who knew, but \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, which he explains by this expression: \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03d6\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, and to state in the third verse that he, \u03d6\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03db\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _an actor in many things, and an eye-witness of most_. If\nthis interpretation is not approved of, then, according to the sense of\nthose verses which is most commonly adopted, St. Luke will be understood\nto give in the second verse an account of that ground upon which the\nknowledge of the Christian world with regard to these things rested, the\nreports of the \u201ceye-witnesses and ministers,\u201d having collected and\ncollated these reports, and employed the most careful and minute\ninvestigation, he had resolved to write an account of the life of Jesus.\nHere he does not claim inspiration: he does not even say that he was an\neye-witness. But he says that, having, like others, heard the report of\neye-witnesses, he had accurately examined the truth of what they said,\nand presented to the Christian world the fruit of his researches.\n\nThe foundation is still the same as in St. John\u2019s Gospel, the report of\nthose in whose presence Jesus did and said what is recorded. To this\nreport is added, (1.) The investigation of St. Luke, a contemporary of\nthe Apostles, the companion of St. Paul in a great part of his\njourneyings, and honoured by him with this title, \u201cLuke, the beloved\nphysician,\u201d Col. iv, 14. (2.) The approbation of St. Paul, who is said,\nby the earliest Christian writers, to have revised this Gospel written\nby his companion, so that it came abroad with apostolical authority.\n(3.) The universal consent of the Christian church, which, although\njealous of the books that were then published, and rejecting many that\nclaimed the sanction of the Apostles, has uniformly, from the earliest\ntimes, put the Gospel of St. Luke upon a footing with those of St.\nMatthew and St. Mark: a clear demonstration that they who had access to\nthe best information knew that it had been revised by an Apostle.\n\nAs, then, the authors of the Gospels appear under the character of\neye-witnesses, attesting what they had seen, there would have been an\nimpropriety in their resting the evidence of the essential facts of\nChristianity upon inspiration. But after the respect which their\ncharacter and their conduct procured to their testimony, and the visible\nconfirmation which it received from heaven, had established the faith of\na part of the world, a belief of their inspiration became necessary.\nThey might have been credible witnesses of facts, although they had not\nbeen distinguished from other men. But they were not qualified to\nexecute the office of Apostles without being inspired. And therefore, as\nsoon as the circumstances of the church required the execution of that\noffice, the claim which had been conveyed to them by the promise of\ntheir Master, and which is implied in the apostolical character, appears\nin their writings. They instantly exercised the authority derived to\nthem from Jesus, by planting ministers in the cities where they had\npreached the Gospel, by setting every thing pertaining to these\nChristian societies in order, by controlling the exercise of those\nmiraculous gifts which they had imparted, and by correcting the abuses\nwhich happened even in their time. But they demanded from all who had\nreceived the faith of Christ submission to the doctrines and\ncommandments of his Apostles, as the inspired messengers of Heaven. \u201cBut\nGod hath revealed it,\u201d not _them_, as our translators have supplied the\naccusative, \u201crevealed the wisdom of God, the dispensation of the Gospel\nunto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the\ndeep things of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world,\nbut the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are\nfreely given us of God; which things, also, we speak, not in the words\nwhich man\u2019s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,\u201d 1 Cor.\nii, 10, 12, 13. \u201cIf any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,\nlet him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the\ncommandments of the Lord,\u201d 1 Cor. xiv, 37; that is, Let no eminence of\nspiritual gifts be set up in opposition to the authority of the\nApostles, or as implying any dispensation from submitting to it. \u201cFor\nthis cause, also, thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received\nthe word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of\nmen, but, as it is in truth, the word of God,\u201d 1 Thess. ii, 13. St.\nPeter, speaking of the epistles of St. Paul, says, \u201cEven as our beloved\nbrother Paul, also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written\nunto you,\u201d 2 Peter iii, 15. And St. John makes the same claim of\ninspiration for the other Apostles, as well as for himself: \u201cWe are of\nGod: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not\nus,\u201d 1 John iv, 6.\n\nThe claim to inspiration is clearly made by the Apostles in those\npassages where they place their own writings upon the same footing with\nthe books of the Old Testament; for St. Paul, speaking of the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u201c_Holy Scriptures_,\u201d a common expression among the Jews, in\nwhich Timothy had been instructed from his childhood, says, \u201cAll\nScripture is given by inspiration of God,\u201d 2 Tim. iii, 16. St. Peter,\nspeaking of the ancient prophets, says, \u201cThe Spirit of Christ was in\nthem,\u201d 1 Peter i, 11; and, \u201cThe prophecy came not in old time by the\nwill of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy\nGhost,\u201d 2 Peter i, 21. And the quotations of our Lord and his Apostles\nfrom the books of the Old Testament are often introduced with an\nexpression in which their inspiration is directly asserted: \u201cWell spake\nthe Holy Ghost by Esaias;\u201d \u201cBy the mouth of thy servant David thou hast\nsaid,\u201d &c, Acts i, 16; iv, 25; xxviii, 25. But with this uniform\ntestimony to that inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, which was\nuniversally believed among that people, we are to conjoin this\ncircumstance, that St. Paul and St. Peter in different places rank their\nown writings with the books of the Old Testament. St. Paul commands that\nhis epistles should be read in the churches, where none but those books\nwhich the Jews believed to be inspired were ever read, Col. iv, 16. He\nsays that Christians \u201care built upon the foundation of the Apostles and\nprophets,\u201d \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03db\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, Eph. ii, 20: a\nconjunction which would have been highly improper, if the former had not\nbeen inspired as well as the latter; and St. Peter charges the\nChristians to \u201cbe mindful of the words which were spoken before by the\nholy prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles,\u201d 2 Peter iii,\n2. The nature of the book of Revelation led the Apostle John to assert\nmost directly his personal inspiration; for he says that \u201cJesus sent and\nsignified by his angel to his servant John the things that were to come\nto pass;\u201d and that the divine Person, like the Son of man, who appeared\nto him when he was in the Spirit, commanded him to write in a book what\nhe saw. And in one of the visions there recorded, when the dispensation\nof the Gospel was presented to St. John under the figure of a great\ncity, the New Jerusalem, descending out of heaven, there is one part of\nthe image which is a beautiful expression of that authority in settling\nthe form of the Christian church, and teaching articles of faith, which\nthe Apostles derived from their inspiration: \u201cThe wall of the city had\ntwelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the\nLamb,\u201d Rev. i, 1, 10\u201319; xxi, 14.\n\nThese are only a few of the many passages to the same purpose which\noccur in reading the New Testament. But it is manifest, even from them,\nthat the manner in which the Apostles speak of their own writings is\ncalculated to mislead every candid reader, unless they really wrote\nunder the direction of the Spirit of God. So gross and daring an\nimposture is absolutely inconsistent not only with their whole\ncharacter, but also with those gifts of the Holy Ghost of which there is\nunquestionable evidence that they were possessed; and which, being the\nnatural vouchers of the assertion made by them concerning their own\nwritings, cannot be supposed, upon the principles of sound theism, to\nhave been imparted for a long course of years to persons who continued\nduring all that time asserting such a falsehood, and appealing to those\ngifts for the truth of what they said.\n\n4. The claim of the Apostles derives much confirmation from the\nreception which it met with among the Christians of their days. It\nappears from an expression of St. Peter, that at the time when he wrote\nhis second epistle, the epistles of St. Paul were classed with \u201cthe\nother Scriptures,\u201d the books of the Old Testament; that is, were\naccounted inspired writings, 2 Peter iii, 16. It is well known to those\nwho are versed in the early history of the church, with what care the\nfirst Christians discriminated between the apostolical writings and the\ncompositions of other authors however much distinguished by their piety,\nand with what reverence they received those books which were known by\ntheir inscription, by the place from which they proceeded, or the manner\nin which they were circulated, to be the work of an Apostle. In\nLardner\u2019s \u201cCredibility of the Gospel History,\u201d will be found the most\nparticular information upon this subject; and it will be perceived that\nthe whole history of the supposititious writings which appeared in early\ntimes, conspires in attesting the veneration in which the authority of\nthe Apostles was held by the Christian church. We learn from Justin\nMartyr, that, before the middle of the second century, \u201cthe memoirs of\nthe Apostles, and the compositions of the prophets,\u201d were read together\nin the Christian assemblies. We know, that from the earliest times, the\nchurch has submitted to the writings of the Apostles as the infallible\nstandard of faith and practice; and we find the ground of this peculiar\nrespect expressed by the first Christian writers as well as by their\nsuccessors, who speak of the writings of the Apostles as \u201cdivine\nwritings from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.\u201d\n\nTo this general argument we may add that right views on the subject of\nthe inspiration of the sacred writers are also necessary, because even\nsome Christian writers have spoken obscurely and unsatisfactorily on the\nsubject, dividing inspiration into different kinds, and assigning each\nto different portions of the holy volume. By inspiration we are to\nunderstand, that the sacred writers composed their works under so\nplenary and immediate an influence of the Holy Spirit, that God may be\nsaid to speak by those writers to man, and not merely that they spoke to\nmen in the name of God, and by his authority; and there is a\nconsiderable difference between the two propositions. Each supposes an\nauthentic revelation from God; but the former view secures the\nScriptures from all error both as to the _subjects_ spoken, and the\n_manner_ of expressing them. This, too, is the doctrine taught in the\nScriptures themselves, which declare not only that the prophets and\nApostles spake in the name of God, but that God spake by them as his\ninstruments. \u201cThe Holy Ghost by the mouth of David _spake_.\u201d \u201cWell\n_spake_ the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet.\u201d \u201cThe prophecy came not of\nold time, by the will of man; but holy men of God _spake_ as they were\nmoved by the Holy Ghost.\u201d For this reason, not only that the _matter_\ncontained in the book of \u201cthe Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,\u201d (the\nusual phrase by which the Jews designated the whole Old Testament,) was\ntrue; but that the books were _written_ under divine inspiration, they\nare called collectively by our Lord and by his Apostles, \u201c_The\nScriptures_,\u201d in contradistinction to all other writings;--a term which\nthe Apostle Peter, as stated above, applies also to the writings of St.\nPaul, and which therefore verifies them as standing on the same level\nwith the books of the Old Testament as to their inspiration: \u201cEven as\nour beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him,\nhath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking of these\nthings, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that\nare unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,\nunto their own destruction.\u201d The Apostles also, as we have seen,\nexpressly claim an inspiration, not only as to the subjects on which\nthey wrote, but as to the words in which they expressed themselves.\nFarther, our Lord promised to them the Holy Spirit \u201cto guide them into\nall truth;\u201d and that he was not to fulfil his office by suggesting\nthoughts only, but words, is clear from Christ\u2019s discourse with them on\nthe subject of the persecutions they were to endure for \u201chis name\u2019s\nsake:\u201d \u201cAnd when they bring you into the synagogues, and unto\nmagistrates and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall\nanswer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the\nsame hour what ye ought to say; for it is not ye that speak; but the\nSpirit of your Father which speaketh in you.\u201d This inspiration of words\nis also asserted by St. Paul as to himself and his brethren, when he\nsays to the Corinthians, \u201cWhich things also we speak, not in the words\nwhich man\u2019s wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.\u201d Thus we\nfind that the claim which the sacred writers make on this subject is,\nthat they were in truth what they have been aptly called, \u201cthe penmen of\nthe Holy Ghost;\u201d and that the words in which they clothed \u201cthe wisdom\ngiven unto them\u201d were words \u201ctaught\u201d by the Holy Spirit.\n\nBut it may be asked, How are we to account for that difference of style\nwhich is observable in each? that manner, too, so natural to each, and\nso distinct in all? with those reasonings, recollections of memory, and\nother indications of the working of the mind of each writer in its own\ncharacter and temperament? Some persons, indeed, observing this, have\nconcluded their style and manner to be entirely human, while their\nthoughts were either wholly divine, or so superintended by the Holy\nGhost as to have been adopted by him, and therefore, although sometimes\nnatural, to be of equal authority as if they had been exclusively of\ndivine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our\nimplicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls\nbelow the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a\ndivine agency their words also. The matter may be rightly conceived by\nconsidering, that an inspiration of words took place either by\nsuggesting those most fit to express the thoughts, or by overruling the\nselection of such words from the common as if they had been exclusively\nof divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our\nimplicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls\nbelow the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a\ndivine agency the store acquired by, and laid up in, the mind of each\nwriter, which is quite compatible with the fact, that a peculiarity and\nappropriateness of manner might still be left to them separately. To\nsuppose that an inspiration of terms, as well as thoughts, could not\ntake place without producing one uniform style and manner, is to suppose\nthat the minds of the writers would thus become entirely passive under\nthe influence of the Holy Spirit; whereas it is easily conceivable that\nthe verbiage, style, and manner of each, was not so much displaced, as\nelevated, enriched, and controlled by the Holy Spirit; and that there\nwas a previous fitness, in all these respects, in all the sacred penmen,\nfor which they were chosen to be the instruments under the aid and\ndirection of the Holy Ghost, of writing such portions of the general\nrevelation as the wisdom of God assigned to each of them. On the other\nhand, while it is so conceivable that the words and manner of each might\nbe appropriated to his own design by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,\nit by no means follows that both were not greatly altered, as well as\ncontrolled, although they still retained a general similarity to the\nuninfluenced style and manner of each, and still presented a\ncharacteristic variety. As none of their writings on ordinary occasions,\nand when uninspired, have come down to us, we cannot judge of the degree\nof this difference; and therefore no one can with any just reason affirm\nthat their writings are \u201cthe word of God as to the doctrine, but the\nword of man as to the channel of conveyance.\u201d Certain it is, that a vast\ndifference may be remarked between the writings of the Apostles, and\nthose of the most eminent fathers of the times nearest to them; and that\nnot only as to precision and strength of thought, but also as to\nlanguage. This circumstance is at least strongly presumptive, that\nalthough the style of inspired men was not stripped of the\ncharacteristic peculiarity of the writers, it was greatly exalted and\ninfluenced.\n\nBut the same _force_ of inspiration, so to speak, was not probably\nexerted upon each of the sacred writers, or upon the same writer\nthroughout his writings, whatever might be its subject. There is no\nnecessity that we should so state the case, in order to maintain what is\nessential to our faith,--the plenary inspiration of each of the sacred\nwriters. In miracles there was no needless application of divine power.\nTraditional history and written chronicles, facts of known occurrence,\nand opinions which were received by all, are often inserted or referred\nto by the sacred writers. There needed no miraculous operation upon the\nmemory to recall what the memory was furnished with, or to reveal a fact\nwhich the writers previously and perfectly knew: but their plenary\ninspiration consisted in this, that they were kept from all lapses of\nmemory, or inadequate conceptions, even on these subjects; and on all\nothers the degree of communication and influence, both as to doctrine,\nfacts, and the terms in which they were to be recorded for the\nedification of the church, was proportioned to the necessity of the\ncase, but so that the whole was authenticated or dictated by the Holy\nSpirit with so full an influence, that it became truth without mixture\nof error, expressed in such terms as he himself ruled or suggested.\nThis, then, seems the true notion of plenary inspiration, that for the\nrevelation, insertion, and adequate enunciation of truth, it was full\nand complete.\n\nThe principal objections to this view of the inspiration of words are\nwell answered by Dr. Woods, an American divine, in a recent publication,\nfrom which, as the subject has been lately debated in this country, the\nfollowing extracts will be acceptable, although there is in them a\nrepetition of some of the preceding observations:--\n\n\u201cOne argument which has been urged against the supposition that divine\ninspiration had a respect to language, is, that the language employed by\nthe inspired writers exhibits no marks of a divine interference, but is\nperfectly conformed to the genius and taste of the writers. The fact\nhere alleged is admitted. But how does it support the opinion of those\nwho allege it? Is it not evident, that God may exercise a perfect\nsuperintendency over inspired writers as to the language they shall use,\nand yet that each one of them shall write in his own style, and in all\nrespects according to his own taste? May not God give such aid to his\nservants, that, while using their own style, they will certainly be\nsecured against all mistakes, and exhibit the truth with perfect\npropriety? It is unquestionable, that Isaiah, and St. Paul, and St. John\nmight be under the entire direction of the Holy Spirit, even as to\nlanguage, and, at the same time, that each one of them might write in\nhis own manner; and that the peculiar manner of each might be adopted to\nanswer an important end; and that the variety of style, thus introduced\ninto the sacred volume, might be suited to excite a livelier interest in\nthe minds of men, and to secure to them a far greater amount of good,\nthan could ever have been derived from any one mode of writing. The\ngreat variety existing among men as to their natural talents, and their\npeculiar manner of thinking and writing may, in this way, be turned to\naccount in the work of revelation, as well as in the concerns of common\nlife. Now, is it not clearly a matter of fact, that God has made use of\nthis variety, and given the Holy Spirit to men, differing widely from\neach other in regard to natural endowments, and knowledge, and style,\nand employed them, with all their various gifts, as agents in writing\nthe Holy Scriptures? And what colour of reason can we have to suppose,\nthat the language which they used was less under the divine direction on\naccount of this variety, than if it had been perfectly uniform\nthroughout?\n\n\u201cTo prove that divine inspiration had no respect to the language of the\nsacred writers, it is farther alleged, that even the same doctrine is\ntaught and the same event described in a different manner by different\nwriters. This fact I also admit. But how does it prove that inspiration\nhad no respect to language? Is not the variety alleged a manifest\nadvantage, as to the impression which is likely to be made upon the\nminds of men? Is not testimony, which is substantially the same, always\nconsidered as entitled to higher credit, when it is given by different\nwitnesses in different language, and in a different order? And is it not\nperfectly reasonable to suppose, that, in making a revelation, God would\nhave respect to the common principles of human nature and human society,\nand would exert his influence and control over inspired men in such a\nmanner, that, by exhibiting the same doctrines and facts in different\nways, they should make a more salutary impression, and should more\neffectually compass the great ends of a revelation? All I have to\nadvance on this part of the subject may be summed up in these two\npositions: 1. The variety of manner apparent among different inspired\nwriters, even when treating of the same subjects, is far better suited\nto promote the object of divine revelation, than a perfect uniformity.\n2. It is agreeable to our worthiest conceptions of God and his\nadministration, that he should make use of the best means for the\naccomplishment of his designs; and, of course, that he should impart the\ngift of inspiration to men of different tastes and habits as to\nlanguage, and should lead them, while writing the Scriptures, to exhibit\nall the variety of manner naturally arising from the diversified\ncharacter of their minds.\n\n\u201cBut there is another argument, perhaps the most plausible of all,\nagainst supposing that inspiration had any respect to language; which\nis, that the supposition of a divine influence in this respect is wholly\nunnecessary; that the sacred writers, having the requisite information\nin regard to the subjects on which they were to write, might, so far as\nlanguage is concerned, be left entirely to their own judgment and\nfidelity. But this view of the subject is not satisfactory. For whatever\nmay be said as to the judgment and fidelity of those who wrote the\nScriptures, there is one important circumstance which cannot be\naccounted for, without supposing them to have enjoyed a guidance above\nthat of their own minds; namely, that they were infallibly preserved\nfrom every mistake or impropriety in the manner of writing. If we should\nadmit that the divine superintendence and guidance afforded to the\ninspired writers had no relation at all to the manner in which they\nexhibited either doctrines or facts; how easily might we be disturbed\nwith doubts, in regard to the propriety of some of their\nrepresentations? We should most certainly consider them as liable to all\nthe inadvertencies and mistakes, to which uninspired men are commonly\nliable; and we should think ourselves perfectly justified in undertaking\nto charge them with real errors and faults as to style, and to show how\ntheir language might have been improved; and, in short, to treat their\nwritings just as we treat the writings of Shakspeare and Addison.\n\u2018Here,\u2019 we might say, \u2018Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and\nhere his language does not express the ideas which he must have intended\nto convey.\u2019 \u2018Here the style of St. John was inadvertent; and here it was\nfaulty: and here it would have been more agreeable to the nature of the\nsubject, and would have more accurately expressed the truth, had it been\naltered thus.\u2019 If the language of the sacred writers did not in any way\ncome under the inspection of the Holy Spirit, and if they were left,\njust as other writers are, to their own unaided faculties in regard to\nevery thing which pertained to the manner of writing; then, evidently,\nwe might use the same freedom in animadverting upon their style, as upon\nthe style of other writers. But who could treat the volume of\ninspiration in this manner, without impiety and profaneness? And rather\nthan make any approach to this, who would not choose to go to an excess,\nif there could be an excess, in reverence for the word of God?\n\n\u201cOn this subject, far be it from me to indulge a curiosity which would\npry into things not intended for human intelligence. And far be it from\nme to expend zeal in supporting opinions not warranted by the word of\nGod. But this one point I think it specially important to maintain;\nnamely, that the sacred writers had such direction of the Holy Spirit,\nthat they were secured against all liability to error, and enabled to\nwrite just what God pleased; so that what they wrote is, in truth, the\nword of God, and can never be subject to any charge of mistake either as\nto matter or form. Whether this perfect correctness and propriety as to\nlanguage resulted from the divine guidance directly or indirectly, is a\nquestion of no particular consequence. If the Spirit of God directs the\nminds of inspired men, and gives them just conceptions relative to the\nsubjects on which they are to write; and if he constitutes and maintains\na connection, true and invariable, between their conceptions and the\nlanguage they employ to express them, the language must, in this way, be\nas infallible, and as worthy of God, as though it were dictated directly\nby the Holy Spirit. But to assert that the sacred writers used such\nlanguage as they chose, or such as was natural to them, without any\nspecial divine superintendence, and that, in respect to style, they are\nto be regarded in the same light, and equally liable to mistakes, as\nother writers, is plainly contrary to the representations which they\nthemselves make, and is suited to diminish our confidence in the word of\nGod. For how could we have entire confidence in the representations of\nScripture, if, after God had instructed the minds of the sacred writers\nin the truth to be communicated, he gave them up to all the\ninadvertencies and errors to which human nature in general is exposed,\nand took no effectual care that their manner of writing should be\naccording to his will?\n\n\u201cLet us then briefly examine the subject, as it is presented in the Holy\nScriptures, and see whether we find sufficient reason to affirm that\ninspiration had no relation whatever to language. 1. The Apostles were\nthe subjects of such a divine inspiration as enabled them to speak \u2018with\nother tongues:\u2019 here inspiration related directly to language. 2. It is\nthe opinion of most writers, that, in some instances, inspired men had\nnot in their own minds a clear understanding of the things which they\nspake or wrote. One instance of this, commonly referred to, is the case\nof Daniel, who heard and repeated what the angel said, though he did not\nunderstand it, Dan. xii, 7\u20139. This has also been thought to be in some\nmeasure the case with the prophets referred to, 1 Peter i, 10\u201312. And is\nthere not reason to think this may have been the case with many of the\nprophetic representations contained in the Psalms, and many of the\nsymbolical rites of the Mosaic institute? Various matters are found in\nthe Old Testament, which were not intended so much for the benefit of\nthe writers, or their contemporaries, as for the benefit of future ages.\nAnd this might have been a sufficient reason why they should be left\nwithout a clear understanding of the things which they wrote. In such\ncases, if the opinion above stated is correct, inspired men were led to\nmake use of expressions, the meaning of which they did not fully\nunderstand. And, according to this view, it would seem that the teaching\nof the Spirit which they enjoyed, must have related rather to the words\nthan to the sense. 3. Those who deny that the divine influence afforded\nto the sacred writers had any respect to language, can find no support\nin the texts which most directly relate to the subject of inspiration.\nAnd it is surely in such texts, if any where, that we should suppose\nthey would find support. The passage, 2 Peter i, 21, is a remarkable\none. It asserts that \u2018holy men of God spake as they were moved by the\nHoly Ghost.\u2019 There is surely nothing here which limits the divine\ninfluence to the conceptions of their minds. They were moved by the Holy\nGhost to _speak_ or _write_. \u2018All Scripture is divinely inspired,\u2019 2\nTim. iii, 16. Does this text afford any proof that the divine influence\ngranted to the inspired penmen was confined to their inward conceptions,\nand had no respect whatever to the manner in which they expressed their\nconceptions? What is _Scripture_? Is it divine truth _conceived in the\nmind_, or divine truth _written_? In Heb. i, 1, it is said that \u2018God\nspake to the fathers by the prophets.\u2019 Does this afford any proof that\nthe divine guidance which the prophets enjoyed related exclusively to\nthe conceptions of their own minds, and had no respect to the manner in\nwhich they communicated those conceptions? Must we not rather think the\nmeaning to be, that God influenced the prophets to utter or make known\nimportant truths? And how could they do this, except by the use of\nproper words?\n\n\u201cI have argued in favour of the inspiration of the Apostles, from their\ncommission. They were sent by Christ to teach the truths of religion in\nhis stead. It was an arduous work; and in the execution of it they\nneeded and enjoyed much divine assistance. But forming right conceptions\nof Christianity in their own minds, was not the great work assigned to\nthe Apostles. If the divine assistance reached only to this, it reached\nonly to that which concerned them as private men, and which they might\nhave possessed though they had never been commissioned to teach others.\nAs Apostles, they were to preach the Gospel to all who could be brought\nto hear it, and to make a record of divine truth for the benefit of\nfuture ages. Now is it at all reasonable to suppose, that the divine\nassistance afforded them had no respect to their main business, and\nthat, in the momentous and difficult work of communicating the truths of\nreligion, either orally or by writing, they were left to themselves, and\nso exposed to all the errors and inadvertencies of uninspired men? But\nour reasoning does not stop here. For that divine assistance which we\nmight reasonably suppose would have been granted to the Apostles in the\nwork of teaching divine truth, is the very thing which Christ promised\nthem in the texts before cited. I shall refer only to Matt. x, 19, 20,\n\u2018When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall\nspeak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak.\nFor it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh\nin you.\u2019 This promise, as Knapp understands it, implies, that divine\nassistance should extend not only to _what_ they should say, but to the\n_manner_ in which they should say it. It is not, however, to be\nunderstood as implying, that the Apostles were not rational and\nvoluntary agents in the discharge of their office. But it implies that,\nin consequence of the influence of the Spirit to be exercised over them,\nthey should say what God would have them to say, without any liability\nto mistake, either as to matter or manner. From the above-cited promise,\ntaken in connection with the instances of its accomplishment which are\nrecorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes evident that God may\nexert his highest influence upon his servants, so as completely to guide\nthem in thought and in utterance, in regard to subjects which lie\nchiefly within the province of their natural faculties. For in those\nspeeches of the Apostles which are left on record, we find that most of\nthe things which they declared, were things which, for aught that\nappears, they might have known, and might have expressed to others, in\nthe natural exercise of their own faculties. This principle being\nadmitted, and kept steadily in view, will relieve us of many\ndifficulties in regard to the doctrine of inspiration. The passage, 1\nCor. ii, 12, 13, already cited as proof of the inspiration of the\nApostles, is very far from favouring the opinion that inspiration had no\nrespect whatever to their language, or that it related exclusively to\ntheir thoughts. \u2018Which things we speak, not in the words which man\u2019s\nwisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.\u2019 The Apostle avoided\nthe style and the manner of teaching which prevailed among the wise men\nof Greece, and made use of a style which corresponded with the nature of\nhis subject, and the end he had in view. And this, he tells us, he did,\nunder the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His language, or manner of\nteaching, was the thing to which the divine influence imparted to him\nparticularly referred. Storr and Flatt give the following interpretation\nof this text: Paul, they say, asserts that the doctrines of Christianity\nwere revealed to him by the almighty agency of God himself; and,\nfinally, that the inspiration of the divine Spirit extended even to his\nwords, and to all his exhibitions of revealed truths. They add, that St.\nPaul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself, and the manner\nin which it is communicated.\u201d\n\nINTERMEDIATE STATE. Beside questions concerning the nature of the\nhappiness of heaven, there have also arisen questions concerning the\nstate of the soul in the interval between death and the general\nresurrection. If we believe, with Dr. Priestley, that the soul is not a\nsubstance distinct from the body, we must believe with him that the\nwhole of the human machine is at rest after death, till it be restored\nto its functions at the last day; but if we are convinced of the\nimmateriality of the soul, we shall not think it so entirely dependent\nin all its operations upon its present companion, but that it may exist\nand act in an unembodied state. And if once we are satisfied that a\nstate of separate existence is possible, we shall easily attach credit\nto the interpretation commonly given of the various expressions in\nScripture, which intimate that the souls of good men are admitted to the\npresence of God immediately after death, although we soon find that a\nbound is set to our speculations concerning the nature of this\nintermediate state. But when we leave philosophical probability, and\ncome to the doctrine of Scripture, the only ground of certainty on all\nsuch subjects, a great number of passages are so explicit, that no\ningenuity of interpretation has been sufficient to weaken their evidence\non this point. One branch of the opinions that have been held concerning\nan intermediate state is the Popish doctrine of purgatory; a doctrine\nwhich appears upon the slightest inspection of the texts that have been\nadduced in support of it to derive no evidence from Scripture; which\noriginated in the error of the church of Rome in assigning to personal\nsuffering a place in the justification of a sinner; and which is\ncompletely overturned by the doctrine of justification by faith, and by\nthe general strain of Scripture, which represents this life as a state\nof probation, upon our conduct during which our everlasting condition\ndepends. The holy Lazarus is carried by angels into Abraham\u2019s bosom; and\nthe rich and careless sinner lifts up his eyes in hell, and is separated\nfrom the place of bliss by an impassable gulf. This at once disproves\nthe doctrine of purgatory, and demonstrates an intermediate conscious\nstate of happiness and misery.\n\nIRON, \u05d1\u05e8\u05d6\u05dc; occurs first in Gen. iv, 22, and afterward frequently; and\nthe Chaldee \u05e4\u05e8\u05d6\u05dc, in Dan. ii, 33, 41, and elsewhere often in that book;\n\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Rev. xviii, 12, and the adjectives, Acts xii, 10; Rev. ii, 27;\nix, 9; xii, 5; xix, 15; a well known and very serviceable metal. The\nknowledge of working it was very ancient, as appears from Genesis iv,\n22. We do not, however, find that Moses made use of iron in the fabric\nof the tabernacle in the wilderness, or Solomon in any part of the\ntemple at Jerusalem. Yet, from the manner in which the Jewish legislator\nspeaks of iron, the metal, it appears, must have been in use in Egypt\nbefore his time. He celebrates the great hardness of it, Lev. xxvi, 19;\nDeut. xxviii, 23, 48; takes notice that the bedstead of Og, king of\nBashan, was of iron, Deut. iii, 11; he speaks of mines of iron, Deut.\nviii, 9; and he compares the severity of the servitude of the Israelites\nin Egypt to the heat of a furnace for melting iron, Deut. iv, 20. We\nfind, also, that swords, Num. xxxv, 16, axes, Deut. xix, 5, and tools\nfor cutting stones, Deut. xxvii, 5, were made of iron. By the \u201cnorthern\niron,\u201d Jer. xv, 12, we may probably understand the hardened iron, called\nin Greek \u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8, from the Chalybes, a people bordering on the Euxine sea,\nand consequently lying on the north of Judea, by whom the art of\ntempering steel is said to have been discovered. Strabo speaks of this\npeople by the name of Chalybes, but afterward Chald\u00e6i; and mentions\ntheir iron mines. These, however, were a different people from the\nChaldeans, who were united with the Babylonians.\n\nISAAC, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was born in the year of the world\n2108. His name, which signifies _laughter_, was given him by his mother,\nbecause when it was told her by an angel that she should have a son, and\nthat at a time of life when, according to the course of nature, she was\npast child-bearing, she privately laughed, Gen. xviii, 10\u201312. And when\nthe child was born she said, \u201cGod hath made me to laugh, so that all\nthat hear will laugh with me,\u201d Gen. xxi, 6. The life of Isaac, for the\nfirst seventy-five years of it, is so blended with that of his\nillustrious father, that the principal incidents of it have been already\nnoticed under the article _Abraham_. His birth was attended with some\nextraordinary circumstances: it was the subject of various promises and\nprophecies; an event most ardently desired by his parents, and yet\npurposely delayed by Divine Providence till they were both advanced in\nyears, no doubt for the trial of their faith, and that Isaac might more\nevidently appear to be the gift of God, and \u201cthe child of promise.\u201d At\nan early period of life he was the object of the profane contempt of\nIshmael, the son of the bond woman, by whom he was persecuted; and as in\nthe circumstances attending his birth there was something typical of the\nbirth of Abraham\u2019s greater Son, the Messiah, the promised Seed; so, in\nthe latter instance, we contemplate in him a resemblance of real\nChristians, who, as Isaac was, are \u201cthe children of promise,\u201d invested\nin all the immunities and blessings of the new covenant; but, as then,\n\u201che that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the\nSpirit, even so it is now,\u201d Gal. iv, 29.\n\nWhen Isaac had arrived at a state of manhood, he was required to give a\nsignal proof of his entire devotedness to God. Abraham was commanded to\noffer up his beloved son in sacrifice, Genesis xxii, 1. This remarkable\ntransaction, so far as Abraham was concerned in it, has already been\nconsidered under the article _Abraham_. But, if from this trial of the\nfaith of the parent we turn our attention to the conduct of Isaac, the\nvictim destined for the slaughter, we behold an example of faith and of\ndutiful obedience equally conspicuous with that of his honoured parent.\nIsaac submitted, as it should seem, without resistance, to be bound and\nlaid on the altar, exposing his body to the knife that was lifted up to\ndestroy him. How strikingly calculated is this remarkable history to\ndirect our thoughts to a more exalted personage, whom Isaac prefigured;\nand to a more astonishing transaction represented by that on Mount\nMoriah! Behold Jesus Christ, that Seed of Abraham, in whom all the\nfamilies of the earth were to be blessed, voluntarily going forth, in\nobedience to the command of his heavenly Father, and laying down his\nlife, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.\n\nIn the progress of Isaac\u2019s history, we find him, in the time of his\ngreatest activity and vigour, a man of retired habits and of remarkable\ncalmness of mind. He appears to have been affectionately attached to his\nmother Sarah, and, even at the age of forty, was not insusceptible of\ngreat sorrow on occasion of her death. But he allows his father to\nchoose for him a suitable partner in life; and Rebekah was selected from\namong his own kindred, in preference to the daughters of Canaan, in the\nmidst of whom he dwelt. In a few years afterward, he who had mourned for\nhis mother, was called to weep over his father\u2019s grave; and in that last\nact of filial duty, it is pleasing to find the two rival brothers, Isaac\nand Ishmael, meeting together for the interment of Abraham. The\noccasion, indeed, was well calculated to allay all existing jealousies\nand contentions, and cause every family broil to cease, Gen. xxv, 9.\nAfter the death of Abraham, \u201cGod blessed his son Isaac;\u201d but, though the\nlatter had now been married twenty years, Rebekah was childless. \u201cIsaac\nentreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord\nwas entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived,\u201d Gen. xxv, 21. God\nalso promised to multiply Isaac\u2019s seed, and his promise was fulfilled.\nTwo children were born to him at one time, concerning whom the divine\npurpose was declared to the mother, and no doubt to the father also,\nthat \u201cthe elder should serve the younger.\u201d A famine which came upon the\ncountry in the days of Isaac, obliged him to remove his family and\nflocks and retire to Gerar, in the country of the Philistines, of which\nAbimelech was at that time king. The possessions of Isaac multiplied so\nprodigiously, that the inhabitants of the country became envious of him,\nand even Abimelech, to preserve peace among them, was under the\nnecessity of requesting him to retire, because he was become too\npowerful. He accordingly withdrew, and pitched his tent in the valley of\nGerar, where he digged new wells, and, after a time, returned to\nBeersheba, where he fixed his habitation, Genesis xxvi, 1\u201323. Here the\nLord appeared to him, and renewed to him the covenant which he had made\nwith Abraham, promising to be his God, and to make him a blessing to\nothers. Abimelech now sought his friendship, and, to form an alliance\nwith him, paid him a visit; on which occasion Isaac displayed his\nmagnificence by a sumptuous entertainment, A. M. 2240.\n\nWhen he was a hundred and thirty-seven years of age, and his sight had\nso failed him that he could not distinguish one of his sons from the\nother, Jacob craftily obtained from him the blessing of primogeniture.\nYet Isaac survived many years after this, to him, distressing\noccurrence. He sent Jacob into Mesopotamia, there to take a wife of his\nown family, Genesis xxviii, 1, 2, and to prevent his marrying among the\nCanaanites as his brother Esau had done. And when Jacob returned, after\na lapse of twenty years, Isaac was still living, and continued to live\ntwenty-three years longer. He then died at the age of a hundred and\neighty years, and was buried with Abraham by his sons Esau and Jacob,\nGen. xxxv, 29. See ESAU and JACOB.\n\nISAIAH. Though fifth in the order of time, the writings of the Prophet\nIsaiah are placed first in order of the prophetical books, principally\non account of the sublimity and importance of his predictions, and\npartly also because the book which bears his name is larger than all the\ntwelve minor prophets put together. Concerning his family and descent,\nnothing certain has been recorded, except what he himself tells us,\nIsaiah, i, 1, namely, that he was the son of Amos, and discharged the\nprophetic office \u201cin the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,\nkings of Judah,\u201d who successively flourished between A. M. 3194 and\n3305. There is a current tradition that he was of the blood royal; and\nsome writers have affirmed that his father Amoz or Amos was the son of\nJoash, and consequently brother of Uzziah, king of Judah. Jerom, on the\nauthority of some rabbinical writers, says, that the prophet gave his\ndaughter in marriage to Manasseh, king of Judah; but this opinion is\nscarcely credible, because Manasseh did not commence his reign until\nabout sixty years after Isaiah had begun to discharge his prophetic\nfunctions. He must, indeed, have exercised the office of a prophet\nduring a long period of time, if he lived to the reign of Manasseh; for\nthe lowest computation, beginning from the year in which Uzziah died,\nwhen he is by some supposed to have received his first appointment to\nthat office, brings it to sixty-one years. But the tradition of the\nJews, which has been adopted by most Christian commentators, that he was\nput to death by Manasseh, is very uncertain; and Aben Ezra, one of the\nmost celebrated Jewish writers, is rather of opinion that he died before\nHezekiah; which Bishop Lowth thinks most probable. It is, however,\ncertain, that he lived at least to the fifteenth or sixteenth year of\nHezekiah; which makes the least possible term of the duration of his\nprophetic office to be about forty-eight years. The name of Isaiah, as\nVitringa has remarked after several preceding commentators, is in some\nmeasure descriptive of his high character, since it signifies the\n_salvation of Jehovah_; and was given with singular propriety to him,\nwho foretold the advent of the Messiah, through whom \u201call flesh shall\nsee the salvation of God,\u201d Isa. xl, 5; Luke iii, 6; Acts iv, 12. Isaiah\nwas contemporary with the Prophets Amos, Hosea, Joel, and Micah.\n\nIsaiah is uniformly spoken of in the Scriptures as a prophet of the\nhighest dignity: Bishop Lowth calls him the prince of all the prophets,\nand pronounces the whole of his book to be poetical, with the exception\nof a few detached passages. It is remarkable, that his wife is styled a\nprophetess in Isaiah viii, 3; whence the rabbinical writers have\nconcluded that she possessed the spirit of prophecy: but it is very\nprobable that the prophets\u2019 wives were called prophetesses, as the\npriests\u2019 wives were termed priestesses, only from the quality of their\nhusbands. Although nothing farther is recorded in the Scriptures\nconcerning the wife of Isaiah, we find two of his sons mentioned in his\nprophecy, who were types or figurative pledges; and their names and\nactions were intended to awaken a religious attention in the persons\nwhom they were commissioned to address and to instruct. Thus,\nShear-jashub signifies, \u201ca remnant shall return,\u201d and showed that the\ncaptives who should be carried to Babylon should return thence after a\ncertain time, Isaiah vii, 3; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which denotes,\n\u201cmake speed (or _run swiftly_) to the spoil,\u201d implied that the kingdoms\nof Israel and Syria would in a short time be ravaged, Isaiah viii, 1, 3.\nBeside the volume of prophecies, which we are now to consider, it\nappears from 2 Chron. xxvi, 22, that Isaiah wrote an account of \u201cthe\nacts of Uzziah,\u201d king of Judah: this has perished with some other\nwritings of the prophets, which, as probably not written by inspiration,\nwere never admitted into the canon of Scripture. There are also two\napocryphal books ascribed to him, namely, The Ascension of Isaiah, and\nThe Apocalypse of Isaiah; but these are evidently forgeries of a later\ndate, and the Apocalypse has long since perished.\n\nThe scope of Isaiah\u2019s predictions is threefold, namely, 1. To detect,\nreprove, aggravate, and condemn, the sins of the Jewish people\nespecially, and also the iniquities of the ten tribes of Israel, and the\nabominations of many Gentile nations and countries; denouncing the\nseverest judgments against all sorts and degrees of persons, whether\nJews or Gentiles. 2. To invite persons of every rank and condition, both\nJews and Gentiles, to repentance and reformation, by numerous promises\nof pardon and mercy. It is worthy of remark, that no such promises are\nintermingled with the denunciations of divine vengeance against Babylon,\nalthough they occur in the threatenings against every other people. 3.\nTo comfort all the truly pious, in the midst of all the calamities and\njudgments denounced against the wicked, with prophetic promises of the\ntrue Messiah, which seem almost to anticipate the Gospel history, so\nclearly do they foreshow the divine character of Christ.\n\nIsaiah has, with singular propriety, been denominated the evangelical\nprophet, on account of the number and variety of his prophecies\nconcerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the\nsufferings and death, and the extensive permanent kingdom, of the\nMessiah. So explicit and determinate are his predictions, as well as so\nnumerous, that he seems to speak rather of things past than of events\nyet future; and he may rather be called an evangelist than a prophet. No\none, indeed, can be at a loss in applying them to the mission and\ncharacter of Jesus Christ, and to the events which are cited in his\nhistory by the writers of the New Testament. This prophet, says Bishop\nLowth, abounds in such transcendent excellencies, that he may be\nproperly said to afford the most perfect model of prophetic poetry. He\nis at once elegant and sublime, forcible and ornamented; he unites\nenergy with copiousness, and dignity with variety. In his sentiments\nthere is uncommon elevation and majesty; in his imagery, the utmost\npropriety, elegance, dignity, and diversity; in his language, uncommon\nbeauty and energy; and, notwithstanding the obscurity of his subjects, a\nsurprising degree of clearness and simplicity. To these we may add, that\nthere is such sweetness in the poetical composition of his sentences,\nwhether it proceed from art or genius, that, if the Hebrew poetry at\npresent is possessed of any remains of its native grace and harmony, we\nshall chiefly find them in the writings of Isaiah: so that the saying of\nEzekiel may most justly be applied to this prophet:--\n\n             \u201cThou art the confirmed exemplar of measures,\n             Full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.\u201d\n                                        Ezekiel xxviii, 12.\n\nIsaiah also greatly excels in all the graces of method, order,\nconnection, and arrangement: though in asserting this we must not forget\nthe nature of the prophetic impulse, which bears away the mind with\nirresistible violence, and frequently in rapid transitions from near to\nremote objects, from human to divine. We must likewise be careful in\nremarking the limits of particular predictions, since, as they are now\nextant, they are often improperly connected, without any marks of\ndiscrimination; which injudicious arrangement, on some occasions,\ncreates almost insuperable difficulties.\n\nBishop Lowth has selected the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth chapters of\nthis prophet, as a specimen of the poetic style in which Isaiah delivers\nhis predictions, and has illustrated at some length the various beauties\nwhich eminently distinguish the simple, regular, and perfect poem\ncontained in those chapters. But the grandest specimen of his poetry is\npresented in the fourteenth chapter, which is one of the most sublime\nodes occurring in the Bible, and contains the noblest personifications\nto be found in the records of poetry. The prophet, after predicting the\nliberation of the Jews from their severe captivity in Babylon, and their\nrestoration to their own country, verses 1\u20133, introduces a chorus of\nthem, expressing their surprise and astonishment at the sudden downfall\nof Babylon, and the great reverse of fortune that had befallen the\ntyrant, who, like his predecessors, had oppressed his own, and harassed\nthe neighbouring kingdoms. These oppressed kingdoms, or their rulers,\nare represented under the image of the fir trees and the cedars of\nLibanus, which is frequently used to express any thing in the political\nor religious world that is supereminently great and majestic: the whole\nearth shouts for joy; the cedars of Libanus utter a severe taunt over\nthe fallen tyrant, and boast their security now he is no more, verses\n4\u20138. This is followed, verse 9, by one of the boldest and most animated\npersonifications of hades, or the regions of the dead, that was ever\nexecuted in poetry. Hades excites his inhabitants, the shades of\nprinces, and the departed spirits of monarchs. These illustrious shades\nrise at once from their couches as from their thrones; and, advancing to\nthe entrance of the cavern to meet the king of Babylon, they insult and\nderide him on being reduced to the same low state of impotence and\ndissolution with themselves, verses 10, 11. The Jews now resume the\nspeech, verse 12; they address the king of Babylon as the morning star\nfallen from heaven, as the first in splendour and dignity, in the\npolitical world fallen from his high state: they introduce him as\nuttering the most extravagant vaunts of his power and ambitious designs\nin his former glory; these are strongly contrasted, in the close, with\nhis present low and abject condition, verses 13\u201315. Immediately follows\na different scene, and a most happy image, to diversify the same\nsubject, and give it a new turn and additional force. Certain persons\nare introduced, who light upon the corpse of the king of Babylon, cast\nout and lying naked upon the bare ground, among the common slain, just\nafter the taking of the city, covered with wounds, and so disfigured,\nthat it is some time before they know him. They accost him with the\nseverest taunts, and bitterly reproach him with his destructive\nambition, and his cruel usage of the conquered; which have deservedly\nbrought upon him this ignominious treatment, so different from what\nthose of his high rank usually meet with, and which shall cover his\nposterity with disgrace, verses 16\u201320. To complete the whole, God is\nintroduced, declaring the fate of Babylon; the utter extirpation of the\nroyal family, and the total desolation of the city; the deliverance of\nhis people, and the destruction of their enemies; confirming the\nirreversible decree by the awful sanction of his oath, verses 21\u201327. How\nforcible, says Bishop Louth, is this imagery, how diversified, how\nsublime! How elevated the diction, the figures, the sentiments! The\nJewish nation, the cedars of Lebanon, the ghosts of departed kings, the\nBabylonish monarch, the travellers who find his corpse, and last of all\nJehovah himself, are the characters which support this beautiful lyric\ndrama. One continued action is kept up, or rather, a series of\ninteresting actions are connected together in an incomparable whole:\nthis, indeed, is the principal and distinguished excellence of the\nsublimer ode, and is displayed in its utmost perfection in this poem of\nIsaiah, which may be considered as one of the most ancient, and\ncertainly one of the most finished, specimens of that species of\ncomposition which has been transmitted to us. The personifications here\nare frequent, yet not confused; bold, yet not improbable; a free,\nelevated, and truly divine spirit pervades the whole; nor is there any\nthing wanting in this ode to defeat its claim to the character of\nperfect pathos and sublimity. There is not a single instance in the\nwhole compass of Greek and Roman poetry which, in every excellence of\ncomposition, can be said to equal or even to approach it.\n\nISCARIOT, the name of that disciple who betrayed our Saviour. He was so\ncalled, probably, as belonging to Karioth, or Cerioth; that is, a man of\nKerioth, Matt. x, 4.\n\nISHBOSHETH, a son of King Saul, and his successor in the throne. He was\nacknowledged king by a part of the tribes of Israel, A. M. 2949, while\nDavid reigned at Hebron, over the tribe of Judah, 2 Sam. ii, 8, 9, &c;\niii. He reigned two years in peace, but the remaining eight years were\nspent in perpetual wars between his troops and those of David, till in\nthe end he perished, and with him ended the royal dignity of the house\nof Saul.\n\nISHMAELITES, the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham by Hagar,\nhis Egyptian bond-maid. Ishmael was born B. C. 1910, and his name,\nfounded on a circumstance which afforded relief to his mother, when she\nwas wandering from her master\u2019s house toward Egypt, her native country,\nis derived from the Hebrew \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc, formed of \u05e9\u05de\u05e2, _to hear_, and \u05d0\u05dc,\n_God_, and denoting, \u201cthe Lord hath hearkened.\u201d The heavenly messenger\nwho appeared to Hagar in the wilderness, and instructed her by what name\nto call her future son, predicted also that he and his posterity would\nprove fierce and warlike, engaged in repeated hostilities, and yet able\nto maintain their independence. Hagar, deriving encouragement from this\ncircumstance, returned to the house of Abraham, and was soon delivered\nof her promised son. The father regarded Ishmael as the heir of his\nwealth, till Sarah had the promise of her son Isaac. After the birth of\nIsaac, Abraham was persuaded by his wife to dismiss Hagar and her son;\nand the patriarch probably provided for their subsistence in some\ndistant situation, where they could not encroach on the patrimony of\nIsaac. Having wandered for some time in the wilderness of Beersheba,\nthey proceeded farther to the wilderness of Paran, which bordered on\nArabia; and here Ishmael arrived at maturity, and became an expert\narcher, or a hunter and warrior. In process of time his mother procured\nfor him a wife out of Egypt, by whom he had twelve sons, who eventually\nestablished themselves as the heads of so many distinct Arabian tribes.\nAccordingly, the descendants of Ishmael are mentioned in history under\nthe general name of Arabians and Ishmaelites. Of Ishmael\u2019s personal\nhistory, we merely learn from the sacred writings, that he joined with\nhis brother Isaac in paying the last tribute of respect to the remains\nof their father; and that he died at the age of a hundred and\nthirty-seven years, B. C. 1773, Gen. xxv, 9, 18. His descendants,\naccording to the Scripture account, spread themselves \u201cfrom Havilah to\nShur, that is, before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria.\u201d From this\nbrief statement, we may conjecture how far their territory extended; for\nHavilah, according to the generality of writers, was situated near the\nconfluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, and Shur, on the isthmus which\nseparates Arabia from Egypt, now called the Isthmus of Suez. From thence\nwe may well imagine, that they spread themselves on both sides so far as\nto have taken possession of the greatest part of Arabia; and, indeed,\nJosephus does not scruple to style their progenitor the founder of the\nArabian nation. See ARABIA.\n\nISHTOB, a country situated at the northern extremity of the mountains of\nGilead, toward Mount Libanus, 2 Sam. x, 6. See TOB.\n\nISRAEL, a prince of God, or prevailing, or wrestling with God. This is\nthe name which the angel gave Jacob, after having wrestled with him all\nnight at Mahanaim, or Peniel, Genesis xxxii, 1, 2, 28, 29, 30; Hosea\nxii, 4. By the name of Israel is sometimes understood the person of\nJacob, sometimes the whole people of Israel, the whole race of Jacob;\nsometimes the kingdom of Israel, or ten tribes, distinct from the\nkingdom of Judah; and finally, the spiritual Israel, the true church of\nGod.\n\nISRAELITES, the descendants of Israel, who were first called Hebrews by\nreason of Abraham, who came from the other side of the Euphrates; and\nafterward Israelites, from Israel, the father of the twelve tribes; and,\nlastly, Jews, particularly after their return from the captivity of\nBabylon; because the tribe of Judah was then much stronger and more\nnumerous than the other tribes, and foreigners had scarcely any\nknowledge but of this tribe. See JEWS.\n\nISSACHAR, the fifth son of Jacob and Leah, Gen. xxx, 14\u201318. He had four\nsons, Tola, Phovah, Job, and Shimron. We know nothing particular of his\nlife. The tribe of Issachar had its portion in one of the best parts of\nthe land of Canaan, along the great plain or valley of Jezreel, with the\nhalf tribe of Manasseh to the south, that of Zebulun to the north, the\nMediterranean to the west, and Jordan, with the extremity of the sea of\nTiberias, to the east.\n\nITHAMAR, Aaron\u2019s fourth son, Exod. vi, 23. There is no probability that\nhe ever exercised the high priesthood. He and his sons continued in the\nrank of simple priests, till this dignity came into his family in the\nperson of Eli.\n\nITUR\u00c6A, so called from Itur, or Jetur, one of the sons of Ishmael, who\nsettled in it, but whose posterity were either driven out or subdued by\nthe Amorites; when it is supposed to have formed a part of the kingdom\nof Bashan, and subsequently of the half tribe of Manasseh east of\nJordan; but as it was situated beyond the southern spur of Mount Hermon,\ncalled the Djebel Heish, this is doubtful. It lay on the north-eastern\nside of the land of Israel, between it and the territory of Damascus, or\nSyria; and is supposed to have been the same country at present known by\nthe name of Djedour, on the east of the Djebel Heish, between Damascus\nand the lake of Tiberias. The Itur\u00e6ans being subdued by Aristobulus, the\nhigh priest and governor of the Jews, B. C. 106, were forced by him to\nembrace the Jewish religion; and were at the same time incorporated into\nthe state. Philip, one of the sons of Herod the Great, was tetrarch, or\ngovernor, of this country when John the Baptist commenced his ministry.\n\nIVORY. \u05e9\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd; from \u05e9\u05d6, _a tooth_, and \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, _elephants_; \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nRev. xviii, 12. The first time that ivory is mentioned in Scripture is\nin the reign of Solomon. If the forty-fifth Psalm was written before the\nCanticles, and before Solomon had constructed his royal and magnificent\nthrone, then that contains the first mention of this commodity. It is\nspoken of as used in decorating those boxes of perfume, whose odours\nwere employed to exhilarate the king\u2019s spirits. It is probable that\nSolomon, who traded to India, first brought thence elephants and ivory\nto Judea. \u201cFor the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish, with the navy of\nHiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold and\nsilver, and ivory,\u201d 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21. It seems that\nSolomon had a throne decorated with ivory, and inlaid with gold; the\nbeauty of these materials relieving the splendour, and heightening the\nlustre of each other, 1 Kings x, 18. Cabinets and wardrobes were\nornamented with ivory, by what is called marquetry, Psalm xlv, 8.\n\n                                 _Quale per artem\n               Inclusum buxo aut Oricia terebintho\n                   Lucet ebur._\n                                            VIRGIL.\n\n             \u201cSo shines a gem, illustrious to behold,\n             On some fair virgin\u2019s neck, enchased in gold:\n             So the surrounding ebon\u2019s darker hue\n             Improves the polish'd ivory to the view.\u201d\n                                              PITT.\n\nThese were named \u201chouses of ivory,\u201d probably because made in the form of\na house, or palace; as the silver \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 of Diana, mentioned Acts xix, 24,\nwere in the form of her temple at Ephesus; and as we have now ivory\nmodels of the Chinese pagodas, or temples. In this sense we may\nunderstand what is said of the ivory house which Ahab made, 1 Kings\nxxii, 39; for the Hebrew word translated \u201c_house_ is used,\u201d as Dr.\nTaylor well observes, for \u201ca place, or case, wherein any thing lieth, is\ncontained, or laid up.\u201d Ezekiel gives the name of house to chests of\nrich apparel, Ezek. xxvii, 24. Dr. Durell, in his note on Psalm xlv, 8,\nquotes places from Homer and Euripides, where the same appropriation is\nmade. Hesiod makes the same. As to dwelling houses, the most, I think,\nwe can suppose in regard to them is, that they might have ornaments of\nivory, as they sometimes have of gold, silver, or other precious\nmaterials, in such abundance as to derive an appellation from the\narticle of their decoration; as the Emperor Nero\u2019s palace, mentioned by\nSuetonius, was named _aurea_, or \u201cgolden,\u201d because _lita auro_,\n\u201coverlaid with gold.\u201d This method of ornamental buildings, or\napartments, was very ancient among the Greeks. Homer mentions ivory as\nemployed in the palace of Menelaus at Laced\u00e6mon:--\n\n           \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f20\u03c7\u03ae\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n           \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u2019, \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u0223 \u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u0223 \u1f20 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n                                             _Odyss._ iv, 72.\n\n               \u201cAbove, beneath, around the palace, shines\n               The sumless treasure of exhausted mines;\n               The spoils of elephants the roof inlay,\n               And studded amber darts a golden ray.\u201d\n\nBacchylides, cited by Athen\u00e6us, says, that, in the island of Ceos, one\nof the Cyclades, the houses of the great men \u201cglister with gold and\nivory.\u201d\n\n\nJABBOK, a small river which falls into the Jordan below the sea of\nTiberias. Near this brook the angel wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii, 22.\nMr. Buckingham thus describes it: \u201cThe banks of this stream are so\nthickly wooded with oleander and plane trees, wild olives, and wild\nalmonds in blossom, with many flowers, the names of which were unknown\nto us; with tall and waving reeds, at least fifteen feet in height; that\nwe could not perceive the water through them from above, though the\npresence of these luxuriant borders marked the winding of its course,\nand the murmur of its flow, echoing through its long deep channel, was\nto be heard distinctly from afar. On this side of the stream, at the\nspot where we forded it, was a piece of wall, solidly built upon the\ninclined slope, constructed in a uniform manner, though of small stones,\nand apparently finished at the end toward the river, so that it never\ncould have been carried across, as we at first supposed, either for a\nbridge, or to close the pass. This was called by the Arabs \u2018Shugl beni\nIsrael,\u2019 or the work of the sons of Israel; but they knew of no other\ntraditions regarding it. The river, where we crossed it at this point,\nwas not more than ten yards wide, but it was deeper than the Jordan, and\nnearly as rapid; so that we had some difficulty in fording it. As it ran\nin a rocky bed, its waters were clear, and we found their taste\nagreeable.\u201d\n\nJABESH, or JABESH-GILEAD, the name of a city in the half tribe of\nManasseh, east of Jordan. Naash, king of the Ammonites, besieged it, 1\nSam. xi, 1, &c. The inhabitants were friendly to Saul and his family, 1\nSam. xxxi, 11, 12.\n\nJACHIN, the name of a pillar in Solomon\u2019s temple, 1 Kings vii, 21. See\nBOAZ.\n\nJACOB, the son of Isaac and Rebekah. He was the younger brother of Esau,\nand a twin. It was observed, that at his birth he held his brother\nEsau\u2019s heel, and for this reason was called Jacob, Gen. xxv, 26, which\nsignifies \u201che supplanted.\u201d Jacob was of a meek and peaceable temper, and\nloved a quiet pastoral life; whereas Esau was of a fierce and turbulent\nnature, and was fond of hunting. Isaac had a particular fondness for\nEsau; but Rebekah was more attached to Jacob. The manner in which Jacob\npurchased his brother\u2019s birthright for a mess of pottage, and supplanted\nhim by obtaining Isaac\u2019s blessing, is already referred to in the article\nESAU.\n\nThe events of the interesting and chequered life of Jacob are so plainly\nand consecutively narrated by Moses, that they are familiar to all; but\nupon some of them a few remarks may be useful. As to the purchase of the\nbirthright, Jacob appears to have been innocent so far as any guile on\nhis part or real necessity from hunger on the part of Esau is involved\nin the question; but his obtaining the ratification of this by the\nblessing of Isaac, though agreeable, indeed, to the purpose of God, that\nthe elder should serve the younger, was blamable as to the means\nemployed. The remarks of Dr. Hales on this transaction implicate Isaac\nalso:--Thirty-seven years after, when Jacob was seventy-seven years old,\naccording to Abulfaragi, and Isaac a hundred and thirty-seven, when he\nwas old, and his sight had failed, and he expected soon to die, his\npartiality for Esau led him to attempt to set aside the oracle, and the\ncession of Esau\u2019s birthright to Jacob, by conferring on him the blessing\nof Abraham, in reward for bringing him savoury venison to eat, before\nhis death. In this design, however, he was disappointed by the artifice\nof Rebekah, who dressed her favourite Jacob in his brother\u2019s clothes,\nand made him personate Esau, and thereby surreptitiously obtained for\nhim the blessing: \u201cLet people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee:\nbe lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother\u2019s sons bow down to thee:\ncursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth\nthee,\u201d Gen. xxvii, 1\u201329. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the\nagitation of Isaac, when \u201che trembled very exceedingly,\u201d at the\ndetection of the fraud, he did not attempt to rescind the blessing, nor\ntransfer it to Esau; but, on the contrary, confirmed it on Jacob: \u201cYea,\nand he shall be blessed.\u201d His wishes were overruled and controlled by\nthat higher power which he vainly endeavoured to counteract; and that he\nspoke as the Spirit gave him utterance, appears from his prediction\nrespecting Esau\u2019s family: \u201cAnd it shall come to pass, when thou shalt\nhave the dominion, that thou shalt break thy brother\u2019s yoke from off thy\nneck,\u201d Gen. xxvii, 40; which was fulfilled in the days of Jehoram, king\nof Judah, when \u201cthe Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Judah,\nand made themselves a king unto this day,\u201d 2 Chron. xxi, 8\u201310.\n\nAccording to this view, all the parties were more or less culpable;\nIsaac, for endeavouring to set aside the oracle which had been\npronounced in favour of his younger son; but of which he might have an\nobscure conception; Esau, for wishing to deprive his brother of the\nblessing which he had himself relinquished; and Rebekah and Jacob, for\nsecuring it by fraudulent means, not trusting wholly in the Lord. That\ntheir principal object, however, was the spiritual part of the blessing,\nand not the temporal, was shown by the event. For Jacob afterward\nreverenced Esau as his elder brother, and insisted on Esau\u2019s accepting a\npresent from his band in token of submission, Gen. xxxiii, 3\u201315. Esau\nalso appears to have possessed himself of his father\u2019s property during\nJacob\u2019s long exile. But though the intention of Rebekah and Jacob might\nhave been free from worldly or mercenary motives, they ought not to have\ndone evil that good might come. And they were both severely punished in\nthis life for their fraud, which destroyed the peace of the family, and\nplanted a mortal enmity in the breast of Esau against his brother: \u201cIs\nhe not rightly named Jacob?\u201d _a supplanter_; \u201cfor he hath supplanted me\nthese two times: he took away my birthright, and lo, now he hath taken\naway my blessing. The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then\nwill I slay my brother Jacob,\u201d Gen. xxvii, 36\u201341. And there can be\nlittle doubt of his intention of executing his threat, when he came to\nmeet him on his return, with such an armed force as strongly alarmed\nJacob\u2019s fears, had not God changed the spirit of Esau into mildness, so\nthat \u201che ran to meet Jacob, and fell on his neck, and they wept,\u201d Gen.\nxxxiii, 4. Rebekah, also, was deprived of the society of her darling\nson, whom \u201cshe sent away for one year,\u201d as she fondly imagined, \u201cuntil\nhis brother\u2019s fury should turn away,\u201d Genesis xxvii, 42\u201344; but whom she\nsaw no more; for she died during his long exile of twenty years, though\nIsaac survived, Gen. xxxv, 27. Thus was \u201cshe pierced through with many\nsorrows.\u201d Jacob, also, had abundant reason to say, \u201cFew and evil have\nbeen the days of the years of my pilgrimage,\u201d Gen. xlvii, 9. Though he\nhad the consolation of having the blessing of Abraham voluntarily\nrenewed to him by his father, before he was forced to fly from his\nbrother\u2019s fury, Gen. xxviii, 1\u20134, and had the satisfaction of obeying\nhis parents in going to Padan-aram, or Charran, in quest of a wife of\nhis own kindred, Gen. xxviii, 7; yet he set out on a long and perilous\njourney of six hundred miles and upward, through barren and inhospitable\nregions, unattended and unprovided, like a pilgrim, indeed, with only\nhis staff in his hand, Gen. xxxii, 10. And though he was supported with\nthe assurance of the divine protection, and the renewal of the blessing\nof Abraham by God himself, in his remarkable vision at Bethel, and\nsolemnly devoted himself to his service, wishing only for food and\nraiment, and vowing to profess the worship of God, and pay tithe unto\nhim should he return back in peace, Gen. xxviii, 10\u201322; yet he was\nforced to engage in a tedious and thankless servitude of seven years, at\nfirst for Rachel, with Laban, who retaliated upon him the imposition he\nhad practised on his own father; and substituted Leah, whom he hated,\nfor Rachel, whom he loved; and thereby compelled him to serve seven\nyears more; and changed his wages several times during the remainder of\nhis whole servitude of twenty years; in the course of which, as he\npathetically complained, \u201cthe drought consumed him by day, and the frost\nby night, and the sleep departed from his eyes,\u201d in watching Laban\u2019s\nflocks, Gen. xxxi, 40; and at last he was forced to steal away, and was\nonly protected from Laban\u2019s vengeance, as afterward from Esau\u2019s, by\ndivine interposition. Add to these his domestic troubles and\nmisfortunes; the impatience of his favourite wife, \u201cGive me children, or\nI die;\u201d her death in bearing her second son, Benjamin; the rape of his\ndaughter Dinah; the perfidy and cruelty of her brothers, Simeon and\nLevi, to the Shechemites; the misbehaviour of Reuben; the supposed death\nof Joseph, his favourite and most deserving son:--these were, all\ntogether, sufficient to have brought down his gray hairs with sorrow to\nthe grave, had he not been divinely supported and encouraged throughout\nthe whole of his pilgrimage. For the circumstances which led Jacob into\nEgypt, see JOSEPH.\n\nWhen Jacob, at the invitation of Joseph, went down to Egypt, Joseph\nintroduced his father to his royal master; and the patriarch, in his\npriestly character, blessed Pharaoh, and supplicated the divine favour\nfor the king. The venerable appearance and the pious demeanour of Jacob\nled the monarch to inquire his years; to which he replied, \u201cThe days of\nthe years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years: few and evil\nhave the days of the years of my life been; and I have not attained unto\nthe days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their\npilgrimage.\u201d This answer of the patriarch was not the language of\ndiscontent, but the solemn reflection of a man who had experienced a\nlarge share of trouble, and who knew that the whole of human life is\nindeed but \u201ca vain show,\u201d Genesis xlvii, 1\u201310. Jacob spent the remainder\nof his days in tranquillity and prosperity, enjoying the society of his\nbeloved child seventeen years. The close of his life was a happy calm,\nafter a stormy voyage. The patriarch, perceiving that his dissolution\nwas near, sent for Joseph, and bound him by a solemn promise to bury him\nwith his fathers in Canaan. Shortly after this, Jacob was taken ill, and\nit being reported to Joseph, he hastened to the bedside of his father,\ntaking with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. On hearing that his\nson was come, Jacob exerted all his strength, and sat up in his bed to\nreceive him, and to impart that blessing which, in the spirit of\nprophecy, he was commissioned to bequeath. He next blessed the infant\nchildren of Joseph; but, as he placed his hands upon their heads, he\ncrossed them, putting his right upon Ephraim the younger, and his left\nupon Manasseh the elder. Joseph wished to correct the mistake of his\nfather, but Jacob persisted, being guided by a divine impulse; and he\ngave to each of the lads a portion in Israel, at the same time declaring\nthat the younger should be greater than the elder, Gen. xlviii, 22. When\nthis interview was ended, Jacob caused all his sons to assemble round\nhis dying bed, that he might inform them what would befall them in the\nlast days, Gen. xlix, 1, 2. Of all the predictions which he pronounced\nwith his expiring breath, the most remarkable and the most interesting\nis that relating to Judah: \u201cThe sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor\na lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall\nthe gathering of the people be,\u201d Gen. xlix, 10. One grand personage was\nin the mind of the patriarch, as it had been in the contemplation of his\npredecessors, even the illustrious Deliverer who should arise in after\nages to redeem his people, and bring salvation to the human race. The\npromised Seed was the constant object of faithful expectation; and all\nthe patriarchal ordinances, institutions, and predictions, had an\nallusion, positive or incidental, to the Messiah. Hitherto the promise\nwas confined generally to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that from them the\nglorious blessing should arise; but now, under the divine direction, the\ndying patriarch foretels in what tribe, and at what period, the great\nRestorer shall come. The sovereign authority was to continue in the\npossession of Judah, till from that tribe Shiloh should appear, and then\nthe royalty must cease. This was fulfilled; for the tribe of Judah\npossessed legislative power till the time of Christ, and from that\nperiod the Jewish people have neither had dominion nor priesthood. Jesus\nChrist, therefore, must either be the true Shiloh, or the prophecy has\nfailed; for the Jews cannot prove that they have had any thing like\ntemporal power since his crucifixion. When they were so clamorous for\nthe execution of Jesus, and Pilate told them to take the law into their\nown hands, they shrunk fearfully from the proposal, and acknowledged\ntheir slavish state by saying, \u201cIt is not lawful for us to put any man\nto death,\u201d John xviii, 31. Here, then, we have a glorious proof of the\nveracity of Scripture, and an incontestible evidence of the truth of our\nreligion.\n\nWhen Jacob had finished blessing his sons, he charged them to bury him\nin the cave of Machpelah, with Abraham and Isaac, and, \u201cgathering his\nfeet into the bed, he yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his\npeople,\u201d Gen. xlix, 33. Joseph, having closed the eyes of his father,\nand wept over him, commanded the physicians to embalm the body. After a\ngeneral mourning of seventy days, he solicited the king\u2019s permission to\ngo with the remains of Jacob into Canaan, to which Pharaoh consented;\nand with Joseph went up all the state officers and principal nobility of\nEgypt, so that when they came to the place of interment, the Canaanites\nwere astonished, and said, \u201cThis is a grievous mourning to the\nEgyptians,\u201d Gen. l, 1\u201311.\n\nJACOBITES, a denomination of eastern Christians, who first made their\nappearance in the fifth century, and were called Monophysites. Jacob\nAlbardai, or Barad\u00e6us, who flourished about A. D. 530, restored the\nsect, then almost expiring, to its former vigour, and modelled it anew;\nand hence from him they obtained the name of Jacobites. See HYPOSTATICAL\nUNION.\n\nJACOB\u2019s WELL, or fountain, a well near Shechem, at which our Saviour\nconversed with the woman of Samaria, John iv, 12. Jacob dwelt near this\nplace, before his sons slew the inhabitants of Shechem. If any thing,\nsays Dr. E. D. Clarke, connected with the remembrance of past ages be\ncalculated to awaken local enthusiasm, the land around this city is\npre\u00ebminently entitled to consideration. The sacred story of events\ntransacted in the fields of Sichem, Gen. xxxvii, from our earliest\nyears, is remembered with delight; but with the territory before our\neyes, where those events took place, and in the view of objects existing\nas they were described above three thousand years ago, the grateful\nimpression kindles into ecstacy. Along the valley may still be seen, as\nin the days of Reuben and Judah, \u201ca company of Ishmaelites coming from\nGilead, with their camels bearing spicery, and balm, and myrrh,\u201d who\nwould gladly purchase another Joseph of his brethren, and convey him as\na slave to some Potiphar in Egypt. Upon the hills around, flocks and\nherds are seen feeding as of old; nor in the simple garb of the\nshepherds of Samaria, at this day, is there any thing repugnant to the\nnotions we may entertain of the appearance formerly presented by the\nsons of Jacob. In the time of Alexander the Great, Sichem, or Napolose,\nas it is now called, was considered as the capital of Samaria. Its\ninhabitants were called Samaritans, not merely as people of Samaria, but\nas a sect at variance with the Jews; and they have continued to maintain\ntheir peculiar tenets to this day. The inhabitants, according to\nProcopius, were much favoured by the Emperor Justinian, who restored\ntheir sanctuaries, and added largely to the edifices of the city. The\nprincipal object of veneration among them is Jacob\u2019s well, over which a\nchurch was formerly erected. This is situated at a small distance from\nthe town in the road to Jerusalem, and has been visited by pilgrims of\nall ages, but particularly since the Christian era, as the place where\nChrist revealed himself to the woman of Samaria. The spot is so\ndistinctly marked by the evangelist, John iv, and so little liable to\nuncertainty from the circumstance of the well itself, and the features\nof the country, that, if no tradition existed to identify it, the site\nof it could scarcely be mistaken. Perhaps no Christian scholar ever read\nthe fourth chapter of St. John\u2019s Gospel attentively, without being\nstruck with the numerous internal evidences of truth which crowd upon\nthe mind in its perusal. Within so small a compass, it is impossible to\nfind in other writings so many sources of reflection and of interest.\nIndependently of its importance as a theological document, it\nconcentrates so much information, that a volume might be filled with the\nillustration it reflects upon the history of the Jews, and upon the\ngeography of their country. All that can be gathered from Josephus on\nthese subjects seems to be as a comment to illustrate this chapter. The\njourney of our Lord from Judea into Galilee; the cause of it; his\npassage through the territory of Samaria; his approach to the metropolis\nof that country; its name; his arrival at the Amorite field, which\nterminates the narrow valley of Sichem; the ancient custom of halting at\na well; the female employment of drawing water; the disciples sent into\nthe city for food, by which its situation out of the town is so\nobviously implied; the question of the woman referring to existing\nprejudices which separated the Jews from the Samaritans; the depth of\nthe well; the oriental allusion contained in the expression, \u201cliving\nwater;\u201d the history of the well, and the customs illustrated by it; the\nworship upon Mount Gerizim:--all these occur within the space of twenty\nverses; and if to these be added that remarkable circumstance mentioned\nin the fifty-first verse of the chapter, where it is stated that \u201cas he\nwas now going _down_, his servants met him,\u201d his whole route from Cana\nbeing a continual _descent_ toward Capernaum, we may consider it as a\nrecord, signally confirmed in its veracity by circumstances which remain\nin indelible character, to give them evidence, to this day.\n\nJAH, one of the names of God, which we meet with in the composition of\nmany Hebrew words; as, _Adonijah_, _Allelujah_, _Malachiah_; that is,\n\u201cMy Lord,\u201d Praise the Lord,\u201d \u201cThe Lord is my King.\u201d\n\nJAIR, of the family of Manasseh. He possessed a large canton beyond\nJordan; the whole country of Argob, as far as the borders of Geshur and\nMaachathi, Judges x, 3. He succeeded Tola in the judicature or\ngovernment of the Israelites, and was himself succeeded by Jephthah. His\ngovernment continued twenty-two years; from A. M. 2795 to 2817. Jair had\nthirty sons, who rode on asses, and were lords or governors of thirty\ntowns, called Havoth-jair. He was buried at Camon beyond Jordan.\n\nJAMES, \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, of the same import as Jacob. James, surnamed the greater\nor, the elder, to distinguish him from James the younger, was brother to\nJohn the evangelist, and son to Zebedee and Salome, Matt. iv, 21. He was\nof Bethsaida, in Galilee, and left all to follow Christ. Salome\nrequested our Saviour, that her two sons, James and John, might sit at\nhis right hand, when he should be in possession of his kingdom. Our\nSaviour answered, that it belonged to his heavenly Father alone to\ndispose of these places of honour, Matt. xx, 21. Before their vocation,\nJames and John followed the trade of fishermen with their father\nZebedee; and they did not quit their profession till our Saviour called\nthem, Mark i, 18, 19. They were witnesses of our Lord\u2019s transfiguration,\nMatt. xvii, 2. When certain Samaritans refused to admit Jesus Christ,\nJames and John wished for fire from heaven to consume them, Luke ix, 54;\nand for this reason, it is thought, the name of Boanerges, or sons of\nthunder, was given them. Some days after the resurrection of our\nSaviour, James and John went to fish in the sea of Tiberias, where they\nsaw Jesus. They were present at the ascension of our Lord. St. James is\nsaid to have preached to all the dispersed tribes of Israel; but for\nthis there is only report. His martyrdom is related, Acts xii, 1, 2,\nabout A. D. 42, or 44, for the date is not well ascertained. Herod\nAgrippa, king of the Jews, and grandson of Herod the Great, caused him\nto be seized and executed at Jerusalem. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us,\nthat he who brought St. James before the judges was so much affected\nwith his constancy in confessing Jesus Christ, that he also declared\nhimself a Christian, and was condemned, as well as the Apostle, to be\nbeheaded.\n\nJAMES THE LESS, surnamed the brother of our Lord, Gal. i, 19, was the\nson of Cleophas, otherwise called Alpheus, and Mary, sister to the\nblessed virgin; consequently, he was cousin-german to Jesus Christ. He\nwas surnamed the Just, on account of the admirable holiness and purity\nof his life. He is said to have been a priest, and to have observed the\nlaws of the Nazarites from his birth. Our Saviour appeared to James the\nless, eight days after his resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 7. He was at\nJerusalem, and was considered as a pillar of the church, when St. Paul\nfirst came thither after his conversion, Gal. i, 19, A. D. 37. In the\ncouncil of Jerusalem, held in the year 51, St. James gave his vote last;\nand the result of the council was principally formed from what St. James\nsaid, who, though he observed the ceremonies of the law, and was careful\nthat others should observe them, was of opinion, that such a yoke was\nnot to be imposed on the faithful converted from among the Heathens,\nActs xv, 13, &c.\n\nJames the less was a person of great prudence and discretion, and was\nhighly esteemed by the Apostles and other Christians. Such, indeed, was\nhis general reputation for piety and virtue, that, as we learn, from\nOrigen, Eusebius, and Jerom, Josephus thought, and declared it to be the\ncommon opinion, that the sufferings of the Jews, and the destruction of\ntheir city and temple, were owing to the anger of God, excited by the\nmurder of James. This must be considered as a strong and remarkable\ntestimony to the character of this Apostle, as it is given by a person\nwho did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. The passages of Josephus,\nreferred to by those fathers upon this subject, are not found in his\nworks now extant.\n\nJAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF. Clement of Rome and Hermas allude to this\nepistle; and it is quoted by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerom,\nChrysostom, Augustine, and many other fathers. But though the antiquity\nof this epistle had been always undisputed, some few formerly doubted\nits right to be admitted into the canon. Eusebius says, that in his time\nit was generally, though not universally, received as canonical; and\npublicly read in most, but not in all, churches; and Estius affirms,\nthat after the fourth century, no church or ecclesiastical writer is\nfound who ever doubted its authenticity; but that, on the contrary, it\nis included in all subsequent catalogues of canonical Scripture, whether\npublished by councils, churches, or individuals. It has, indeed, been\nthe uniform tradition of the church, that this epistle was written by\nJames the Just; but it was not universally admitted till after the\nfourth century, that James the Just was the same person as James the\nless, one of the twelve Apostles; that point being ascertained, the\ncanonical authority of this epistle was no longer doubted. It is evident\nthat this epistle could not have been written by James the elder, for he\nwas beheaded by Herod Agrippa in the year 44, and the errors and vices\nreproved in this epistle show it to be of a much later date; and the\ndestruction of Jerusalem is also here spoken of as being very near at\nhand, James v, 8, 9. It has always been considered as a circumstance\nvery much in favour of this epistle, that it is found in the Syriac\nversion, which was made as early as the end of the first century, and\nfor the particular use of converted Jews,--the very description of\npersons to whom it was originally addressed. Hence we infer, that it was\nfrom the first acknowledged by those for whose instruction it was\nintended; and \u201cI think,\u201d says Dr. Doddridge, \u201cit can hardly be doubted\nbut they were better judges of the question of its authenticity than the\nGentiles, to whom it was not written; among whom, therefore, it was not\nlikely to be propagated so early; and who at first might be prejudiced\nagainst it, because it was inscribed to the Jews.\u201d\n\nThe immediate design of this epistle was to animate the Jewish\nChristians to support with fortitude and patience any sufferings to\nwhich they might be exposed, and to enforce the genuine doctrine and\npractice of the Gospel, in opposition to the errors and vices which then\nprevailed among them. St. James begins by showing the benefits of trials\nand afflictions, and by assuring the Jewish Christians that God would\nlisten to their sincere prayers for assistance and support; he reminds\nthem of their being the distinguished objects of divine favour, and\nexhorts them to practical religion; to a just and impartial regard for\nthe poor, and to a uniform obedience to all the commands of God, without\nany distinction or exception; he shows the inefficacy of faith without\nworks, that is, unless followed by moral duties; he inculcates the\nnecessity of a strict government of the tongue, and cautions them\nagainst censoriousness, strife, malevolence, pride, indulgence of their\nsensual passions, and rash judgment; he denounces threats against those\nwho make an improper use of riches; he intimates the approaching\ndestruction of Jerusalem; and concludes with exhortations to patience,\ndevotion, and a solicitous concern for the salvation of others. This\nepistle is written with great perspicuity and energy, and it contains an\nexcellent summary of those practical duties and moral virtues which are\nrequired of Christians. Although the author wrote to the Jews dispersed\nthroughout the world, yet the state of his native land passed more\nimmediately before his eyes. Its final overthrow was approaching; and\noppressions, factions, and violent scenes troubled all ranks, and\ninvolved some professing Christians in suffering, others in guilt.\n\nJANNES and JAMBRES, or, as Pliny calls them, Jamne and Jotape, two\nmagicians, who resisted Moses in Egypt, 2 Tim. iii, 8. He speaks,\nlikewise, of the faction or sect of magicians, of which, he says, Moses,\nJannes, and Jocabel, or Jopata, were heads. By this last word he meant\nprobably the patriarch Joseph, whom the Egyptians considered as one of\ntheir most celebrated sages. The Mussulmans have several particulars to\nthe same purpose. The paraphrast Jonathan says they were the sons of\nBalaam, who accompanied him to Balak, king of Moab. They are called by\nseveral names in several translations; by the Septuagint, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76,\n_poisoners_, and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76, _enchanters_; by Sulpitius Severus,\n_Chald\u00e6ans_, that is, astrologers; by others, _sapientes_ and\n_malefici_, wise men, that is, so esteemed among the Egyptians,\nphilosophers, and witches. Artapanus tells us, that Pharaoh sent for\nmagicians from Upper Egypt to oppose Moses. Ambrosiaster, or Hilary, the\ndeacon, says they were brothers. He cites a book entitled \u201cJannes and\nMambres,\u201d which is likewise quoted by Origen, and ranked as apocryphal\nby Pope Gelasius. Some of the Hebrews call them Janes and Jambres;\nothers, Jochana and Mamr\u00e9, or Jonas and Jombros. Jerom translates their\nnames Johannes and Mambres; and there is a tradition, they say, in the\nTalmud, that Juhanni and Mamr\u00e9, chief of Pharaoh\u2019s physicians, said to\nMoses, \u201cThou bringest straw into Egypt where abundance of corn grew;\u201d\nthat is, to bring your magical arts hither is to as much purpose as to\nbring water to the Nile. Some say their names are the same as John and\nAmbrose. Some will have it that they fled away with their father;\nothers, that they were drowned in the Red Sea with the Egyptians;\nothers, that they were killed by Phinehas in the war against the\nMidianites. Numenius, cited by Aristobulus, says that Jannes and Jambres\nwere sacred scribes of the Egyptians, who excelled in magic at the time\nwhen the Jews were driven out of Egypt. See PLAGUES OF EGYPT.\n\nJANSENISTS, a denomination of Roman Catholics in France, which was\nformed in the year 1640. They follow the opinions of Jansenius, bishop\nof Ypres, from whose writings the following propositions are said to\nhave been extracted:--1. That there are divine precepts which good men,\nnotwithstanding their desire to observe them, are, nevertheless,\nabsolutely unable to obey; nor has God given them that measure of grace\nwhich is essentially necessary to render them capable of such obedience.\n2. That no person, in this corrupt state of nature, can resist the\ninfluence of divine grace, when it operates upon the mind. 3. That, in\norder to render human actions meritorious, it is not requisite that they\nbe exempt from necessity; but that they be free from constraint. 4. That\nthe Semi-Pelagians err greatly, in maintaining that the human will is\nendowed with the power of either receiving or resisting the aids and\ninfluences of preventing grace. 5. That whoever affirms that Jesus\nChrist made expiation, by his sufferings and death, for the sins of\n_all_ mankind, is a Semi-Pelagian. Of these propositions, Pope Innocent\nX. condemned the first four as heretical, and the last as rash and\nimpious. But he did this without asserting that these were the doctrines\nof Jansenius, or even naming him; which did not satisfy his adversaries,\nnor silence him. The next pope, however, Alexander VII. was more\nparticular, and determined the said propositions to be the doctrines of\nJansenius; which excited no small trouble in the Gallican church.\n\nThis denomination was also distinguished from many of the Roman\nCatholics, by their maintaining that the Holy Scriptures and public\nliturgies should be given to the people in their mother tongue; and they\nconsider it as a matter of importance to inculcate upon all Christians,\nthat true piety does not consist in the performance of external\ndevotions, but in inward holiness and divine love.\n\nAs to Jansenius, it must be confessed that he was more diligent in the\nsearch of truth, than courageous in its defence. It is said that he read\nthrough the whole of St. Augustine\u2019s works ten, and some parts thirty,\ntimes. From these he made a number of _excerpta_, [extracts,] which he\ncollected in his book called \u201c_Augustinus_.\u201d This he had not the courage\nto publish; but it was printed after his death, and from it his enemies,\nthe Jesuits, extracted the propositions above named; but the correctness\nand fidelity of their extracts may be justly questioned. Jansenius\nhimself, undoubtedly, held the opinions of Calvin on unconditional\nelection, though he seems to have been reserved in avowing them.\n\nThe Jansenists of Port Royal may be denominated the evangelical party of\nthe Catholic church: among their number were the famous Father Quesnel,\nPierre Nicole, Pascal, De Sacy, Duguet, and Arnauld; the last of whom is\nstyled by Boileau, \u201cthe most learned mortal that ever lived.\u201d They\nconsecrated all their great powers to the service of the cross; and for\ntheir attachment to the grand article of the Protestant\nreformation,--justification by faith, with other capital doctrines, they\nsuffered the loss of all things. The Jesuits, their implacable enemies,\nnever ceased until they prevailed upon their sovereign, Louis XIV. to\ndestroy the abbey of Port Royal, and banish its inhabitants. It must be\nconfessed, however, that all the Jansenists were not like the eminent\nmen whom we have just mentioned; and even these were tinged with\nenthusiasm and superstition. Some of them even pretended to work\nmiracles, by which their cause was greatly injured.\n\nJAPHETH, the son of Noah, who is commonly named the third in order of\nNoah\u2019s sons, was born in the five hundredth year of that patriarch,\nGenesis v, 32; but Moses, Genesis x, 21, says expressly he was the\noldest of Noah\u2019s sons, according to our translation, and those of the\nSeptuagint and Symmachus. Abraham was named the first of Terah\u2019s sons,\n\u201cnot from primogeniture, but from pre\u00ebminence,\u201d as the father of the\nfaithful, and the illustrious ancestor of the Israelites, and of the\nJews, whose \u201cseed was Christ,\u201d according to the flesh; with whose\nhistory the Old Testament properly commences: \u201cNow these are the\ngenerations of Terah,\u201d &c, Gen. xi, 27; all the preceding parts of\nGenesis being only introductory to this. By the same analogy, Shem, the\nsecond son of Noah, is placed first of his three sons, Gen. v, 32, and\nJapheth, \u201cthe eldest,\u201d last. Compare Gen. x, 21; xi, 20. Thus Isaac is\nput before Ishmael, though fourteen years younger, 1 Chron. i, 28. And\nSolomon, the eldest, is reckoned the last of Bathsheba\u2019s children, 1\nChron. iii, 5.\n\nJapheth signifies _enlargement_; and how wonderfully did Providence\nenlarge the boundaries of Japheth! His posterity diverged eastward and\nwestward; from the original settlement in Armenia, through the whole\nextent of Asia, north of the great range of Taurus, distinguished by the\ngeneral names of Tartary and Siberia, as far as the Eastern Ocean: and\nin process of time, by an easy passage across Behring\u2019s straits, the\nentire continent of America; and they spread in the opposite direction,\nthroughout the whole of Europe, to the Atlantic Ocean; thus literally\nencompassing the earth, within the precincts of the northern temperate\nzone. While the enterprising and warlike genius of this hardy hunter\nrace frequently led them to encroach on the settlements, and to dwell in\n\u201cthe tents of Shem,\u201d whose pastoral occupations rendered them more\ninactive, peaceable, and unwarlike; as when the Scythians invaded Media,\nand overran western Asia southwards, as far as Egypt, in the days of\nCyaxares; and when the Greeks, and afterward the Romans, subdued the\nAssyrians, Medes, and Persians, in the east, and the Scythians and Jews\nin the south, as foretold by the Assyrian Prophet Balaam:\n\n       \u201cAnd ships shall come from the coast of Chittim,\n       And shall afflict the Assyrians, and afflict the Hebrews;\n       But he [the invader] shall perish himself at last.\u201d\n                                           Numb. xxiv, 24.\n\nAnd by Moses: \u201cAnd the Lord shall bring thee [the Jews] into Egypt [or\nbondage] again with ships,\u201d &c, Deut. xxviii, 28. And by Daniel: \u201cFor\nthe ships of Chittim shall come against him\u201d [Antiochus, king of Syria,]\nDan. xi, 30.\n\nIn these passages Chittim denotes the southern coasts of Europe,\nbordering on the Mediterranean Sea, called the \u201cisles of the Gentiles,\u201d\nGen. x, 5. And, in later times, the Tartars in the east have repeatedly\ninvaded and subdued the Hindoos and Chinese; while the warlike and\nenterprising genius of the British isles has spread their colonies,\ntheir arms, their arts, and their language, and, in some measure, their\nreligion, from the rising to the setting sun.\n\nThe sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and\nTiras. The Scripture says, that they peopled the isles of the Gentiles,\nand settled in different countries, each according to his language,\nfamily, and people, Genesis x, 5. It is supposed that Gomer peopled\nGalatia, and that from him the Cimmerians, or Cimbrians, and also the\nPhrygians, derived their origin; that Magog was the father of the\nScythians, and Tartars, or Tatars; that Madai was the progenitor of the\nMedes, though some make him the founder of a people in Macedonia, called\nMacdi; that from Javan sprung the Ionians and Greeks; that Tubal was the\nfather of the Iberians, and that at least a part of Spain was peopled by\nhim and his descendants; that Meshech was the founder of the\nCappadocians, from whom proceeded the Muscovites, or Russians; and that\nfrom Tiras the Thracians derived their origin. Japheth was known, by\nprofane authors, under the name of Japetus. The poets make him father of\nheaven and earth. The Greeks believed that Japheth was the father of\ntheir race, and acknowledged nothing more ancient than him.\n\nJAR, the Hebrew month which answers to our April. It consisted but of\ntwenty-nine days.\n\nJASPER, \u05d9\u05e9\u05e4\u05d4, Exod. xxviii, 20; xxxix, 13; and Ezek. xxviii, 13; \u1f34\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2,\nRev. iv, 3, and xxi, 11, 18, 19. The Greek and Latin name, _jaspis_, as\nwell as the English jasper, is plainly derived from the Hebrew, and\nleaves little room to doubt what species of gem is meant by the original\nword. The jasper is usually defined, a hard stone, of a bright,\nbeautiful, green colour; sometimes clouded with white, and spotted with\nred or yellow.\n\nJAVAN, or ION, (for the Hebrew word, differently pointed, forms both\nnames,) was the fourth son of Japheth, and the father of all those\nnations which were included under the name of Grecians, or Ionians, as\nthey were invariably called in the east. Javan had four sons, by whom\nthe different portions of Greece Proper were peopled: Elisha, Tharsis,\nChittim, and Dodanim. Elisha, Eliza, or Ellas, as it is written in the\nChaldee, and from whom the Greeks took the name of H\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, settled in\nthe Peloponnesus; where, in the Elysian fields and the river Ilissus,\nhis name is still preserved. Tharsis settled in Achaia; Chittim, in\nMacedonia; and Dodanim, in Thessaly and Epirus; where the city of Dodona\ngives ample proof of the origin of its name. But the Greeks did not\nremain pure Javanim. It appears from history that, at a very early age,\nthey were invaded and subjugated by the Pelasgi, a Cuthite race from the\neast, and by colonies of Phenicians and Egyptians from the south: so\nthat the Greeks, so famous in history, were a compound of all these\npeople. The aboriginal Greeks were called Jaones, or Jonim; from which\nsimilarity of sound, the Jonim and the Javanim, although belonging to\ntwo essentially different families, have been confounded together. Javan\nis the name used in the Old Testament for Greece and the Greeks. See\nDIVISION OF THE EARTH.\n\nJEALOUSY, WATERS OF. See ADULTERY.\n\nJEBUS, the son of Canaan, Gen. x, 16, and father of the people of\nPalestine called Jebusites. Their dwelling was in Jerusalem and round\nabout, in the mountains. This people were very warlike, and held\nJerusalem till David\u2019s time, Josh. xv, 65; 2 Sam. v, 6, &c.\n\nJEDUTHUN, a Levite of Merari\u2019s family, and one of the four great masters\nof music belonging to the temple, 1 Chron. xvi, 38, 41, 42; xv, 17;\nPsalm lxxxix, title. He is the same as Ethan. Some of the Psalms are\nsaid to have been composed by him; such as the eighty-ninth,\nthirty-ninth, sixty-second, seventy-seventh; all of which go under his\nname. Some believe, that David, having composed these Psalms, gave them\nto Jeduthun and his company to sing; and that this is the reason of\ntheir going by this name. But there are some Psalms which have the name\nof Jeduthun, that seem to have been composed either during the\ncaptivity, or after it; and consequently the name of Jeduthun prefixed\nto them, can signify nothing else, but that some of his descendants, and\nof Jeduthun\u2019s class, composed them long after the death of the famous\nJeduthun, one of their ancestors.\n\nJEHOAHAZ, otherwise SHALLUM, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, Jer.\nxxii, 11. Josiah having been wounded mortally by Necho, king of Egypt,\nand dying of his wounds at Megiddo, Jehoahaz was made king in his room,\nthough he was not Josiah\u2019s eldest son, 2 Kings xxiii, 30, 31, 32. He was\nin all probability thought fitter than any of his brethren to make head\nagainst the king of Egypt. He was twenty-three years old when he began\nto reign, and he reigned about three months only in Jerusalem, in the\nyear of the world 3395. King Necho, at his return from the expedition\nagainst Carchemish, provoked at the people of Judah for having placed\nthis prince upon the throne without his consent, sent for him to Riblah,\nin Syria, divested him of the kingdom, loaded him with chains, and sent\nhim into Egypt, where he died, Jer. xxii, 11, 12. Jehoiakim, or Eliakim\nhis brother, was made king in his room.\n\nJEHOIACHIN, otherwise called Coniah, Jer. xxii, 24, and Jeconiah, 1\nChron. iii, 17, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and grandson of\nJosiah. He ascended the throne, and reigned only three months. It seems\nhe was born about the time of the first Babylonish captivity, A. M.\n3398, when Jehoiakim, or Eliakim, his father, was carried to Babylon.\nJehoiakim returned from Babylon, and reigned till A. M. 3405, when he\nwas killed by the Chaldeans, in the eleventh year of his reign; and was\nsucceeded by this Jehoiachin, who reigned alone three months and ten\ndays; but he reigned about ten years in conjunction with his father.\nThus 2 Kings xxiv, 8, is reconciled with 2 Chron. xxxvi, 9. In the\nformer of these passages, he is said to have been eighteen when he began\nto reign, and in Chronicles only eight; that is, he was only eight when\nhe began to reign with his father, and eighteen when he began to reign\nalone. He was a bad man, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, Jer.\nxxii, 24. The time of his death is uncertain; and the words of the\nProphet Jeremiah, xxii, 30, are not to be taken in the strictest sense;\nsince he was the father of Salathiel and others, 1 Chron. iii, 17, 18;\nMatt. i, 12.\n\nJEHOIAKIM, or ELIAKIM, the brother and successor of Jehoahaz, king of\nJudah, was advanced to the throne by Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, A. M.\n3395, 2 Kings xxiii, 34. He reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and did\nevil in the sight of the Lord. When Jerusalem was taken by\nNebuchadnezzar, this prince was also taken and put to death, and his\nbody thrown into the common sewer, according to the prediction of\nJeremiah, xxii, 18, 19.\n\nJEHOSHAPHAT, king of Judah, son of Asa, king of Judah, and Azabah,\ndaughter of Shilhi, ascended the throne at the age of thirty-five, and\nreigned twenty-five years. He had the advantage over Baasha, king of\nIsrael; and he placed good garrisons in the cities of Judah and of\nEphraim, which had been conquered by his father. God was with him,\nbecause he was faithful. He demolished the high places and groves. In\nthe third year of his reign he sent some of his officers, with priests\nand Levites, through all the parts of Judah, with the book of the law,\nto instruct the people. God blessed the zeal of this prince, who was\nfeared by all his neighbours. The Philistines and Arabians were\ntributaries to him. He built several houses in Judah in the form of\ntowers, and fortified several cities. He generally kept an army of\neleven hundred thousand men, without reckoning the troops in his strong\nholds. This number seems prodigious for so small a state as that of\nJudah; but, probably, these troops were only an enrolled militia.\n\nThe Scripture reproaches Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab, king of\nIsrael, 1 Kings xx; 2 Chronicles xviii. Some time after, he went to\nvisit Ahab in Samaria; and Ahab invited him to march with him against\nRamoth-Gilead. Jehoshaphat consented, but first asked for an opinion\nfrom a prophet of the Lord. Afterward, he went into the battle in his\nrobe, and the enemy supposed him to be Ahab; but he crying out, they\ndiscovered their mistake, and Jehoshaphat returned in peace to\nJerusalem. The Prophet Jehu reproved him for assisting Ahab, 2 Chron.\nxix, 1, 2, 3, &c. Jehoshaphat repaired this fault by the good\nregulations, and the good order, which he established in his dominions,\nboth as to civil and religious affairs, by appointing honest and able\njudges, by regulating the discipline of the priests and Levites, and by\nenjoining them to perform their duty with punctuality. After this, in\nthe year 3108, the Moabites, Ammonites, and other nations of Arabia\nPetr\u00e6a, declared war against Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xx, 1, 2, 3, &c. They\nadvanced to Hazaron-Tamar, otherwise Engedi. Jehoshaphat went with his\npeople to the temple, and put up prayers to God. Jahaziel, the son of\nZechariah, by the Spirit of the Lord, encouraged the king, and promised\nthat the next day he should obtain a victory without fighting.\nAccordingly, these people being assembled the next day against Judah,\nquarrelled, and killed one another; and Jehoshaphat and his army had\nonly to gather their spoils. This prince continued to walk in the ways\nof the Lord; yet he did not destroy the high places, and the hearts of\nthe people were not entirely directed to the God of their fathers.\nJehoshaphat died after a reign of twenty-five years, and was buried in\nthe royal sepulchre; and his son, Jehoram reigned in his stead.\n\n2. JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF. This valley is a deep and narrow glen, which\nruns from north to south, between the Mount of Olives and Mount Moriah;\nthe brook Cedron flowing through the middle of it, which is dry the\ngreatest part of the year, but has a current of a red colour, after\nstorms, or in rainy seasons. The Prophet Joel, iii, 2, 12, says, \u201cThe\nLord will gather all nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will\nplead with them there.\u201d Abenezra is of opinion, that this valley is the\nplace where King Jehoshaphat obtained a signal victory over the\nMoabites, Ammonites, and Meonians of Arabia Petr\u00e6a, 2 Chron. xx, 1, &c,\ntoward the Dead Sea, beyond the wilderness of Tekoah, which after that\nevent was called the valley of blessing, verse 26. Others think it lies\nbetween the walls of Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. Cyril, of\nAlexandria, on Joel iii, says that this valley is but a few furlongs\ndistant from Jerusalem. Lastly, some maintain that the ancient Hebrews\nhad named no particular place the valley of Jehoshaphat; but that Joel\nintended generally the place where God would judge the nations, and will\nappear at the last judgment in the brightness of his majesty.\n_Jehoshaphat_, in Hebrew, signifies \u201cthe judgment of God.\u201d It is very\nprobable that the valley of Jehoshaphat, that is, of God\u2019s judgment, is\nsymbolical, as well as the valley of slaughter, in the same chapter.\nFrom this passage, however, the Jews and many Christians have been of\nopinion, that the last judgment will be solemnized in the valley of\nJehoshaphat.\n\nJEHOVAH, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 the proper and incommunicable name of the Divine Essence.\nThat this divine name, Jehovah, was well known to the Heathens, there\ncan be no doubt. Sanchoniathon writes _Jebo_; Diodorus, the Sicilian,\nMacrobius, St. Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Jerom, and Origen, pronounce\n_Jao_; Epiphanius, Theodoret, and the Samaritans, _Jabe_, _Jav\u00e9_. We\nlikewise find in the ancients, _Jahoh_, _Javo_, _Javu_, _Jaod_. The\nMoors call their god _Jaba_, whom some believe to be the same as\nJehovah. The Latins, in all probability, took their _Javis_, or _Jovis\nPater_, from Jehovah.\n\nThe Jews, after their captivity in Babylon, out of an excessive and\nsuperstitious respect for this name, left off to pronounce it, and thus\nlost the true pronunciation. The Septuagint generally renders it \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u201cthe Lord.\u201d Origen, St. Jerom, and Eusebius, testify that in their time\nthe Jews left the name of Jehovah written in their copies in Samaritan\ncharacters, instead of writing it in the common Chaldee or Hebrew\ncharacters; which shows their veneration for this holy name: and the\nfear they were under, lest strangers, who were not unacquainted with the\nChaldee letters and language, should discover and misapply it. The Jews\ncall this name of God the Tetragrammaton, or the name with four letters.\nIt would be waste of time and patience to repeat all that has been said\non this incommunicable name: it may not be amiss, however, to remind the\nreader, 1. That although it signifies the state of being, yet it forms\nno verb. 2. It never assumes a plural form. 3. It does not admit an\narticle, or take an affix. 4. Neither is it placed in a state of\nconstruction with other words; though other words may be in construction\nwith it. It seems to be a compound of \u05d9\u05d4, _the essence_, and \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4,\n_existing_; that is, _always existing_; whence the word _eternal_\nappears to express its import; or, as it is well rendered, \u201cHe who is,\nand who was, and who is to come,\u201d Rev. i, 4; xi, 17; that is, eternal,\nas the schoolmen speak, both _a parte ante_, and _a parte post_. Compare\nJohn viii, 58. It is usually marked by an abbreviation, \u05d5, in Jewish\nbooks, where it must be alluded to. It is also abbreviated in the term\n\u05d9\u05d4, _Jah_, which, the reader will observe, enters into the formation of\nmany Hebrew appellations. See JAH.\n\nJEHU, the son of Jehoshaphat, and grandson of Nimshi, captain of the\ntroops of Joram the king of Israel, was appointed by God to reign over\nIsrael, and to avenge the sins committed by the house of Ahab, 1 Kings\nxix, 16. The Prophet Elisha received a commission to anoint him; but the\norder does not appear to have been executed until more than twenty years\nafterward, and then it was done by one of the sons of the prophets, 2\nKings ix, 1\u20133. Jehu was then at the siege of Ramoth-Gilead, commanding\nthe army of Joram, the king of Israel, when a young prophet appeared,\nwho took him aside from the officers of the army, in the midst of whom\nhe was sitting, and, when alone in a chamber, poured oil on his head,\nand said to him, \u201cThus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee king over\nIsrael; thou shalt smite the house of Ahab, and avenge the blood of the\nprophets which hath been shed by Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab\nshall perish, and I will make it as that of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat,\nand that of Baasha, the son of Ahijah. Jezebel shall be eaten by the\ndogs in the fields of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her,\u201d 2\nKings ix, 1\u201310. No sooner had the prophet delivered his message, than,\nto avoid being known, he instantly withdrew; and Jehu, returning to the\ncompany of his brother officers, was by them interrogated respecting\nwhat had taken place. He informed them that a prophet had been sent from\nGod to anoint him to the kingly office; on which they all rose up, and\neach taking his cloak, they made a kind of throne for Jehu, and then\nsounding the trumpets, cried out, \u201cJehu is king.\u201d Joram, who at that\ntime reigned over the kingdom of Israel, was then at Jezreel in a state\nof indisposition, having been wounded at the siege of Ramoth-Gilead.\nJehu, intending to surprise him, immediately gave orders that no one\nshould be permitted to depart out of the city of Ramoth, and himself set\noff for Jezreel. As he approached that city, a centinel gave notice that\nhe saw a troop coming in great haste; on which Joram despatched an\nofficer to discover who it was; but Jehu, without giving the latter any\nanswer, ordered him to follow in his rear. Joram sent a second, and Jehu\nlaid upon him the same command. Finding that neither of them returned,\nJoram himself, accompanied by Ahaziah, king of Judah, proceeded in his\nchariot toward Jehu, whom they met in the field of Naboth the\nJezreelite. Joram inquired, \u201cIs it peace, Jehu?\u201d To which the latter\nreplied, \u201cHow can there be peace so long as the whoredoms of thy mother\nJezebel, and her witchcrafts, are so many?\u201d Joram instantly took the\nalarm, and, turning to Ahaziah, said, \u201cWe are betrayed.\u201d At the same\ntime Jehu drew his bow, and smote Joram between his shoulders, so that\nthe arrow pierced his heart, and he died in his chariot. Jehu then gave\norders that his body should be cast out into the field of Naboth the\nJezreelite, thus fulfilling the prediction of the Prophet Elijah, 2\nKings ix, 11\u201326.\n\nJehu next proceeded to Jezreel, where Jezebel herself at that time\nresided. As he rode through the streets of the city, Jezebel, who was\nstanding at her window and looking at him, exclaimed, \u201cCan he who has\nkilled his master hope for peace?\u201d Jehu, lifting up his head and seeing\nher, commanded her servants instantly to throw her out at the window;\nwhich they did, and she was immediately trampled to death under the\nhorses\u2019 feet as they traversed the city. To complete her destiny, and\nfulfil the threatenings of Elijah, the dogs came and devoured her\ncorpse; so that when Jehu sent to have her buried, her bones only were\nfound, 2 Kings ix, 27\u201337. After this, Jehu sent to inform the\ninhabitants of Samaria, who had the bringing up of Ahab\u2019s seventy\nchildren, that they might select which of them they thought proper to\nplace upon the throne of Israel. But overwhelmed with fear, they replied\nthat they were Jehu\u2019s servants, and would in all things obey him. He\nthen commanded them to put to death all the king\u2019s children, and send\ntheir heads to him; which was accordingly done on the following day.\nJehu also caused to be put to death all Ahab\u2019s relatives and friends,\nthe officers of his court, and the priests whom he had entertained at\nJezreel, 2 Kings x, 1\u201311. After this, Jehu proceeded to Samaria, and on\nhis way thither met the friends of Ahaziah, king of Judah, who were\ngoing to Jezreel to salute the children of Ahab\u2019s family, with the death\nof whom they were as yet unacquainted. They were forty-two in number;\nbut Jehu gave orders to have them apprehended and put to death. Soon\nafter this, he met with Jonathan, the son of Rechab; and taking him up\ninto his chariot, \u201cCome with me,\u201d said he, \u201cand see my zeal for the\nLord.\u201d And when he was come to Samaria he extirpated every remaining\nbranch of Ahab\u2019s family, without sparing an individual. Then convening\nthe people of Samaria, he said, \u201cAhab paid some honours to Baal, but I\nwill pay him greater. Send now and gather together all the ministers,\npriests, and prophets of Baal.\u201d When they were all assembled in Baal\u2019s\ntemple, Jehu commanded to give each of them a particular habit, to\ndistinguish them; at the same time directing that no stranger should\nmingle with them; and then ordered his people to put them all to the\nsword, not sparing one of them; the image of Baal was also pulled down,\nbroken to pieces, and burned, the temple itself destroyed, and the place\nwhere it stood reduced to a dunghill, 2 Kings x, 12\u201328.\n\nSuch were the sanguinary exploits of Jehu toward the idolatrous house of\nAhab; but he acted agreeably to divine direction, and the Lord in these\ninstances so far approved his conduct, as to promise him that his\nchildren should sit upon the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.\nYet, though Jehu had been the instrument in the hand of God for taking\nvengeance on the profane house of Ahab, we find him accused in Scripture\nof not entirely forsaking the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who\nmade Israel to sin in worshipping the golden calves, 2 Kings x, 29, 31.\nIt appears also that, in executing the divine indignation on the wicked\nhouse of Ahab, he was actuated more by the spirit of ambition and\nanimosity than the fear of God, or a regard to the purity of his\nworship. And thus it is that God, in the course of his providence, makes\nuse of tyrants and wicked men, as his instruments to execute his\nrighteous judgments in the earth. After a reign of eight-and-twenty\nyears over Israel, Jehu died, and was succeeded by his son, Jehoahaz;\nbut his reign was embittered by the war which Hazael, king of Syria,\nlong waged against him, 2 Kings x, 32\u201336. His four descendants, who\nsucceeded him in the throne, were Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam II. and\nZechariah.\n\nJEPHTHAH, one of the judges of Israel, was the son of Gilead by a\nconcubine, Judges xi, 1, 2. His father having several other children by\nhis lawful wife, they conspired to expel Jephthah from among them,\ninsisting that he who was the son of a strange woman should have no part\nof the inheritance with them. Like Ishmael, therefore, he withdrew, and\ntook up his residence beyond Jordan, in the land of Tob, where he\nappears to have become the chief of a banditti, or marauding party, who\nprobably lived by plunder, Judges xi, 3. In process of time, a war broke\nout between the Ammonites and the children of Israel who inhabited the\ncountry beyond Jordan; and the latter, finding their want of an intrepid\nand skilful leader, applied to Jephthah to take the command of them. He\nat first reproached them with the injustice they had done him, in\nbanishing him from his father\u2019s house; but he at length yielded to their\nimportunity, on an agreement that, should he be successful in the war\nagainst the Ammonites, the Israelites should acknowledge him for their\nchief, Judges xi, 4\u201311.\n\nAs soon as Jephthah was invested with the command of the Israelites he\nsent a deputation to the Ammonites, demanding to know on what principle\nthe latter had taken up arms against them. They answered that it was to\nrecover the territory which the former had taken from them on their\nfirst coming out of Egypt. Jephthah replied that they had made no\nconquests in that quarter but from the Amorites; adding, \u201cIf you think\nyou have a right to all that Chemosh, your god, hath given you, why\nshould not we possess all that the Lord our God hath conferred on us by\nright of conquest?\u201d Jephthah\u2019s reasoning availed nothing with the\nAmmonites; and as the latter persisted in waging war, the former\ncollected his troops together and put himself at their head. The Spirit\nof the Lord is said to have now come upon Jephthah; by which we are here\nto understand, that the Lord endowed him with a spirit of valour and\nfortitude, adequate to the exigence of the situation in which he was\nplaced, animating him with courage for the battle, and especially\ninspired him with unshaken confidence in the God of the armies of\nIsrael, Judges xi, 17; Heb. xi, 32; 1 Sam. xi, 6; Num. xxiv, 2. Jephthah\nat this time made a vow to the Lord that if he delivered the Ammonites\ninto his hand, whatever came forth out of the doors of his house to meet\nhim when he returned should be the Lord\u2019s; it is also added in our\nEnglish version, \u201cand I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,\u201d Judges\nxi, 31. The battle terminated auspiciously for Jephthah; the Ammonites\nwere defeated, and the Israelites ravaged their country. But on\nreturning toward his own house, his daughter, an only child, came out to\nmeet her father with timbrels and dances, accompanied by a chorus of\nvirgins, to celebrate his victory. On seeing her, Jephthah rent his\nclothes, and said, \u201cAlas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low;\nfor I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and cannot go back.\u201d His\ndaughter intimated her readiness to accede to any vow he might have made\nin which she was personally interested; only claiming a respite of two\nmonths, during which she might go up to the mountains and bewail her\nvirginity with her companions. Jephthah yielded to this request, and at\nthe end of two months, according to the opinion of many, her father\noffered her up in sacrifice, as a burnt-offering to the Lord, Judges xi,\n34\u201339. It is, however, scarcely necessary to mention, that almost from\nthe days of Jephthah to the present time, it has been a subject of warm\ncontest among the critics and commentators, whether the judge of Israel\nreally sacrificed his daughter, or only devoted her to a state of\ncelibacy. Among those who contend for the former opinion, may be\nparticularly mentioned the very learned Professor Micha\u00eblis, who insists\nmost peremptorily that the words, \u201cdid with her as he had vowed,\u201d cannot\nmean any thing else but that her father put her to death, and burned her\nbody as a burnt-offering. On this point, however, the remarks of Dr.\nHales are of great weight:--When Jephthah went forth to battle against\nthe Ammonites \u201che vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt\nsurely give the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that\nwhatsoever cometh out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return\nin peace from the children of Ammon, shall either be the Lord\u2019s, or I\nwill offer it up [for] a burnt-offering,\u201d Judges xi, 30, 31. According\nto this rendering of the two conjunctions, \u05d5, in the last clause,\n_either_, _or_, which is justified by the Hebrew idiom, the paucity of\nconnecting particles in that language making it necessary that this\nconjunction should often be understood disjunctively, the vow consisted\nof two parts, 1. That what _person_ soever met him should be the Lord\u2019s,\nor be dedicated to his service. 2. That what _beast_ soever met him, if\nclean, should be offered up for a burnt-offering unto the Lord. This\nrendering, and this interpretation, is warranted by the Levitical law\nabout vows. The \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8, or _vow_ in general, included either persons,\nbeasts, or things, dedicated to the Lord for pious uses; which, if it\nwas a simple vow, was redeemable at certain prices, if the person\nrepented of his vow, and wished to commute it for money, according to\nthe age and sex of the person, Lev. xxvii, 1\u20138. This was a wise\nregulation to remedy rash vows. But if the vow was accompanied with \u05d7\u05e8\u05dd,\n_devotement_, it was irredeemable, as in the following cases:\n\u201cNotwithstanding, no devotement which a man shall devote unto the Lord,\n[either] of man, or of beast, or of land of his own property, shall be\nsold or redeemed. Every thing devoted is most holy unto the Lord,\u201d Lev.\nxxvii, 28. Here the three _vaus_ in the original should necessarily be\nrendered disjunctively, _or_, as the last actually is in our public\ntranslation, because there are three distinct subjects of devotement, to\nbe applied to distinct uses; the _man_, to be dedicated to the service\nof the Lord, as Samuel by his mother, Hannah, 1 Sam. i, 11; the\n_cattle_, if clean, such as oxen, sheep, goats, turtle doves, or\npigeons, to be sacrificed; and if unclean, as camels, horses, asses, to\nbe employed for carrying burdens in the service of the tabernacle or\ntemple; and the _lands_, to be sacred property. This law, therefore,\nexpressly applied, in its first branch, to Jephthah\u2019s case, who had\n_devoted_ his daughter to the Lord, or opened his mouth unto the Lord,\nand therefore could not go back; as he declared in his grief at seeing\nhis daughter, and his only child, coming to meet him with timbrels and\ndances. She was, therefore, necessarily devoted, but with her own\nconsent, to perpetual virginity, in the service of the tabernacle,\nJudges xi, 36, 37. And such service was customary; for in the division\nof the spoils taken in the first Midianite war, of the whole number of\ncaptive virgins, \u201cthe Lord\u2019s tribute was thirty-two persons,\u201d Num. xxxi,\n35\u201340. This instance appears to be decisive of the nature of her\ndevotement. Her father\u2019s extreme grief on this occasion, and her\nrequisition of a respite of two months to bewail her virginity, are both\nperfectly natural: having no other issue, he could only look forward to\nthe extinction of his name or family; and a state of celibacy, which is\nreproachful among women every where, was peculiarly so among the\nIsraelites; and was therefore no ordinary sacrifice on her part, who,\nthough she generously gave up, could not but regret the loss of becoming\n\u201ca mother in Israel.\u201d And he did with her according to his vow which he\nhad vowed, and she knew no man,\u201d or remained a virgin all her life,\nJudges xi, 34\u201349. There was also another case of devotement which was\nirredeemable, and follows the former: \u201cNo one devoted, who shall be\ndevoted of man, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death,\u201d\nLevit. xxvii, 29. This case differs materially from the former: 1. It is\nconfined to persons devoted, omitting beasts and lands. 2. It does not\nrelate to private property, as in the foregoing. 3. The subject of it\nwas to be utterly destroyed, instead of being \u201cmost holy unto the Lord.\u201d\nThis law, therefore, related to aliens or public enemies devoted to\ndestruction, either by God, by the people, or by the magistrate. Of all\nthese we have instances in the Scriptures: 1. The Amalekites and\nCanaanites were devoted by God himself. Saul, therefore, was guilty of a\nbreach of this law for sparing Agag, the king of the Amalekites, as\nSamuel reproached him, 1 Sam. xv, 23: and \u201cSamuel hewed Agag in pieces\nbefore the Lord,\u201d not as a sacrifice, according to Voltaire, but as a\ncriminal, \u201cwhose sword had made many women childless.\u201d By this law the\nMidianite women, who had been spared in battle, were slain, Num. xxxi,\n14\u201317. 2. In Mount Hor, when the Israelites were attacked by Arad, king\nof the southern Canaanites, who took some of them prisoners, they vowed\na vow unto the Lord, that they would utterly destroy these Canaanites,\nand their cities, if the Lord should deliver them into their hand; which\nthe Lord ratified. Whence the place was called Hhormah, because the vow\nwas accompanied by _cherem_, or devotement to destruction, Num. xxi,\n1\u20133. And the vow was accomplished, Judges i, 17. 3. In the Philistine\nwar, Saul adjured the people, and cursed any one that should taste food\nuntil the evening. His own son, Jonathan, inadvertently ate a honey\ncomb, not knowing of his father\u2019s oath, for which Saul sentenced him to\ndie. But the people interposed, and rescued him, for his public\nservices; thus assuming the power of dispensing, in their collective\ncapacity, with an unreasonable oath, 1 Sam. xiv, 24\u201345. This latter\ncase, therefore, is utterly irrelative to Jephthah\u2019s vow, which did not\nregard a foreign enemy, or a domestic transgressor, devoted to\ndestruction, but, on the contrary, was a vow of thanksgiving, and\ntherefore properly came under the former case. And that Jephthah could\nnot possibly have sacrificed his daughter, according to the vulgar\nopinion, founded on incorrect translation, may appear from the following\nconsiderations: 1. The sacrifice of children to Moloch was an\nabomination to the Lord, of which in numberless passages, he expresses\nhis detestation; and it was prohibited by an express law, under pain of\ndeath, as \u201ca defilement of God\u2019s sanctuary, and a profanation of his\nholy name,\u201d Levit. xx, 2, 3. Such a sacrifice, therefore, unto the Lord\nhimself, must be a still higher abomination. And there is no precedent\nof any such under the law, in the Old Testament. 2. The case of Isaac\nbefore the law, is irrelevant; for Isaac was not sacrificed; and it was\nonly proposed for a trial of Abraham\u2019s faith. 3. No father, merely by\nhis own authority, could put an offending, much less an innocent, child\nto death, upon any account, without the sentence of the magistrates,\nDeut. xxi, 18\u201321, and the consent of the people, as in Jonathan\u2019s case.\n4. The Mischna, or traditional law of the Jews, is pointedly against it:\n\u201cIf a Jew should devote his son or daughter, his man or maid servant,\nwho are Hebrews, the devotement would be void; because no man can devote\nwhat is not his own, or of whose life he has not the absolute disposal.\u201d\n\nThese arguments appear to be decisive against the sacrifice; and that\nJephthah could not even have devoted his daughter to celibacy against\nher will, is evident from the history, and from the high estimation in\nwhich she was always held by the daughters of Israel, for her filial\nduty, and her hapless fate, which they celebrated by a regular\nanniversary commemoration four days in the year, Judges xi, 40. We may,\nhowever, remark, that, if it could be more clearly established that\nJephthah actually immolated his daughter, there is not the least\nevidence that his conduct was sanctioned by God. Jephthah was manifestly\na superstitious and ill-instructed man, and, like Samson, an instrument\nof God\u2019s power, rather than an example of his grace.\n\nJEREMIAH. The Prophet Jeremiah was of the sacerdotal race, being, as he\nrecords himself, one of the priests that dwelt at Anathoth, in the land\nof Benjamin, a city appropriated out of that tribe to the use of the\npriests, the sons of Aaron, Joshua xxi, 18, and situate, as we learn\nfrom St. Jerom, about three miles north of Jerusalem. Some have supposed\nhis father to have been that Hilkah, the high priest, by whom the book\nof the law was found in the temple in the reign of Josiah: but for this\nthere is no better ground than his having borne the same name, which was\nno uncommon one among the Jews; whereas, had he been in reality the high\npriest, he would doubtless have been mentioned by that distinguishing\ntitle, and not put upon a level with priests of an ordinary and inferior\nclass. Jeremiah appears to have been very young when he was called to\nthe exercise of the prophetical office, from which he modestly\nendeavoured to excuse himself by pleading his youth and incapacity; but\nbeing overruled by the divine authority, he set himself to discharge the\nduties of his function with unremitted diligence and fidelity during a\nperiod of at least forty-two years, reckoned from the thirteenth year of\nJosiah\u2019s reign. In the course of his ministry he met with great\ndifficulties and opposition from his countrymen of all degrees, whose\npersecution and ill usage sometimes wrought so far upon his mind, as to\ndraw from him expressions, in the bitterness of his soul, which many\nhave thought hard to reconcile with his religious principles; but which,\nwhen duly considered, may be found to demand our pity for his unremitted\nsufferings, rather than our censure for any want of piety and reverence\ntoward God. He was, in truth, a man of unblemished piety and\nconscientious integrity; a warm lover of his country, whose misery he\npathetically deplores; and so affectionately attached to his countrymen,\nnotwithstanding their injurious treatment of him, that he chose rather\nto abide with them, and undergo all hardships in their company, than\nseparately to enjoy a state of ease and plenty, which the favour of the\nking of Babylon would have secured to him. At length, after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, being carried with the remnant of the Jews\ninto Egypt, whither they had resolved to retire, though contrary to his\nadvice, upon the murder of Gedaliah, whom the Chaldeans had left\ngovernor in Judea, he there continued warmly to remonstrate against\ntheir idolatrous practices, foretelling the consequences that would\ninevitably follow. But his freedom and zeal are said to have cost him\nhis life; for the Jews at Tahpanhes, according to tradition, took such\noffence at him that they stoned him to death. This account of the manner\nof his end, though not absolutely certain, is at least very probable,\nconsidering the temper and disposition of the parties concerned. Their\nwickedness, however, did not long pass without its reward; for, in a few\nyears after, they were miserably destroyed by the Babylonian armies\nwhich invaded Egypt according to the prophet\u2019s prediction, Jer. xliv,\n27, 28.\n\nThe idolatrous apostasy, and other criminal enormities of the people of\nJudah, and the severe judgments which God was prepared to inflict upon\nthem, but not without a distant prospect of future restoration and\ndeliverance, are the principal subject matters of the prophecies of\nJeremiah; excepting only the forty-fifth chapter, which relates\npersonally to Baruch, and the six succeeding chapters, which respect the\nfortunes of some particular Heathen nations. It is observable, however,\nthat though many of these prophecies have their particular dates annexed\nto them, and other dates may be tolerably well conjectured from certain\ninternal marks and circumstances, there appears much disorder in the\narrangement, not easy to be accounted for on any principle of regular\ndesign, but probably the result of some accident or other, which has\ndisturbed the original order. The best arrangement of the chapters\nappears to be according to the list which will be subjoined; the\ndifferent reigns in which the prophecies were delivered were most\nprobably as follows: The first twelve chapters seem to contain all the\nprophecies delivered in the reign of the good King Josiah. During the\nshort reign of Shallum, or Jehoahaz, his second son, who succeeded him,\nJeremiah does not appear to have had any revelation. Jehoiakim, the\neldest son of Josiah, succeeded. The prophecies of this reign are\ncontinued on from the thirteenth to the twentieth chapter inclusively;\nto which we must add the twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fifth,\ntwenty-sixth, thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth chapters, together with the\nforty-fifth, forty-sixth, forty-seventh, and most probably the\nforty-eighth, and as far as the thirty-fourth verse of the forty-ninth\nchapter. Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, succeeded. We read of no\nprophecy that Jeremiah actually delivered in this king\u2019s reign; but the\nfate of Jeconiah, his being carried into captivity, and continuing an\nexile till the time of his death, were foretold early in his father\u2019s\nreign, as may be particularly seen in the twenty-second chapter. The\nlast king of Judah was Zedekiah, the youngest son of Josiah. The\nprophecies delivered in his reign are contained in the twenty-first and\ntwenty-fourth chapters, the twenty-seventh to the thirty-fourth, and the\nthirty-seventh to the thirty-ninth inclusively, together with the last\nsix verses of the forty-ninth chapter, and the fiftieth and fifty-first\nchapters concerning the fall of Babylon. The siege of Jerusalem, in the\nreign of Zedekiah, and the capture of the city, are circumstantially\nrelated in the fifty-second chapter; and a particular account of the\nsubsequent transactions is given in the fortieth to the forty-fourth\ninclusively. The arrangement of the chapters, alluded to above, is here\nsubjoined: i-xx, xxii, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxxv, xxxvi, xlv, xxiv,\nxxix-xxxi, xxvii, xxviii, xxi, xxxiv, xxxvii, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxviii,\nxxxix, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth verse, xxxix, from the first\nto the fourteenth verse, xl-xliv, xlvi, and so on.\n\nThe prophecies of Jeremiah, of which the circumstantial accomplishment\nis often specified in the Old and New Testament, are of a very\ndistinguished and illustrious character. He foretold the fate of\nZedekiah, Jer. xxxiv, 2\u20135; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 11\u201321; 2 Kings xxv, 5; Jer.\nlii, 11; the Babylonish captivity, the precise time of its duration, and\nthe return of the Jews. He describes the destruction of Babylon, and the\ndownfall of many nations, Jer. xxv, 12; ix, 26; xxv, 19\u201325; xlii, 10\u201318;\nxlvi, and the following chapters, in predictions, of which the gradual\nand successive completion kept up the confidence of the Jews for the\naccomplishment of those prophecies, which he delivered relative to the\nMessiah and his period, Jer. xxiii, 5, 6; xxx, 9; xxxi, 15; xxxii,\n14\u201318; xxxiii, 9\u201326. He foreshowed the miraculous conception of Christ,\nJer. xxxi, 22, the virtue of his atonement, the spiritual character of\nhis covenant, and the inward efficacy of his laws, Jer. xxxi, 31\u201336;\nxxxiii, 8. Jeremiah, contemplating those calamities which impended over\nhis country, represented, in the most descriptive terms, and under the\nmost impressive images, the destruction that the invading enemy should\nproduce. He bewailed, in pathetic expostulation, the shameless\nadulteries which had provoked the Almighty, after long forbearance, to\nthreaten Judah with inevitable punishment, at the time that false\nprophets deluded the nation with the promises of \u201cassured peace,\u201d and\nwhen the people, in impious contempt of \u201cthe Lord\u2019s word,\u201d defied its\naccomplishment. Jeremiah intermingles with his prophecies some\nhistorical relations relative to his own conduct, and to the completion\nof those predictions which he had delivered. The reputation of Jeremiah\nhad spread among foreign nations, and his prophecies were deservedly\ncelebrated in other countries. Many Heathen writers also have\nundesignedly borne testimony to the truth and accuracy of his prophetic\nand historical descriptions.\n\nAs to the style of Jeremiah, says Bishop Lowth, this prophet is by no\nmeans wanting either in elegance or sublimity, although, generally\nspeaking, inferior to Isaiah in both. His thoughts, indeed, are somewhat\nless elevated, and he is commonly more large and diffuse in his\nsentences; but the reason of this may be, that he is mostly taken up\nwith the gentler passions of grief and pity, for the expression of which\nhe has a peculiar talent. This is most evident in the Lamentations,\nwhere those passions altogether predominate; but it is often visible\nalso in his prophecies, in the former part of the book more especially,\nwhich is principally poetical; the middle parts are chiefly historical;\nbut the last part, consisting of six chapters, is entirely poetical, and\ncontains several oracles distinctly marked, in which this prophet falls\nvery little short of the lofty style of Isaiah. But of the whole book of\nJeremiah it is hardly the one half which I look upon as poetical.\n\nJeremiah survived to behold the sad accomplishment of all his darkest\npredictions. He witnessed all the horrors of the famine, and, when that\nhad done its work, the triumph of the enemy. He saw the strong holds of\nthe city cast down, the palace of Solomon, the temple of God, with all\nits courts, its roofs of cedar and of gold, levelled to the earth, or\ncommitted to the flames; the sacred vessels, the ark of the covenant\nitself, with the cherubim, pillaged by profane hands. What were the\nfeelings of a patriotic and religious Jew at this tremendous crisis, he\nhas left on record in his unrivalled elegies. Never did city suffer a\nmore miserable fate, never was ruined city lamented in language so\nexquisitely pathetic. Jerusalem is, as it were, personified, and\nbewailed with the passionate sorrow of private and domestic attachment;\nwhile the more general pictures of the famine, the common misery of\nevery rank, and age, and sex, all the desolation, the carnage, the\nviolation, the dragging away into captivity, the remembrance of former\nglories, of the gorgeous ceremonies and the glad festivals, the awful\nsense of the divine wrath heightening the present calamities, are\nsuccessively drawn with all the life and reality of an eye-witness. They\ncombine the truth of history with the deepest pathos of poetry.\n\nJERICHO was a city of Benjamin, about seven leagues from Jerusalem, and\ntwo from the Jordan, Joshua xviii, 21. Moses calls it the city of palm\ntrees, Deut. xxxiv, 3, because of palm trees growing in the plain of\nJericho. Josephus says, that in the territory of this city were not only\nmany palm trees, but also the balsam tree. The valley of Jericho was\nwatered by a rivulet which had been formerly salt and bitter, but was\nsweetened by the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings ii, 19. Jericho was the first\ncity in Canaan taken by Joshua, ii, 1, 2, &c. He sent thither spies, who\nwere received by Rahab, lodged in her house, and preserved from the king\nof Jericho. Joshua received orders to besiege Jericho, soon after his\npassage over Jordan, Joshua vi, 1\u20133, &c. God commanded the Hebrews to\nmarch round the city once a day for seven days together. The soldiers\nmarched first, probably out of the reach of the enemies\u2019 arrows, and\nafter them the priests, the ark, &c. On the seventh day, they marched\nseven times round the city; and at the seventh, while the trumpets were\nsounding, and all the people shouting, the walls fell down. The rabbins\nsay, that the first day was our Sunday, and the seventh the Sabbath day.\nDuring the first six days, the people continued in profound silence; but\non the seventh Joshua commanded them to shout. Accordingly they all\nexerted their voices, and the walls being overthrown, they entered the\ncity, every man in the place opposite to him. Jericho being devoted by\nGod, they set fire to the city, and consecrated all the gold, silver,\nand brass. Then Joshua said, \u201cCursed be the man before the Lord who\nshall rebuild Jericho.\u201d About five hundred and thirty years after this,\nHiel, of Bethel, undertook to rebuild it; but he lost his eldest son,\nAbiram, at laying the foundations, and his youngest son, Segub, when he\nhung up the gates. However, we are not to imagine that there was no city\nof Jericho till the time of Hiel. There was a city of palm trees,\nprobably the same as Jericho, under the Judges, Judges iii, 13. David\u2019s\nambassadors, who had been insulted by the Ammonites, resided at Jericho\ntill their beards were grown, 2 Sam. x, 4. There was, therefore, a city\nof Jericho which stood in the neighbourhood of the original Jericho.\nThese two places are distinguished by Josephus. After Hiel of Bethel had\nrebuilt old Jericho, no one scrupled to dwell there. Our Saviour wrought\nmiracles at Jericho.\n\nAccording to Pococke, the mountains to which the absurd name of\nQuarantania has been arbitrarily given, are the highest in all Judea;\nand he is probably correct; they form part of a chain extending from\nScythopolis into Idumea. The fountain of Elisha he states to be a soft\nwater, rather warm; he found in it some small shell fish of the\nturbinated kind. Close by the ruined aqueduct are the remains of a fine\npaved way, with a fallen column, supposed to be a Roman milestone. The\nhills nearest to Jerusalem consist, according to Hasselquist, of a very\nhard limestone; and different sorts of plants are found on them, in\nparticular the myrtle, the carob tree, and the turpentine tree; but\nfarther toward Jericho they are bare and barren, the hard limestone\ngiving way to a looser kind, sometimes white and sometimes grayish, with\ninterjacent layers of a reddish micaceous stone, _saxum purum micaceum_.\nThe vales, though now bare and uncultivated, and full of pebbles,\ncontain good red mould, which would amply reward the husbandman\u2019s toil.\nNothing can be more savage than the present aspect of these wild and\ngloomy solitudes, through which runs the very road where is laid the\nscene of that exquisite parable, the good Samaritan, and from that time\nto the present, it has been the haunt of the most desperate bandits,\nbeing one of the most dangerous in Palestine. Sometimes the track leads\nalong the edges of cliffs and precipices, which threaten destruction on\nthe slightest false step; at other times it winds through craggy passes,\novershadowed by projecting or perpendicular rocks. At one place the road\nhas been cut through the very apex of a hill, the rocks overhanging it\non either side. Here, in 1820, an English traveller, Sir Frederick\nHenniker, was attacked by the Arabs with fire-arms, who stripped him\nnaked, and left him severely wounded: \u201cIt was past mid-day, and burning\nhot,\u201d says Sir Frederick; \u201cI bled profusely; and two vultures, whose\nbusiness it is to consume corpses, were hovering over me. I should\nscarcely have had strength to resist, had they chosen to attack me.\u201d\n\nThe modern village of Jericho is described by Mr. Buckingham as a\nsettlement of about fifty dwellings, all very mean in their appearance,\nand fenced in front with thorny bushes, while a barrier of the same\nkind, the most effectual that could be raised against mounted Arabs,\nencircles the town. A fine brook flows by it, which empties itself into\nthe Jordan; the nearest point of that river is about three miles\ndistant. The grounds in the immediate vicinity of the village, being\nfertilized by this stream, bear crops of dourra, Indian corn, rice, and\nonions. The population is entirely Mohammedan, and is governed by a\nsheikh: their habits are those of Bedouins, and robbery and plunder form\ntheir chief and most gainful occupation. The whole of the road from\nJerusalem to the Jordan, is held to be the most dangerous in Palestine;\nand indeed, in this portion of it, the very aspect of the scenery is\nsufficient, on the one hand, to tempt to robbery and murder, and, on the\nother, to occasion a dread of it in those who pass that way. One must be\namid these wild and gloomy solitudes, surrounded by an armed band, and\nfeel the impatience of the traveller who rushes on to catch a new view\nat every pass and turn; one must be alarmed at the very tramp of the\nhorses\u2019 hoofs rebounding through the caverned rocks, and at the savage\nshouts of the footmen, scarcely less loud than the echoing thunder\nproduced by the discharge of their pieces in the valleys; one must\nwitness all this upon the spot, before the full force and beauty of the\nadmirable story of the good Samaritan can be perceived. Here, pillage,\nwounds, and death would be accompanied with double terror, from the\nfrightful aspect of every thing around. Here, the unfeeling act of\npassing by a fellow creature in distress, as the priest and Levite are\nsaid to have done, strikes one with horror, as an act almost more than\ninhuman. And here, too, the compassion of the good Samaritan is doubly\nvirtuous, from the purity of the motive which must have led to it, in a\nspot where no eyes were fixed on him to draw forth the performance of\nany duty, and from the bravery which was necessary to admit of a man\u2019s\nexposing himself, by such delay, to the risk of a similar fate to that\nfrom which he was endeavouring to rescue his fellow creature.\n\nJEROBOAM, the son of Nebat and Zeruah, was born at Zereda, in the tribe\nof Ephraim, 1 Kings xi, 26. He is the subject of frequent mention in\nScripture, as having been the cause of the ten tribes revolting from the\ndominion of Rehoboam, and also of his having \u201cmade Israel to sin,\u201d by\ninstituting the idolatrous worship of the golden calves at Dan and\nBethel, 1 Kings xii, 26\u201333. He seems to have been a bold, unprincipled,\nand enterprising man, with much of the address of a deep politician\nabout him; qualities which probably pointed him out to King Solomon as a\nproper person to be entrusted with the obnoxious commission of levying\ncertain taxes throughout the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. On a\ncertain day, as Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem into the country,\nhaving a new cloak wrapped about his shoulders, the Prophet Ahijah met\nhim in a field where they were alone, and seizing the cloak of Jeroboam,\nhe cut it into twelve pieces, and then addressing him, said, \u201cTake ten\nof them to thyself; for thus saith the Lord, I will divide and rend the\nkingdom of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee. If, therefore,\nthou obeyest my word and walkest in my ways as David my servant has\ndone, I will be with thee, and will establish thy house for ever, and\nput thee in possession of the kingdom of Israel,\u201d 1 Kings xi, 14\u201339.\nWhether it were that the promises thus made by Ahijah prompted Jeroboam\nto aim at taking their accomplishment into his own hands, and, with a\nview to that, began to solicit the subjects of Solomon to revolt; or\nwhether the bare information of what had passed between the prophet and\nJeroboam, excited his fear and jealousy, it appears evident that the\naged monarch took the alarm, and attempted to apprehend Jeroboam, who,\ngetting notice of what was intended him, made a precipitate retreat into\nEgypt, where he remained till the death of Solomon. He then returned,\nand found that Rehoboam, who had succeeded his father Solomon in the\nthrone of David, had already excited the disgust of ten of the tribes by\nsome arbitrary proceedings, in consequence of which they had withdrawn\ntheir allegiance from the new monarch. These tribes no sooner heard of\nhis return than they invited him to appear among them in a general\nassembly, in which they elected him to be king over Israel. Jeroboam\nfixed his residence at Shechem, and there fortified himself; he also\nrebuilt Penuel, a city beyond Jordan, putting it into a state of\ndefence, in order to keep the tribes quiet which were on that side\nJordan, 1 Kings xii, 1\u201325.\n\nBut Jeroboam soon forgot the duty which he owed to God, who had given\nhim the kingdom; and thought of nothing but how to maintain himself in\nthe possession of it, though he discarded the worship of the true God.\nThe first suggestion of his unbelieving heart was, that if the tribes\nover whom he reigned were to go up to Jerusalem to sacrifice and keep\nthe annual festivals, they would be under continual temptations to\nreturn to the house of David. To counteract this, he caused two golden\ncalves to be made as objects of religious worship, one of which he\nplaced at Dan, and the other at Bethel, the two extremities of his\ndominions; and caused a proclamation to be made throughout all his\nterritories, that in future none of his subjects should go up to\nJerusalem to worship; and, directing them to the two calves which had\nbeen recently erected, he cried out, \u201cBehold thy gods, O Israel, which\nbrought thee up out of Egypt!\u201d He also caused idolatrous temples to be\nbuilt, and priests to be ordained of the lowest of the people, who were\nneither of the family of Aaron nor of the tribe of Levi, 1 Kings xii,\n26\u201333. Having appointed a solemn public festival to be observed on the\nfifteenth day of the eighth month, in order to dedicate his new altar\nand consecrate his golden calves, he assembled the people at Bethel, and\nhimself went up to the altar for the purpose of offering incense and\nsacrifices. At that instant a prophet, who had come, divinely directed,\nfrom Judah to Bethel, accosted Jeroboam, and said, \u201cO altar, altar, thus\nsaith the Lord, A child shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by\nname; and upon thee shall he sacrifice the priests of the high places\nwho now burn incense upon thee: he shall burn men\u2019s bones upon thee.\u201d To\nconfirm the truth of this threatening, the prophet also added a sign,\nnamely, that the altar should immediately be rent asunder, and the ashes\nand every thing upon it poured upon the earth. Jeroboam, incensed at\nthis interference of the prophet, stretched out his hand and commanded\nhim to be seized; but the hand which he had stretched out was instantly\nparalyzed, and he was unable to draw it back again. The altar, too, was\nbroken, and the ashes upon it fell to the ground according to the\nprediction of the prophet. Jeroboam now solicited his prayers that his\nhand might be restored to him. The man of God interposed his\nsupplication to Heaven, and the king\u2019s hand was restored to him sound as\nbefore. Jeroboam then entreated him that he would accompany him to his\nown house, and accept a reward; but he answered, \u201cThough thou shouldst\ngive me the half of thine house, I would not go with thee, nor will I\ntaste any thing in this place, for the Lord hath expressly forbidden me\nto do so,\u201d 1 Kings xiii, 1\u201310. But notwithstanding this manifest\nindication of the displeasure of Heaven, it failed of recovering\nJeroboam from his impious procedure. He continued to encourage his\nsubjects in idolatry, by appointing priests of the high places, and\nengaging them in such worship as was contrary to the divine law. This\nwas the sin of Jeroboam\u2019s family, and it was the cause of its utter\nextirpation. Some time after his accession to the throne of Israel, his\nfavourite son Abijah fell sick, and, to relieve his parental solicitude,\nJeroboam instructed his wife to disguise herself, and in that state to\ngo and consult the Prophet Ahijah concerning his recovery. This was the\nsame prophet who had foretold to Jeroboam that he should be king of\nIsrael. He was now blind through old age; but the prophet was warned of\nher approach, and, before she entered his threshold, he called her by\nname, told her that her son should die, and then, in appalling terms,\ndenounced the impending ruin of Jeroboam\u2019s whole family, which shortly\nafter came to pass. After a reign of two-and-twenty years, Jeroboam\ndied, and Nadab, his son, succeeded to the crown, 1 Kings xiii, 33, 34;\nxiv, 1\u201320.\n\n2. JEROBOAM, the second of that name, was the son of Jehoash, king of\nIsrael. He succeeded to his father\u2019s royal dignity, A. M. 3179, and\nreigned forty-one years. Though much addicted to the idolatrous\npractices of the son of Nebat, yet the Lord was pleased so far to\nprosper his reign, that by his means, according to the predictions of\nthe Prophet Jonah, the kingdom of the ten tribes was restored from a\nstate of great decay, into which it had fallen, and was even raised to a\npitch of extraordinary splendour. The Prophets Amos and Hosea, as well\nas Jonah, lived during this reign.\n\nJERUSALEM, formerly called Jebus, or Salem, Joshua xviii, 28; Heb. vii,\n2, the capital of Judea, situated partly in the tribe of Benjamin, and\npartly in that of Judah. It was not completely reduced by the Israelites\ntill the reign of David, 2 Sam. v, 6\u20139. As Jerusalem was the centre of\nthe true worship, Psalm cxxii, 4, and the place where God did in a\npeculiar manner dwell, first in the tabernacle, 2 Sam. vi, 7, 12; 1\nChron. xv, 1; xvi, 1; Psalm cxxxii, 13; cxxxv, 2, and afterward in the\ntemple, 1 Kings vi, 13; so it is used figuratively to denote the church,\nor the celestial society, to which all that believe, both Jews and\nGentiles, are come, and in which they are initiated, Gal. iv, 26; Heb.\nxii, 22; Rev. iii, 12; xxi, 2, 10. Jerusalem was situated in a stony and\nbarren soil, and was about sixty furlongs in length, according to\nStrabo. The territory and places adjacent were well watered, having the\nfountains of Gihon and Siloam, and the brook Kidron, at the foot of its\nwalls; and, beside these, there were the waters of Ethan, which Pilate\nhad conveyed through aqueducts into the city. The ancient city of\nJerusalem, or Jebus, which David took from the Jebusites, was not very\nlarge. It was seated upon a mountain southward of the temple. The\nopposite mountain, situated to the north, is Sion, where David built a\nnew city, which he called the city of David, wherein was the royal\npalace, and the temple of the Lord. The temple was built upon Mount\nMoriah, which was one of the little hills belonging to Mount Sion.\n\nThrough the reigns of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was the metropolis of\nthe whole Jewish kingdom, and continued to increase in wealth and\nsplendour. It was resorted to at the festivals by the whole population\nof the country; and the power and commercial spirit of Solomon,\nimproving the advantages acquired by his father David, centred in it\nmost of the eastern trade, both by sea, through the ports of Elath and\nEzion-Geber, and over land, by the way of Tadmor or Palmyra. Or, at\nleast, though Jerusalem might not have been made a depot of merchandise,\nthe quantity of precious metals flowing into it by direct importation,\nand by duties imposed on goods passing to the ports of the\nMediterranean, and in other directions, was unbounded. Some idea of the\nprodigious wealth of Jerusalem at this time may be formed by stating,\nthat the quantity of gold left by David for the use of the temple\namounted to \u00a321,600,000 sterling, beside \u00a33,150,000 in silver; and\nSolomon obtained \u00a33,240,000 in gold by one voyage to Ophir, while silver\nwas so abundant, \u201cthat it was not any thing accounted of.\u201d These were\nthe days of Jerusalem\u2019s glory. Universal peace, unmeasured wealth, the\nwisdom and clemency of the prince, and the worship of the true God,\nmarked Jerusalem, above every city, as enjoying the presence and the\nespecial favour of the Almighty. But these days were not to last long:\nintestine divisions and foreign wars, wicked and tyrannical princes,\nand, last of all, the crime most offensive to Heaven, and the one least\nto be expected among so favoured a people, led to a series of\ncalamities, through the long period of nine hundred years, with which no\nother city or nation can furnish a parallel. After the death of Solomon,\nten of the twelve tribes revolted from his successor Rehoboam, and,\nunder Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, established a separate kingdom: so\nthat Jerusalem, no longer the capital of the whole empire, and its\ntemple frequented only by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, must have\nexperienced a mournful declension. Four years after this, the city and\ntemple were taken and plundered by Shishak, king of Egypt, 1 Kings xiv,\n26, 27; 2 Chron. xii, 2\u20139. One hundred and forty-five years after, under\nAmaziah, they sustained the same fate from Joash, king of Israel, 2\nKings xiv; 2 Chron. xxv. One hundred and sixty years from this period,\nthe city was again taken, by Esarhaddon, king of Assyria; and Manasseh,\nthe king, carried a prisoner to Babylon, 2 Chron. xxxiii. Within the\nspace of sixty-six years more it was taken by Pharaoh-Necho, king of\nEgypt, whom Josiah, king of Judah, had opposed in his expedition to\nCarchemish; and who, in consequence, was killed at the battle of\nMegiddo, and his son Eliakim placed on the throne in his stead by Necho,\nwho changed his name to Jehoiakim, and imposed a heavy tribute upon him,\nhaving sent his elder brother, Jehoahaz, who had been proclaimed king at\nJerusalem, a prisoner to Egypt, where he died, 2 Kings xxiii; 2 Chron.\nxxxv. Jerusalem was three times besieged and taken by Nebuchadnezzar,\nking of Babylon, within a very few years. The first, in the reign of the\nlast mentioned king, Jehoiakim, who was sent a prisoner to Babylon, and\nthe vessels of the temple transported to the same city, 2 Chron. xxxvi.\nThe second, in that of his son Jehoiachin; when all the treasures of the\npalace and the temple, and the remainder of the vessels of the latter\nwhich had been hidden or spared in the first capture, were carried away\nor destroyed, and the best of the inhabitants, with the king, led into\ncaptivity, 2 Kings xxiv; 2 Chron. xxxvi. And the third, in the reign of\nZedekiah, the successor of Jehoiachin; in whose ninth year the most\nformidable siege which this ill fated city ever sustained, except that\nof Titus, was commenced. It continued two years; during a great part of\nwhich the inhabitants suffered all the horrors of famine: when, on the\nninth day of the fourth month, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, which\nanswers to July in the year B. C. 588, the garrison, with the king,\nendeavoured to make their escape from the city, but were pursued and\ndefeated by the Chaldeans in the plains of Jericho; Zedekiah taken\nprisoner; his sons killed before his face at Riblah, whither he was\ntaken to the king of Babylon; and he himself, after his eyes were put\nout, was bound with fetters of brass, and carried prisoner to Babylon,\nwhere he died: thus fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel, which declared\nthat he should be carried to Babylon, but should not see the place,\nthough he should die there, Ezekiel xii, 13. In the following month, the\nChaldean army, under their general, Nebuzaradan, entered the city, took\naway every thing that was valuable, and then burned and utterly\ndestroyed it, with its temple and walls, and left the whole razed to the\nground. The entire population of the city and country, with the\nexception of a few husbandmen, were then carried captive to Babylon.\n\nDuring seventy years, the city and temple lay in ruins: when those Jews\nwho chose to take immediate advantage of the proclamation of Cyrus,\nunder the conduct of Zerubbabel, returned to Jerusalem, and began to\nbuild the temple; all the vessels of gold and silver belonging to which,\nthat had been taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, being restored by Cyrus.\nTheir work, however, did not proceed far without opposition; for in the\nreign of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, who in Scripture is called\nAhasuerus, the Samaritans presented a petition to that monarch to put a\nstop to the building, Ezra iv, 6. Cambyses appears to have been too\nbusily engaged in his Egyptian expedition to pay any attention to this\nmalicious request. His successor, Smerdis, the Magian, however, who in\nScripture is called Artaxerxes, to whom a similar petition was sent,\nrepresenting the Jews as a factious and dangerous people, listened to\nit, and, in the true spirit of a usurper, issued a decree putting a stop\nto the farther building of the temple, Ezra iv, 7, &c; which, in\nconsequence, remained in an unfinished state till the second year,\naccording to the Jewish, and third, according to the Babylonian and\nPersian account, of Darius Hystaspes, who is called simply Darius in\nScripture. To him also a representation hostile to the Jews was made by\ntheir inveterate enemies, the Samaritans; but this noble prince refused\nto listen to it, and having searched the rolls of the kingdom, and found\nin the palace at Acmetha the decree of Cyrus, issued a similar one,\nwhich reached Jerusalem in the subsequent year, and even ordered these\nvery Samaritans to assist the Jews in their work; so that it was\ncompleted in the sixth year of the same reign, Ezra iv, 24; v; vi, 1\u201315.\nBut the city and walls remained in a ruinous condition until the\ntwentieth year of Artaxerxes, the Artaxerxes Longimanus of profane\nhistory; by whom Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem, with a power granted to\nhim to rebuild them. Accordingly, under the direction of this zealous\nservant of God, the walls were speedily raised, but not without the\naccustomed opposition on the part of the Samaritans; who, despairing of\nthe success of an application to the court of Persia, openly attacked\nthe Jews with arms. But the building, notwithstanding, went steadily on;\nthe men working with an implement of work in one hand, and a weapon of\nwar in the other; and the wall, with incredible labour, was finished in\nfifty-two days, in the year B. C. 445; after which, the city itself was\ngradually rebuilt, Neh. ii, iv, vi. From this time Jerusalem remained\nattached to the Persian empire, but under the local jurisdiction of the\nhigh priests, until the subversion of that empire by Alexander, fourteen\nyears after. See ALEXANDER.\n\nAt the death of Alexander, and the partition of his empire by his\ngenerals, Jerusalem, with Judea, fell to the kings of Syria. But in the\nfrequent wars which followed between the kings of Syria and those of\nEgypt, called by Daniel, the kings of the north and south, it belonged\nsometimes to one and sometimes to the other,--an unsettled and unhappy\nstate, highly favourable to disorder and corruption,--the high\npriesthood was openly sold to the highest bidder; and numbers of the\nJews deserted their religion for the idolatries of the Greeks. At\nlength, in the year B. C. 170, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria,\nenraged at hearing that the Jews had rejoiced at a false report of his\ndeath, plundered Jerusalem, and killed eighty thousand men. Not more\nthan two years afterward, this cruel tyrant, who had seized every\nopportunity to exercise his barbarity on the Jews, sent Apollonius with\nan army to Jerusalem; who pulled down the walls, grievously oppressed\nthe people, and built a citadel on a rock adjoining the temple, which\ncommanded that building, and had the effect of completely overawing the\nseditious. Having thus reduced this unfortunate city into entire\nsubmission, and rendered resistance useless, the next step of Antiochus\nwas to abolish the Jewish religion altogether, by publishing an edict\nwhich commanded all the people of his dominions to conform to the\nreligion of the Greeks: in consequence of which, the service of the\ntemple ceased, and a statue of Jupiter Olympus was set up on the altar.\nBut this extremity of ignominy and oppression led, as might have been\nexpected, to rebellion; and those Jews who still held their insulted\nreligion in reverence, fled to the mountains, with Mattathias and Judas\nMaccabeus; the latter of whom, after the death of Mattathias, who with\nhis followers and successors, are known by the name of Maccabees, waged\nsuccessful war with the Syrians; defeated Apollonius, Nicanor, and\nLysias, generals of Antiochus; obtained possession of Jerusalem,\npurified the temple, and restored the service, after three years\u2019\ndefilement by the Gentile idolatries.\n\nFrom this time, during several succeeding Maccabean rulers, who were at\nonce high priests and sovereigns of the Jews, but without the title of\nking, Jerusalem was able to preserve itself from Syrian violence. It\nwas, however, twice besieged, first by Antiochus Eupator, in the year\n163, and afterward by Antiochus Sidetes, in the year B. C. 134. But the\nJews had caused themselves to be sufficiently respected to obtain\nconditions of peace on both occasions, and to save their city; till, at\nlength, Hyrcanus, in the year 130 B. C., shook off the Syrian yoke, and\nreigned, after this event, twenty-one years in independence and\nprosperity. His successor, Judas, made an important change in the Jewish\ngovernment, by taking the title of king, which dignity was enjoyed by\nhis successors forty-seven years, when a dispute having arisen between\nHyrcanus II. and his brother Aristobulus, and the latter having overcome\nthe former, and made himself king, was, in his turn, conquered by the\nRomans under Pompey, by whom the city and temple were taken, Aristobulus\nmade prisoner, and Hyrcanus created high priest and prince of the Jews,\nbut without the title of king. By this event Judea was reduced to the\ncondition of a Roman province, in the year 63 B. C. Nor did Jerusalem\nlong after enjoy the dignity of a metropolis, that honour being\ntransferred to C\u00e6sarea. Julius C\u00e6sar, having defeated Pompey, continued\nHyrcanus in the high priesthood, but bestowed the government of Judea\nupon Antipater, an Idum\u00e6an by birth, but a Jewish proselyte, and father\nof Herod the Great. For the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the\nRomans, see JEWS.\n\nJerusalem lay in ruins about forty-seven years, when the Emperor \u00c6lius\nAdrian began to build it anew, and erected a Heathen temple, which he\ndedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus. The city was finished in the twentieth\nyear of his reign, and called, after its founder, \u00c6lia, or \u00c6lia\nCapitolina, from the Heathen deity who presided over it. In this state\nJerusalem continued, under the name of \u00c6lia, and inhabited more by\nChristians and Pagans than by Jews, till the time of the Emperor\nConstantine, styled the Great; who, about the year 323, having made\nChristianity the religion of the empire, began to improve it, adorned it\nwith many new edifices and churches, and restored its ancient name.\nAbout thirty-five years afterward, Julian, named the Apostate, not from\nany love he bore the Jews, but out of hatred to the Christians, whose\nfaith he had abjured, and with the avowed design of defeating the\nprophecies, which had declared that the temple should not be rebuilt,\nwrote to the Jews, inviting them to their city, and promising to restore\ntheir temple and nation. He accordingly employed great numbers of\nworkmen to clear the foundations; but balls of fire bursting from the\nearth, soon put a stop to their proceeding. This miraculous\ninterposition of Providence is attested by many credible witnesses and\nhistorians; and, in particular, by Ammianus Marcellinus, a Heathen, and\nfriend of Julian; Zemuch David, a Jew; Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose\nRuffinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates, who wrote his account within\nfifty years after the transaction, and while many eye-witnesses of it\nwere still living. So stubborn, indeed, is the proof of this miracle,\nthat even Gibbon, who strives to invalidate it, is obliged to\nacknowledge the general fact.\n\nJerusalem continued in nearly the same condition till the beginning of\nthe seventh century, when it was taken and plundered by the celebrated\nChosroes, king of Persia, by whom many thousands of the Christian\ninhabitants were killed, or sold for slaves. The Persians, however, did\nnot hold it long, as they were soon after entirely defeated by the\nEmperor Heraclius, who rescued Jerusalem, and restored it, not to the\nunhappy Jews, who were forbidden to come within three miles of it, but\nto the Christians. A worse calamity was, however, speedily to befall\nthis ill fated city. The Mohammedan imposture arose about this time; and\nthe fanatics who had adopted its creed carried their arms and their\nreligion with unprecedented rapidity over the greater part of the east.\nThe Caliph Omar, the third from Mohammed, invested the city, which,\nafter once more suffering the horrors of a protracted siege, surrendered\non terms of capitulation in the year 637; and has ever since, with the\nexception of the short period that it was occupied by the crusaders,\nbeen trodden under foot by the followers of the false prophet.\n\n2. The accounts of modern Jerusalem by travellers are very numerous. Mr.\nConder, in his \u201cPalestine,\u201d has abridged them with judgment; and we give\nthe following extract: The approach to Jerusalem from Jaffa is not the\ndirection in which to see the city to the best effect. Dr. E. D. Clarke\nentered it by the Damascus gate: and he describes the view of Jerusalem,\nwhen first descried from the summit of a hill, at about an hour\u2019s\ndistance, as most impressive. He confesses, at the same time, that there\nis no other point of view in which it is seen to so much advantage. In\nthe celebrated prospect from the Mount of Olives, the city lies too low,\nis too near the eye, and has too much the character of a bird\u2019s eye\nview, with the formality of a topographical plan. \u201cWe had not been\nprepared,\u201d says this lively traveller, \u201cfor the grandeur of the\nspectacle which the city alone exhibited. Instead of a wretched and\nruined town, by some described as the desolated remnant of Jerusalem, we\nbeheld, as it were, a flourishing and stately metropolis, presenting a\nmagnificent assemblage of domes, towers, palaces, churches, and\nmonasteries; all of which, glittering in the sun\u2019s rays, shone with\ninconceivable splendour. As we drew nearer, our whole attention was\nengrossed by its noble and interesting appearance. The lofty hills\nsurrounding it give the city itself an appearance of elevation less than\nit really has.\u201d Dr. Clarke was fortunate in catching this first view of\nJerusalem under the illusion of a brilliant evening sunshine; but his\ndescription is decidedly overcharged. M. Chateaubriand, Mr. Buckingham,\nMr. Brown, Mr. Jolliffe, Sir F. Henniker, and almost every other modern\ntraveller, confirm the representation of Dr. Richardson. Mr. Buckingham\nsays, \u201cThe appearance of this celebrated city, independent of the\nfeelings and recollections which the approach to it cannot fail to\nawaken, was greatly inferior to my expectations, and had certainly\nnothing of grandeur or beauty, of stateliness or magnificence, about it.\nIt appeared like a walled town of the third or fourth class, having\nneither towers, nor domes, nor minarets within it, in sufficient numbers\nto give even a character to its impressions on the beholder; but showing\nchiefly large flat-roofed buildings of the most unornamented kind,\nseated amid rugged hills, on a stony and forbidding soil, with scarcely\na picturesque object in the whole compass of the surrounding view.\u201d\nChateaubriand\u2019s description is very striking and graphical. After citing\nthe language of the Prophet Jeremiah, in his lamentations on the\ndesolation of the ancient city, as accurately portraying its present\nstate, Lam. i, 1\u20136; ii, 1\u20139, 15, he thus proceeds: \u201cWhen seen from the\nMount of Olives, on the other side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat,\nJerusalem presents an inclined plane, descending from west to east. An\nembattled wall, fortified with towers, and a Gothic castle, encompasses\nthe city all round; excluding, however, part of Mount Zion, which it\nformerly enclosed. In the western quarter, and in the centre of the\ncity, the houses stand very close; but, in the eastern part, along the\nbrook Kedron, you perceive vacant spaces; among the rest, that which\nsurrounds the mosque erected on the ruins of the temple, and the nearly\ndeserted spot where once stood the castle of Antonia and the second\npalace of Herod. The houses of Jerusalem are heavy square masses, very\nlow, without chimneys or windows: they have flat terraces or domes on\nthe top, and look like prisons or sepulchres. The whole would appear to\nthe eye one uninterrupted level, did not the steeples of the churches,\nthe minarets of the mosques, the summits of a few cypresses, and the\nclumps of nopals, break the uniformity of the plan. On beholding these\nstone buildings, encompassed by a stony country, you are ready to\ninquire if they are not the confused monuments of a cemetry in the midst\nof a desert. Enter the city, but nothing will you there find to make\namends for the dulness of its exterior. You lose yourself among narrow,\nunpaved streets, here going up hill, there down, from the inequality of\nthe ground; and you walk among clouds of dust or loose stones. Canvas\nstretched from house to house increases the gloom of this labyrinth.\nBazaars, roofed over, and fraught with infection, completely exclude the\nlight from the desolate city. A few paltry shops expose nothing but\nwretchedness to view; and even these are frequently shut, from\napprehension of the passage of a cadi. Not a creature is to be seen in\nthe streets, not a creature at the gates, except now and then a peasant\ngliding through the gloom, concealing under his garments the fruits of\nhis labour, lest he should be robbed of his hard earnings by the\nrapacious soldier. Aside, in a corner, the Arab butcher is slaughtering\nsome animal, suspended by the legs from a wall in ruins: from his\nhaggard and ferocious look, and his bloody hands, you would suppose that\nhe had been cutting the throat of a fellow creature, rather than killing\na lamb. The only noise heard from time to time in the city is the\ngalloping of the steed of the desert: it is the janissary who brings the\nhead of the Bedouin, or who returns from plundering the unhappy Fellah.\nAmid this extraordinary desolation, you must pause a moment to\ncontemplate two circumstances still more extraordinary. Among the ruins\nof Jerusalem, two classes of independent people find in their religion\nsufficient fortitude to enable them to surmount such complicated horrors\nand wretchedness. Here reside communities of Christian monks, whom\nnothing can compel to forsake the tomb of Christ; neither plunder, nor\npersonal ill treatment, nor menaces of death itself. Night and day they\nchant their hymns around the holy sepulchre. Driven by the cudgel and\nthe sabre, women, children, flocks, and herds, seek refuge in the\ncloisters of these recluses. What prevents the armed oppressor from\npursuing his prey, and overthrowing such feeble ramparts? The charity of\nthe monks: they deprive themselves of the last resources of life to\nransom their suppliants. Cast your eyes between the temple and Mount\nZion; behold another petty tribe cut off from the rest of the\ninhabitants of this city. The particular objects of every species of\ndegradation, these people bow their heads without murmuring; they endure\nevery kind of insult without demanding justice; they sink beneath\nrepeated blows without sighing; if their head be required, they present\nit to the scimitar. On the death of any member of this proscribed\ncommunity, his companion goes at night, and inters him by stealth in the\nValley of Jehoshaphat, in the shadow of Solomon\u2019s temple. Enter the\nabodes of these people, you will find them, amid the most abject\nwretchedness, instructing their children to read a mysterious book,\nwhich they in their turn will teach their offspring to read. What they\ndid five thousand years ago, these people still continue to do.\nSeventeen times have they witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, yet\nnothing can discourage them, nothing can prevent them from turning their\nfaces toward Sion. To see the Jews scattered over the whole world,\naccording to the word of God, must doubtless excite surprise. But to be\nstruck with supernatural astonishment, you must view them at Jerusalem;\nyou must behold these rightful masters of Judea living as slaves and\nstrangers in their own country; you must behold them expecting, under\nall oppressions, a king who is to deliver them. Crushed by the cross\nthat condemns them, skulking near the temple, of which not one stone is\nleft upon another, they continue in their deplorable infatuation. The\nPersians, the Greeks, the Romans, are swept from the earth; and a petty\ntribe, whose origin preceded that of those great nations, still exists\nunmixed among the ruins of its native land.\u201d To the same effect are the\nremarks of Dr. Richardson: \u201cIn passing up to the synagogue, I was\nparticularly struck with the mean and wretched appearance of the houses\non both sides of the streets, as well as with the poverty of their\ninhabitants. The sight of a poor Jew in Jerusalem has in it something\npeculiarly affecting. The heart of this wonderful people, in whatever\nclime they roam, still turns to it as the city of their promised rest.\nThey take pleasure in her ruins, and would kiss the very dust for her\nsake. Jerusalem is the centre around which the exiled sons of Judah\nbuild, in imagination, the mansions of their future greatness. In\nwhatever part of the world he may live, the heart\u2019s desire of a Jew is\nto be buried in Jerusalem. Thither they return from Spain and Portugal,\nfrom Egypt and Barbary, and other countries among which they have been\nscattered: and when, after all their longings, and all their struggles\nup the steeps of life, we see them poor, and blind, and naked, in the\nstreets of their once happy Zion, he must have a cold heart that can\nremain untouched by their sufferings, without uttering a prayer that God\nwould have mercy on the darkness of Judah; and that the Day Star of\nBethlehem might arise in their hearts.\u201d\n\n\u201cJerusalem,\u201d remarks Sir Frederick Henniker, \u201cis called, even by\nMohammedans, the Blessed City (_El Gootz, El Koudes_.) The streets of it\nare narrow and deserted, the houses dirty and ragged, the shops few and\nforsaken; and throughout the whole there is not one symptom of either\ncommerce, comfort, or happiness. The best view of it is from the Mount\nof Olives: it commands the exact shape and nearly every particular;\nnamely, the church of the holy sepulchre, the Armenian convent, the\nmosque of Omar, St. Stephen\u2019s gate, the round-topped houses, and the\nbarren vacancies of the city. Without the walls are a Turkish burial\nground, the tomb of David, a small grove near the tombs of the kings,\nand all the rest is a surface of rock, on which are a few numbered\ntrees. The mosque of Omar is the St. Peter\u2019s of Turkey, and the\nrespective saints are held respectively by their own faithful in equal\nveneration. The building itself has a light pagoda appearance; the\ngarden in which it stands occupies a considerable part of the city, and,\ncontrasted with the surrounding desert, is beautiful. The burial place\nof the Jews is over the valley of Kedron, and the fees for breaking the\nsoil afford a considerable revenue to the governor. The burial place of\nthe Turks is under the walls, near St. Stephen\u2019s gate. From the opposite\nside of the valley, I was witness to the ceremony of parading a corpse\nround the mosque of Omar, and then bringing it forth for burial. I\nhastened to the grave, but was soon driven away: as far as my _on dit_\ntells me, it would have been worth seeing. The grave is strown with red\nearth, supposed to be of the _Ager Damascenus_ of which Adam was made;\nby the side of the corpse is placed a stick, and the priest tells him\nthat the devil will tempt him to become a Christian, but that he must\nmake good use of his stick; that his trial will last three days, and\nthat he will then find himself in a mansion of glory,\u201d &c.\n\nThe Jerusalem of sacred history is, in fact, no more. Not a vestige\nremains of the capital of David and Solomon; not a monument of Jewish\ntimes is standing. The very course of the walls is changed, and the\nboundaries of the ancient city are become doubtful. The monks pretend to\nshow the sites of the sacred places; but neither Calvary, nor the holy\nsepulchre, much less the Dolorous Way, the house of Caiaphas, &c, have\nthe slightest pretensions to even a probable identity with the real\nplaces to which the tradition refers. Dr. E. D. Clarke has the merit of\nbeing the first modern traveller who ventured to speak of the\npreposterous legends and clumsy forgeries of the priests with the\ncontempt which they merit. \u201cTo men interested in tracing, within its\nwalls, antiquities referred to by the documents of sacred history, no\nspectacle,\u201d remarks the learned traveller, \u201ccan be more mortifying than\nthe city in its present state. The mistaken piety of the early\nChristians, in attempting to preserve, has either confused or\nannihilated the memorials it was anxious to render conspicuous. Viewing\nthe havoc thus made, it may now be regretted that the Holy Land was ever\nrescued from the dominion of Saracens, who were far less barbarous than\ntheir conquerors. The absurdity, for example, of hewing the rocks of\nJudea into shrines and chapels, and of disguising the face of nature\nwith painted domes and guilded marble coverings, by way of commemorating\nthe scenes of our Saviour\u2019s life and death, is so evident and so\nlamentable, that even Sandys, with all his credulity, could not avoid a\nhappy application of the reproof conveyed by the Roman satirist against\na similar violation of the Egerian fountain.\u201d Dr. Richardson remarks,\n\u201cIt is a tantalizing circumstance for the traveller who wishes to\nrecognise in his walks the site of particular buildings, or the scenes\nof memorable events, that the greater part of the objects mentioned in\nthe description both of the inspired and the Jewish historian, are\nentirely removed, and razed from their foundation, without leaving a\nsingle trace or name behind to point out where they stood. Not an\nancient tower, or gate, or wall, or hardly even a stone, remains. The\nfoundations are not only broken up, but every fragment of which they\nwere composed is swept away, and the spectator looks upon the bare rock\nwith hardly a sprinkling of earth to point out her gardens of pleasure,\nor groves of idolatrous devotion. And when we consider the palaces, and\ntowers, and walls about Jerusalem, and that the stones of which some of\nthem were constructed were thirty feet long, fifteen feet broad, and\nseven and a half feet thick, we are not more astonished at the strength,\nand skill, and perseverance, by which they were constructed, than\nshocked by the relentless and brutal hostility by which they were\nshattered and overthrown, and utterly removed from our sight. A few\ngardens still remain on the sloping base of Mount Zion, watered from the\npool of Siloam; the gardens of Gethsemane are still in a sort of ruined\ncultivation; the fences are broken down, and the olive trees decaying,\nas if the hand that dressed and fed them were withdrawn; the Mount of\nOlives still retains a languishing verdure, and nourishes a few of those\ntrees from which it derives its name; but all round about Jerusalem the\ngeneral aspect is blighted and barren; the grass is withered; the bare\nrock looks through the scanty sward; and the grain itself, like the\nstaring progeny of famine, seems in doubt whether to come to maturity,\nor die in the ear. The vine that was brought from Egypt is cut off from\nthe midst of the land; the vineyards are wasted; the hedges are taken\naway; and the graves of the ancient dead are open and tenantless.\u201d\n\n3. On the accomplishment of prophecy in the condition in which this\ncelebrated city has lain for ages, Keith well remarks:--It formed the\ntheme of prophecy from the death bed of Jacob; and, as the seat of the\ngovernment of the children of Judah, the sceptre departed not from it\ntill the Messiah appeared, on the expiration of seventeen hundred years\nafter the death of the patriarch, and till the period of its desolation,\nprophesied of by Daniel, had arrived. It was to be trodden down of the\nGentiles, till the time of the Gentiles should be fulfilled. The time of\nthe Gentiles is not yet fulfilled, and Jerusalem is still trodden down\nof the Gentiles. The Jews have often attempted to recover it: no\ndistance of space or of time can separate it from their affections: they\nperform their devotions with their faces toward it, as if it were the\nobject of their worship as well as of their love; and, although their\ndesire to return be so strong, indelible, and innate, that every Jew, in\nevery generation, counts himself an exile, yet they have never been able\nto rebuild their temple, nor to recover Jerusalem from the hands of the\nGentiles. But greater power than that of a proscribed and exiled race\nhas been added to their own, in attempting to frustrate the counsel that\nprofessed to be of God. Julian, the emperor of the Romans, not only\npermitted but invited the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and their temple;\nand promised to re\u00ebstablish them in their paternal city. By that single\nact, more than by all his writings, he might have destroyed the\ncredibility of the Gospel, and restored his beloved but deserted\nPaganism. The zeal of the Jews was equal to his own; and the work was\nbegun by laying again the foundations of the temple. It was never\naccomplished, and the prophecy stands fulfilled. But even if the attempt\nof Julian had never been made, the truth of the prophecy itself is\nunassailable. The Jews have never been reinstated in Judea. Jerusalem\nhas ever been trodden down of the Gentiles. The edict of Adrian was\nrenewed by the successors of Julian; and no Jews could approach unto\nJerusalem but by bribery or by stealth. It was a spot unlawful for them\nto touch. In the crusades, all the power of Europe was employed to\nrescue Jerusalem from the Heathens, but equally in vain. It has been\ntrodden down for nearly eighteen centuries by its successive masters; by\nRomans, Grecians, Persians, Saracens, Mamelukes, Turks, Christians, and\nagain by the worst of rulers, the Arabs and the Turks. And could any\nthing be more improbable to have happened, or more impossible to have\nbeen foreseen by man, than that any people should be banished from their\nown capital and country, and remain expelled and expatriated for nearly\neighteen hundred years? Did the same fate ever befall any nation, though\nno prophecy existed respecting it? Is there any doctrine in Scripture so\nhard to be believed as was this single fact at the period of its\nprediction? And even with the example of the Jews before us, is it\nlikely, or is it credible, or who can foretel, that the present\ninhabitants of any country upon earth shall be banished into all\nnations, retain their distinctive character, meet with an unparalleled\nfate, continue a people, without a government and without a country, and\nremain for an indefinite period, exceeding seventeen hundred years, till\nthe fulfilment of a prescribed event which has yet to be accomplished?\nMust not the knowledge of such truths be derived from that prescience\nalone which scans alike the will and the ways of mortals, the actions of\nfuture nations, and the history of the latest generations?\n\nJESHURUN, a name given to the collective political body of Israelites.\nSome derive the word from \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8, _just_ or _righteous_, and so make it to\nsignify a righteous people. Montanus renders it _rectitudo_, and so does\nthe Samaritan version. But it seems a considerable objection against\nthis sense, that Israel is called Jeshurun at the very time that they\nare upbraided with their sins and their rebellion: \u201cJeshurun waxed fat,\nand kicked,\u201d &c, Deut. xxxii, 15. It is replied, Jeshurun is the\ndiminutive of \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8, (for _nomen auctum in fine est nomen diminutivum_,)\nand so imports, that though, in general and on the whole, they were a\nrighteous people, yet they were not without great faults. Perhaps\nCocceius has given as probable an interpretation as any. He derives the\nword from \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8, which signifies _to see_, _behold_, _or discover_; from\nwhence, in the future tense, plural, comes \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5, which, with the\naddition of nun _paragogicum_, makes Jeshurun; that is, \u201cthe people who\nhad the vision of God.\u201d This makes the name of Jeshurun to be properly\napplied to Israel, not only when Moses is called their king, but when\nthey are upbraided with their rebellion against God; since the peculiar\nmanifestation which God had made of himself to them was a great\naggravation of their ingratitude and rebellion.\n\nJESSE. See DAVID and RUTH.\n\nJESUITS, or the society of Jesus, one of the most celebrated monastic\norders of the Romish church, was founded in the year 1540, by Ignatius\nLoyola, Forsaking the military for the ecclesiastical profession, he\nengaged himself in the wildest and most extravagant adventures, as the\nknight of the blessed virgin. After performing a pilgrimage to the Holy\nLand, and pursuing a multitude of visionary schemes, he returned to\nprosecute his theological studies in the universities of Spain, when he\nwas about thirty-three years of age. He next went to Paris, where he\ncollected a small number of associates; and, prompted by his fanatical\nspirit, or the love of distinction, began to conceive the establishment\nof a new religious order. He produced a plan of its constitution and\nlaws, which he affirmed to have been suggested by the immediate\ninspiration of Heaven, and applied to the Roman pontiff, Paul III. for\nthe sanction of his authority to confirm the institution. At a time when\nthe papal authority had received so severe a shock from the progress of\nthe Reformation, and was still exposed to the most powerful attacks in\nevery quarter, this was an offer too tempting to be resisted. The\nreigning pontiff, though naturally cautious, and though scarcely\ncapable, without the spirit of prophecy, of foreseeing all the\nadvantages to be derived from the services of this nascent order, yet\nclearly perceiving the benefit of multiplying the number of his devoted\nservants, instantly confirmed by his bull the institution of the\nJesuits, granted the most ample privileges to the members of the\nsociety, and appointed Loyola to be the first general of the order.\n\n2. The simple and primary object of the society, says a writer in the\nEdinburgh Encyclop\u00e6dia, was to establish a spiritual dominion over the\nminds of men, of which the pope should appear as the ostensible head,\nwhile the real power should reside with themselves. To accomplish this\nobject, the whole constitution and policy of the order were singularly\nadapted, and exhibited various peculiarities which distinguished it from\nall other monastic orders. The immediate design of every other religious\nsociety was to separate its members from the world; that of the Jesuits,\nto render them masters of the world. The inmate of the convent devoted\nhimself to work out his own salvation by extraordinary acts of devotion\nand self-denial; the follower of Loyola considered himself as plunging\ninto all the bustle of secular affairs, to maintain the interests of the\nRomish church. The monk was a retired devotee of heaven; the Jesuit a\nchosen soldier of the pope. That the members of the new order might have\nfull leisure for this active service, they were exempted from the usual\nfunctions of other monks. They were not required to spend their time in\nthe long ceremonial offices and numberless mummeries of the Romish\nworship. They attended no processions, and practised no austerities.\nThey neither chanted nor prayed. \u201cThey cannot sing,\u201d said their enemies;\n\u201cfor birds of prey never do.\u201d They were sent forth to watch every\ntransaction of the world which might appear to affect the interests of\nreligion, and were especially enjoined to study the dispositions and\ncultivate the friendship of persons in the higher ranks. Nothing could\nbe imagined more open and liberal than the external aspect of the\ninstitution, yet nothing could be more strict and secret than its\ninternal organization. Loyola, influenced, perhaps, by the notions of\nimplicit obedience which he had derived from his military profession,\nresolved that the government of the Jesuits should be absolutely\nmonarchical. A general, chosen for life by deputies from the several\nprovinces, possessed supreme and independent power, extending to every\nperson, and applying to every case. Every member of the order, the\ninstant that he entered its pale, surrendered all freedom of thought and\naction; and every personal feeling was superseded by the interests of\nthat body to which he had attached himself. He went wherever he was\nordered; he performed whatever he was commanded; he suffered whatever he\nwas enjoined; he became a mere passive instrument incapable of\nresistance. The gradation of ranks was only a gradation in slavery; and\nso perfect a despotism over a large body of men, dispersed over the face\nof the earth, was never before realized.\n\nThe maxims of policy adopted by this celebrated society were, like its\nconstitution, remarkable for their union of laxity and rigour. Nothing\ncould divert them from their original object; and no means were ever\nscrupled which promised to aid its accomplishment. They were in no\ndegree shackled by prejudice, superstition, or real religion.\nExpediency, in its most simple and licentious form, was the basis of\ntheir morals, and their principles and practices were uniformly\naccommodated to the circumstances in which they were placed; and even\ntheir bigotry, obdurate as it was, never appears to have interfered with\ntheir interests. The paramount and characteristic principle of the\norder, from which none of its members ever swerved, was simply this,\nthat its interests were to be promoted by all possible means, at all\npossible expense. In order to acquire more easily an ascendancy over\npersons of rank and power, they propagated a system of the most relaxed\nmorality, which accommodated itself to the passions of men, justified\ntheir vices, tolerated their imperfections, and authorized almost every\naction which the most audacious or crafty politician would wish to\nperpetrate. To persons of stricter principles they studied to recommend\nthemselves by the purity of their lives, and sometimes by the austerity\nof their doctrines. While sufficiently compliant in the treatment of\nimmoral practices, they were generally rigidly severe in exacting a\nstrict orthodoxy in opinions. \u201cThey are a sort of people,\u201d said the Abb\u00e9\nBoileau, \u201cwho lengthen the creed and shorten the decalogue.\u201d They\nadopted the same spirit of accommodation in their missionary\nundertakings; and their Christianity, chamelionlike, readily assumed the\ncolour of every religion where it happened to be introduced. They freely\npermitted their converts to retain a full proportion of the old\nsuperstitions, and suppressed, without hesitation, any point in the new\nfaith which was likely to bear hard on their prejudices or propensities.\nThey proceeded to still greater lengths; and, beside suppressing the\ntruths of revelation, devised the most absurd falsehoods, to be used for\nattracting disciples, or even to be taught as parts of Christianity. One\nof them in India produced a pedigree to prove his own descent from\nBrama; and another in America assured a native chief that Christ had\nbeen a valiant and victorious warrior, who, in the space of three years,\nhad scalped an incredible number of men, women, and children. It was, in\nfact, their own authority, not the authority of true religion, which\nthey wished to establish; and Christianity was generally as little\nknown, when they quitted the foreign scenes of their labours as when\nthey entered them.\n\nThese detestable objects and principles, however, were long an\nimpenetrable secret: and the professed intention of the new order was to\npromote, with unequalled and unfettered zeal, the salvation of mankind.\nIts progress, nevertheless, was at first remarkably slow. Charles V.,\nwho is supposed, with his usual sagacity, to have discerned its\ndangerous tendency, rather checked than encouraged its advancement; and\nthe universities of France resisted its introduction into that kingdom.\nThus, roused by obstacles, and obliged to find resources within\nthemselves, the Jesuits brought all their talents and devices into\naction. They applied themselves to every useful function and curious\nart; and neither neglected nor despised any mode, however humble, of\ngaining employment or reputation. The satirist\u2019s description of the\nGreeks in Rome has been aptly chosen to describe their indefatigable and\nuniversal industry:--\n\n          _Grammaticus, rhetor, geometres, pictor, aliptes,\n          Augur, sch\u0153nobates, medicus, magus; omnia novit\n          Gr\u00e6culus._\n                                       Juvenal, lib. iii, 76.\n\n            \u201cA Protean tribe, one knows not what to call,\n            Which shifts to every form, and shines in all:\n            Grammarian, painter, augur, rhetorician,\n            Rope-dancer, conjuror, fiddler, and physician,--\n            All trades his own, your hungry Greekling counts.\u201d\n                                            GIFFORD.\n\nThey laboured with the greatest assiduity to qualify themselves as the\ninstructers of youth; and succeeded, at length, in supplanting their\nopponents in every Catholic kingdom. They aimed, in the next place, to\nbecome the spiritual directors of the higher ranks; and soon established\nthemselves in most of the courts which were attached to the papal faith,\nnot only as the confessors, but frequently also as the guides and\nministers, of superstitious princes. The governors of the society\npursuing one uniform system with unwearied perseverance, became entirely\nsuccessful; and, in the space of half a century, had in a wonderful\ndegree extended the reputation, the number, and influence of the order.\nWhen Loyola, in 1540, petitioned the pope to authorize the institution\nof the Jesuits, he had only ten disciples; but in 1608 the number\namounted to 10,581. Before the expiration of the sixteenth century they\nhad obtained the chief direction of the education of youth in every\nCatholic country in Europe, and had become the confessors of almost all\nits noblest monarchs. In spite of their vow of poverty, their wealth\nincreased with their power; and they soon rivalled, in the extent and\nvalue of their possessions, the most opulent monastic fraternities.\nAbout the beginning of the seventeenth century, they obtained from the\ncourt of Madrid the grant of the large and fertile province of Paraguay,\nwhich stretches across the southern continent of America, from the\nmountains of Potosi to the banks of the river La Plata; and, after every\ndeduction which can reasonably be made from their own accounts of their\nestablishment, enough will remain to excite the astonishment and\napplause of mankind. They found the inhabitants in the first stage of\nsociety, ignorant of the arts of life, and unacquainted with the first\nprinciples of subordination. They applied themselves to instruct and\ncivilize these savage tribes. They commenced their labours by collecting\nabout fifty families of wandering Indians, whom they converted and\nsettled in a small township. They taught them to build houses, to\ncultivate the ground, and to rear tame animals; trained them to arts and\nmanufactures, and brought them to relish the blessings of security and\norder. By a wise and humane policy, they gradually attracted new\nsubjects and converts; till at last they formed a powerful and well\norganized state of three hundred thousand families.\n\nThough the power of the Jesuits had become so extensive, and though\ntheir interests generally prospered during a period of more than two\ncenturies, their progress was by no means uninterrupted; and, by their\nown misconduct, they soon excited the most formidable counteractions.\nScarcely had they effected their establishment in France, in defiance of\nthe parliaments and universities, when their existence was endangered by\nthe fanaticism of their own members. John Chastel, one of their pupils,\nmade an attempt upon the life of Henry IV.; and Father Guiscard, another\nof the order, was convicted of composing writings favourable to\nregicide. The parliaments seized the moment of their disgrace, and\nprocured their banishment from every part of the kingdom, except the\nprovinces of Bourdeaux and Toulouse. From these rallying points, they\nspeedily extended their intrigues in every quarter, and in a few years\nobtained their re-establishment. Even Henry, either dreading their\npower, or pleased with the exculpation of his licentious habits, which\nhe found in their flexible system of morality, became their patron, and\nselected one of their number as his confessor. They were favoured by\nLouis XIII. and his minister Richelieu, on account of their literary\nexertions; but it was in the succeeding reign of Louis XIV. that they\nreached the summit of their prosperity. The Fathers La Chaise and Le\nTeltier were successively confessors to the king; and did not fail to\nemploy their influence for the interest of their order: but the latter\ncarried on his projects with so blind and fiery a zeal, that one of the\nJesuits is reported to have said of him, \u201cHe drives at such a rate, that\nhe will overturn us all.\u201d The Jansenists were peculiarly the objects of\nhis machinations, and he rested not till he had accomplished the\ndestruction of their celebrated college and convent at Port Royal.\nBefore the fall, however, of this honoured seminary, a shaft from its\nbow had reached the heart of its proud oppressor. The \u201cProvincial\nLetters of Pascal\u201d had been published, in which the quibbling morality\nand unintelligible metaphysics of the Jesuits were exposed in a strain\nof inimitable humour, and a style of unrivalled elegance. The impression\nwhich they produced was wide and deep, and gradually sapped the\nfoundation of public opinion, on which the power of the order had\nhitherto rested. Under the regency of the duke of Orleans, the Jesuits,\nand all theological personages and principles were disregarded with\natheistical superciliousness; but under Louis XV. they partly recovered\ntheir influence at court, which, even under Cardinal Fleury, they\nretained in a considerable degree. But they soon revived the odium of\nthe public by their intolerant treatment of the Jansenists, and probably\naccelerated their ruin by refusing, from political rather than religious\nscruples, to undertake the spiritual guidance of Madame de la Pampadour,\nas well as by imprudently attacking the authors of the \u201c_Encyclop\u00eadie_.\u201d\nVoltaire directed against them all the powers of his ridicule, and\nfinished the piece which Pascal had sketched. Their power was brought to\na very low ebb, when the war of 1756 broke out, which occasioned the\nfamous law-suit that led to their final overthrow.\n\nIn the mean time the king of Portugal was assassinated; and Carvalho,\nthe minister, who detested the Jesuits, found means to load them with\nthe odium of the crime. Malagrida, and a few more of these fathers, were\ncharged with advising and absolving the assassins; and, having been\nfound guilty, were condemned to the stake. The rest were banished with\nevery brand of infamy, and were treated with the most iniquitous\ncruelty. They were persecuted without discrimination, robbed of their\nproperty without pity, and embarked for Italy without previous\npreparation; so that, no provision having been made for their reception,\nthey were literally left to perish with hunger in their vessels. These\nincidents prepared the way for a similar catastrophe in France. In\nMarch, 1762, the French court received intelligence of the capture of\nMartinico by the British; and, dreading a storm of public indignation,\nresolved to divert the exasperated feelings of the nation, by yielding\nthe Jesuits to their impending fate. On the sixth of August, 1762, their\ninstitute was condemned by the parliament, as contrary to the laws of\nthe state, to the obedience due to the sovereign, and to the welfare of\nthe kingdom. The order was dissolved, and their effects alienated. But\nin certain quarters, where the provincial parliaments had not decided\nagainst them, Jesuits still subsisted; and a royal edict was afterward\npromulgated, which formally abolished the society in France, but\npermitted its members to reside within the kingdom under certain\nrestrictions.\n\nIn Spain, where they conceived their establishment to be perfectly\nsecure, they experienced an overthrow equally complete, and much more\nunexpected. The necessary measures were concerted under the direction of\nDe Choiseul, by the Marquis D'Ossun, the French ambassador at Madrid,\nwith Charles III., king of Spain, and his prime minister, the Count\nD'Aranda. The execution of their purposes was as sudden as their plans\nhad been secret. At midnight, March 31st, 1767, large bodies of military\nsurrounded the six colleges of the Jesuits in Madrid, forced the gates,\nsecured the bells, collected the fathers in the refectory, and read to\nthem the king\u2019s order for their instant transportation. They were\nimmediately put into carriages previously placed at proper stations; and\nwere on their way to Carthagena before the inhabitants of the city had\nany intelligence of the transaction. Three days afterward, the same\nmeasures were adopted with regard to every other college of the order in\nthe kingdom; and, ships having been provided at the different sea ports,\nthey were all embarked for the ecclesiastical states in Italy. All their\nproperty was confiscated, and a small pension assigned to each\nindividual as long as he should reside in a place appointed, and satisfy\nthe Spanish court as to his peaceable demeanour. All correspondence with\nthe Jesuits was prohibited, and the strictest silence on the subject of\ntheir expulsion was enjoined under penalties of high treason. A similar\nseizure and deportation took place in the Indies, and an immense\nproperty was acquired by the government. Many crimes and plots were laid\nto the charge of the order; but whatever may have been their demerit,\nthe punishment was too summary to admit of justification; and many\ninnocent individuals were subjected to sufferings beyond the deserts\neven of the guilty. Pope Clement III. prohibited their landing in his\ndominions; and, after enduring extreme miseries in crowded transports,\nthe survivors, to the number of two thousand three hundred, were put\nashore on Corsica. The example of the king of Spain was immediately\nfollowed by Ferdinand VI. of Naples, and soon after by the prince of\nParma. They had been expelled from England in 1604; from Venice in 1606;\nand from Portugal in 1759, upon the charge of having instigated the\nfamilies of Tavora and D'Aveiro to assassinate King Joseph I. Frederick\nthe Great, of Prussia, was the only monarch who showed a disposition to\nafford them protection; but in 1773 the order was entirely suppressed by\nPope Clement XIV., who is supposed to have fallen a victim to their\nvengeance. In 1801 the society was restored in Russia by the Emperor\nPaul; and in 1804, by King Ferdinand, in Sardinia. In August, 1814, a\nbull was issued by Pope Pius VII., restoring the order to all their\nformer privileges, and calling upon all Catholic princes to afford them\nprotection and encouragement. This act of their revival is expressed in\nall the solemnity of papal authority; and even affirmed to be above the\nrecall or revision of any judge, with whatever power he may be clothed;\nbut to every enlightened mind it cannot fail to appear as a measure\naltogether incapable of justification, from any thing either in the\nhistory of Jesuitism, or in the character of the present times.\n\n3. It would be in vain to deny that many considerable advantages were\nderived by mankind from the labours of the Jesuits. Their ardour in the\nstudy of ancient literature, and their labours in the instruction of\nyouth, greatly contributed to the progress of polite learning. They have\nproduced a greater number of ingenious authors than all the other\nreligious fraternities taken together; and though there never was known\namong their order one person who could be said to possess an enlarged\nphilosophical mind, they can boast of many eminent masters in the\nseparate branches of science, many distinguished mathematicians,\nantiquarians, critics, and even some orators of high reputation. They\nwere in general, also, as individuals, superior in decency, and even\npurity of manners, to any other class of regular clergy in the church of\nRome. But all these benefits by no means counterbalanced the pernicious\neffects of their influence and intrigues on the best interests of\nsociety.\n\nThe essential principles of the institution, namely, that their order is\nto be maintained at the expense of the society at large, and that the\nend sanctifies the means, are utterly incompatible with the welfare of\nany community of men. Their system of lax and pliant morality,\njustifying every vice, and authorizing every atrocity, has left deep and\nlasting ravages on the face of the moral world. Their zeal to extend the\njurisdiction of the court of Rome over every civil government, gave\ncurrency to tenets respecting the duty of opposing princes who were\nhostile to the Catholic faith, which shook the basis of all political\nallegiance, and loosened the obligations of every human law. Their\nindefatigable industry, and countless artifices in resisting the\nprogress of reformed religion, perpetuated the most pernicious errors of\nPopery, and postponed the triumph of tolerant and Christian principles.\nWhence, then, it may well be asked, whence the recent restoration? What\nlong latent proof has been discovered of the excellence, or even the\nexpedience, of such an institution? The sentence of their abolition was\npassed by the senates, and monarchs, and statesmen, and divines, of all\nreligions, and of almost every civilized country in the world. Almost\nevery land has been stained and torn by their crimes; and almost every\nland bears on its public records the most solemn protests against their\nexistence.\n\nJESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the world, the\nfirst and principal object of the prophecies, prefigured and promised in\nthe Old Testament, expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope of\nthe Gentiles; the glory, salvation, and consolation of Christians. The\nname Jesus, or, as the Hebrews pronounce it, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2, _Jehoshua_, or\n_Joshua_, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, signifies, _he who shall save_. No one ever bore this\nname with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification\nof it, as Jesus Christ, who saves even from sin and hell, and hath\nmerited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It is not necessary\nhere to narrate the history of our Saviour\u2019s life, which can no where be\nread with advantage except in the writings of the four evangelists; but\nthere are several general views which require to be noticed under this\narticle.\n\n1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah promised under the Old\nTestament. That he professed himself to be that Messiah to whom all the\nprophets gave witness, and who was, in fact, at the time of his\nappearing, expected by the Jews; and that he was received under that\ncharacter by his disciples, and by all Christians ever since, is\ncertain. And if the Old Testament Scriptures afford sufficiently\ndefinite marks by which the long announced Christ should be infallibly\nknown at his advent, and these presignations are found realized in our\nLord, then is the truth of his pretensions established. From the books\nof the Old Testament we learn that the Messiah was to authenticate his\nclaim by _miracles_; and in those _predictions_ respecting him, so many\ncircumstances are recorded, that they could meet only in one person; and\nso, if they are accomplished in him, they leave no room for doubt, as\nfar as the evidence of prophecy is deemed conclusive. As to MIRACLES, we\nrefer to that article; here only observing, that if the miraculous works\nwrought by Christ were really done, they prove his mission, because,\nfrom their nature, and having been wrought to confirm his claim to be\nthe Messiah, they necessarily imply a _divine attestation_. With respect\nto PROPHECY, the principles under which its evidence must be regarded as\nconclusive will be given under that head; and here therefore it will\nonly be necessary to show the completion of the prophecies of the sacred\nbooks of the Jews relative to the Messiah in one person, and that person\nthe founder of the Christian religion.\n\nThe time of the Messiah\u2019s appearance in the world, as predicted in the\nOld Testament, is defined, says Keith, by a number of concurring\ncircumstances, which fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ.\nThe last blessing of Jacob to his sons, when he commanded them to gather\nthemselves together that he might tell them what should befall them in\nthe last days, contains this prediction concerning Judah: \u201cThe sceptre\nshall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until\nShiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be,\u201d Gen.\nxlix, 10. The date fixed by this prophecy for the coming of Shiloh, or\nthe Saviour, was not to exceed the time during which the descendants of\nJudah were to continue a united people, while a king should reign among\nthem, while they should be governed by their own laws, and while their\njudges should be from among their brethren. The prophecy of Malachi adds\nanother standard for measuring the time: \u201cBehold, I send my messenger,\nand he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek,\nshall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant,\nwhom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts,\u201d\nMal. iii, 1. No words can be more expressive of the coming of the\npromised Messiah; and they as clearly imply his appearance in the second\ntemple before it should be destroyed. In regard to the advent of the\nMessiah before the destruction of the second temple, the words of Haggai\nare remarkably explicit: \u201cThe desire of all nations shall come, and I\nwill fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of\nthis latter house shall be greater than of the former, and in this place\nwill I give peace,\u201d Hag. ii, 7. The Saviour was thus to appear,\naccording to the prophecies of the Old Testament, during the time of the\ncontinuance of the kingdom of Judah, previous to the demolition of the\ntemple, and immediately subsequent to the next prophet. But the time is\nrendered yet more definite. In the prophecies of Daniel, the kingdom of\nthe Messiah is not only foretold as commencing in the time of the fourth\nmonarchy, or Roman empire, but the express number of years that were to\nprecede his coming are plainly intimated: \u201cSeventy weeks are determined\nupon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,\nand to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and\nto bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and\nprophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand,\nthat from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build\nJerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore\nand two weeks,\u201d Dan. ix, 24, 25. Computation by weeks of years was\ncommon among the Jews, and every seventh was the sabbatical year;\nseventy weeks, thus amounted to four hundred and ninety years. In these\nwords the prophet marks the very time, and uses the very name of\nMessiah, the Prince; so entirely is all ambiguity done away. The\nplainest inference may be drawn from these prophecies. All of them,\nwhile, in every respect, they presuppose the most perfect knowledge of\nfuturity; while they were unquestionably delivered and publicly known\nfor ages previous to the time to which they referred; and while they\nrefer to different contingent and unconnected events, utterly\nundeterminable and inconceivable by all human sagacity; accord in\nperfect unison to a single precise period where all their different\nlines terminate at once,--the very fulness of time when Jesus appeared.\nA king then reigned over the Jews in their own land; they were governed\nby their own laws; and the council of their nation exercised its\nauthority and power. Before that period, the other tribes were extinct\nor dispersed among the nations. Judah alone remained, and the last\nsceptre in Israel had not then departed from it. Every stone of the\ntemple was then unmoved; it was the admiration of the Romans, and might\nhave stood for ages. But in a short space, all these concurring\ntestimonies to the time of the advent of the Messiah passed away. During\nthe very year, the twelfth of his age, in which Christ first publicly\nappeared in the temple, Archelaus the king was dethroned and banished;\nCoponius was appointed procurator; and the kingdom of Judea, the last\nremnant of the greatness of Israel, was debased into a part of the\nprovince of Syria. The sceptre was smitten from the tribe of Judah; the\ncrown fell from their heads; their glory departed; and, soon after the\ndeath of Christ, of their temple one stone was not left upon another;\ntheir commonwealth itself became as complete a ruin, and was broken in\npieces; and they have ever since been scattered throughout the world, a\nname but not a nation. After the lapse of nearly four hundred years\nposterior to the time of Malachi, another prophet appeared who was the\nherald of the Messiah. And the testimony of Josephus confirms the\naccount given in Scripture of John the Baptist. Every mark that denoted\nthe time of the coming of the Messiah was erased soon after the\ncrucifixion of Christ, and could never afterward be renewed. And with\nrespect to the prophecies of Daniel, it is remarkable, at this remote\nperiod, how little discrepancy of opinion has existed among the most\nlearned men, as to the space from the time of the passing out of the\nedict to rebuild Jerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, to the\ncommencement of the Christian era, and the subsequent events foretold in\nthe prophecy.\n\nThe predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting both the\nfamily out of which the Messiah was to arise, and the place of his\nbirth, are almost as circumstantial, and are equally applicable to\nChrist, as those which refer to the time of his appearance. He was to be\nan Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and of the\ntown of Bethlehem. That all these predictions were fulfilled in Jesus\nChrist; that he was of that country, tribe, and family, of the house and\nlineage of David, and born in Bethlehem, we have the fullest evidence in\nthe testimony of all the evangelists; in two distinct accounts of the\ngenealogies, by natural and legal succession, which, according to the\ncustom of the Jews, were carefully preserved; in the acquiescence of the\nenemies of Christ in the truth of the fact, against which there is not a\nsingle surmise in history; and in the appeal made by some of the\nearliest Christian writers to the unquestionable testimony of the\nrecords of the census, taken at the very time of our Saviour\u2019s birth by\norder of C\u00e6sar. Here, indeed, it is impossible not to be struck with the\nexact fulfilment of prophecies which are apparently contradictory and\nirreconcilable, and with the manner in which they were providentially\naccomplished. The spot of Christ\u2019s nativity was distant from the place\nof the abode of his parents, and the region in which he began his\nministry was remote from the place of his birth; and another prophecy\nrespecting him was in this manner verified: \u201cIn the land of Zebulun and\nNaphtali, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the\nnations, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;\nthey that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the\nlight shined,\u201d Isaiah ix, 1, 2; Matt. iv, 16. Thus, the time at which\nthe predicted Messiah was to appear; the nation, the tribe, and the\nfamily from which he was to be descended; and the place of his\nbirth,--no populous city, but of itself an inconsiderable place,--were\nall clearly foretold; and as clearly refer to Jesus Christ; and all meet\ntheir completion in him.\n\nBut the facts of his life, and the features of his character, are also\ndrawn with a precision that cannot be misunderstood. The obscurity, the\nmeanness, and the poverty of his external condition are thus\nrepresented: \u201cHe shall grow up before the Lord like a tender plant, and\nas a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when\nwe shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Thus\nsaith the Lord to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation\nabhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes\nalso shall worship,\u201d Isaiah liii, 2; xlix, 7. That such was the\ncondition in which Christ appeared, the whole history of his life\nabundantly testifies. And the Jews, looking in the pride of their hearts\nfor an earthly king, disregarded these prophecies concerning him, were\ndeceived by their traditions, and found only a stone of stumbling,\nwhere, if they had searched their Scriptures aright, they would have\ndiscovered an evidence of the Messiah. \u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s son?\nIs not this the son of Mary? said they and they were offended at him.\u201d\nHis riding in humble triumph into Jerusalem; his being betrayed for\nthirty pieces of silver, and scourged, and buffeted, and spit upon; the\npiercing of his hands and of his feet; the last offered draught of\nvinegar and gall; the parting of his raiment, and casting lots upon his\nvesture; the manner of his death and of his burial, and his rising again\nwithout seeing corruption, were all expressly predicted, and all these\npredictions were literally fulfilled, Zech. ix, 9; xi, 12; Isaiah l, 6;\nPsalm xxii, 16; lxix, 21; xxii, 18; Isaiah liii, 9; Psalm xvi, 10. If\nall these prophecies admit of any application to the events of the life\nof any individual, it can only be to that of the Author of Christianity.\nAnd what other religion can produce a single fact which was actually\nforetold of its founder?\n\nThe death of Christ was as unparalleled as his life; and the prophecies\nare as minutely descriptive of his sufferings as of his virtues. Not\nonly did the paschal lamb, which was to be killed every year in all the\nfamilies of Israel, which was to be taken out of the flock, to be\nwithout blemish, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to have its blood\nsprinkled, and to be kept whole that not a bone of it should be broken;\nnot only did the offering up of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen\nserpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were healed,\nand many ritual observances of the Jews, prefigure the manner of\nChrist\u2019s death, and the sacrifice which was to be made for sin; but many\nexpress declarations abound in the prophecies, that Christ was indeed to\nsuffer. But Isaiah, who describes, with eloquence worthy of a prophet,\nthe glories of the kingdom that was to come, characterizes, with the\naccuracy of a historian, the humiliation, the trials, and the agonies\nwhich were to precede the triumphs of the Redeemer of a world; and the\nhistory of Christ forms, to the very letter, the commentary and the\ncompletion of his every prediction. In a single passage, Isaiah lii, 13,\n&c; liii, the connection of which is uninterrupted, its antiquity\nindisputable, and its application obvious, the sufferings of the servant\nof God (who under that same denomination, is previously described as he\nwho was to be the light of the Gentiles, the salvation of God to the\nends of the earth, and the elect of God in whom his soul delighted, Isa.\nxiii, 10; xlix, 6) are so minutely foretold, that no illustration is\nrequisite to show that they testify of Jesus. The whole of this prophecy\nthus refers to the Messiah. It describes both his debasement and his\ndignity; his rejection by the Jews; his humility, his affliction, and\nhis agony; his magnanimity and his charity; how his words were\ndisbelieved; how his state was lowly; how his sorrow was severe; how he\nopened not his mouth but to make intercession for the transgressors. In\ndiametrical opposition to every dispensation of Providence which is\nregistered in the records of the Jews, it represents spotless innocence\nsuffering by the appointment of Heaven; death as the issue of perfect\nobedience; God\u2019s righteous servant as forsaken of him; and one who was\nperfectly immaculate bearing the chastisement of many guilty; sprinkling\nmany nations from their iniquity, by virtue of his sacrifice; justifying\nmany by his knowledge; and dividing a portion with the great and the\nspoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul in death.\nThis prophecy, therefore, simply as a prediction prior to the event,\nrenders the very unbelief of the Jews an evidence against them, converts\nthe scandal of the cross into an argument in favour of Christianity, and\npresents us with an epitome of the truth, a miniature of the Gospel in\nsome of its most striking features. The simple exposition of it sufficed\nat once for the conversion of the eunuch of Ethiopia. To these\nprophecies may, in fact, be added all those which relate to his\nspiritual kingdom, or the circumstances of the promulgation, the\nopposition, and the triumphs of his religion; the accomplishment of\nwhich equally proves the divine mission of its Author, and points him\nout as that great personage with whom they stand inseparably connected.\n\n2. But if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in that character his Deity\nalso is necessarily involved, because the Messiah is surrounded with\nattributes of divinity in the Old Testament; and our Lord himself as\ncertainly lays claim to those attributes as to the office of \u201cthe\nChrist.\u201d Without referring here to the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity\nof divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead, (see _Trinity_,) it is\nsufficient now to show that both in the Old and New Testament\nScriptures, the Messiah is contemplated as a divine Person. In the very\nfirst promise of redemption, his superiority to that great and malignant\nspirit who destroyed the innocence of man, and blighted the fair\ncreation of God, is unquestionably implied; while the Angel of the\nDivine Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, who appears so prominent in\nthe patriarchal times, and the early periods of Jewish history, and was\nunderstood by the early Jews as the future Messiah, is seen at once as a\nbeing distinct from Jehovah and yet Jehovah himself; bearing that\nincommunicable name; and performing acts, and possessing qualities of\nunquestionable divinity. As the \u201cRedeemer\u201d of Job, he is the object of\nhis trust and hope, and is said to be then a \u201cliving Redeemer;\u201d to see\nwhom at the last was to \u201csee God.\u201d As \u201cShiloh,\u201d in the prophecy of\nJacob, he is represented as having an indefinitely extensive reign over\n\u201cthe people\u201d gathered to him; and in all subsequent predictions\nrespecting this reign of Christ, it is represented so vast, so perfect,\nso influential upon the very thoughts, purposes, and affections of men,\nthat no mere creature can be reasonably supposed capable of exercising\nit. Of the second Psalm, so manifestly appropriated to the Messiah, it\nhas been justly said, that the high titles and honours ascribed in this\nPsalm to the extraordinary person who is the chief subject of it, far\ntranscend any thing that is ascribed in Scripture to any mere creature.\nBut if the Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and compared with\nparallel prophecies; if it be duly considered, that not only is the\nextraordinary person here spoken of called, \u201cthe Son of God,\u201d but that\ntitle is so ascribed to him as to imply, that it belongs to him in a\nmanner that is absolutely singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he\nis said to be begotten of God, verse 7, and is called, by way of\neminence, \u201cthe Son,\u201d verse 12; that the danger of provoking him to anger\nis spoken of in so very different a manner from what the Scripture uses\nin speaking of the anger of any mere creature, \u201cKiss the Son, lest he be\nangry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a\nlittle;\u201d that when the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to\nserve God with fear, they are at the same time commanded to kiss the\nSon, which in those times and places was frequently an expression of\nadoration; and, particularly, that, whereas other Scriptures contain\nawful and just threatenings against those who trust in any mere man, the\nPsalmist nevertheless expressly calls them blessed who trust in the Son\nhere spoken of;--all these things taken together make up a character of\nunequivocal divinity: and, on the other hand, when it is said, that God\nwould set this his Son as his King on his holy hill of Zion, verse 6,\nthis, and various other expressions in this Psalm, contain characters of\nthat subordination which is appropriate to that divine Person who was to\nbe incarnate, and engage in a work assigned to him by the Father. The\nformer part of the forty-fifth Psalm is by the inspired authority of St.\nPaul applied to the Christ, who is addressed in these lofty words, \u201cThy\nthrone, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the\nsceptre of thy kingdom.\u201d In the same manner Psalm cii, 25\u201329, is applied\nto Christ by the same authority, and there he is represented as the\nCreator of all things, changing his creations as a vesture, and yet\nhimself continuing the same unchanged being amidst all the mutations of\nthe universe. In Psalm cx, David says, \u201cJehovah said unto my Lord,\n(_Adonai_,) Sit thou upon my right hand until I make thine enemies thy\nfootstool.\u201d And in Isaiah vi, the same Adonai is seen by the prophet\n\u201cseated upon a throne, high and lifted up,\u201d receiving the adoration of\nseraphs, and bearing the title, \u201cJehovah, Lord of Hosts,\u201d of which\npassage St. John makes a direct application to Christ. Isaiah predicts\nhis birth of a virgin, under the title of \u201cImmanuel, God with us.\u201d The\nsame prophet gives to this wonderful child the style of \u201cthe Mighty\nGod,\u201d the Everlasting Father,\u201d and the \u201cPrince of Peace;\u201d so that, as\nDr. Pye Smith justly observes, \u201cif there be any dependence on words, the\nMessiah is here drawn in the opposite characters of humanity and\nDeity,--the nativity and frailty of a mortal child, and the\nincommunicable attributes of the omnipresent and eternal God.\u201d Twice is\nhe called by Jeremiah, \u201cJehovah our righteousness.\u201d Daniel terms him the\n\u201cAncient of Days,\u201d or \u201cThe Immortal;\u201d and Micah declares, in a passage\nwhich the council of the Jews, assembled by Herod, applied to the\nMessiah, that he who was to be born in Bethlehem was \u201ceven he whose\ncomings forth are from eternity, from the days of the everlasting\nperiod.\u201d Thus the prophetic testimony describes him, as entitled to the\nappellation of \u201cWonderful,\u201d since he should be, in a sense peculiar to\nhimself, the Son of God, Psalm ii, 7; Isaiah ix, 6; as existing and\nacting during the patriarchal and the Jewish ages, and even from\neternity, Psalm xl, 7\u20139; Micah v, 2; as the guardian and protector of\nhis people, Isaiah xl, 9\u201311; as the proper object of the various\naffections of piety, of devotional confidence for obtaining the most\nimportant blessings, and of religious homage from angels and men, Psalm\nii, 12; xcvii, 7; and, finally, declares him to be the eternal and\nimmutable Being, the Creator, God, the Mighty God, Adonai, Elohim,\nJehovah.\n\nIn perfect accordance with these views, does our Saviour speak of\nhimself. He asserts his pre\u00ebxistence, as having \u201ccome down from heaven;\u201d\nand as existing \u201cbefore Abraham;\u201d and as being \u201cin heaven\u201d while yet\nbefore the eyes of his disciples on earth. In the same peculiar manner\ndoes he apply the term \u201cSon of God\u201d to himself, and that with so\nmanifest an intention to assume it in the sense of divinity, that the\nJews attempted on that account to stone him as a blasphemer. The whole\nforce of the argument by which he silenced the Pharisees when he asked\nhow the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, could be David\u2019s Lord,\nin reference to the passage in the Psalms before quoted, arose out of\nthe doctrine of the Messiah\u2019s divinity; and when he claims that all men\nshould honour him as they honour the Father, and asserts that as the\nFather hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in\nhimself, that he \u201cquickeneth whom he will,\u201d that \u201cwhere two or three\nmeet in his name he is in the midst of them,\u201d and would be with his\ndisciples \u201cto the end of the world;\u201d who does not see that the Jews\nconcluded right, when they said that he made himself \u201cequal with\nGod,\u201d--an impression which he took no pains to remove, although his own\nmoral character bound him to do so, had he not intended to confirm that\nconclusion. So numerous are the passages in which divine titles, acts,\nand qualities, are ascribed to Christ, in the apostolical epistles, and\nso unbroken is the stream of testimony from the apostolic age, that the\nDeity of their Saviour was the undoubted and universal faith of his\ninspired followers, and of those who immediately succeeded them, that it\nis not necessary to quote proofs. The whole argument is this: If the Old\nTestament Scriptures represent the Messiah as a divine Person; the\nproofs which demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, demonstrate him also\nby farther and necessary consequence to be divine. Yet, though there is\na union of natures in Christ, there is no mixture or confusion of their\nproperties: his humanity is not changed into his Deity, nor his Deity\nabsorbed by his humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one\nPerson. How this union exists, is above our comprehension; and, indeed,\nif we cannot explain how our bodies and souls are united, it is not to\nbe supposed that we can comprehend the mystery of \u201cGod manifest in the\nflesh.\u201d So truly does Christ bear the name given to him in\nprophecy,--\u201cWonderful.\u201d\n\n3. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ derives farther confirmation from\nthe consideration, that in no sound sense can the Scriptures of the Old\nand New Testaments be interpreted so as to make their very different and\noften apparently contradictory statements respecting him harmonize. How,\nfor instance, is it that he is arrayed in the attributes of divinity,\nand yet is capable of being raised to a kingdom and glory?--that he is\naddressed, \u201cThy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,\u201d and yet that it\nshould follow \u201cGod, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of\ngladness above thy fellows?\u201d--that he should be God, and yet, by a human\nbirth, \u201cGod with us?\u201d--that he should, say, \u201cI and my Father are one,\u201d\nand, \u201cMy Father is greater than I?\u201d--that he is supreme, and yet a\nservant?--that he is equal and yet subordinate?--that he, a man, should\nrequire and receive worship and trust?--that he should be greater than\nangels, and yet \u201cmade lower than the angels?\u201d--that he should be \u201cmade\nflesh,\u201d and yet be the Creator of all things?--that he should raise\nhimself from the dead, and yet be raised by the power of the Father?\nThese and many other declarations respecting him, all accord with the\northodox view of his person; and are intelligible so far as they state\nthe facts respecting him; but are wholly beyond the power of\ninterpretation into any rational meaning on any theory which denies to\nhim a real humanity on the one hand, or a real and personal divinity on\nthe other. So powerfully, in fact, has this been felt, that, in order to\nevade the force of the testimony of Scripture, the most licentious\ncriticisms have been resorted to by the deniers of his divinity; such as\nwould not certainly have been tolerated by scholars in the case of an\nattempt to interpret any other ancient writing.\n\n4. Being, therefore, not only \u201ca teacher sent from God,\u201d but the divine\nSon of God himself, it might be truly said by his wondering hearers,\n\u201cNever man spake like this man.\u201d On our Lord\u2019s character as a teacher,\ntherefore, many striking and just remarks have been made by different\nwriters, not excepting some infidels themselves, who, in this respect,\nhave been carried into admiration by the overwhelming force of evidence.\nThis article, however, shall not be indebted to a desecrated source for\nan estimate of the character of his teaching, and shall rather be\nconcluded with the following admirable remarks of a Christian prelate:--\n\n\u201cWhen our Lord is considered as a teacher, we find him delivering the\njustest and most sublime truths with respect to the divine nature, the\nduties of mankind, and a future state of existence; agreeable in every\nparticular to reason, and to the wisest maxims of the wisest\nphilosophers; without any mixture of that alloy which so often debased\ntheir most perfect production; and excellently adapted to mankind in\ngeneral, by suggesting circumstances and particular images on the most\nawful and interesting subjects. We find him filling, and, as it were,\noverpowering our minds with the grandest ideas of his own nature;\nrepresenting himself as appointed by his Father to be our Instructer,\nour Redeemer, our Judge, and our King; and showing that he lived and\ndied for the most benevolent and important purposes conceivable. He does\nnot labour to support the greatest and most magnificent of all\ncharacters; but it is perfectly easy and natural to him. He makes no\ndisplay of the high and heavenly truths which he utters; but speaks of\nthem with a graceful and wonderful simplicity and majesty. Supernatural\ntruths are as familiar to his mind, as the common affairs of life are to\nother men. He revives the moral law, carries it to perfection, and\nenforces it by peculiar and animating motives: but he enjoins nothing\nnew beside praying in his name, mutual love among his disciples, as\nsuch, and the observance of two simple and significant positive laws\nwhich serve to promote the practice of the moral law. All his precepts,\nwhen rightly explained, are reasonable in themselves and useful in their\ntendency: and their compass is very great, considering that he was an\noccasional teacher, and not a systematical one. If from the matter of\nhis instructions we pass on to the manner in which they were delivered,\nwe find our Lord usually speaking as an authoritative teacher; though\noccasionally limiting his precepts, and sometimes assigning the reasons\nof them. He presupposes the original law of God, and addresses men as\nrational creatures. From the grandeur of his mind, and the magnitude of\nhis subjects, he is often sublime; and the beauties interspersed\nthroughout his discourses are equally natural and striking. He is\nremarkable for an easy and graceful manner of introducing the best\nlessons from incidental objects and occasions. The human heart is naked\nand open to him; and he addresses the thoughts of men, as others do the\nemotions of their countenance or their bodily actions. Difficult\nsituations, and sudden questions of the most artful and ensnaring kind,\nserve only to display his superior wisdom, and to confound and astonish\nall his adversaries. Instead of showing his boundless knowledge on every\noccasion, he checks and restrains it, and prefers utility to the glare\nof ostentation. He teaches directly and obliquely, plainly and covertly,\nas wisdom points out occasions. He knows the inmost character, every\nprejudice and every feeling of his hearers; and, accordingly, uses\nparables to conceal or to enforce his lessons: and he powerfully\nimpresses them by the significant language of actions. He gives proofs\nof his mission from above, by his knowledge of the heart, by a chain of\nprophecies, and by a variety of mighty works.\n\n\u201cHe sets an example of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most\nextensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not\nmerely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity.\nHis temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does\nnot degenerate into apathy. His humility is signal, amidst a splendour\nof qualities more than human. His fortitude is eminent and exemplary, in\nenduring the most formidable external evils and the sharpest actual\nsufferings: his patience is invincible; his resignation entire and\nabsolute. Truth and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though\nof heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly\nparents. He approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities\nin the human race. He respects authority, religious and civil; and he\nevidences his regard for his country by promoting its most essential\ngood in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its\ncalamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of\nhis eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both\nwins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of\nhis enemies. Never was a character at the same time so commanding and\nnatural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is\na peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and\nmajesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness.\nHe now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next\ninstant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples, and the\nblasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than\nSolomon, one who can command legions of angels, the Giver of life to\nwhomsoever he pleaseth, the Son of God who shall sit on his glorious\nthrone to judge the world. At other times we find him embracing young\nchildren, not lifting up his voice in the streets, not breaking the\nbruised reed, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples, not\nservants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an\nexuberant and parental affection. Let us pause an instant, and fill our\nminds with the idea of one who knew all things heavenly and earthly,\nsearched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart, rectified every\nprejudice, and removed every mistake, of a moral and religious kind, by\na word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden\nevents of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality,\nhad the keys of life and death, claimed a union with the Father; and yet\nwas pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly,\naffectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each\nseparate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast; and the\nunion of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the\nglory of that God \u2018who inhabiteth light inaccessible.\u2019 Such a character\nmust have been a real one. There is something so extraordinary, so\nperfect, and so godlike in it, that it could not have been thus\nsupported throughout by the utmost stretch of human art, much less by\nmen confessedly unlearned and obscure.\u201d We may add, that such a\ncharacter must also have been _divine_. His virtues are human in their\nclass and kind, so that he was our \u201cexample;\u201d but they were sustained\nand heightened by that divinity which was impersonated in him, and from\nwhich they derived their intense and full perfection.\n\n5. A great deal has been written concerning the form, beauty, and\nstature of Jesus Christ. Some have asserted, that he was in person the\nnoblest of all the sons of men. Others have maintained, that there was\nno beauty nor any graces in his outward appearance. The fathers have not\nexpressed themselves on this matter in a uniform manner. St. Jerom\nbelieves that the lustre and majesty which shone about our Saviour\u2019s\nface were capable of winning all hearts: it was this that drew the\ngenerality of his Apostles with so much ease to him; it was this majesty\nwhich struck those down who came to seize him in the olive garden. St.\nBernard and St. Chrysostom contend in like manner for the beauty of\nJesus Christ\u2019s person; but the most ancient fathers have acknowledged,\nthat he was not at all handsome. _Homo indecorus et passibilis_, says\nIren\u00e6us. Celsus objected to the Christians, that Jesus Christ, as a man,\nwas little, and ill made, which Origen acknowledged in his answer to\nhave been written of him. Clemens Alexandrinus owns, in several places,\nthat the person of Jesus Christ was not beautiful, as does also Cyril of\nAlexandria. Tertullian says plainly, _vultu et aspectu inglorius_; that\nhis outward form had nothing that could attract consideration and\nrespect. St. Austin confesses, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was without\nbeauty and the advantage of person; and the generality of the ancients,\nas Eusebius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Isidore, &c, explain the passage\nin the Psalms, \u201cThou art fairer than the children of men,\u201d as relating\nto the beauty of Jesus Christ according to his divinity. This difference\nin opinion shows that no certain tradition was handed down on this\nsubject. The truth probably is, that all which was majestic and\nattractive in the person of our Lord, was in the _expression_ of the\ncountenance, the full influence of which was displayed chiefly in his\nconfidential intercourse with his disciples; while his general\nappearance presented no striking peculiarity to the common observer.\n\nJEWS, the appropriate denomination of the descendants of Judah, which\nsoon included under it the Benjamites, who joined themselves to the\ntribe of Judah, on the revolt of the other ten tribes from the house of\nDavid. After the Babylonish captivity, when many individuals of these\nten tribes returned with the men of Judah and Benjamin to rebuild\nJerusalem, the term JEWS included them also, or rather was then extended\nto all the descendants of Israel who retained the Jewish religion,\nwhether they belonged to the two or to the ten tribes, whether they\nreturned into Judea or not. Hence, not only all the Israelites of future\ntimes have been called Jews, but all the descendants of Jacob, from the\nearliest times, are frequently so called by us at present, and we speak\neven of their original dispensation as the Jewish dispensation. The\nhistory of this singular people is recorded in the sacred books of the\nOld Testament; and in place of epitomizing the accounts of the sacred\nwriters, it will be more useful to fill up the chasm between the close\nof the historical books there contained, and the coming of our Lord.\n\nWhen the kingdom of Judah had been seventy years in captivity, and the\nperiod of their affliction was completed, Cyrus, (B. C. 536,) under whom\nwere united the kingdoms of Persia, Media, and Babylon, issued a decree,\npermitting all the Jews to return to their own land, and to rebuild\ntheir temple at Jerusalem. This decree had been expressly foretold by\nthe Prophet Isaiah, who spoke of Cyrus by name, above a hundred years\nbefore his birth, as the deliverer of God\u2019s chosen people from their\npredicted captivity. Though the decree issued by Cyrus was general, a\npart only of the nation took advantage of it. The number of persons who\nreturned at this time was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty,\nand seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven servants. They were\nconducted by Zerubbabel and Joshua. Zerubbabel, frequently called in\nScripture Shashbazzar, was the grandson of Jeconias, and consequently\ndescended from David. He was called \u201cthe prince of Judah,\u201d and was\nappointed their governor by Cyrus, and with his permission carried back\na part of the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had taken out\nthe temple of Jerusalem. The rest of the treasures of the temple were\ncarried thither afterward by Ezra. Joshua was the son of Josedec, the\nhigh priest, and grandson of Seraiah, who was high priest when the\ntemple was destroyed. Darius, the successor of Cyrus, confirmed this\ndecree, and favoured the re\u00ebstablishment of the people. But it was in\nthe reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, called in Scripture Ahasuerus, that\nEzra obtained his commission, and was made governor of the Jews in their\nown land, which government he held thirteen years: then Nehemiah was\nappointed with fresh powers, probably through the interest of Queen\nEsther; and Ezra applied himself solely to correcting the canon of the\nScriptures, and restoring and providing for the continuance of the\nworship of God in its original purity. The first care of the Jews, after\ntheir arrival in Judea, was to build an altar for burnt-offerings to\nGod: they then collected materials for rebuilding the temple; and all\nnecessary preparations being made, in the beginning of the second year\nafter their return under Zerubbabel, they began to build it upon the old\nfoundations. The Samaritans, affirming that they worshipped the God of\nIsrael, offered to assist the Jews; but their assistance being refused,\nthey did all in their power to impede the work; and hence originated\nthat enmity which ever after subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans.\nThe temple, after a variety of obstructions and delays, was finished and\ndedicated, in the seventh year of King Darius, B. C. 515, and twenty\nyears after it was begun. Though this second temple, or, as it is\nsometimes called, the temple of Zerubbabel, who was at that time\ngovernor of the Jews, was of the same size and dimensions as the first,\nor Solomon\u2019s temple, yet it was very inferior to it in splendour and\nmagnificence; and the ark of the covenant, the Shechinah, the holy fire\nupon the altar, the Urim and Thummim, and the spirit of prophecy, were\nall wanting to this temple of the remnant of the people. At the feast of\nthe dedication, offerings were made for the twelve tribes of Israel,\nwhich seems to indicate that some of all the tribes returned from\ncaptivity; but by far the greater number were of the tribe of Judah, and\ntherefore from this period the Israelites were generally called Jud\u00e6i or\nJews, and their country Judea. Many, at their own desire, remained in\nthose provinces where they had been placed by the kings of Assyria and\nBabylon. The settlement of the people, \u201cafter their old estate,\u201d\naccording to the word of the Lord, together with the arrangement of all\ncivil and ecclesiastical matters, and the building of the walls of\nJerusalem, were completed by Ezra and Nehemiah. But we soon after find\nMalachi, the last of the prophets under the Old Testament, reproving\nboth priests and people very severely, not for idolatry, but for their\nscandalous lives and gross corruptions.\n\nThe Scriptural history ends at this period, B. C. 430; and we must have\nrecourse to uninspired writings, principally to the books of the\nMaccabees, and to Josephus, for the remaining particulars of the Jewish\nhistory, to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Judea continued\nsubject to the kings of Persia about two hundred years; but it does not\nappear that it had a separate governor after Nehemiah. From his time it\nwas included in the jurisdiction of the governor of Syria, and under him\nthe high priest had the chief authority. When Alexander the Great was\npreparing to besiege Tyre, he sent to Jaddua, the high priest at\nJerusalem, to supply him with that quantity of provisions which he was\naccustomed to send to Persia. Jaddua refused, upon the ground of his\noath of fidelity to the king of Persia. This refusal irritated\nAlexander; and when he had taken Tyre, he marched toward Jerusalem to\nrevenge himself upon the Jews. Jaddua had notice of his approach, and,\nby the direction of God, went out of the city to meet him, dressed in\nhis pontifical robes, and attended by the Levites in white garments.\nAlexander, visibly struck with this solemn appearance, immediately laid\naside his hostile intentions, advanced toward the high priest, embraced\nhim, and paid adoration to the name of God, which was inscribed upon the\nfrontlet of his mitre: he afterward went into the city with the high\npriest, and offered sacrifices in the temple to the God of the Jews.\nThis sudden change in the disposition of Alexander excited no small\nastonishment among his followers; and when his favourite Parmenio\ninquired of him the cause, he answered, that it was occasioned by the\nrecollection of a remarkable dream he had in Macedonia, in which a\nperson, dressed precisely like the Jewish high priest, had encouraged\nhim to undertake the conquest of Persia, and had promised him success:\nhe therefore adored the name of that God by whose direction he believed\nhe acted, and showed kindness to his people. It is also said, that while\nhe was at Jerusalem the prophecies of Daniel were pointed out to him,\nwhich foretold that \u201cthe king of Grecia\u201d should conquer Persia, Dan.\nviii, 21. Before he left Jerusalem he granted the Jews the same free\nenjoyment of their laws and their religion, and exemption from tribute\nevery sabbatical year, which they had been allowed by the kings of\nPersia; and when he built Alexandria, he placed a great number of Jews\nthere, and granted them many favours and immunities. Whether any Jews\nsettled in Europe so early as while the nation was subject to the\nMacedonian empire, is not known; but it is believed that they began to\nHellenize about this time. The Greek tongue became more common among\nthem, and Grecian manners and opinions were soon introduced. See\nALEXANDER.\n\nAt the death of Alexander, (B. C. 323,) in the division of his empire\namong his generals, Judea fell to the share of Laomedon. But Ptolemy\nSoter, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, soon after made himself master of it\nby a stratagem: he entered Jerusalem on a Sabbath day, under pretence of\noffering sacrifice, and took possession of the city without resistance\nfrom the Jews, who did not on this occasion dare to transgress their law\nby fighting on a Sabbath day. Ptolemy carried many thousands captive\ninto Egypt, both Jews and Samaritans, and settled them there: he\nafterward treated them with kindness, on account of their acknowledged\nfidelity to their engagements, particularly in their conduct toward\nDarius, king of Persia; and he granted them equal privileges with the\nMacedonians themselves at Alexandria. Ptolemy Philadelphus is said to\nhave given the Jews who were captives in Egypt their liberty, to the\nnumber of a hundred and twenty thousand. He commanded the Jewish\nScriptures to be translated into the Greek language, which translation\nis called the Septuagint. (See _Alexandria_.) After the Jewish nation\nhad been tributary to the kings of Egypt for about a hundred years, it\nbecame subject to the kings of Syria. They divided the land, which now\nbegan to be called Palestine, into five provinces, three of which were\non the west side of the Jordan, namely, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea, and\ntwo on the east side, namely, Trachonitis and Per\u00e6a; but they suffered\nthem to be governed by their own laws, under the high priest and council\nof the nation. Seleucus Nicanor gave them the right of citizens in the\ncities which he built in Asia Minor and C\u0153lo-Syria, and even in\nAntioch, his capital, with privileges, which they continued to enjoy\nunder the Romans. Antiochus the Great granted considerable favours and\nimmunities to the city of Jerusalem; and, to secure Lydia and Phrygia,\nhe established colonies of Jews in those provinces. In the series of\nwars which took place between the kings of Syria and Egypt, Judea, being\nsituated between those two countries, was, in a greater or less degree,\naffected by all the revolutions which they experienced, and was\nfrequently the scene of bloody and destructive battles. The evils to\nwhich the Jews were exposed from these foreign powers were considerably\naggravated by the corruption and misconduct of their own high priests,\nand other persons of distinction among them. To this corruption and\nmisconduct, and to the increasing wickedness of the people, their\nsufferings ought indeed to be attributed, according to the express\ndeclarations of God by the mouth of his prophets. It is certain that\nabout this time a considerable part of the nation was become much\nattached to Grecian manners and customs, though they continued perfectly\nfree from the sin of idolatry. Near Jerusalem places were appropriated\nto gymnastic exercises; and the people were led by Jason, who had\nobtained the high priesthood from Antiochus Epiphanes by the most\ndishonourable means, to neglect the temple worship, and the observance\nof the law, in a far greater degree than at any period since their\nreturn from the captivity. It pleased God to punish them for this\ndefection, by the hand of the very person whom they particularly sought\nto please. Antiochus Epiphanes, irritated at having been prevented by\nthe Jews from entering the holy place when he visited the temple, soon\nafter made a popular commotion the pretence for the exercise of tyranny:\nhe took the city, (B. C. 170,) plundered the temple, and slew or\nenslaved great numbers of the inhabitants, with every circumstance of\nprofanation and of cruelty which can be conceived. For three years and a\nhalf, the time predicted by Daniel, the daily sacrifice was taken away,\nthe temple defiled and partly destroyed, the observance of the law\nprohibited under the most severe penalties, every copy burned which the\nagents of the tyrant could procure, and the people required to sacrifice\nto idols, under pain of the most agonizing death. Numerous as were the\napostates, (for the previous corruption of manners had but ill prepared\nthe nation for such a trial,) a remnant continued faithful; and the\ncomplicated miseries which the people endured under this cruel yoke\nexcited a general impatience. At length the moment of deliverance\narrived. Mattathias, a priest, (B. C. 167,) eminent for his piety and\nresolution, and the father of five sons, equally zealous for their\nreligion, encouraged the people by his example and exhortations, \u201cto\nstand up for the law;\u201d and having soon collected an army of six thousand\nmen, he eagerly undertook to free Judea from the oppression and\npersecution of the Syrians, and to restore the worship of the God of\nIsrael; but being very old when he engaged in this important and arduous\nwork, he did not live to see its completion. At his death, his son,\nJudas Maccab\u00e6us, succeeded to the command of the army; and having\ndefeated the Syrians in several engagements, he drove them out of Judea,\nand established his own authority in the country. His first care was to\nrepair and purify the temple for the restoration of divine worship; and,\nto preserve the memory of this event, the Jews ordained a feast of eight\ndays, called the feast of the dedication, to be yearly observed. Judas\nMaccab\u00e6us was slain in battle, and his brother Jonathan succeeded him in\nthe government. He was also made high priest, and from that time the\nMaccab\u00e6an princes continued to be high priests. Judas Maccab\u00e6us and his\nbrothers were so successful, by their valour and conduct, in asserting\nthe liberty of their country, that in a few years they not only\nrecovered its independence, but regained almost all the possessions of\nthe twelve tribes, destroying at the same time the temple on Mount\nGerizim, in Samaria. But they and their successors were almost always\nengaged in wars, in which, though generally victorious, they were\nsometimes defeated, and their country for a short time oppressed.\nAristobulus was the first of the Maccabees who assumed the name of king.\nAbout forty-two years after, a contest arising between the two brothers,\nHyrcanus and Aristobulus, the sons of Alexander Jadd\u00e6us, relative to the\nsuccession of the crown, both parties applied to the Romans for their\nsupport and assistance. Scaurus, the Roman general, suffered himself to\nbe bribed by Aristobulus, and placed him on the throne. Not long after,\nPompey returned from the east into Syria, and both the brothers applied\nto him for his protection, and pleaded their cause before him, (B. C.\n63.) Pompey considered this as a favourable opportunity for reducing\nPalestine under the power of the Romans, to which the neighbouring\nnations had already submitted; and therefore, without deciding the\npoints in dispute between the two brothers, he marched his army into\nJudea, and, after some pretended negociation with Aristobulus and his\nparty, besieged and took possession of Jerusalem. He appointed Hyrcanus\nhigh priest, but would not allow him to take the title of king: he gave\nhim, however, the specious name of prince, with very limited authority.\nPompey did not take away the holy utensils or treasures of the temple,\nbut he made Judea subject and tributary to the Romans; and Crassus,\nabout nine years after, plundered the temple of every thing valuable\nbelonging to it. Julius C\u00e6sar confirmed Hyrcanus in the pontificate, and\ngranted fresh privileges to the Jews; but about four years after the\ndeath of Julius C\u00e6sar, Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, with the\nassistance of the Parthians, while the empire of Rome was in an\nunsettled state, deposed his uncle Hyrcanus, (B. C. 41,) seized the\ngovernment, and assumed the title of king.\n\nHerod, by birth an Idumean, but of the Jewish religion, whose father,\nAntipater, as well as himself, had enjoyed considerable posts of honour\nand trust under Hyrcanus, immediately set out for Rome, and prevailed\nupon the senate, through the interest of Antony and Augustus, to appoint\nhim king of Judea. Armed with this authority, he returned, and began\nhostilities against Antigonus. About three years after, he took\nJerusalem, and put an end to the government of the Maccabees or\nAsmon\u00e6ans, after it had lasted nearly a hundred and thirty years.\nAntigonus was sent prisoner to Rome, and was there put to death by\nAntony. Herod married Mariamne, who lived to be the only representative\nof the Asmon\u00e6an family, and afterward caused her to be publicly executed\nfrom motives of unfounded jealousy. Herod considerably enlarged the\nkingdom of Judea, but it continued tributary to the Romans; he greatly\ndepressed the civil power of the high priesthood, and changed it from\nbeing hereditary and for life to an office granted and held at the\npleasure of the monarch; and this sacred office was now often given to\nthose who paid the highest price for it, without any regard to merit: he\nwas an inexorable, cruel tyrant to his people, and even to his children,\nthree of whom he put to death; a slave to his passions, and indifferent\nby what means he gratified his ambition; but to preserve the Jews in\nsubjection, and to erect a lasting monument to his own name, he repaired\nthe temple of Jerusalem at a vast expense, and added greatly to its\nmagnificence.\n\nAt this time there was a confident expectation of the Messiah among the\nJews; and indeed, a general idea prevailed among the Heathen, also, that\nsome extraordinary conqueror or deliverer would soon appear in Judea. In\nthe thirty-sixth year of the reign of Herod, while Augustus was emperor\nof Rome, the Saviour of mankind was born of the virgin Mary, of the\nlineage of David, in the city of Bethlehem of Judea, according to the\nword of prophecy. Herod, misled by the opinion, which was then common\namong the Jews, that the Messiah was to appear as the temporal prince,\nand judging from the inquiries of the wise men of the east, that the\nchild was actually born, sent to Bethlehem, and ordered that all the\nchildren of two years old and under should be put to death, with the\nhope of destroying one whom he considered as the rival of himself, or at\nleast of his family. He was soon after smitten with a most loathsome and\ntormenting disease, and died, a signal example of divine justice, about\na year and a quarter after the birth of our Saviour, and in the\nthirty-seventh year of his reign, computing from the time he was\ndeclared king by the Romans. See HEROD.\n\nHerod made his will not long before his death, but left the final\ndisposal of his dominions to Augustus. The emperor ratified this will in\nall its material points, and suffered the countries over which Herod had\nreigned to be divided among his three sons. Archelaus succeeded to the\nlargest share, namely, to Judea Propria, Samaria, and Idumea. Herod\nAntipas, called Herod the Tetrarch, who afterward beheaded John the\nBaptist, succeeded to Galilee and Per\u00e6a; and Philip, to Trachonitis, and\nto the neighbouring region of Iturea. The sons of Herod the Great were\nnot suffered to take the title of king: they were only called ethnarchs\nor tetrarchs. Beside the countries already mentioned, Abilene, which had\nbelonged to Herod during the latter part of his life, and of which\nLysanias is mentioned in Luke iii, 1, as tetrarch, and some cities were\ngiven to Salome, the sister of Herod the Great, (A. D. 7.) Archelaus\nacted with great cruelty and injustice; and in the tenth year of his\ngovernment, upon a regular complaint being made against him by the Jews,\nAugustus banished him to Vienne, in Gaul, where he died.\n\nAfter the banishment of Archelaus, Augustus sent Publius Sulpitius\nQuirinus, who, according to the Greek way of writing that name, is by\nSt. Luke called Cyrenius, president of Syria, to reduce the countries\nover which Archelaus had reigned, to the form of a Roman province; and\nappointed Coponius, a Roman of the equestrian order, to be governor,\nunder the title of procurator of Judea, but subordinate to the president\nof Syria. The power of life and death was now taken out of the hands of\nthe Jews, and taxes were from this time paid immediately to the Roman\nemperor. Justice was administered in the name and by the laws of Rome;\nthough in what concerned their religion, their own laws, and the power\nof the high priest, and sanhedrim, or great council, were continued to\nthem; and they were allowed to examine witnesses, and exercise an\ninferior jurisdiction in other causes, subject to the control of the\nRomans, to whom their tetrarchs or kings were also subject; and it may\nbe remarked that, at this very period of time, our Saviour, who was now\nin the twelfth year of his age, being at Jerusalem with Joseph and Mary\nupon occasion of the passover, appeared first in the temple in his\nprophetic office, and in the business of his Father, on which he was\nsent, sitting among the doctors of the temple, and declaring the truth\nof God to them. After Coponius, Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus,\nand Pontius Pilate, were successively procurators; and this was the\nspecies of government to which Judea and Samaria were subject during the\nministry of our Saviour. Herod Antipas was still tetrarch of Galilee,\nand it was he to whom our Saviour was sent by Pontius Pilate. Lardner is\nof opinion that there was no procurator in Judea after Pontius Pilate,\nwho was removed A. D. 36, but that it was governed for a few years by\nthe presidents of Syria, who occasionally sent officers into Judea.\nPhilip continued tetrarch of Trachonitis thirty-seven years, and died in\nthe twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius. Caligula gave his tetrarchy\nto Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the Great, with the title of king; and\nafterward he added the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, whom he deposed and\nbanished after he had been tetrarch forty-three years. The Emperor\nClaudius gave him Judea, Samaria, the southern parts of Idumea, and\nAbilene; and thus at last the dominions of Herod Agrippa became nearly\nthe same as those of his grandfather, Herod the Great. It was this\nAgrippa, called also Herod Agrippa, and by St. Luke Herod only, who put\nto death James, the brother of John, and imprisoned Peter. He died in\nthe seventh year of his reign, and left a son called also Agrippa, then\nseventeen years old; and Claudius, thinking him too young to govern his\nfather\u2019s extensive dominions, made Cuspus Fadus governor of Judea. Fadus\nwas soon succeeded by Tiberius, and he was followed by Alexander\nCumanus, Felix, and Festus; but Claudius afterward gave Trachonitis and\nAbilene to Agrippa, and Nero added a part of Galilee and some other\ncities. It was this younger Agrippa, who was also called king, before\nwhom Paul pleaded at C\u00e6sarea, which was at that time the place of\nresidence of the governor of Judea. Several of the Roman governors\nseverely oppressed and persecuted the Jews; and at length, in the reign\nof Nero, and in the government of Florus, who had treated them with\ngreater cruelty than any of his predecessors, they openly revolted from\nthe Romans. Then began the Jewish war, which was terminated, after an\nobstinate defence and unparalleled sufferings on the part of the Jews,\nby the total destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, by the\noverthrow of their civil and religious polity, and the reduction of the\npeople to a state of the most abject slavery; for though, in the reign\nof Adrian, numbers of them collected together, in different parts of\nJudea, it is to be observed, they were then considered and treated as\nrebellious slaves; and these commotions were made a pretence for the\ngeneral slaughter of those who were taken, and tended to complete the\nwork of their dispersion into all countries under heaven. Since that\ntime the Jews have no where subsisted as a nation.\n\n2. JEWS, MODERN. The Jews divide the books of the Old Testament into\nthree classes: the law, the prophets, and the hagiographa, or holy\nwritings. They have counted not only the large and small sections, the\nverses and the words, but even the letters in some of the books; and\nthey have likewise reckoned which is the middle letter of the\nPentateuch, which is the middle clause of each book, and how often each\nletter of the alphabet occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. Beside the\nScriptures, the Jews pay great attention to the Targums, or Chaldee\nparaphrases of them. It seems probable that these were written either\nduring the Babylonish captivity, or immediately afterward, when the Jews\nhad forgotten their own language, and acquired the Chaldee of the\nTargums, at present received by the Jews. The most ancient are that of\nOnkelos on the law, and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets: the\nformer is supposed to be of greater antiquity than the latter, and it\napproaches, in simplicity and purity of style, to the Chaldee of Daniel\nand Ezra. The Targum on the prophets is believed to have been written\nbefore the birth of Christ; and, though inferior in respect of style to\nthe Targum of Onkelos, is much superior to any other Targum.\n\nThe Jews also regard with great veneration, what is called the Talmud.\nThis work consists of two parts: the Mishna, which signifies a second\nlaw; and the Gemara, which means either a supplement or a commentary.\nThe Jews suppose that God first dictated the text of the law to Moses,\nwhich he commanded to be put in writing, and which exists in the\nPentateuch, and then gave him an explication of every thing comprehended\nin it, which he ordered to be committed to memory. Hence the former is\ncalled the written, and the latter the oral, law. These two laws were\nrecited by Moses to Aaron four times, to his sons three times, to the\nseventy elders twice, and to the rest of the people once: after this,\nthe repetition was renewed by Aaron, his two sons, and the seventy\nelders. The last month of Moses\u2019s life was spent, according to the Jews,\nin repeating and explaining the law to the people, and especially to\nJoshua, his successor. A prophet might suspend any law, or authorize the\nviolation of any precept, except those against idolatry. If there was\nany difference of opinion respecting the meaning of any law or precept,\nit was determined by the majority. When Joshua died, all the\ninterpretations he had received from Moses, as well as those made in his\ntime, were transmitted to the elders: they conveyed them to the\nprophets, and by one prophet they were delivered to another. This law\nwas only oral till the days of Rabbi Jehuda, who, perceiving that the\nstudents of the law were gradually decreasing, and that the Jews were\ndispersed over the face of the earth, collected all the traditions,\narranged them under distinct heads, and formed them into a methodical\ncode of traditional law; thus the Mishna was formed. It is written in a\nconcise style, chiefly in the form of aphorisms, which admit of a\nvariety of interpretations. On this account, a Gemara or commentary was\nwritten by a president of a school in Palestine, which, together with\nthe Mishna, forms the Jerusalem Talmud. The Jews in Chaldea, however,\nnot being satisfied with this Gemara, one of their rabbies compiled\nanother; which, together with the Mishna, forms the Babylonian Talmud.\n\nOne of the principal branches of modern Judaism is the cabala, the study\nof which is regarded as the sublimest of all sciences. By the cabala,\nthe Jews mean those mystical interpretations of the Scripture, and\nmetaphysical speculations concerning the Deity, angels, &c, which they\nregard as having been handed down by a secret tradition from the\nearliest ages. In the eleventh century, the famous Rabbi Maimonides drew\nup a summary of the doctrines of Judaism, which every Jew is required to\nbelieve, on pain of excommunication in this world, and condemnation in\nthe next. This summary consists of thirteen articles, which he calls\nfoundations or roots of the faith. The articles are as follows: 1. That\nGod is the Creator and active Supporter of all things. 2. That God is\none, and eternally unchangeable. 3. That God is incorporeal, and cannot\nhave any material properties. 4. That God must eternally exist. 5. That\nGod alone is to be worshipped. 6. That whatever is taught by the\nprophets is true. 7. That Moses is the head and father of all\ncontemporary doctors, and of all those who lived before or shall live\nafter him. 8. That the law was given by Moses. 9. That the law shall\nalways exist, and never be altered. 10. That God knows all the thoughts\nand actions of men. 11. That God will reward the observance, and punish\nthe breach, of the laws. 12. That the Messiah is to come, though he\ntarry a long time. 13. That there shall be a resurrection of the dead,\nwhen God shall think fit.\n\nThe Jewish religion is, perhaps, more a religion of minute and trifling\nrites and ceremonies than even the Catholic religion. The minutest\ncircumstances in dressing and undressing, washing and wiping the face\nand hands, and other necessary actions of common and daily life, are\nenjoined by the rabbies to be performed exactly according to the\nprescribed regulations. Their prayers also are numerous, and some of\nthem relate to the most trifling circumstances. Those esteemed the most\nsolemn and important are called _Shemoneh Esreh_, or the eighteen\nprayers, though they actually consist of nineteen, the last having been\nadded against heretics and apostates. They are enjoined to be said by\nall Jews above the age of thirteen, wherever they may be, three times a\nday. The members of the synagogue are required to repeat at least a\nhundred benedictions every day. A son who survives his father is\nenjoined to attend the nocturnal service in the synagogue every evening\nfor a year, and to repeat the Kodesh, in order that his father may be\ndelivered from hell. This service may be suspended by any person going\nup to the desk and closing the book. This is not unfrequently done in\ncase of quarrels; and the prayers cannot be renewed till a\nreconciliation takes place.\n\nNothing is to be undertaken on Friday which cannot be finished before\nthe evening. In the afternoon they wash and clean themselves, trim their\nhair, and pare their nails. Every Jew, of whatever rank, must assist in\nthe preparation for the Sabbath. Two loaves, baked on the Friday, are\nset on a table. This is done in memory of the manna, of which a double\nportion fell on the sixth day of the week. The table remains spread all\nthe Sabbath. Before the sun is set the candles are to be lighted; one,\nat least, with seven wicks, in allusion to the number of days in a week,\nis to be lighted in each house. The Talmudical directions respecting the\nwicks and oil form part of the Sabbath evening service; they are most\nridiculously and childishly minute. The lesson appointed for the Sabbath\nis divided into seven parts, and read to seven persons at the altar. The\nfirst called up to hear it is a descendant of Aaron, the second of Levi,\nthe third an Israelite of any tribe; the same order is then repeated:\nthe seventh may be of any tribe. The portion read from the law is\nfollowed by a portion from the prophets. There are three services;\nmorning, afternoon, and evening.\n\nOf the festivals of the Jews we can mention only a few, and those merely\nin a cursory manner. The principal are those of the new moon, of the\npassover, of pentecost, of the new year, the fast of atonement, and the\nfeast of tabernacles. That the festival of the new moon might be\ncelebrated as nearly as possible on the day of the moon\u2019s conjunction\nwith the sun, most of the months contain alternately twenty-nine and\nthirty days; and the feast of the new moon is held on the first, or on\nthe first and second days of the month. The women are not allowed to\nwork: the men may. Good eating and drinking particularly distinguish\nthis festival. The feast of the passover commences on the fifteenth day\nof the month Nisan, and continues among Jews who live in or near\nJerusalem seven days, and elsewhere eight days. The Sabbath preceding is\ncalled the great Sabbath, and is kept with most scrupulous strictness.\nThe mode and materials for making the unleavened cakes for the passover\nare most minutely described by the rabbies, as well as all the\nceremonies of this feast. It is customary for every Jew to honour it by\nan exhibition of the most sumptuous furniture he can afford. The table\nfor the feast is covered with a clean linen cloth, on which are placed\nseveral dishes: on one is the shank bone of a shoulder of lamb or kid,\nand an egg; on another, three cakes, wrapped in two napkins; on a third,\nsome lettuce, parsley, celery, or other herbs: these are their bitter\nherbs. Near the salad is a cruet of vinegar, and some salt and water.\nThere is also a dish representing the bricks which their forefathers\nwere required to make in Egypt: this is composed of apples, almonds,\nnuts, and figs, formed into a paste, dressed in wine and cinnamon. The\nfirst two days, and the last two, are kept with particular solemnity and\nstrictness. Contracts of marriage may be made, but no marriage is to be\nsolemnized during this festival. The feast of pentecost, on the sixth\nday of the month Sivan, continues two days, and is kept with the same\nstrictness as the first two days of the passover. It is a received\nopinion of the Jews, that the world was created on the day of their new\nyear; and they therefore celebrate the festival of the new year by a\ndiscontinuance of all labour, and by repeated services in the synagogue.\nThe fast of atonement is on the tenth day of Tisri: the first ten days\nof the month are called days of penitence during which the Jews believe\nthat God examines the actions of mankind; but he defers passing sentence\ntill the tenth. On the eve of the fast, a ceremony, evidently designed\nas a substitute for their ancient sacrifices, is performed. This\nconsists in killing a cock with great formality. The cocks must on no\naccount be red: white is the preferable colour. Before the fast begins,\nthey endeavour to settle all their disputes. In the afternoon they make\na hearty meal, to prepare for the fast, which is of the most rigid kind.\nThe feast of tabernacles commences on the fifteenth of Tisri, and is\nkept nine days. Every Jew who has a court or garden is required to erect\na tabernacle on this occasion; respecting the materials and erection of\nwhich the rabbies have given special directions. The eighth and ninth\nare high days, particularly the last, which is called the day of the\nrejoicing of the land.\n\nSuch are the opinions, traditions, rites, and ceremonies of the great\nmajority of the modern Jews; but, beside these, there is a small sect\ndenominated Caraites, that is, textualists,--persons attached to the\ntext of the Scriptures. They reside chiefly in the Crimea, Lithuania,\nand Persia; and at Damascus, Constantinople, and Cairo: their whole\nnumber is very inconsiderable. They agree with other Jews in denying the\nadvent of the Messiah. The principal difference between them consists in\ntheir adherence to the letter of the Scripture, and in the rejection of\nall paraphrases and interpretations of the rabbies. They also differ\nfrom the rabbies in various particulars respecting the feasts of the\npassover, pentecost, and tabernacles. They observe the Sabbath with far\ngreater strictness. They extend the degrees of affinity within which\nmarriage is prohibited; but they are more strict in matters of divorce.\n\n3. JEWS, CALAMITIES OF THE. All history cannot furnish us with a\nparallel to the calamities and miseries of the Jews: rapine and murder,\nfamine and pestilence within, fire and sword, and all the terrors of war\nwithout. Our Saviour wept at the foresight of these calamities; and it\nis almost impossible for persons of any humanity to read the account\nwithout being affected. The predictions concerning them were remarkable,\nand the calamities that came upon them were the greatest the world ever\nsaw. See Deut. xxviii, xxix; Matt. xxiv. Now, what heinous sin was it\nthat could be the cause of such heavy judgments? Can any other be\nassigned than that which the Scripture assigns? \u201cThey both killed the\nLord Jesus and their own prophets, and persecuted the Apostles,\u201d 1\nThess. ii, 15; and so filled up their sins, and wrath came upon them to\nthe utmost. It is hardly possible to consider the nature and extent of\ntheir sufferings, and not conclude their own imprecation to be\nsingularly fulfilled upon them: \u201cHis blood be on us, and on our\nchildren,\u201d Matt. xxvii, 25. At C\u00e6sarea twenty thousand of the Jews were\nkilled by the Syrians in their mutual broils. At Damascus, ten thousand\nunarmed Jews were killed; and at Bethshan, the Heathen inhabitants\ncaused their Jewish neighbours to assist them against their brethren,\nand then murdered thirteen thousand of these inhabitants. At Alexandria,\nthe Jews murdered multitudes of the Heathens, and were murdered, in\ntheir turn, to about sixty thousand. The Romans, under Vespasian,\ninvaded the country, and took the cities of Galilee, Chorazin,\nBethsaida, Capernaum, &c, where Christ had been especially rejected, and\nmurdered numbers of the inhabitants. At Jerusalem the scene was most\nwretched of all. At the passover, when there might have been two or\nthree millions of people in the city, the Romans surrounded it with\ntroops, trenches, and walls, that none might escape. The three different\nfactions within murdered one another. Titus did all in his power to\npersuade them to an advantageous surrender, but they scorned every\nproposal. The multitudes of unburied carcasses corrupted the air, and\nproduced a pestilence. The people fed on one another; and even ladies,\nit is said, boiled their suckling infants, and ate them. After a siege\nof six months, the city was taken. They murdered almost every Jew they\nmet with. Titus was bent to save the temple, but could not: six thousand\nJews who had taken shelter in it were all burned or murdered. The\noutcries of the Jews, when they saw it, were most dreadful: the whole\ncity, except three towers, and a small part of the wall, was razed to\nthe ground, and the foundations of the temple and other places were\nploughed up. Soon after the forts of Herodian and Mach\u00e6ron were taken,\nthe garrison of Massada murdered themselves rather than surrender. At\nJerusalem alone, it is said, one million one hundred thousand perished\nby sword, famine, and pestilence. In other places, we hear of two\nhundred and fifty thousand that were cut off, beside vast numbers sent\ninto Egypt, to labour as slaves. About fifty years after, the Jews\nmurdered about five hundred thousand of the Roman subjects, for which\nthey were severely punished by Trajan. About A. D. 130, one Barcocaba\npretended that he was the Messiah, and raised a Jewish army of two\nhundred thousand, who murdered all the Heathens and Christians that came\nin their way; but he was defeated by Adrian\u2019s forces. In this war, it is\nsaid, about six hundred thousand Jews were slain, or perished by famine\nand pestilence. Adrian built a city on Mount Calvary, and erected a\nmarble statue of a swine over the gate that led to Bethlehem. No Jew was\nallowed to enter the city, or to look to it at a distance, under pain of\ndeath. In A. D. 360, the Jews, encouraged by Julian, Constantine\u2019s\nnephew, and now emperor, wishing to give Jesus the lie, began to rebuild\ntheir city and temple; but a terrible earthquake, and flames of fire\nissuing from the earth, killed the workmen, and scattered their\nmaterials. And after the death of Julian, the edict of Adrian being\nrevived against them, and Roman guards prohibiting their approach, till\nthe seventh century they durst not so much as creep over the rubbish to\nbewail the destruction of the city, without bribing the guards. In the\nthird, fourth, and fifth centuries they were many of them furiously\nharassed and murdered. In the sixth century, twenty thousand of them\nwere slain, and as many taken and sold for slaves. They were severely\npunished, A. D. 602, for their horrible massacre of the Christians at\nAntioch. In Spain, A. D. 700, they were ordered to be enslaved. In the\neighth and ninth centuries they were greatly derided and abused; in some\nplaces they were made to wear leathern girdles, and ride without\nstirrups upon asses and mules. In France and Spain they were much\ninsulted. In the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, their miseries\nrather increased; and they were greatly persecuted in Egypt. Beside what\nthey suffered in the east by the Turkish and sacred war, it is shocking\nto think what multitudes of them the eight crusades murdered in Germany,\nHungary, Lesser Asia, and elsewhere. In France multitudes were burned.\nIn England, A. D. 1020, they were banished; and at the coronation of\nRichard I. the mob fell upon them, and murdered a great many of them.\nAbout one thousand five hundred of them were burned in the palace in the\ncity of York, which they themselves set fire to, after killing their\nwives and children. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, their\ncondition was no better. In Egypt, Canaan, and Syria, the crusaders\nstill harassed them. Provoked with their mad running after pretended\nMessiahs, Califf Nasser scarce left any of them alive in his dominions\nof Mesopotamia. In Persia, the Tartars murdered them in multitudes. In\nSpain, Ferdinand persecuted them furiously. About 1349, the terrible\nmassacre of them at Toledo forced many of them to murder themselves, or\nchange their religion. About 1253, many were murdered in, and others\nbanished from, France, but in 1275, recalled. The crusades of the\nfanatic shepherds, A. D. 1320 and 1330, who wasted the south of France,\nmassacred them; beside fifteen thousand of them that were murdered on\nanother occasion. They were finally banished from France, A. D. 1358;\nsince which, few of them have entered that country. King Edward expelled\nthem from England, A. D. 1291, to the number of a hundred and sixty\nthousand. In the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, their\nmisery continued. In Persia they have been terribly used; from 1663 to\n1666, the murder of them was so universal, that but a few escaped to\nTurkey. In Portugal and Spain they have been miserably treated. About\n1492, six or eight hundred thousand of them were banished from Spain.\nSome were drowned in their passage to Africa; some perished by hard\nusage; and many of their carcasses lay in the fields till wild beasts\ndevoured them. In Germany, they have endured many hardships. They have\nbeen banished from Bohemia, Bavaria, Cologne, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and\nVienna; they have been terribly massacred in Moravia, and plundered in\nBonn and Bamberg. Except in Portugal and Spain, their present condition\nis generally tolerable.\n\n4. JEWS, PRESERVATION OF THE. The preservation of the Jews, says\nBasnage, in the midst of the miseries which they have undergone during\none thousand eight hundred years, is the greatest prodigy that can be\nimagined. As most religions depend on temporal prosperity, they triumph\nunder the protection of a conqueror; they languish and sink with sinking\nmonarchies. Paganism, which once covered the earth, is, in the civilized\nworld, extinct. The Christian church was considerably diminished by the\npersecutions to which it was exposed; nor was it easy to repair the\nwastes made in it by those acts of violence. But here we behold a people\nhated and persecuted for one thousand eight hundred years, and yet\nsustaining itself, and widely extended. Kings have often employed the\nseverity of edicts and the hand of executioners to ruin it. The\nseditious multitudes, by murders and massacres, have committed outrages\nagainst it still more violent and tragical. Princes and people, Pagans,\nMohammedans, Christians, disagreeing in so many things, have united in\nthe design of exterminating it, and have not been able to succeed. The\nbush of Moses, surrounded with flames, ever burns, and is not consumed.\nThe Jews have been expelled, in different times, from every part of the\nworld, which hath only served to spread them in all regions. From age to\nage they have been exposed to misery and persecution; yet still they\nsubsist, in spite of the ignominy and the hatred which hath pursued them\nin all places, while the greatest monarchies are fallen, and nothing\nremains of them beside the name. The judgments which God hath exercised\nupon this people are terrible, extending to the men, the religion, and\nthe very land in which they dwelt. The ceremonies essential to their\nreligion can no more be observed: the ritual law, which cast a splendour\non the national worship, and struck the Pagans so much that they sent\ntheir presents and their victims to Jerusalem, is absolutely fallen; for\nthey have no temple, no altar, no sacrifices. Their land itself seems to\nlie under a never-ceasing curse. Pagans, Christians, Mohammedans, in a\nword, almost all nations have, by turns, seized and held Jerusalem. To\nthe Jews only hath God refused the possession of this small tract of\nground, so supremely necessary for them, since, as Jews, they ought to\nworship on Mount Zion. In all this there is no exaggeration: we are only\npointing out known facts; and far from having the least design to raise\nan odium against the nation from its miseries, we conclude that it ought\nto be looked upon as one of those prodigies which we admire without\ncomprehending; since, in spite of evils so durable, and a patience so\nlong exercised, it is preserved by a particular providence. The Jew\nought to be weary of expecting a Messiah, who so unkindly disappoints\nhis vain hopes; and the Christian ought to have his attention and his\nregard excited toward men whom God preserves, for so great a length of\ntime under calamities which would have been the total ruin of any other\npeople. The whole is a standing proof of the truth of the word of God;\nas it so signally, and beyond all contradiction, fulfils, even to\nparticulars wonderfully minute, its ancient and numerous predictions.\n\nThe long protracted existence of the Jews as a separate people, is not\nonly a standing evidence of the truth of the Bible, but is of that kind\nwhich defies hesitation, imitation, or parallel. Were this people\ntotally extinct, some might affect to say, that they never had existed;\nor, that if they had existed, they never practised such rites as were\nimputed to them; or, that they were not a numerous people, but merely a\nsmall tribe of ignorant and unsettled Arabs. The care with which the\nJews preserve their sacred books, and the conformity of those preserved\nin the east with those of the west, as lately attested, is a\nsatisfactory argument in favour of the genuineness of both; and farther,\nthe dispersion of the nation has proved the security of these documents;\nas it has not been in the power of any one enemy, however potent, to\ndestroy the entire series, or to consign the whole to oblivion.\n\nJEZEBEL, daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians, and wife of Ahab,\nking of Israel, 1 Kings xvi, 31. This princess introduced into the\nkingdom of Samaria the public worship of Baal, Astarte, and other\nPhenician deities, which the Lord had expressly forbidden; and with this\nimpious worship, a general prevalence of those abominations which had\nformerly incensed God against the Canaanites, to their utter\nextirpation. Jezebel was so zealous, that she fed at her own table four\nhundred prophets belonging to the goddess Astarte; and her husband Ahab,\nin like manner, kept four hundred of Baal\u2019s prophets, as ministers of\nhis false gods. The name of Jezebel is used proverbially, Rev. ii, 20.\nSee JEHU.\n\nJEZREEL, a royal city of the kings of Israel, who sometimes resided here\nas well as at Samaria. Ahab, in particular, is known to have made this\nhis residence; near to whose palace was the vineyard of the unfortunate\nNaboth. The name of Jezreel was by the Greeks moulded into that of\nEsdraela; which is described by Eusebius and Jerom, in the fourth\ncentury, as a considerable town. In like manner, the valley of Jezreel\nobtained the name of the valley or plain of Esdraelon; which is still\ndescribed as very fertile, and much frequented by the Arabs for its fine\npasturage. This is the largest, and at the same time the most fertile,\nplain in the land of Canaan; and is called, by way of eminence, the\nGreat Plain. It may be estimated at thirty miles in length, and twenty\nin breadth. The river Kishon flows through it. See ESDRAELON.\n\nJOAB was the son of Zeruiah, David\u2019s sister, and brother to Abishai and\nAsahel. He was one of the most valiant soldiers and greatest generals in\nDavid\u2019s time; but he was also cruel, revengeful, and imperious. He\nperformed great services for David, to whose interests he was always\nfirm, and was commander-in-chief of his troops, when David was king of\nJudah only. His history is related in the second book of Samuel and the\nfirst book of Kings. See DAVID, ABNER, and AMASA.\n\nJOANNA, the wife of Chuza, Herod\u2019s steward, was one of those women who,\nhaving been cured by our Saviour, followed him as disciples, and\nministered to his necessities, Luke viii, 3.\n\nJOASH, son of Ahaziah, king of Judah. When the impious Athaliah\nundertook to extinguish the race of the kings of Judah, that she might\nseize the crown herself, she ordered all the princes, her grandchildren,\nto be murdered. But Jehosheba, the sister of Ahaziah, and wife to the\nHigh Priest Jehoiada, rescued young Joash, then a child, from the\ncruelty of Athaliah, and lodged him in the temple with his nurse. Here\nhe abode six years. In the seventh year Jehoiada procured him to be\nacknowledged king, and so well concerted his plan, that young Joash was\nplaced on the throne, and saluted king in the temple, before the queen\nwas informed of it. She was killed without the temple, 2 Kings xi, 1,\n&c. Joash received the diadem, together with the book of the law, from\nthe hands of Jehoiada, the high priest, who, in the young king\u2019s name,\nmade a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, for their\nfuture fidelity to God. He also obliged the people to take an oath of\nfidelity to the king. Joash was only seven years old when he began to\nreign, and he reigned forty years at Jerusalem. His mother\u2019s name was\nZibiah of Beersheba. He governed with justice and piety, so long as he\nwas guided by the High Priest Jehoiada. Yet he did not abolish the high\nplaces.\n\nJehoiada, during the king\u2019s minority, had issued orders for collecting\nvoluntary offerings to the holy place, with the design of repairing the\ntemple; but his orders were ill executed till the twentieth year of\nJoash. Then this prince directed chests to be placed at the entrance of\nthe temple, and an account to be given him of what money was received\nfrom them, that it might be faithfully employed in repairing the house\nof God. Jehoiada dying at the age of a hundred and thirty years, Joash\nwas misled by the evil counsel of his courtiers, who had before been\nrestrained by the high priest\u2019s authority. They began to forsake the\ntemple of the Lord, and to worship idols, and groves consecrated to\nidols. Then the Spirit of the Lord coming upon the High Priest\nZechariah, son of Jehoiada, he reproved the people; but they who heard\nhim stoned him, according to orders from their king. It was not long\nbefore God inflicted on Joash the just punishment of his ingratitude to\nJehoiada, whose son he had so lately murdered. Hazael, king of Syria,\nbesieged Gath, which belonged to Judah; and having taken it he marched\nagainst Jerusalem. Joash, to redeem himself from the difficulties of a\nsiege, and from the danger of being plundered, took what money he could\nfind in the temple, which had been consecrated by Ahaziah his father,\nJehoram his grandfather, and himself, and gave the whole to Hazael. It\nis believed by some, that the next year the Syrian army marched again\ninto Judah; but Hazael was not there in person. The Syrians made great\nhavoc, defeated the troops of Joash, entered Jerusalem, slew the princes\nof Judah, and sent a great booty to the king of Syria at Damascus. They\ntreated Joash himself with great ignominy, and left him extremely ill.\nHis servants then revolted against him, and killed him in his bed, by\nwhich the blood of Zechariah the high priest was avenged. He was buried\nin Jerusalem, but not in the royal sepulchre. Amaziah his son succeeded\nhim.\n\nJOB, a patriarch celebrated for his patience, and the constancy of his\npiety and virtue. That Job was a real, and not a fictitious, character,\nmay be inferred from the manner in which he is mentioned in the\nScriptures. Thus, the Prophet Ezekiel speaks of him: \u201cThough these three\nmen, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their\nown souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God,\u201d Ezek. xiv, 14.\nNow since Noah and Daniel were unquestionably real characters, we must\nconclude the same of Job. \u201cBehold,\u201d says the Apostle James, \u201cwe count\nthem happy which endure: ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have\nseen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender\nmercy,\u201d James v, 11. It is scarcely to be believed that a divinely\ninspired Apostle would refer to an imaginary character as an example of\npatience, or in proof of the mercy of God. But, beside the authority of\nthe inspired writers, we have the strongest internal evidence, from the\nbook itself, that Job was a real person; for it expressly specifies the\nnames of persons, places, facts, and other circumstances usually related\nin true histories. Thus, we have the name, country, piety, wealth, &c,\nof Job described, Job i; the names, number, and acts of his children are\nmentioned; the conduct of his wife is recorded as a fact, ii; his\nfriends, their names, countries, and discourses with him in his\nafflictions are minutely delineated, Job ii, 11, &c. Farther: no\nreasonable doubt can be entertained respecting the real existence of\nJob, when we consider that it is proved by the concurrent testimony of\nall eastern tradition: he is mentioned by the author of the book of\nTobit, who lived during the Assyrian captivity; he is also repeatedly\nmentioned by Arabian writers as a real character. The whole of his\nhistory, with many fabulous additions, was known among the Syrians and\nChaldeans; and many of the noblest families among the Arabs are\ndistinguished by his name, and boast of being descended from him.\n\nSince, then, says Horne, the book of Job contains the history of a real\ncharacter, the next point is the age in which he lived, a question\nconcerning which there is as great a diversity of opinion, as upon any\nother subject connected with this venerable monument of sacred\nantiquity. One thing, however, is generally admitted with respect to the\nage of the book of Job, namely, its remote antiquity. Even those who\ncontend for the later production of the book of Job are compelled to\nacquiesce in this particular. Grotius thinks the events of the history\nare such as cannot be placed later than the sojourning of the Israelites\nin the wilderness. Bishop Warburton, in like manner, admits them to bear\nthe marks of high antiquity; and Micha\u00eblis confesses the manners to be\nperfectly Abrahamic, that is, such as were common to all the seed of\nAbraham, Israelites, Ishmaelites, and Idumeans. The following are the\nprincipal circumstances from which the age of Job may be collected and\nascertained:--1. The Usserian or Bible chronology dates the trial of Job\nabout the year 1520 before the Christian era, twenty-nine years before\nthe departure of the Israelites from Egypt; and that the book was\ncomposed before that event, is evident from its total silence respecting\nthe miracles which accompanied the exode; such as the passage of the Red\nSea, the destruction of the Egyptians, the manna in the desert, &c; all\nof which happened in the vicinity of Job\u2019s country, and were so apposite\nin the debate concerning the ways of Providence that some notice could\nnot but have been taken of them, if they had been coeval with the poem\nof Job. 2. That it was composed before Abraham\u2019s migration to Canaan,\nmay also be inferred from its silence respecting the destruction of\nSodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain, which were still\nnearer to Idumea, where the scene is laid. 3. The length of Job\u2019s life\nplaces him in the patriarchal times. He survived his trial one hundred\nand forty years, Job xlii, 16, and was probably not younger at that\ntime; for we read that his seven sons were all grown up, and had been\nsettled in their own houses for a considerable time, Job i, 4, 5. He\nspeaks of the sins of his youth, Job xiii, 26, and of the prosperity of\nhis youth; and yet Eliphaz addresses him as a novice: \u201cWith us are both\nthe gray-headed and very aged men, much elder than thy father,\u201d Job xv,\n10. 4. That he did not live at an earlier period, may be collected from\nan incidental observation of Bildad, who refers Job to their forefathers\nfor instruction in wisdom:--\n\n          \u201cInquire, I pray thee, of the former age,\n          And prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:\u201d\n\nassigning as a reason the comparative shortness of human life, and\nconsequent ignorance of the present generation:--\n\n           \u201cFor we are but of yesterday, and know nothing;\n           Because our days upon earth are a shadow.\u201d\n                                             Job viii, 8, 9.\n\nBut the fathers of the former age, or grandfathers of the present, were\nthe contemporaries of Peleg and Joktan, in the fifth generation after\nthe deluge; and they might easily have learned wisdom from the fountain\nhead by conversing with Shem, or perhaps with Noah himself; whereas, in\nthe seventh generation, the standard of human life was reduced to about\ntwo hundred years, which was a shadow compared with the longevity of\nNoah and his sons. 5. The general air of antiquity which pervades the\nmanners recorded in the poem, is a farther evidence of its remote date.\nThe manners and customs, indeed, critically correspond with that early\nperiod. Thus, Job speaks of the most ancient kind of writing, by\nsculpture, Job xix, 24; his riches also are reckoned by his cattle, Job\nxlii, 12. Farther: Job acted as high priest in his family, according to\nthe patriarchal usage, Gen. viii, 20; for the institution of an\nestablished priesthood does not appear to have taken place any where\nuntil the time of Abraham. Melchizedec, king of Salem, was a priest of\nthe primitive order, Gen. xiv, 18; such also was Jethro, the\nfather-in-law of Moses, in the vicinity of Idumea, Exod. xviii, 12. The\nfirst regular priesthood was probably instituted in Egypt, where Joseph\nwas married to the daughter of the priest of On, Gen. xli, 45. 6. The\nslavish homage of prostration to princes and great men, which prevailed\nin Egypt, Persia, and the east in general, and which still subsists\nthere, was unknown in Arabia at that time. Though Job was one of the\ngreatest men of all the east, we do not find any such adoration paid to\nhim by his contemporaries, in the zenith of his prosperity, among the\nmarks of respect so minutely described in the twenty-ninth chapter:\n\u201cWhen the young men saw him, they hid themselves,\u201d (rather, _shrunk\nback_, through respect or rustic bashfulness,) \u201cthe aged arose and stood\nup\u201d in his presence, (more correctly, _ranged themselves about him_,)\n\u201cthe princes refrained from talking, and laid their hand upon their\nmouth; the nobles held their peace,\u201d and were all attention while he\nspoke. All this was highly respectful, indeed, but still it was manly,\nand showed no cringing or servile adulation. With this description\ncorrespond the manners and conduct of the genuine Arabs of the present\nday, a majestic race, who were never conquered, and who have retained\ntheir primitive customs, features, and character, with scarcely any\nalteration. 7. The allusion made by Job to that species of idolatry\nalone, which by general consent is admitted to have been the most\nancient, namely, Zabianism, or the worship of the sun and moon, and also\nto the exertion of the judicial authority against it, Job xxxi, 26\u201328,\nis an additional and most complete proof of the high antiquity of the\npoem, as well as a decisive mark of the patriarchal age. 8. A farther\nevidence of the remote antiquity of this book is the language of Job and\nhis friends; who, being all Idumeans, or at least Arabians of the\nadjacent country, yet conversed in Hebrew. This carries us up to an age\nso early as that in which all the posterity of Abraham, Israelites,\nIdumeans, and Arabians, yet continued to speak one common language, and\nhad not branched into different dialects.\n\nThe country in which the scene of this poem is laid, is stated, Job i,\n1, to be the land of Uz, which by some geographers has been placed in\nSandy, and by others in Stony, Arabia. Bochart strenuously advocated the\nformer opinion, in which he has been powerfully supported by Spanheim,\nCalmet, Carpzov, Heidegger, and some later writers; Micha\u00eblis and Ilgen\nplace the scene in the valley of Damascus; but Bishops Lowth and Magee,\nDr. Hales, Dr. Good, and some later critics and philologers, have shown\nthat the scene is laid in Idumea. In effect, nothing is clearer than\nthat the history of an inhabitant of Idumea is the subject of the poem\nwhich bears the name of Job, and that all the persons introduced into it\nwere Idumeans, dwelling in Idumea, in other words, Edomite Arabs. These\ncharacters are, Job himself, of the land of Uz; Eliphaz, of Teman, a\ndistrict of as much repute as Uz, and which, it appears from the joint\ntestimony of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Obadiah, Jer. xlix, 7, 20;\nEzek. xxv, 13; Amos i, 11, 12; Obadiah 8, 9, formed a principal part of\nIdumea; Bildad, of Shuah, who is always mentioned in conjunction with\nSheba and Dedan, the first of whom was probably named after one of the\nbrothers of Joktan or Kahtan, and the two last from two of his sons, all\nof them being uniformly placed in the vicinity of Idumea, Gen. xxv, 2,\n3; Jer. xlix, 8; Zophar of Naama, a city importing pleasantness, which\nis also stated by Joshua, xv, 21, 41, to have been situate in Idumea,\nand to have lain in a southern direction toward its coast, on the shores\nof the Red Sea; and Elihu, of Buz, which, as the name of a place, occurs\nonly once in Sacred Writ, Jer. xxv, 23, but is there mentioned in\nconjunction with Teman and Dedan; and hence necessarily, like them, a\nborder city upon Uz or Idumea. Allowing this chorography to be correct,\n(and such, upon a fair review of facts, we may conclude it to be,) there\nis no difficulty in conceiving that hordes of nomadic Chaldeans as well\nas Sabeans, a people addicted to rapine, and roving about at immense\ndistances for the sake of plunder, should have occasionally infested the\ndefenceless country of Idumea, and roved from the Euphrates even to\nEgypt.\n\nThe different parts of the book of Job are so closely connected\ntogether, that they cannot be detached from each other. The exordium\nprepares the reader for what follows, supplies us with the necessary\nnotices concerning Job and his friends, unfolds the scope, and places\nthe calamities full in our view as an object of attention. The epilogue,\nor conclusion, again, has reference to the exordium, and relates the\nhappy termination of Job\u2019s trials; the dialogues which intervene flow in\nregular order. Now, if any of these parts were to be taken away, the\npoem would be extremely defective. Without the prologue the reader would\nbe utterly ignorant who Job was, who were his friends, and the cause of\nhis being so grievously afflicted. Without the discourse of Elihu, Job\nxxxii-xxxvii, there would be a sudden and abrupt transition from the\nlast words of Job to the address of God, for which Elihu\u2019s discourse\nprepares the reader. And without the epilogue, or conclusion, we should\nremain in ignorance of the subsequent condition of Job. Hence it is\nevident, that the poem is the composition of a single author; but who\nthat was, is a question concerning which the learned are very much\ndivided in their sentiments. Elihu, Job, Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, an\nanonymous writer in the reign of Manasseh, Ezekiel, and Ezra, have all\nbeen contended for. The arguments already adduced respecting the age of\nJob, prove that it could not be either of the latter persons. Dr.\nLightfoot, from an erroneous version of Job xxxii, 16, 17, has\nconjectured that it is the production of Elihu; but the correct\nrendering of that passage refutes this notion. Ilgen ascribes it\nprobably to a descendant of Elihu. Another and more generally received\nopinion attributes this book to Moses; this conjecture is founded on\nsome apparent striking coincidences of sentiment, as well as from some\nmarks of later date which are supposed to be discoverable in it. But,\nindependently of the characters of antiquity already referred to, and\nwhich place the book of Job very many centuries before the time of\nMoses, the total absence of even the slightest allusion to the manners,\ncustoms, ceremonies, or history of the Israelites, is a direct evidence\nthat the great legislator of the Hebrews was not, and could not have\nbeen, the author. To which may be added, that the style of Job, as\nBishop Lowth has remarked, is materially different from the poetical\nstyle of Moses; for it is much more compact, concise, or condensed, more\naccurate in the poetical conformation of the sentences; as may be\nobserved also in the prophecies of Balaam the Mesopotamian, a foreigner,\nindeed, with respect to the Israelites, but not unacquainted either with\ntheir language, or with the worship of the true God. Upon the whole,\nthen, we have sufficient ground to conclude that this book was not the\nproduction of Moses, but of some earlier age. Bishop Lowth favours the\nopinion of Schultens, Peters, and others, which is adopted by Bishop\nTomline and Dr. Hales, who suppose Job himself, or some contemporary, to\nhave been the author of this poem; and there seems to be no good reason\nfor supposing that it was not written by Job himself. It appears,\nindeed, highly probable that Job was the writer of his own story, of\nwhose inspiration we have the clearest evidence in the forty-second\nchapter of this book, in which he thus addresses the Almighty: \u201cI have\nheard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee.\u201d\nIt is plain that in this passage some privilege is intended which he\nnever had enjoyed before, and which he calls the sight of God.\n\nThe book of Job contains the history of Job, a man equally distinguished\nfor purity and uprightness of character, and for honours, wealth, and\ndomestic felicity, whom God permitted, for the trial of his faith, to be\nsuddenly deprived of all his numerous blessings, and to be at once\nplunged into the deepest affliction, and most accumulated distress. It\ngives an account of his eminent piety, patience, and resignation under\nthe pressure of these severe calamities, and of his subsequent elevation\nto a degree of prosperity and happiness, still greater than that which\nhe had before enjoyed. How long the sufferings of Job continued, we are\nnot informed; but it is said, that after God turned his captivity, and\nblessed him a second time, he lived one hundred and forty years, Job\nxlii, 16. Its style is in many parts peculiarly sublime; and it is not\nonly adorned with poetical embellishments, but most learned men consider\nit as written in metre. Through the whole work we discover religious\ninstruction shining forth amidst the venerable simplicity of ancient\nmanners. It every where abounds with the noblest sentiments of piety,\nuttered with the spirit of inspired conviction. It is a work unrivalled\nfor the magnificence of its language, and for the beautiful and sublime\nimages which it presents. In the wonderful speech of the Deity, Job\nxxxviii, xxxix, every line delineates his attributes, every sentence\nopens a picture of some grand object in creation, characterized by its\nmost striking features. Add to this, that its prophetic parts reflect\nmuch light on the economy of God\u2019s moral government; and every admirer\nof sacred antiquity, every inquirer after religious instruction, will\nseriously rejoice that the enraptured sentence of Job, xix, 23, is\nrealized to a more effectual and unforeseen accomplishment; that while\nthe memorable records of antiquity have mouldered from the rock, the\nprophetic assurance and sentiments of Job are graven in Scriptures that\nno time shall alter, no changes shall efface.\n\nJOEL, the second of the twelve lesser prophets. It is impossible to\nascertain the age in which he lived, but it seems most probable that he\nwas contemporary with Hosea. No particulars of his life or death are\ncertainly known. His prophecies are confined to the kingdom of Judah. He\ninveighs against the sins and impieties of the people, and threatens\nthem with divine vengeance; he exhorts to repentance, fasting, and\nprayer; and promises the favour of God to those who should be obedient.\nThe principal predictions contained in this book are the Chaldean\ninvasion, under the figurative representation of locusts; the\ndestruction of Jerusalem by Titus; the blessings of the Gospel\ndispensation; the conversion and restoration of the Jews to their own\nland; the overthrow of the enemies of God; and the glorious state of the\nChristian church in the end of the world. The style of Joel is\nperspicuous and elegant, and his descriptions are remarkably animated\nand poetical.\n\nJOHN THE BAPTIST, the forerunner of the Messiah, was the son of\nZechariah and Elizabeth, and was born about six months before our\nSaviour. His birth was foretold by an angel, sent purposely to deliver\nthis joyful message, when his mother Elizabeth was barren, and both his\nparents far advanced in years. The same divine messenger foretold that\nhe should be great in the sight of the Lord; that he should be filled\nwith the Holy Spirit from his mother\u2019s womb; that he should prepare the\nway of the Lord by turning many of the Jews to the knowledge of God; and\nthat he should be the greatest of all the prophets, Luke i, 5\u201315. Of the\nearly part of the Baptist\u2019s life we have but little information. It is\nonly observed that \u201che grew and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the\ndeserts till the day of his showing unto Israel,\u201d Luke i, 80. Though\nconsecrated from the womb to the ministerial office, John did not enter\nupon it in the heat of youth, but after several years spent in solitude\nand a course of self-denial.\n\nThe prophetical descriptions of the Baptist in the Old Testament are\nvarious and striking. That by Isaiah is: \u201cThe voice of him that crieth\nin the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the\ndesert a high way for our God,\u201d Isaiah xl, 3. Malachi has the following\nprediction: \u201cBehold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the\ncoming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the\nhearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to\nthe fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,\u201d Mal. iv, 5.\nThat this was meant of the Baptist, we have the testimony of our Lord\nhimself, who declared, \u201cFor all the prophets and the law prophesied\nuntil John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias who was to come,\u201d\nMatt. xi, 14. The appearance and manners of the Baptist, when he first\ncame out into the world, excited general attention. His clothing was of\ncamel\u2019s hair, bound round him with a leathern girdle, and his food\nconsisted of locusts and wild honey, Matt. iii, 4. The message which he\ndeclared was authoritative: \u201cRepent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at\nhand;\u201d and the impression produced by his faithful reproofs and\nadmonitions was powerful and extensive, and in a great number of\ninstances lasting. Most of the first followers of our Lord appear to\nhave been awakened to seriousness and religious inquiry by John\u2019s\nministry. His character was so eminent, that many of the Jews thought\nhim to be the Messiah; but he plainly declared that he was not that\nhonoured person. Nevertheless, he was at first unacquainted with the\nperson of Jesus Christ; only the Holy Ghost had told him that he on whom\nhe should see the Holy Spirit descend and rest was the Messiah. When\nJesus Christ presented himself to receive baptism from him, this sign\nwas vouchsafed; and from that time he bore his testimony to Jesus, as\nthe Christ.\n\nHerod Antipas, having married his brother Philip\u2019s wife while Philip was\nstill living, occasioned great scandal. John the Baptist, with his usual\nliberty and vigour, reproved Herod to his face; and told him that it was\nnot lawful for him to have his brother\u2019s wife, while his brother was yet\nalive. Herod, incensed at this freedom, ordered him into custody, in the\ncastle of Mach\u0153rus; and he was ultimately put to death. (See\n_Antipas_.) Thus fell this honoured prophet, a martyr to ministerial\nfaithfulness. Other prophets testified of Christ; he pointed to him as\nalready come. Others saw him afar off; he beheld the advancing glories\nof his ministry eclipsing his own, and rejoiced to \u201cdecrease\u201d while his\nMaster \u201cincreased.\u201d His ministry stands as a type of the true character\nof evangelical repentance: it goes before Christ and prepares his way;\nit is humbling, but not despairing; for it points to \u201cthe Lamb of God\nwhich taketh away the sins of the world.\u201d\n\nThe Jews had such an opinion of this prophet\u2019s sanctity, that they\nascribed the overthrow of Herod\u2019s army, which he had sent against his\nfather-in-law, Aretas, to the just judgment of God for putting John the\nBaptist to death. The death of John the Baptist happened, as is\nbelieved, about the end of the thirty-first year of the vulgar era, or\nin the beginning of the thirty-second.\n\nThe baptism of John was much more perfect than that of the Jews, but\nless perfect than that of Jesus Christ. \u201cIt was,\u201d says St. Chrysostom,\n\u201cas it were, a bridge, which, from the baptism of the Jews, made a way\nto that of our Saviour, and was more exalted than the first, but\ninferior to the second.\u201d That of St. John promised what that of Jesus\nChrist executed. Notwithstanding St. John did not enjoin his disciples\nto continue the baptism of repentance, which was of his institution,\nafter his death, because, after the manifestation of the Messiah, and\nthe establishment of the Holy Ghost, it became of no use; yet there were\nmany of his followers who still administered it, and several years after\nthe death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, did not so much as know that\nthere was any other baptism than that of John. Of this number was\nApollos, a learned and zealous man, who was of Alexandria, and came to\nEphesus twenty years after the resurrection of our Saviour, Acts xviii,\n25. And when St. Paul came after Apollos to the same city, there were\nstill many Ephesians who had received no other baptism, and were not yet\ninformed that the Holy Ghost was received by baptism in the name of\nJesus Christ, Acts xix, 1. The Jews are said by the Apostle Paul to have\nbeen \u201cbaptized unto Moses,\u201d at the time when they followed him through\nthe Red Sea, as the servant of God sent to be their leader. Those who\nwent out to John \u201cwere baptized unto John\u2019s baptism;\u201d that is, into the\nexpectation of the person whom John announced, and into repentance of\nthose sins which John condemned. Christians are \u201cbaptized into the name\nof the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,\u201d because in this expression\nis implied that whole system of truth which the disciples of Christ\nbelieve; into the name of the Father, the one true and living God whom\nChristians profess to serve; of the Son, that divine person revealed in\nthe New Testament whom the Father sent to be the Saviour of the world;\nof the Holy Ghost, the divine person also revealed there as the\nComforter, the Sanctifier, and the Guide of Christians.\n\nJOHN THE EVANGELIST was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, son of\nZebedee and Salome, by profession a fisherman. Some have thought that he\nwas a disciple of John the Baptist before he attended Jesus Christ. He\nwas brother to James the greater. It is believed that St. John was the\nyoungest of the Apostles. Tillemont is of opinion that he was\ntwenty-five or twenty-six years of age when he began to follow Jesus.\nOur Saviour had a particular friendship for him; and he describes\nhimself by the name of \u201cthat disciple whom Jesus loved.\u201d St. John was\none of the four Apostles to whom our Lord delivered his predictions\nrelative to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the approaching calamities\nof the Jewish nation, Mark xiii, 3. St. Peter, St. James, and St. John\nwere chosen to accompany our Saviour on several occasions, when the\nother Apostles were not permitted to be present. When Christ restored\nthe daughter of Jairus to life, Mark v, 37; Luke viii, 51; when he was\ntransfigured on the mount, Matt. xvii, 1, 2; Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 28;\nand when he endured his agony in the garden, Matt. xxvi, 36, 37; Mark\nxiv, 32, 33; St. Peter, St. James, and St. John were his only\nattendants. That St. John was treated by Christ with greater familiarity\nthan the other Apostles, is evident from St. Peter desiring him to ask\nChrist who should betray him, when he himself did not dare to propose\nthe question, John xiii, 24. He seems to have been the only Apostle\npresent at the crucifixion, and to him Jesus, just as he was expiring\nupon the cross, gave the strongest proof of his confidence and regard,\nby consigning to him the care of his mother, John xix, 26, 27. As St.\nJohn had been witness to the death of our Saviour, by seeing the blood\nand water issue from his side, which a soldier had pierced, John xix,\n34, 35, so he was one of the first made acquainted with his\nresurrection. Without any hesitation, he believed this great event,\nthough \u201cas yet he knew not the Scripture, that Christ was to rise from\nthe dead,\u201d John xx, 9. He was also one of those to whom our Saviour\nappeared at the sea of Galilee; and he was afterward, with the other ten\nApostles, a witness of his ascension into heaven, Mark xvi, 19; Luke\nxxiv, 51. St. John continued to preach the Gospel for some time at\nJerusalem: he was imprisoned by the sanhedrim, first with Peter only,\nActs iv, 1, &c, and afterward with the other Apostles, Acts v, 17, 18.\nSome time after this second release, he and St. Peter were sent by the\nother Apostles to the Samaritans, whom Philip the deacon had converted\nto the Gospel, that through them they might receive the Holy Ghost, Acts\nviii, 14, 15. St. John informs us, in his Revelations, that he was\nbanished to Patmos, an island in the \u00c6gean Sea, Rev. i, 9.\n\nThis banishment of the Apostle to the isle of Patmos is mentioned by\nmany of the early ecclesiastical writers; all of whom, except Epiphanius\nin the fourth century, agree in attributing it to Domitian. Epiphanius\nsays that John was banished by command of Claudius; but this deserves\nthe less credit, because there was no persecution of the Christians in\nthe time of that emperor, and his edicts against the Jews did not extend\nto the provinces. Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion that John was banished\nto Patmos in the time of Nero; but even the authority of this great man\nis not of sufficient weight against the unanimous voice of antiquity.\nDr. Lardner has examined and answered his arguments with equal candour\nand learning. It is not known at what time John went into Asia Minor.\nLardner thought that it was about the year 66. It is certain that he\nlived in Asia Minor the latter part of his life, and principally at\nEphesus. He planted churches at Smyrna, Pergamos, and many other places;\nand by his activity and success in propagating the Gospel, he is\nsupposed to have incurred the displeasure of Domitian, who banished him\nto Patmos at the end of his reign. He himself tells us that he \u201cwas in\nthe isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the\ntestimony of Jesus Christ;\u201d and Iren\u00e6us, speaking of the vision which he\nhad there, says, \u201cIt is not very long ago that it was seen, being but a\nlittle before our time, at the latter end of Domitian\u2019s reign.\u201d On the\nsuccession of Nerva to the empire in the year 96, John returned to\nEphesus, where he died at an advanced age, in the third year of Trajan\u2019s\nreign, A. D. 100. An opinion has prevailed, that he was, by order of\nDomitian, thrown into a caldron of boiling oil at Rome, and came out\nunhurt; but this account rests almost entirely on the authority of\nTertullian, and seems to deserve little credit.\n\n2. The genuineness of St. John\u2019s Gospel has always been unanimously\nadmitted by the Christian church. It is universally agreed that St. John\npublished his Gospel in Asia; and that, when he wrote it, he had seen\nthe other three Gospels. It is, therefore, not only valuable in itself,\nbut also a tacit confirmation of the other three; with none of which it\ndisagrees in any material point. The time of its publication is placed\nby some rather before, and by others considerably after, the destruction\nof Jerusalem. If we accede to the opinion of those who contend for the\nyear 97, this late date, exclusive of the authorities which support it,\nseems favoured by the contents and design of the Gospel itself. The\nimmediate design of St. John in writing his Gospel, as we are assured by\nIren\u00e6us, Jerom, and others, was to refute the Cerinthians, Ebionites,\nand other heretics, whose tenets, though they branched out into a\nvariety of subjects, all originated from erroneous opinions concerning\nthe person of Christ, and the creation of the world. These points had\nbeen scarcely touched upon by the other evangelists; though they had\nfaithfully recorded all the leading facts of our Saviour\u2019s life, and his\nadmirable precepts for the regulation of our conduct. St. John,\ntherefore, undertook, perhaps at the request of the true believers in\nAsia, to write what Clement of Alexandria called a _spiritual_ Gospel;\nand, accordingly, we find in it more of doctrine, and less of historical\nnarrative, than in any of the others. It is also to be remembered, that\nthis book, which contains so much additional information relative to the\ndoctrines of Christianity, and which may be considered as a standard of\nfaith for all ages, was written by that Apostle who is known to have\nenjoyed, in a greater degree than the rest, the affection and confidence\nof the divine Author of our religion; and to whom was given a special\nrevelation concerning the state of the Christian church in all\nsucceeding generations.\n\nWe have three epistles by this Apostle. Some critics have thought that\nall these epistles were written during St. John\u2019s exile in Patmos; the\nfirst, to the Ephesian church; the others to individuals; and that they\nwere sent along with the Gospel, which the Apostle is supposed also to\nhave written in Patmos. Thus Hug observes, in his \u201cIntroduction:\u201d If St.\nJohn sent his Gospel to the continent, an epistle to the community was\nrequisite, commending and dedicating it to them. Other evangelists, who\ndeposited their works in the place of their residence, personally\nsuperintended them, and delivered them personally; consequently they did\nnot require a written document to accompany them. An epistle was\ntherefore requisite, and, as we have abundantly proved the first of\nJohn\u2019s epistles to be inseparable from the Gospel, its contents\ndemonstrate it to be an accompanying writing, and a dedication of the\nGospel. It went consequently to Ephesus. We can particularly corroborate\nthis by the following observation: John, in the Apocalypse, has\nindividually distinguished each of the Christian communities, which lay\nthe nearest within his circle and his superintendence, by criteria,\ntaken from their faults or their virtues. The church at Ephesus he there\ndescribes by the following traits: It was thronged with men who\narrogated to themselves the ministry and apostolical authority, and were\nimpostors, \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. But in particular he feelingly reproaches it because\nits \u201cfirst love was cooled,\u201d \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03d6\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2. The\ncircumstance of impostors and false teachers happens in more churches.\nBut decreasing love is an exclusive criterion and failing, which the\nApostle reprimands in no other community. According to his judgment,\nwant of love was the characteristic fault of the Ephesians: but this\nepistle is from beginning to the end occupied with admonitions to love,\nwith recommendations of its value, with corrections of those who are\nguilty of this fault, 1 John ii, 5, 9\u201311, 15; iii, 1, 11, 12, 14\u201318, 23;\niv, 7\u201310, 12, 16\u201321; v, 1\u20133. Must not we therefore declare, if we\ncompare the opinion of the Apostle respecting the Ephesians with this\nepistle, that, from its peculiar tenor, it is not so strikingly adapted\nto any community in the first instance as to this?\n\nThe second epistle is directed to a female, who is not named, but only\ndesignated by the honourable mention, \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u201cthe elect lady.\u201d\nThe two chief positions, which are discussed in the first epistle,\nconstitute the contents of this brief address. He again alludes to the\nwords of our Saviour, \u201cA new commandment,\u201d &c, as in 1 John ii, 7, and\nrecommends love, which is manifested by observance of the commandments.\nAfter this he warns her against false teachers, who deny that Jesus\nentered into the world as the Christ, or Messiah, and forbids an\nintercourse with them. At the end, he hopes soon to see her himself, and\ncomplains of the want of writing materials. The whole is a short\nsyllabus of the first epistle, or it is the first in a renewed form. The\nwords also are the same. It is still full of the former epistle: nor are\nthey separated from each other as to time. The female appears before his\nmind in the circumstances and dangers of the society, in instructing and\nadmonishing which he had just been employed. If we may judge from local\ncircumstances, she also lived at Ephesus. But as for the author, his\nresidence was in none of the Ionian or Asiatic cities, where the want of\nwriting materials is not conceivable: he was still therefore in the\nplace of his exile. The other circumstances noticed in it, are probably\nthe following: The sons of the \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 had visited John, 2 John 4.\nThe sister of this matron wishing to show to him an equal respect and\nsympathy in his fate, sent her sons likewise to visit the Apostle. While\nthe latter were with the Apostle, there was an opportunity of sending to\nthe continent, 2 John 13, namely, of despatching the two epistles and\nthe Gospel.\n\nThe third epistle is written to Caius. The author consoles himself with\nthe hope, as in the former epistle, of soon coming himself, 3 John 14.\nHe still experiences the same want of writing materials, 3 John 13.\nConsequently, he was still living in the same miserable place: also, if\nwe may judge from his hopes, the time was not very different. The\nresidence of Caius is determined by the following criteria: The most\ngeneral of them is the danger of being misled by false teachers, 3 John\n3, 4. That which leads us nearer to the point, is the circumstance of\nJohn sometimes sending messages thither, and receiving accounts from\nthence, 3 John 5\u20138, that he supposes his opinions to be so well known\nand acknowledged in this society, that he could appeal to them, as\njudges respecting them, 3 John 12, and that, finally, he had many\nparticular friends among them, 3 John 15. The whole of this is\napplicable to a considerable place, where the Apostle had resided for a\nlong time; and in the second epoch of his life, it is particularly\napplicable to Ephesus. He had lately written to the community, of which\nCaius was a member, \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u201cI wrote to the church,\u201d 3 John\n9. If this is to be referred to the first epistle, (for we are not aware\nof any other to a community,) then certainly Ephesus is the place to\nwhich the third epistle was also directed, and was the place where Caius\nresided. From hence, the rest contains its own explanation. John had\nsent his first epistle thither; it was the accompanying writing to the\nGospel, and with it he also sent the Gospel. Who was better qualified to\npromulgate the Gospel among the believers than Caius, especially if it\nwas to be published at Ephesus?\n\nThe above view is ingenious, and in its leading parts satisfactory; but\nthe argument from the Apostle\u2019s supposed want of \u201cwriting materials\u201d is\nfounded upon a very forced construction of the texts. There seems,\nhowever, no reason to doubt of the close connection, in point of time,\nbetween the epistles and the Gospel; and, that being remembered, the\ntrain of thought in the mind of the Apostle sufficiently explains the\npeculiar character of the latter.\n\nJONAH, son of Amittai, the fifth of the minor prophets, was born at\nGath-hepher, in Galilee. He is generally considered as the most ancient\nof the prophets, and is supposed to have lived B. C. 840. The book of\nJonah is chiefly narrative. He relates that he was commanded by God to\ngo to Nineveh, and preach against the inhabitants of that capital of the\nAssyrian empire; that, through fear of executing this commission, he set\nsail for Tarshish; and that, in his voyage thither, a tempest arising,\nhe was cast by the mariners into the sea, and swallowed by a large fish;\nthat, while he was in the belly of this fish, he prayed to God, and was,\nafter three days and three nights, delivered out of it alive; that he\nthen received a second command to go and preach against Nineveh, which\nhe obeyed; that, upon his threatening the destruction of the city within\nforty days, the king and people proclaimed a fast, and repented of their\nsins; and that, upon this repentance, God suspended the sentence which\nhe had ordered to be pronounced in his name. Upon their repentance, God\ndeferred the execution of his judgment till the increase of their\niniquities made them ripe for destruction, about a hundred and fifty\nyears afterward. The last chapter gives an account of the murmuring of\nJonah at this instance of divine mercy, and of the gentle and\ncondescending manner in which it pleased God to reprove the prophet for\nhis unjust complaint. The style of Jonah is simple and perspicuous; and\nhis prayer, in the second chapter, is strongly descriptive of the\nfeelings of a pious mind under a severe trial of faith. Our Saviour\nmentions Jonah in the Gospel, Matt. xii, 41; Luke xi, 32. See NINEVEH\nand GOURD.\n\nJONATHAN, the son of Saul, a prince of an excellent disposition, and in\nall varieties of fortune a sincere and steady friend to David. Jonathan\ngave signal proofs of courage and conduct upon all occasions that\noffered, during the wars between his father and the Philistines. The\ndeath of Jonathan was lamented by David, in one of the noblest and most\npathetic odes ever uttered by genius consecrated by pious friendship.\nSee 1 Sam. xiii, 16, &c; xiv, 1, 2, &c.\n\nJOPPA, called also Japho in the Old Testament, which is still preserved\nin its modern name of Jaffa or Yafah, a sea port of Palestine, situated\non an eminence in a sandy soil, about seventy miles north-west of\nJerusalem. Joppa was anciently the port to Jerusalem. Here all the\nmaterials sent from Tyre for the building of Solomon\u2019s temple were\nbrought and landed: it was, indeed, the only port in Judea, though rocky\nand dangerous. It possesses still, in times of peace, a considerable\ncommerce with the places in its vicinity; and is well inhabited, chiefly\nby Arabs. This was the place of landing of the western pilgrims; and\nhere the promised pardons commenced. Here St. Peter raised Dorcas from\nthe dead, and resided many days in the house of one Simon, a tanner,\nActs ix, 36\u201343; and it was from this place that the Prophet Jonah\nembarked for Tarshish.\n\nJORAM, the son and successor of Ahab, king of Israel. See JEHU\n\nJORDAN, the largest and most celebrated stream in Palestine. It is much\nlarger, according to Dr. Shaw, than all the brooks and streams of the\nHoly Land united together; and, excepting the Nile, is by far the most\nconsiderable river either of the coast of Syria or of Barbary. He\ncomputed it to be about thirty yards broad, and found it nine feet deep\nat the brink. This river, which divides the country into two unequal\nparts, has been commonly said to issue from two fountains, or to be\nformed by the junction of two rivulets, the Jor and the Dan; but the\nassertion seems to be totally destitute of any solid foundation. The\nJewish historian, Josephus, on the contrary, places its source at\nPhiala, a fountain which rises about fifteen miles from C\u00e6sarea\nPhilippi, a little on the right hand, and not much out of the way to\nTrachonitis. It is called Phiala, or the Vial, from its round figure;\nits water is always of the same depth, the bason being brimful, without\neither shrinking or overflowing. From Phiala to Panion, which was long\nconsidered as the real source of the Jordan, the river flows under\nground. The secret of its subterraneous course was first discovered by\nPhilip, the tetrarch of Trachonitis, who cast straws into the fountain\nof Phiala, which came out again at Panion. Leaving the cave of Panion,\nit crosses the bogs and fens of the lake Semichonitis; and after a\ncourse of fifteen miles, passes under the city of Julias, the ancient\nBethsaida; then expands into a beautiful sheet of water, named the lake\nof Gennesareth; and, after flowing a long way through the desert,\nempties itself into the lake Asphaltites, or the Dead Sea. As the cave\nPanion lies at the foot of Mount Lebanon, in the northern extremity of\nCanaan, and the lake Asphaltites extends to the southern extremity, the\nriver Jordan pursues its course through the whole extent of the country\nfrom north to south. It is evident, also, from the history of Josephus,\nthat a wilderness or desert of considerable extent stretched along the\nriver Jordan in the times of the New Testament; which was undoubtedly\nthe wilderness mentioned by the evangelists, where John the Baptist came\npreaching and baptizing. The Jordan has a considerable depth of water.\nChateaubriand makes it six or seven feet deep close at the shore, and\nabout fifty paces in breadth a considerable distance from its entrance\ninto the Dead Sea. According to the computation of Volney, it is hardly\nsixty paces wide at the mouth; but the author of \u201cLetters from\nPalestine\u201d states, that the stream when it enters the lake Asphaltites,\nis deep and rapid, rolling a considerable volume of waters; the width\nappears from two to three hundred feet, and the current is so violent,\nthat a Greek servant belonging to the author, who attempted to cross it,\nthough strong, active, and an excellent swimmer, found the undertaking\nimpracticable. It may be said to have two banks, of which the inner\nmarks the ordinary height of the stream; and the outer, its ancient\nelevation during the rainy season, or the melting of the snows on the\nsummits of Lebanon. In the days of Joshua, and, it is probable, for many\nages after his time, the harvest was one of the seasons when the Jordan\noverflowed his banks. This fact is distinctly recorded by the sacred\nhistorian: \u201cAnd as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the\nfeet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the\nwater; for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,\u201d\nJoshua iii, 15. This happens in the first month of the Jewish year,\nwhich corresponds with March, 1 Chronicles xii, 15. But in modern times,\nwhether the rapidity of the current has worn the channel deeper than\nformerly, or whether its waters have taken some other direction, the\nriver seems to have forgotten his ancient greatness. When Maundrell\nvisited Jordan on the thirtieth of March, the proper time for these\ninundations, he could discern no sign or probability of such\noverflowing; nay, so far was it from overflowing, that it ran, says our\nauthor, at least two yards below the brink of its channel. After having\ndescended the outer bank, he went about a furlong upon the level strand,\nbefore he came to the immediate bank of the river. This inner bank was\nso thickly covered with bushes and trees, among which he observed the\ntamarisk, the willow, and the oleander, that he could see no water till\nhe had made his way through them. In this entangled thicket, so\nconveniently planted near the cooling stream, and remote from the\nhabitations of men, several kinds of wild beasts were accustomed to\nrepose, till the swelling of the river drove them from their retreats.\nThis circumstance gave occasion to that beautiful allusion of the\nprophet: \u201cHe shall come up like a lion, from the swelling of Jordan,\nagainst the habitation of the strong,\u201d Jer. xlix, 19. The figure is\nhighly poetical and striking. It is not easy to present a more terrible\nimage to the mind, than a lion roused from his den by the roar of the\nswelling river, and chafed and irritated by its rapid and successive\nencroachments on his chosen haunts, till, forced to quit his last\nretreat, he ascends to the higher grounds and the open country, and\nturns the fierceness of his rage against the helpless sheep cots, or the\nunsuspecting villages. A destroyer equally fierce, and cruel, and\nirresistible, the devoted Edomites were to find in Nebuchadnezzar and\nhis armies.\n\nThe water of the river at the time of Maundrell\u2019s visit was very turbid,\nand too rapid to allow a swimmer to stem its course. Its breadth might\nbe about twenty yards; and in depth, it far exceeded his height. The\nrapidity and depth of the river, which are admitted by every traveller,\nalthough the volume of water seems now to be much diminished, illustrate\nthose parts of Scripture which mention the fords and passages of Jordan.\nIt no longer, indeed, rolls down into the Salt Sea so majestic a stream\nas in the days of Joshua; yet its ordinary depth is still about ten or\ntwelve feet, so that it cannot even at present be passed but at certain\nplaces. Of this well known circumstance, the men of Gilead took\nadvantage in the civil war, which they were compelled to wage with their\nbrethren: \u201cThe Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the\nEphraimites:--then they took him, and slew him at the passages of\nJordan,\u201d Judg. xii, 6. The people of Israel, under the command of Ehud\navailed themselves of the same advantage in the war with Moab: \u201cAnd they\nwent down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and\nsuffered not a man to pass over,\u201d Judg. iii, 28. But although the state\nof this river in modern times completely justifies the incidental\nremarks of the sacred writers, it is evident that Maundrell was\ndisconcerted by the shallowness of the stream, at the time of the year\nwhen he expected to see it overflowing all its banks; and his\nembarrassment seems to have increased when he contemplated the double\nmargin within which it flowed. This difficulty, which has perhaps\noccurred to some others, may be explained by a remark which Dr. Pococke\nhas made on the river Euphrates: The bed of the Euphrates, says that\nwriter, was measured by some English gentlemen at Beer, and found to be\nsix hundred and thirty yards broad; but the river only two hundred and\nfourteen yards over; then they thought it to be nine or ten feet deep in\nthe middle; and were informed that it sometimes rises twelve feet\nperpendicularly. He observed that it had an inner and outer bank; but\nsays, it rarely overflows the inner bank; that when it does, they sow\nwater mellons and other fruits of that kind, as soon as the water\nretires, and have a great produce. From this passage, Mr. Harmer argues:\n\u201cMight not the overflowings of the Jordan be like those of the\nEuphrates, not annual, but much more rare?\u201d The difficulty, therefore,\nwill be completely removed, by supposing, that it does not, like the\nNile, overflow every year, as some authors, by mistake, had supposed,\nbut, like the Euphrates, only in some particular years; but when it does\nit is in the time of harvest. If it did not in ancient times annually\noverflow its banks, the majesty of God in dividing its waters to make\nway for Joshua and the armies of Israel, was certainly the more striking\nto the Canaanites; who, when they looked upon themselves as defended in\nan extraordinary manner by the casual swelling of the river, its breadth\nand rapidity being both so extremely increased, yet, found it in these\ncircumstances part asunder, and leave a way on dry land for the people\nof Jehovah. The common receptacle into which the Jordan empties his\nwaters, is the lake Asphaltites, from whence they are continually\ndrained off by evaporation. Some writers, unable to find a discharge for\nthe large body of water which is continually rushing into the lake, have\nbeen inclined to suspect it had some communication with the\nMediterranean; but, beside that we know of no such gulf, it has been\ndemonstrated by accurate calculations, that evaporation is more than\nsufficient to carry off the waters of the river. It is, in fact, very\nconsiderable, and frequently becomes sensible to the eye, by the fogs\nwith which the lake is covered at the rising of the sun, and which are\nafterward dispersed by the heat.\n\nJOSEPH, son of Jacob and Rachel, and brother to Benjamin, Gen. xxx, 22,\n24. The history of Joseph is so fully and consecutively given by Moses,\nthat it is not necessary to abridge so familiar an account. In place of\nthis, the following beautiful argument by Mr. Blunt for the veracity of\nthe account drawn from the _identity_ of Joseph\u2019s character, will be\nread with pleasure:--I have already found an argument for the veracity\nof Moses in the identity of Jacob\u2019s character, I now find another in the\nidentity of that of Joseph. There is one quality, as it has been often\nobserved, though with a different view from mine, which runs like a\nthread through his whole history, his affection for his father. Israel\nloved him, we read, more than all his children; he was the child of his\nage; his mother died while he was yet young, and a double care of him\nconsequently devolved upon his surviving parent. He made him a coat of\nmany colours; he kept him at home when his other sons were sent to feed\nthe flocks. When the bloody garment was brought in, Jacob in his\naffection for him,--that same affection which, on a subsequent occasion,\nwhen it was told him that after all Joseph was alive, made him as slow\nto believe the good tidings as he was now quick to apprehend the sad; in\nthis his affection for him, I say, Jacob at once concluded the worst,\nand \u201che rent his clothes and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned\nfor his son many days, and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but\nhe refused to be comforted, and he said, For I will go down into the\ngrave unto my son mourning.\u201d\n\nNow, what were the feelings in Joseph which responded to these? When the\nsons of Jacob went down to Egypt, and Joseph knew them, though they knew\nnot him; for they, it may be remarked, were of an age not to be greatly\nchanged by the lapse of years, and were still sustaining the character\nin which Joseph had always seen them; while he himself had meanwhile\ngrown out of the stripling into the man, and from a shepherd boy was\nbecome the ruler of a kingdom; when his brethren thus came before him,\nhis question was, \u201cIs your father yet alive?\u201d Gen. xliii, 7. They went\ndown a second time, and again the question was, \u201cIs your father well,\nthe old man of whom ye spake, is he yet alive?\u201d More he could not\nventure to ask, while he was yet in his disguise. By a stratagem he now\ndetains Benjamin, leaving the others, if they would, to go their way.\nBut Judah came near unto him, and entreated him for his brother, telling\nhim how that he had been surety to his father to bring him back; how\nthat his father was an old man, and that this was the child of his old\nage, and that he loved him; how it would come to pass that if he should\nnot see the lad with him he would die, and his gray hairs be brought\nwith sorrow to the grave; for \u201chow shall I go to my father, and the lad\nbe not with me, lest, peradventure, I see the evil that shall come on my\nfather?\u201d Here, without knowing it, he had struck the string that was the\ntenderest of all. Joseph\u2019s firmness forsook him at this repeated mention\nof his father, and in terms so touching: he could not refrain himself\nany longer; and, causing every man to go out, he made himself known to\nhis brethren. Then, even in the paroxysm which came on him, (for he wept\naloud, so that the Egyptians heard,) still his first words uttered from\nthe fulness of his heart were, \u201cDoth my father yet live?\u201d He now bids\nthem hasten and bring the old man down, bearing to him tokens of his\nlove and tidings of his glory. He goes to meet him; he presents himself\nunto him, and falls on his neck, and weeps on his neck a good while; he\nprovides for him and his household out of the fat of the land; he sets\nhim before Pharaoh. By and by he hears that he is sick, and hastens to\nvisit him; he receives his blessing; watches his death bed; embalms his\nbody; mourns for him threescore and ten days; and then carries him, as\nhe had desired, into Canaan to bury him, taking with him, as an escort\nto do him honour, \u201call the elders of Israel, and all the servants of\nPharaoh, and all his house, and the house of his brethren, chariots, and\nhorsemen, a very great company.\u201d How natural was it now for his brethren\nto think that the tie by which alone they could imagine Joseph to be\nheld to them was dissolved, that any respect he might have felt or\nfeigned for them must have been buried in the cave of Machpelah, and\nthat he would now requite to them the evil they had done! \u201cAnd they sent\na messenger unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died,\nsaying, So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the\ntrespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil.\u201d\nAnd then they add of themselves, as if well aware of the surest road to\ntheir brother\u2019s heart, \u201cForgive, we pray thee, the trespass of the\nservants of the God of thy father.\u201d In every thing the father\u2019s name is\nstill put foremost: it is his memory which they count upon as their\nshield and buckler.\n\nIt is not the singular beauty of these scenes, or the moral lesson they\nteach, excellent as it is, with which I am now concerned, but simply the\nperfect artless consistency which prevails through them all. It is not\nthe constancy with which the son\u2019s strong affection for his father had\nlived through an interval of twenty years\u2019 absence, and, what is more,\nthrough the temptation of sudden promotion to the highest estate;--it is\nnot the noble-minded frankness with which he still acknowledges his\nkindred, and makes a way for them, \u201cshepherds\u201d as they were, to the\nthrone of Pharaoh himself;--it is not the simplicity and singleness of\nheart which allow him to give all the first-born of Egypt, men over whom\nhe bore absolute rule, an opportunity of observing his own comparatively\nhumble origin, by leading them in attendance upon his father\u2019s corpse to\nthe valleys of Canaan and the modest cradle of his race;--it is not, in\na word, the grace, but the _identity_, of Joseph\u2019s character, the light\nin which it is exhibited by himself, and the light in which it is\nregarded by his brethren, to which I now point as stamping it with marks\nof reality not to be gainsayed.\n\nSome writers have considered Joseph as a type of Christ; and it requires\nnot much ingenuity to find out some resemblances, as his being hated by\nhis brethren, sold for money, plunged into deep affliction, and then\nraised to power and honour, &c; but as we have no intimation in any part\nof Scripture that Joseph was constituted a figure of our Lord, and that\nthis was one design of recording his history at length, all such\napplications want authority, and cannot safely be indulged. The account\nseems rather to have been left for its moral uses, and that it should\nafford, by its inimitable simplicity and truth to nature, a point of\nirresistible internal evidence of the truth of the Mosaic narrative.\n\n2. JOSEPH, the husband of Mary, and reputed father of Jesus, was the son\nof Jacob, and grandson of Matthan, Matt. i, 15, 16. The place of his\nstated residence was Nazareth, particularly after the time of his\nmarriage. We learn from the evangelists that he followed the occupation\nof a carpenter, Matt. xiii, 55; and that he was a just man, or one of\nthose pious Israelites who looked for the coming of the Messiah, Matt.\ni, 19. It is probable that Joseph died before Christ entered upon his\npublic ministry; for upon any other supposition we are at a loss to\naccount for the reason why Mary, the mother of Jesus, is frequently\nmentioned in the evangelic narrative, while no allusion is made to\nJoseph; and, above all, why the dying Saviour should recommend his\nmother to the care of the beloved disciple John, if her husband had been\nthen living, John xix, 25\u201327.\n\n3. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, a Jewish senator, and a believer in the divine\nmission of Jesus Christ, John xix, 38. St. Luke calls him a counsellor,\nand also informs us that he was a good and just man, who did not give\nhis consent to the crucifixion of Christ, Luke xxiii, 50, 51. And though\nhe was unable to restrain the sanhedrim from their wicked purposes, he\nwent to Pilate by night, and solicited from him the body of Jesus.\nHaving caused it to be taken down from the cross, he wrapped it in\nlinen, and laid it in his own sepulchre, which, being a rich man, he\nappears to have recently purchased, and then closed the entrance with a\nstone cut purposely to fit it, Matt. xxvii, 57\u201360; John xix, 38\u201342.\n\nJOSHUA, the son of Nun. He was of the tribe of Ephraim, and born A. M.\n2460. He devoted himself to the service of Moses, and in Scripture he is\ncommonly called the servant of Moses, Exodus xxiv, 13; xxxiii, 11;\nDeuteronomy i, 38, &c. His first name was Hosea, or Oshea; Hoseah\nsignifying _saviour_; Jehoshua, _the salvation of God_, or _he will\nsave_. The first opportunity which Joshua had to signalize his valour\nwas in the war made by the divine command against the Amalekites, Exodus\nxvii, 9, 10. He defeated and routed their whole army. When Moses\nascended Mount Sinai to receive the law of the Lord, and remained there\nforty days and forty nights without eating or drinking, Joshua remained\nwith him, though, in all probability, not in the same place, nor with\nthe same abstinence, Exod. xxiv, 13; xxxii, 17. Joshua was \u201cfilled with\nthe spirit of wisdom,\u201d qualifying him for the arduous and important\nstation of governing Israel, to which he was called by the special\ncommand of God, Num. xxvii, 18\u201320; Deut. xxxi, 7, 14; xxxiv, 9; Joshua\ni, 5. His piety, courage, and disinterested integrity are conspicuous\nthroughout his whole history; and, exclusive of the inspiration which\nenlightened his mind and writings, he derived divine information,\nsometimes by immediate revelation from God, Joshua iii, 7; v, 13\u201315; at\nothers from the sanctuary, through the medium of Eleazar, the high\npriest, the son of Aaron, who, having on the breast plate, presented\nhimself before the mercy seat on which the Shechinah, or visible symbol\nof the divine presence, rested, and there consulted Jehovah by the Urim\nand Thummim, to which an answer was returned by an audible voice.\n\nJoshua succeeded Moses in the government of Israel about the year of the\nworld 2553, and died at Timnath-serah in the hundred and tenth year of\nhis age, A. M. 2578. He was about the age of eighty-four when he\nreceived the divine command to pass over Jordan, and take possession of\nthe promised land, Joshua i, 1, 2. Having accomplished that arduous\nenterprise, and settled the chosen tribes in the peaceable possession of\ntheir inheritance, he retired to Shechem, or, according to some Greek\ncopies, to Shiloh; where he assembled the elders of Israel, the heads of\nfamilies, the judges and other officers; and, presenting themselves\nbefore God, he recapitulated the conduct of Divine Providence toward\nthem, from the days of Abraham to that moment; recounted the miraculous\nand gracious dispensations of God toward their fathers and themselves;\nreminded them of their present enviable lot, and concluded his solemn\naddress with an exhortation in these emphatic words: \u201cNow, therefore,\nfear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and truth; and put away the\ngods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in\nEgypt; and serve ye the Lord,\u201d Joshua xxiv.\n\nThe book of Joshua continues the sacred history from the period of the\ndeath of Moses to that of the death of Joshua and of Eleazar; a space of\nabout thirty years. It contains an account of the conquest and division\nof the land of Canaan, the renewal of the covenant with the Israelites,\nand the death of Joshua. There are two passages in this book which show\nthat it was written by a person contemporary with the events it records.\nIn the first verse of the fifth chapter, the author speaks of himself as\nbeing one of those who had passed into Canaan: \u201cAnd it came to pass when\nall the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan\nwestward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea,\nheard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the\nchildren of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted.\u201d\nAnd from the twenty-fifth verse of the following chapter, it appears\nthat the book was written before the death of Rahab: \u201cAnd Joshua saved\nRahab the harlot alive, and her father\u2019s household, and all that she\nhad; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the\nmessengers which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.\u201d Though there is not a\nperfect agreement among the learned concerning the author of this book,\nyet by far the most general opinion is, that it was written by Joshua\nhimself; and, indeed, in the last chapter it is said that \u201cJoshua wrote\nthese words in the book of the law of God;\u201d which expression seems to\nimply that he subjoined this history to that written by Moses. The last\nfive verses, giving an account of the death of Joshua, were added by one\nof his successors; probably by Eleazar, Phinehas, or Samuel.\n\nJOSIAH, king of Judah, deserves particular mention on account of his\nwisdom and piety, and some memorable events that occurred in the course\nof his reign. He succeeded to the throne, upon the assassination of his\nfather Amon, at the age of eight years, B. C. 640; and at a period when\nidolatry and wickedness, encouraged by his father\u2019s profligate example,\nvery generally prevailed. Josiah, who manifested the influence of pious\nand virtuous principles at a very early age, began, in his sixteenth\nyear, to project the reformation of the kingdom, and to adopt means for\nrestoring the worship of the true God. At the age of twenty years he\nvigorously pursued the execution of the plans which he had meditated. He\nbegan with abolishing idolatry, first at Jerusalem, and then through\ndifferent parts of the kingdom; destroying the altars which had been\nerected, and the idols which had been the objects of veneration and\nworship. He then proceeded, in his twenty-sixth year, to a complete\nrestoration of the worship of God, and the regular service of the\ntemple. While he was prosecuting this pious work, and repairing the\ntemple, which had been long neglected, and which had sunk into a state\nof dilapidation, the book of the law, which had been concealed in the\ntemple, was happily discovered. This was, probably, a copy of the the\nPentateuch, which had been lodged there for security by some pious\npriest in the reign of Ahaz or Manasseh. Josiah, desirous of averting\nfrom himself and the kingdom threatened judgments, determined to adhere\nto the directions of the law, in the business of reformation which he\nhad undertaken; and to observe the festivals enjoined by Moses, which\nhad been shamefully neglected. With this view he assembled all the\nelders of the people in the temple at Jerusalem; and, having ascended\nthe throne, read the book of the Mosaic law, and then entered into a\nsolemn covenant to observe the statutes and ordinances which it\nenjoined. To this covenant the whole assembly testified their consent.\nThe ark was restored to its proper place; the temple was purified;\nidolatrous utensils were removed, and those appropriate to the worship\nof God substituted in their room. After these preparations, the passover\nwas observed with singular zeal and magnificence. This took place in the\neighteenth year of Josiah\u2019s reign: but, in pursuing his laudable plans\nof reformation, he was resisted by the inveterate habits of the\nIsraelites; so that his zealous and persevering efforts were\nineffectual. Their degeneracy was so invincible, that the almighty\nSovereign was provoked to inflict upon them those calamities which were\ndenounced by the Prophet Zephaniah. In the thirty-second year of\nJosiah\u2019s reign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, advanced with his army\nagainst Carchemish, a city situated on the river Euphrates. He was\nopposed by the king of Judah; so that a bloody battle ensued at Megiddo,\nin which Josiah received a mortal wound, which terminated in his death,\nafter he had been conveyed to Jerusalem, in the thirty-ninth year of his\nreign, B.C. 609. His death was greatly lamented by all his subjects; and\nan elegy was written on the occasion by the Prophet Jeremiah, which is\nnot now extant, 2 Kings xxii, xxiii; 2 Chronicles xxxiv, xxxv.\n\nJUBAL, a son of Lamech, the inventor of musical instruments, Gen. iv,\n21.\n\nJUBILEE, among the Jews, denotes every fiftieth year; being that\nfollowing the revolution of seven weeks of years; at which time all the\nslaves were made free, and all lands reverted to their ancient owners.\nThe jubilees were not regarded after the Babylonish captivity. The\npolitical design of the law of the jubilee was to prevent the too great\noppression of the poor, as well as their being liable to perpetual\nslavery. By this means the rich were prevented from accumulating lands\nfor perpetuity, and a kind of equality was preserved through all the\nfamilies of Israel. The distinction of tribes was also preserved, in\nrespect both to their families and possessions; that they might be able,\nwhen there was occasion, on the jubilee year, to prove their right to\nthe inheritance of their ancestors. Thus, also, it would be known with\ncertainty of what tribe or family the Messiah sprung. It served, also,\nlike the Olympiads of the Greeks, and the Lustra of the Romans, for the\nreadier computation of time. The jubilee has also been supposed to be\ntypical of the Gospel state and dispensation, described by Isaiah lxi,\n1, 2, in reference to this period, as \u201cthe acceptable year of the Lord.\u201d\n\nThe word _jubilee_, in a more modern sense, denotes a grand church\nsolemnity or ceremony celebrated at Rome, in which the pope grants a\nplenary indulgence to all sinners; at least, to as many as visit the\nchurches of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome. The jubilee was first\nestablished by Boniface VII., in 1300, which was only to return every\nhundred years; but the first celebration brought in such store of\nwealth, that Clement VI., in 1343, reduced it to the period of fifty\nyears. Urban VI., in 1389, appointed it to be held every thirty-five\nyears, that being the age of our Saviour; and Paul II. and Sixtus IV.,\nin 1475, brought it down to every twenty-five, that every person might\nhave the benefit of it once in his life. Boniface IX. granted the\nprivilege of holding jubilees to several princes and monasteries; for\ninstance, to the monks of Canterbury, who had a jubilee every fifty\nyears; when people flocked from all parts to visit the tomb of\nThomas-a-Becket. Afterward, jubilees became more frequent: there is\ngenerally one at the inauguration of a new pope; and he grants them as\noften as the church or himself have occasion for them. To be entitled to\nthe privileges of the jubilee, the bull enjoins fasting, alms, and\nprayers. It gives the priests a full power to absolve in all cases even\nthose otherwise reserved to the pope; to make commutations of vows, &c;\nin which it differs from a plenary indulgence. During the time of\njubilee, all other indulgences are suspended.\n\nJUDAH, the son of Jacob and Leah, who was born in Mesopotamia, Genesis\nxxix, 35. It was he who advised his brethren to sell Joseph to the\nIshmaelite merchants, rather than stain their hands with his blood, Gen.\nxxxvii, 26. There is little said of his life, and the little that is\nrecorded does not raise him high in our estimation. In the last\nprophetic blessing pronounced on him by his father Jacob, Gen. xlix, 8,\n9, there is a promise of the regal power; and that it should not depart\nfrom his family before the coming of the Messiah. The whole southern\npart of Palestine fell to Judah\u2019s lot; but the tribes of Simeon and Dan\npossessed many cities which at first were given to Judah. This tribe was\nso numerous, that at the departure out of Egypt it contained\nseventy-four thousand six hundred men capable of bearing arms, Num. i,\n26, 27. The crown passed from the tribe of Benjamin, of which Saul and\nhis sons were, to that of Judah, which was David\u2019s tribe, and the tribe\nof the kings, his successors, until the Babylonish captivity.\n\nJUDAISM, the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews, the descendants\nof Abraham. With Abraham Judaism may be said, in some sense, to have\nbegun; but it was not till the promulgation of the law upon Mount Sinai,\nthat the Jewish economy was established, and that to his posterity was\ncommitted a dispensation which was to distinguish them ever after from\nevery other people on earth. The Mosaic dispensation consisted of three\nparts; the religious faith and worship of the Jews, their civil polity,\nand precepts for the regulation of their moral conduct. Their civil\ngovernment, as well as their sacred polity, was of divine institution;\nand, on all important occasions, their public affairs were conducted by\nthe Deity himself, or by persons bearing his commission. The laws of the\nJews, religious and moral, civil, political, and ritual, that is, a\ncomplete system of pure Judaism, are contained in the books of the Old\nTestament, and chiefly in the five books of Moses. See GOVERNMENT OF THE\nHEBREWS.\n\nThe religion of the ancestors of the Jews, before the time of Moses,\nconsisted in the worship of the one living and true God, under whose\nimmediate direction they were; in the hope of a Redeemer; in a firm\nreliance on his promises under all difficulties and dangers; and in a\nthankful acknowledgment for all his blessings and deliverances. In that\nearly age, we read of altars, pillars, and monuments raised, and\nsacrifices offered to God. They used circumcision as a seal of the\ncovenant which God had made with Abraham. As to the mode and\ncircumstances of divine worship, they were much at liberty till the time\nof Moses; but that legislator, by the direction and appointment of God\nhimself, prescribed an instituted form of religion, and regulated\nceremonies, feasts, days, priests, and sacrifices, with the utmost\nexactness. The rites and observances of their religion under the law\nwere numerous, and its sanctions severe. Notwithstanding God\u2019s prophets,\nand oracles, and ordinances, and the symbol of his presence, were among\nthem, the Jews were ever very prone to idolatry, till the Babylonish\nfurnace served to purify them from that corruption. After their seventy\nyears\u2019 captivity, many among them gave too much place to the Greek\nidolatries, but as a nation they were never again guilty of the crime.\nTheir religious worship and character in our Saviour\u2019s time had become\nformal and superstitious; and such it still continues to be, in a\ngreater or less degree, at the present day. Ancient Judaism, compared\nwith all religions except the Christian, was distinguished for its\nsuperior purity and spirituality; and the whole Mosaic ritual was of a\ntypical nature. See JEWS.\n\nJUDAIZING CHRISTIANS. Concerning the divine origin of the religion of\nMoses, there was among the Jews no diversity of sentiment, and they not\nunnaturally drew the conclusion, that, as it had proceeded from God, it\nmust be of perpetual obligation. They were indeed fully aware, that\nanother communication from heaven was to be made to mankind, and that\nthis was to be announced by a messenger more distinguished than even the\nlawgiver whom they revered; but they had satisfied themselves, that the\ngreat design of the Messiah\u2019s mission would be to rescue them from the\noppression of a foreign yoke, and to lay in Jerusalem the foundation of\nuniversal empire. For accomplishing these purposes, it was requisite\nthat their Messiah should be invested with temporal power; and in this\nidea, which so many circumstances in their history tended to endear to\nthem, they were confirmed by those passages in the books of their\nprophets which described him as destined to sit on the throne of David,\nto sway a righteous sceptre, and to establish an everlasting kingdom.\nWhen, accordingly, Christ appeared in the humblest condition of life,\nand when, after the commencement of his ministry, he declared, that the\nhopes of empire which his countrymen had long cherished were fallacious,\nthe predictions on which they had been rested suggesting, when combined\nwith other predictions, a very different view of the designs of the\nAlmighty, they were filled with indignation, and the greater part of\nthem, although they saw the miracles which Jesus wrought, and heard\nthose appeals to their own Scriptures which, however eager to do so,\nthey found themselves unable to confute, rejected his pretensions on\naccount of the meanness of his situation, and reprobated him as a\ndeceiver of the people.\n\nThere was, however, a considerable number who could not adopt this\nconclusion, and who, satisfied that the mighty works which he performed\nfully established the reality of the divine commission to which he laid\nclaim, relinquished their prejudices respecting a temporal sovereignty,\nand embraced his doctrine as the revealed will of God. But,\nnotwithstanding this, they do not seem to have formed the most distant\nconception that there was any thing in that doctrine to set aside the\nsystem which had been transmitted to them by their fathers. They\nregarded the two dispensations as forming one whole; and believed that\nthe rites which had distinguished from the rest of mankind those who\nbelonged to the commonwealth of Israel, would in the same manner mark\nthe disciples of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom. Agreeably to this, as they\nconceived, they saw that Jesus conformed to their ceremonial\ninstitutions, he frequented the temple, he purified it from abuses by\nwhich it had been profaned, and they interpreted, in the sense most in\nharmony with their favourite notions, the declaration which he had\npublicly made, that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it.\nEven the apostles who had constantly attended him, who had listened not\nmerely to his public discourses, but to the interpretation of them,\nwhich, in tender condescension to their weakness, he often in private\ngave, were so thoroughly established in this opinion that it required a\npeculiar revelation to be made to him before Peter would open the\nkingdom of God to a Gentile. It cannot, therefore, be matter of surprise\nthat the sentiment prevailed among the whole of the Jews who had been\nconverted to Christianity; or that even after it was opposed by the\ndeclaration of the Apostles as individuals, and by their solemn\ndetermination, when assembled to decide with respect to it, that the law\nwas not binding upon Gentile converts, they should still have adhered to\nit, when from not having a written record of faith they might have\nimagined, either that the representation of the apostolic decision was\nerroneous, or that the sanction which it gave to their own adherence to\ntheir ceremonies virtually confirmed the doctrine which they felt such\naversion to relinquish. They accordingly displayed much zeal in support\nof the Mosaical economy, represented the strict observance of what it\nrequired as essential for justification, and looked with a kind of\nabhorrence upon that large proportion of believers who paid to this no\nrespect, and who even did not hesitate to condemn it as subversive of\nthe fundamental principle of the Gospel dispensation. A great part of\nthe epistles of St. Paul is directed against the Judaizing teachers who\ninculcated the original tenet of their brethren. The Apostle earnestly\npresses upon the churches, that by the works of the law we cannot be\njustified, that circumcision is of no avail, that by grace we are saved,\nand that Christ hath redeemed us by his blood. He, indeed, uniformly\nrepresents the idea which he opposed as inconsistent with Christianity,\nas an idea which could not be held without detracting from what our\nSaviour has done to accomplish our redemption. What effect his writings\nproduced upon the Jewish believers, cannot be accurately ascertained;\nbut it is quite certain that a very large proportion of them adhered to\ntheir ritual observances either as national, or as instrumental in\nobtaining the divine favour; and this survived the destruction of the\ntemple and of Jerusalem,--events which might have been expected to\nconvince every one of the temporary nature of the Mosaical economy.\n\nBut after Adrian, by again directing the Roman arms against the Jews,\nblasted the hopes which had been fondly cherished, that their city would\nbe rebuilt, and their temple opened with greater splendour than before,\na vast number of them, either from being convinced by what they had\nseen, or from their eagerness to gain admission into the city which the\nemperor had erected, but from which he had ordered that all who\npersisted in Judaism should be excluded, for the first time embraced the\nreligion of Christ; and many, who had previously done so, abandoning the\nJewish ritual, acquiesced fully in the representation of the faith given\nby St. Paul, choosing as their bishop a Gentile convert. There were,\nhowever, not a few who remained steadfast in their principles, who were\nnow consequently separated from the great body of their believing\ncountrymen, and who retained the appellation of Nazarenes, which had\nprobably been given to the whole of the Jewish Christians. This remnant\nsoon split into two parties. The one party, although they held that the\nlaw of Moses was obligatory upon the descendants of the house of Israel,\ndid not extend it to those who had never been of the family of Abraham;\nthey revered Jesus as being more than man, and in fact approached so\nnear to the prevailing sentiments of the church, that, notwithstanding\ntheir peculiar sentiments in relation to the Mosaical law, they were not\nranked by the earliest writers among heretics. The other party, who were\ncalled Ebionites, either from Ebion, the name, it is alleged, of their\nleader, from their poverty, or from the low notions which they\nentertained of Christ, for all these reasons have been specified,\nshowing sufficiently that the matter is really uncertain,--maintained\nthe original tenet that their law was binding upon all men, and that\nwithout observing what it required it was impossible to be justified. As\nthis was in direct opposition to the declarations of St. Paul, instead\nof submitting to apostolic authority they set it at defiance, rejecting\nhis epistles, and branding him as an enemy to the truth. They\ndisregarded even the Gospels which were received by the generality of\nChristians, and used a gospel of their own which they had so modelled as\nto support the tenets to which they were attached. One of these tenets,\none which, indeed, naturally followed from their conceptions of the\nGospel dispensation, was, that its author was merely a man raised solely\nby the commission with which he had been honoured above the rest of his\nfellow creatures.\n\nJUDAS ISCARIOT, or, as he is usually called, the traitor, and betrayer\nof our Lord. \u201cThe _treachery_ of Judas Iscariot,\u201d says Dr. Hales, \u201chis\n_remorse_, and _suicide_, are occurrences altogether so strange and\nextraordinary, that the motives by which he was actuated require to be\ndeveloped, as far as may be done, where the evangelists are, in a great\nmeasure, silent concerning them, from the circumstances of the history\nitself, and from the feelings of human nature. Judas, the leading trait\nin whose character was covetousness, was probably induced to follow\nJesus at first with a view to the riches, honours, and other temporal\nadvantages, which he, in common with the rest, expected the Messiah\u2019s\nfriends would enjoy. The astonishing miracles he saw him perform left no\nroom to doubt of the reality of his Master\u2019s pretensions, who had,\nindeed, himself in private actually accepted the title from his\nApostles; and Judas must have been much disappointed when Jesus\nrepeatedly refused the proffered royalty from the people in Galilee,\nafter the miracle of feeding the five thousand, and again after his\npublic procession to Jerusalem. He might naturally have grown impatient\nunder the delay, and dissatisfied also with Jesus for openly\ndiscouraging all ambitious views among his disciples; and, therefore, he\nmight have devised the scheme of delivering him up to the sanhedrim, or\ngreat council of the nation, (composed of the chief priests, scribes,\nand elders,) in order to compel him to avow himself openly as the\nMessiah before them; and to work such miracles, or to give them the sign\nwhich they so often required, as would convince and induce them to elect\nhim in due form, and by that means enable him to reward his followers.\nEven the rebukes of Jesus for his covetousness, and the detection of his\ntreacherous scheme, although they unquestionably offended Judas, might\nonly serve to stimulate him to the speedier execution of his plot,\nduring the feast of the passover, while the great concourse of the Jews,\nfrom all parts assembled, might powerfully support the sanhedrim and\ntheir Messiah against the Romans. The success of this measure, though\nagainst his Master\u2019s will, would be likely to procure him pardon, and\neven to recommend him to favour afterward. Such might have been the\nplausible suggestions by which Satan tempted him to the commission of\nthis crime. But when Judas, who attended the whole trial, saw that it\nturned out quite contrary to his expectations, that Jesus was capitally\nconvicted by the council, as a false Christ and false prophet,\nnotwithstanding he had openly avowed himself; and that he wrought no\nmiracle, either for their conviction or for his own deliverance, as\nJudas well knew he could, even from the circumstance of healing Malchus,\nafter he was apprehended; when he farther reflected, like Peter, on his\nMaster\u2019s merciful forewarnings of his treachery, and mild and gentle\nrebuke at the commission of it; he was seized with remorse, and offered\nto return the paltry bribe of thirty pieces of silver to the chief\npriests and elders instantly on the spot, saying, \u2018I sinned in\ndelivering up innocent blood;\u2019 and expected that on this they would have\ndesisted from the prosecution. But they were obstinate, and not only\nwould not relent, but threw the whole load of guilt upon him, refusing\nto take their own share; for they said, \u2018What is that to us? see thou to\nthat;\u2019 thus, according to the aphorism, loving the treason, but hating\nthe traitor, after he had served their wicked turn. Stung to the quick\nat their refusal to take back the money, while they condemned himself,\nhe went to the temple, cast down the whole sum in the treasury, or place\nfor receiving the offerings of the people; and, after he had thus\nreturned the wages of iniquity, he retired to some lonely place, not\nfar, perhaps, from the scene of Peter\u2019s repentance; and, in the frenzy\nof despair, and at the instigation of the devil, hanged himself;\ncrowning with suicide the murder of his Master and his friend; rejecting\nhis compassionate Saviour, and plunging his own soul into perdition! In\nanother place it is said that, \u2018falling headlong, he burst asunder, and\nall his bowels gushed out,\u2019 Acts i, 18. Both these accounts might be\ntrue: he might first have hanged himself from some tree on the edge of a\nprecipice; and, the rope or branch breaking, he might be dashed to\npieces by the fall.\u201d\n\nThe above view of the case of Judas endeavours ingeniously to account\nfor his conduct by supposing him influenced by the motive of compelling\nour Lord to declare himself, and assume the Messiahship in its earthly\nglory. It will, however, be recollected, that the only key which the\nevangelic narrative affords, is, Judas\u2019s covetousness; which passion\nwas, in him, a growing one. It was this which destroyed whatever of\nhonest intention he might at first have in following Jesus; and when\nfully under its influence he would be blinded by it to all but the\nglittering object of the reward of iniquity. In such a mind there could\nbe no true faith, and no love; what wonder, then, when avarice was in\nhim a ruling and unrestrained passion, that he should betray his Lord?\nStill it may be admitted that the knowledge which Judas had of our\nLord\u2019s miraculous power, might lead him the more readily to put him into\nthe hands of the chief priests. He might suppose that he would deliver\nhimself out of their hands; and thus Judas attempted to play a double\nvillany, against Christ and against his employers.\n\nJUDE, EPISTLE OF, a canonical book of the New Testament, written against\nthe heretics, who, by their impious doctrines and disorderly lives,\ncorrupted the faith and good morals of Christians. The author of this\nepistle, called Judas, and also Thaddeus and Lebbeus, was one of the\ntwelve Apostles; he was the son of Alpheus, brother of James the less,\nand one of those who were called our Lord\u2019s brethren. We are not\ninformed when, or how, he was called to be an Apostle; but it has been\nconjectured, that, before his vocation to the Apostleship, he was a\nhusbandman, that he was married, and that he had children. The only\naccount we have of him in particular, is that which occurs in John xiv,\n21\u201323. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, after having received, in\ncommon with other Apostles, extraordinary gifts at the pentecost, he\npreached the Gospel for some time in several parts of the land of\nIsrael, and wrought miracles in the name of Christ. And, as his life\nseems to have been prolonged, it is probable that he afterward left\nJudea, and went abroad preaching the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles in\nother countries. Some have said that he preached in Arabia, Syria,\nMesopotamia, and Persia; and that he suffered martyrdom in the last\nmentioned country. But we have no account of his travels upon which we\ncan rely; and it may be questioned whether he was a martyr.\n\nIn the early ages of Christianity, several rejected the Epistle of St.\nJude, because the apocryphal books of Enoch, and the ascension of Moses,\nare quoted in it. Nevertheless, it is to be found in all the ancient\ncatalogues of the sacred writings; and Clement, of Alexandria,\nTertullian, and Origen quote it as written by Jude, and reckon it among\nthe books of sacred Scripture. In the time of Eusebius it was generally\nreceived. As to the objections that have been urged against its\nauthority, Dr. Lardner suggests, that there is no necessity for\nsupposing that St. Jude quoted a book called Enoch, or Enoch\u2019s\nprophecies; and even allowing that he did quote it, he gives it no\nauthority; it was no canonical book of the Jews; and if such a book\nexisted among the Jews, it was apocryphal, and yet there might be in it\nsome right things. Instead of referring to a book called the \u201cAssumption\nor Ascension of Christ,\u201d which probably was a forgery much later than\nhis time, it is much more credible that St. Jude refers to the vision in\nZech. iii, 1\u20133. It has been the opinion of several writers, and, among\nothers, of Hammond and Benson, that St. Jude addressed his epistle to\nthe Jewish Christians; but Dr. Lardner infers, from the words of the\ninscription of the epistle, verses 1, 3, that it was designed for the\nuse of all in general who had embraced the Christian religion. The last\nmentioned author supposes that this epistle was written A. D. 64, 65, or\n66.\n\nJUDEA, a district of Asia Minor, which is described both by ancient and\nmodern geographers under a great variety of names, and with great\ndiversity of extent. In the most extensive application of the name, it\ncomprehends the whole country possessed by the Jews, or people of\nIsrael; and included, therefore, very different portions of territory at\ndifferent periods of their history. Upon the conquest of the country by\nJoshua, it was divided into twelve portions, according to the number of\nthe tribes of Israel; and a general view of their respective allotments\n(though the intermediate boundaries cannot be very precisely\nascertained) may convey some idea of its extent at that period. The\nportion of the tribe of Judah comprised all the country between Edom, or\nIdumea, on the south, the Mediterranean on the west, the Salt Sea on the\neast, and an imaginary line on the north, from the northern extremity of\nthe Salt Sea to the Mediterranean. The portion of Simeon was included\nwithin that of Judah, and formed the south-west corner of the country;\ncomprehending the towns of Bersaba, Gerar, Rapha, Gaza, Ascalon, and\nAzotus. The portion of Benjamin was situated to the north of Judah, near\nthe centre of the kingdom, bounded on the east by the river Jordan, and\ncontaining part of Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethel, Rama, &c. The portion of\nDan lay to the north-west of Judah, between that of Benjamin and the\nMediterranean, reaching as far north as the latter, and containing\nAccaron and Jamnia. The portion of Ephraim stretched along the northern\nlimits of Dan and Benjamin, between the river Jordan on the east, and\nthe Mediterranean sea on the west; containing Sichem, Joppa, Lydda,\nGazara, &c. The portion of the half tribe of Manasseh was situated north\nof Ephraim, between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean, reaching as\nfar north as Dora, at the foot of Mount Carmel. The portion of Issachar\nstretched northward from Manasseh, and westward from Jordan, as far as\nMount Tabor. The portion of Asher comprehended the maritime tract\nbetween Mount Carmel, as far as Sidon. The portion of Zebulon, bounded\nby Asher on the west, and Mount Tabor on the south, joined on the east\nthe portion of Naphtali, which occupied the borders of the lake\nGennesareth, or sea of Tiberias. The portion of Reuben lay to the\neastward of the river Jordan, bounded on the south by the torrent of\nArnon, and on the north by the river Jabok. The portion of Gad, also on\nthe east of the Jordan, stretched from the Jabok toward the north, where\nit was bounded by the other half tribe of Manasseh, which occupied the\ncountry east of the lake Gennesareth, to the northern limits of the\ncountry. The whole of this extent between C\u0153lo-Syria on the north,\nand Arabia Petr\u00e6a on the south, the Mediterranean on the west, and\nArabia Deserta on the east, may be considered as situated between 31\u00b0\n10\u00b4 and 33\u00b0 15\u00b4 of north latitude, about a hundred and forty miles in\nlength, and nearly a hundred in breadth. Reckoning from Dan to\nBeersheba, which are often mentioned in sacred Scripture as including\nthe more settled and permanent possessions of the Israelites, its length\nwould not exceed a hundred and twenty miles. But, if estimated from its\nboundaries in the reigns of David and Solomon, and several succeeding\nprinces, its extent must be enlarged more than threefold; including both\nthe land of Palestine, or of the Philistines, on the south, and the\ncountry of Phenice on the north, with part of Syria to the north-east.\nAll this extent was originally comprehended in the land of promise,\nGenesis xv, 18; Deut. xi, 24; and was actually possessed by David and\nSolomon, 1 Kings ix, 20; 2 Chron. viii, 7. It is described in numerous\npassages of the sacred writings, as all comprised in the Holy Land, from\nHamath on the north, to the river of Egypt on the south; and from the\nGreat or Mediterranean Sea on the west, to the deserts of Arabia on the\neast; a tract of country at least four hundred and sixty miles in\nlength, and more than a hundred in breadth, Joshua xv, 2, &c; xix, 24,\n&c; 1 Chron. xiii, 5; 2 Chron. vii, 8; Ezekiel xlvii, 16, 20; Amos vi,\n14.\n\nAfter the death of Solomon, when the kingdom of the Hebrews had attained\nits greatest extent, it was divided, in consequence of a revolt of ten\ntribes, into two distinct sovereignties, named Israel and Judah; the\nformer of which had its seat of government in Samaria, and the latter in\nJerusalem. The territories of both were gradually curtailed and laid\nwaste by the revolt of tributary princes, and the incursions of powerful\nneighbours; and both were at length completely overthrown; that of\nIsrael, by the king of Assyria, about B. C. 720; and that of Judah, by\nNebuchadnezzar, about a hundred and fourteen years later.\n\nAfter a captivity of seventy years, the Jews, who had been the subjects\nof Judah, having received permission from Cyrus to return to their\nnative country, not only occupied the former territories of that\nkingdom, but extended themselves over great part of what had belonged to\nthe ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel; and then, for the first time,\ngave the name of Judea to the whole country over which they had again\nestablished their dominion. The same name was given to that kingdom as\npossessed by Herod the Great under the Romans; but, in the enumeration\nof the provinces of the empire, it was recognised only by the name of\nPalestine. All traces of its ancient division among the twelve tribes\nwere now abolished, and it was distributed into four provinces; namely,\nJudea Proper in the south, Galilee in the north, Samaria in the centre,\nand Per\u00e6a on the east of the river Jordan. Judea Proper, situated in 31\u00b0\n40\u00b4 north latitude, was bounded on the north by Samaria, on the west by\nthe Mediterranean, on the east by the river Jordan, on the south by\nArabia Petr\u00e6a; and comprised the ancient settlements of Judah, Benjamin,\nDan, and Simeon, with Philistia and Idumea. It is divided by Josephus\ninto eleven toparchies, and by Pliny into ten; but these subdivisions\nare little noticed by ancient writers, and their boundaries are very\nimperfectly ascertained. The principal places in the north-east quarter\nof the province were Jerusalem, the capital, which was entirely\ndestroyed in the reign of Hadrian, and replaced by a new city named\n\u00c6lia, a little farther north, which is now the site of the modern\nJerusalem; Jericho, the city of palm trees, about nineteen miles\neastward of Jerusalem, and eight from the river Jordan; Phaselis, built\nby Herod in memory of his brother, fifteen miles north-west of Jericho;\nArchelais, built by Archelaus, ten miles north of Jericho; Gophna,\nfifteen miles north of Jerusalem, in the road to Sichem; Bethel, twelve\nmiles north of Jerusalem, originally called Luz; Gilgal, about one mile\nand a half from Jericho; Engeddi, a hundred furlongs south south-east of\nJericho, near the northern extremity of the Dead Sea; Masada, a strong\nfortress built by Judas Maccabeus, the last refuge of the Jews after the\nfall of Jerusalem; Ephraim, a small town westward of Jericho; Anathoth,\na Levitical town, nearly four miles north of Jerusalem. In the\nsouth-east quarter of the province were situated Bethlehem, or Ephrath,\nabout six miles south from the capital; Bethzur, now St. Philip, a\nstrong place on the road to Hebron, ten miles south of Jerusalem; Ziph,\na small town between Hebron and the Dead Sea; Zoar, at the southern\nextremity of the Dead Sea, near the situation of Sodom; Hebron, formerly\nKirjath-arba, a very ancient town in a hilly country, twenty-five miles\nsouth of the capital; Arad, about twenty-four miles southward from\nHebron, and near the Ascensus Avrabim, or Scorpion Mountains, on the\nborder of Arabia Petr\u00e6a; and Thamar, on the southern limit of the\nprovince, near the south extremity of the Dead Sea. In the north-west\nquarter were Bethshemesh, or Heliopolis, a Levitical city, about ten\nmiles west of the capital; Rama, six miles north from Jerusalem; Emmaus,\na village eight miles north north-west from Jerusalem, afterward called\nNicopolis, in consequence of a victory gained by Vespasian over the\nrevolted Jews; Bethoron, a populous Levitical city on the road to Lydda,\na few miles north-west of Emmaus; Kirjath-jearim, on the road to Joppa,\nnine miles westward from the capital; Lydda, now Lod, and called by the\nGreeks Diospolis, about twelve miles east of Joppa; Ramla, supposed to\nbe the same as Arimathea, about five miles south-west of Lydda; Joppa, a\nmaritime town, now Jaffa, about twelve leagues north-west of Jerusalem;\nJabne, a walled sea-port town between Joppa and Azotus; and Ekron, a\ntown on the north boundary of the Philistines. In the south-west quarter\nof Judea were Gath, about twenty miles west from Jerusalem, near to\nwhich were the city of Eleutheropolis, a flourishing place in the second\ncentury; Makkedah, a strong place, eight miles north-east from\nEleutheropolis; Bersabe, or Beersheba, about twenty-six miles south from\nEleutheropolis; Gerar, between Beersheba and the sea coast; Azotus, or\nAshdod, to the west of Eleutheropolis, within a few miles of the sea,\nand the seat of a bishop in the first ages of the Christian church;\nAscalon, a considerable maritime town, above forty-three miles\nsouth-west of Jerusalem; Gaza, fifteen miles southward from Ascalon; and\nRaphia, between Gaza and Rhinocurura, remarkable for a great battle in\nits neighbourhood, in which Philopater, king of Egypt, defeated\nAntiochus, king of Syria.\n\nSamaria, lying between Judea and Galilee, in 32\u00b0 15\u00b4 north latitude,\nextended along the sea coast from Joppa to Dora, and along the river\nJordan from the rivulet of Alexandrium to the southern extremity of the\nsea of Tiberias; comprehending the territory of the tribe of Ephraim, of\nthe half tribe of Manasseh, and part of Issachar. Its principal cities\nwere Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel, north of Sichem, and\nequally distant from Jordan and the sea coast, afterward named Sebaste\nby Herod, in honour of Augustus; Jezrael, or Esdraelon, about four\nleagues north from Samaria; Sichem, or Sychar, called by the Romans\nNeapolis, eight miles south of Samaria, in a valley between the\nmountains Gerizim and Ebal; Bethsan, called by the Greek writers\nScythopolis, about twenty miles north-east of Sichem; C\u00e6sarea of\nPalestine, anciently called Turris Stratonis, greatly enlarged by Herod,\nand long the principal city of the province, about nineteen leagues\nnorth north-west from Jerusalem; Dora, now Tartura, nine miles north\nfrom C\u00e6sarea, on the road to Tyre; Apollonia, now Arzuf, on the sea\ncoast, twenty-two miles south of C\u00e6sarea; and Hadadrimmon, afterward\ncalled Maximianopolis, about seventeen miles eastward of C\u00e6sarea.\n\nGalil\u00e6a, in 33\u00b0 north latitude, bounded on the south by Samaria, on the\nwest by the Mediterranean, on the north by Syria, on the east by the\nriver Jordan and the lake Gennesareth, comprehended the possessions of\nAsher, Naphtali, and Zabulon, with part of the allotment of Issachar.\nThe northern division of the province was thinly inhabited by Jews, and\nwas sometimes called Galilee of the Gentiles; but the southern portion\nwas very populous. Its principal towns were Capernaum, at the northern\nextremity of the lake of Gennesareth; Bethsaida, a considerable village\na few leagues south of Capernaum; Cinnereth, south of Bethsaida, rebuilt\nby Herod Antipas, and named Tiberias; Tarich\u00e6a, a considerable town at\nthe efflux of the river Jordan from the sea of Tiberias, thirty stadia\nsouth from the town of Tiberias; Nazareth, two leagues north-west of\nMount Tabor, and equally distant from the lake of Gennesareth and the\nsea coast; Arbela, six miles west of Nazareth; Sepphoris, or\nDio-C\u00e6sarea, now Sefouri, a large and well fortified town, about five\nleagues north north-west of Mount Tabor; Zabulon, a strong and populous\nplace, sixty stadia south-east of Ptolemais; Acre, or Accon, seven miles\nnorth from the promontory of Carmel, afterward enlarged and called\nPtolemais by Ptolemy I., of Egypt, and in the time of the crusades\ndistinguished by the name of Acre, the last city possessed by the\nChristians in Syria, and was taken and destroyed by the Sultan Serapha,\nof Egypt, in 1291; Kedes, or Cydissus, a Levitical city at the foot of\nMount Panium, twenty miles south-east of Tyre; Dan, originally Laish, on\nthe north boundary of the Holy Land, about thirty miles south-east of\nSidon; Paneas, near to Dan, or, according to some, only a different name\nfor the same place, was repaired by Philip, son of Herod the Great, and\nby him named C\u00e6sarea, in honour of Augustus, with the addition of\nPhilippi, to distinguish it from the other town of the same name in\nSamaria; Jotapata, the strongest town in Galilee, about four leagues\nnorth north-east of Dio-C\u00e6sarea; and Japha and Gischala, two other\nfortified places in the same district.\n\nPer\u00e6a, though the name would denote any extent of country beyond Jordan,\nis more particularly applied to that district in 32\u00b0 north latitude,\nwhich formerly composed the territories of Sihon, the Amorite, and Og,\nking of Bashan; extending from the river Arnon (which flows through an\nextensive plain into the Dead Sea) to the mount of Gilead, where the\nJordan issues from the sea of Tiberias; and which fell to the lot of the\ntribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. This province\nwas about sixty miles from north to south, and forty from east to west.\nThe principal places were Penuel, on the left of the Jabbok, which forms\nthe northern border of the country; Succoth, on the banks of the Jordan,\na little farther south; Bethabara, a little below Succoth, where was a\nplace of passage over the river; Amathus, afterward named Assalt, a\nstrong town below the influx of the torrent Jazer; Livias, between Mount\nNebo and the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, a town which was so\nnamed by Herod, in honour of Livia, the wife of Augustus; Mach\u00e6rus, a\ncitadel on a steep rock, south of Livias, near the upper end of the Dead\nSea; Lasa, or Calle-rhoe, celebrated for its hot springs, between\nMach\u00e6rus and the river Arnon; Herodium, a fort built by Herod a few\nmiles farther inland, as a protection against the Moabites; Aroer, a\ntown of Moab, seven leagues east of the Dead Sea; Castra Amonensia, a\nRoman station, supposed to be the ancient Mephoath, seven leagues\nnorth-east of Aroer; Hesbon, or Esbus, the capital of Sihon, anciently\nfamed for its fish pools, seven leagues east from the Jordan, three from\nMount Nebo, and nearly in the centre of the province; Madaba, now\nEl-Belkaa, three leagues south-east of Hesbon; Jazer, or Tira, a\nLevitical city on a small lake, five leagues north-east of Hesbon. To\nthe south of Per\u00e6a lies a territory called Moabites, the capital of\nwhich was Rabbath-Moab, afterward named Areopolis; and to the south-west\nof which was Charac-Moab, or Karak, a fortress on the summit of a hill,\nat the entrance of a deep valley.\n\nTo the north of Per\u00e6a were situated several districts, which, as forming\npart of the kingdom of Judea under Herod the Great, require to be\nbriefly noticed in this account; and which do properly come under the\ngeneral name of Per\u00e6a, as being situated on the eastward of the river\nJordan. These were Galaadites, or Gileadites, in 32\u00b0 20\u00b4 north latitude,\nnow Zarca, east from Jordan, and north from the Jabbok; containing the\ncities of Ramoth-Gilead, Mahanaim, Jabesh-Gilead, at the foot of Mount\nGilead. Batan\u00e6a, anciently Basan, now Bitinia, in 32\u00b0 25\u00b4 north\nlatitude, formerly celebrated for its oaks and pastures, was situated to\nthe north of Galaadites, and contained the cities of Adrea, or Edrei,\nAstaroth, and Bathyra. Gaulonitis, a narrow strip of land between\nBatan\u00e6a and the shore of the sea of Tiberias, stretching northward to\nMount Hermon, and containing Gamala, a strong town near the southern\nextremity of the sea of Tiberias; Argob, between this sea and Mount\nHippos; Julias, supposed to be the same as Chorazin, and by others to be\nBethsaida; and Seleuca, a fortified place on the east border of Lacus\nSamochonitis. Auranitis, or Itur\u00e6a, a mountainous and barren tract north\nof Batan\u00e6a, and bounded on the west by a branch of Mount Hermon,\ncontained Bostra, or Bozra, about fifty miles east from the sea of\nTiberias, bordering on Arabia Petr\u00e6a, afterward enlarged by Trajan, and\nnamed Trajana Bostra; and Trachonitis, in 33\u00b0 15\u00b4 north latitude,\nbetween Hermon and Antilibanus, eastward from the sources of Jordan, and\ncontaining Baalgad, Mispah, Paneas, or C\u00e6sarea Philippi, and \u00c6nos,\nnearly twenty-five miles east of Pan\u00e6as, and as far south south-west of\nDamascus. There remains to be noticed the Decapolis, or confederation of\nten cities in the last mentioned districts, which having been occupied\nduring the Babylonish captivity by Heathen inhabitants, refused to adopt\nthe Mosaic ritual after the restoration of the Jews, and found it\nnecessary to unite their strength against the enterprises of the\nAsmonean princes. One of them, namely, Scythopolis, already described in\nthe account of Samaria, was situated to the west of Jordan; but the\nother nine were all to the east of that river, namely, Gadara, or Kedar,\na strong place on a hill, the capital of Per\u00e6a in the time of Josephus,\nabout sixty stadia east from the sea of Tiberias, and much frequented\nfor its hot baths: Hippos, sometimes called Susitha, thirty stadia\nnorth-west of Gadara; Dium, or Dion, of which the situation is unknown,\nbut conjectured by D\u2019Anville to have been about seven leagues eastward\nfrom Pella, a considerable town supplied with copious fountains, on the\nriver Jabbok, fourteen miles south-east of Gadara, and celebrated as the\nplace to which the Christians retired, by divine admonition, before the\ndestruction of Jerusalem; Canatha, south-east of C\u00e6sarea, and between\nthe Jordan and Mount Hermon; Garasa, afterward Jaras, three leagues\nnorth-east from the upper extremity of the sea of Tiberias, and much\nnoted during the crusades; Rabbath-Ammon, the capital of the Ammonites,\nsouth-east of Ramoth, and near the source of the Jabbok, on the confines\nof Arabia, afterward called Philadelphia by Ptolemy Philadelphus, from\nwhom it had received considerable improvements, of which the ruins are\nstill visible; Abila, four leagues east from Gadara, in a fertile tract\nbetween the river Hieromax and Mount Gilead; and Capitolais, a town in\nBatan\u00e6a, five or six leagues east north-east of Gadara.\n\nJUDEA, WILDERNESS OF, a wild and desert country along the southern\ncourse of the river Jordan, east of Jerusalem; that which by St. Matthew\nis called the wilderness of Judea, being described by St. Luke as \u201call\nthe country about Jordan;\u201d from whence this wilderness extended\nsouthward along the western side of the Dead Sea. This is a stony and\ndesolate region, of hopeless sterility, and most savage aspect;\nconsisting almost entirely of disordered piles of rocks, and rocky\nmountains. This was the wilderness in which John first preached and\nbaptized, and into which our Lord, after his own baptism, was led by the\nSpirit to be tempted, Matthew iv; Luke iv. Here, also, the mountain was\nsituated which formed the scene of one of the most striking parts of\nthis temptation. Maundrell describes this region as a most miserable,\ndry, and barren place; consisting of high rocky mountains, so torn and\ndisordered, as if the earth had here suffered some great convulsion. Mr.\nBuckingham, who visited the same part in 1816, says, \u201cAs we proceeded to\nthe northward, we had on our left a lofty peak of the range of hills\nwhich border the plain of the Jordan on the west, and ended in this\ndirection the mountains of Judea. This peak is considered to be that to\nwhich Jesus was transported by the devil during his fast of forty days\nin the wilderness; \u2018after which he was an hungered.\u2019 Nothing can be more\nforbidding than the aspect of these hills; not a blade of verdure is to\nbe seen over all their surface, and not the sound of any living being is\nto be heard throughout all their extent. They form, indeed, a most\nappropriate scene for that wilderness in which the Son of God is said to\nhave dwelt with the wild beasts, \u2018while the angels ministered unto\nhim.\u2019\u201d\n\nJUDGES is applied to certain eminent persons chosen by God himself to\ngovern the Jews from the time of Joshua till the establishment of the\nkings. For the nature and duration of their office, and the powers with\nwhich they were invested, see JEWS. The judges were not ordinary\nmagistrates, but were appointed by God on extraordinary occasions; as to\nhead the armies, to deliver the people from their enemies, &c. Salian\nhas observed, that they not only presided in courts of justice, but were\nalso at the head of the councils, the armies, and of every thing that\nconcerned the government of the state; though they never assumed the\ntitle either of princes, governors, or the like.\n\nSalian remarks seven points wherein they differed from kings: 1. They\nwere not hereditary. 2. They had no absolute power of life and death,\nbut only according to the laws, and dependently upon them. 3. They never\nundertook war at their own pleasure, but only when they were commanded\nby God, or called to it by the people. 4. They exacted no tribute. 5.\nThey did not succeed each other immediately, but after the death of one\nthere was frequently an interval of several years before a successor was\nappointed. 6. They did not use the ensigns of sovereignty, the sceptre\nor diadem. 7. They had no authority to make any laws, but were only to\ntake care of the observance of those of Moses. Godwin, in his \u201cMoses and\nAaron,\u201d compares them to the Roman dictators, who were appointed only on\nextraordinary emergencies, as in case of war abroad, or conspiracies at\nhome, and whose power, while they continued in office, was great, and\neven absolute. Thus the Hebrew judges seem to have been appointed only\nin cases of national trouble and danger. This was the case particularly\nwith respect to Othniel, Ehud, and Gideon. The power of the judges,\nwhile in office, was very great; nor does it seem to have been limited\nto a certain time, like that of the Roman dictators, which continued for\nhalf a year; nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose, that, when they\nhad performed the business for which they were appointed, they retired\nto a private life. This Godwin infers from Gideon\u2019s refusing to take\nupon him the perpetual government of Israel, as being inconsistent with\nthe theocracy.\n\nBeside these superior judges, every city in the commonwealth had its\nelders, who formed a court of judicature, with a power of determining\nlesser matters in their respective districts. The rabbies say, there\nwere three such elders or judges in each lesser city, and twenty-three\nin the greater. But Josephus, whose authority has greater weight, speaks\nof seven judges in each, without any such distinction of greater and\nless. Sigonius supposes that these elders and judges of cities were the\noriginal constitution settled in the wilderness by Moses, upon the\nadvice given him by Jethro, Exod. xviii, 21, 22, and continued by divine\nappointment after the settlement in the land of Canaan; whereas others\nimagine that the Jethronian prefectures were a peculiar constitution,\nsuited to their condition while encamped in the wilderness, but laid\naside after they came into Canaan. It is certain, however, that there\nwas a court of judges and officers, appointed in every city, by the law\nof Moses, Deut. xvi, 18. How far, and in what respects, these judges\ndiffered from the elders of the city, it is not easy to ascertain; and\nwhether they were the same or different persons. Perhaps the title\nelders may denote their seniority and dignity; and that of judges, the\noffice they sustained. The lower courts of justice, in their several\ncities, were held in their gates, Deut. xvi, 15. Each tribe had its\nrespective prince, whose office related chiefly, if not altogether, to\nmilitary affairs. We read also of the princes of the congregation, who\npresided in judiciary matters. These are called elders, and were seventy\nin number, Num. xi, 16, 17, 24, 25. But it does not appear whether or\nnot this consistory of seventy elders was a perpetual, or only a\ntemporary, institution. Some have supposed that it was the same that\nafterward became famous under the appellation of sanhedrim; but others\nconceive the institution of the seventy elders to have been only\ntemporary, for the assistance of Moses in the government, before the\nsettlement in the land of Canaan; and that the sanhedrim was first set\nup in the time of the Maccabees. See SANHEDRIM.\n\nJUDGES, BOOK OF, a canonical book of the Old Testament, containing the\nhistory of the Israelitish judges, of whom we have been speaking in the\npreceding article. The author is not known. It is probable the work did\nnot come from any single hand, being rather a collection of several\nlittle histories, which at first were separate, but were afterward\ncollected by Ezra or Samuel into a single volume; and, in all\nlikelihood, were taken from the ancient journals, annals, or memoirs,\ncomposed by the several judges. The antiquity of this book is\nunquestionable, as it must have been written before the time of David,\nsince the description, Judges i, 21, was no longer true of Jerusalem\nafter he had taken possession of it, and had introduced a third class of\ninhabitants of the tribe of Judah. Eichorn acknowledges that it does not\nbear the marks of subsequent interpolation. Dr. Patrick is of opinion\nthat the five last chapters are a distinct history, in which the author\ngives an account of several memorable transactions, which occurred in or\nabout the time of the judges; whose history he would not interrupt by\nintermixing these matters with it, and therefore reserved them to be\nrelated by themselves in the second part, or appendix.\n\nJUDGMENT, DAY OF, is that important period which shall terminate the\npresent dispensation of grace toward the fallen race of Adam, put an end\nto time, and introduce the eternal destinies of men and angels, Acts\nxvi, 31; 1 Cor. xv, 24\u201326; 1 Thess. iv, 14\u201317; Matt. xxv, 31\u201346. It is\nin reference to this solemn period that the Apostle Peter says, \u201cThe\nheavens and the earth which now exist are by the word of God reserved in\nstore unto fire, against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly\nmen,\u201d 2 Peter iii, 7. Several eminent commentators understand this\nprophecy as a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. In support of\ntheir interpretation, they appeal to the ancient Jewish prophecies,\nwhere, as they contend, the revolutions in the political state of\nempires and nations are foretold in the same forms of expression with\nthose introduced in Peter\u2019s prediction. The following are the prophecies\nto which they appeal:--Isaiah xxxiv, 4, where the destruction of Idumea\nis foretold under the figures of dissolving the host of heaven, and of\nrolling the heaven together as a scroll, and of the falling down of all\ntheir host as the leaf falleth off from the vine. Ezekiel xxxii, 7,\nwhere the destruction of Egypt is described by the figures of covering\nthe heaven, and making the stars thereof dark; and of covering the sun\nwith a cloud, and of hindering the moon from giving her light. In Joel\nii, 10, the invasion of Judea by foreign armies is thus foretold: \u201cThe\nearth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble; the sun and\nthe moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.\u201d And\nin verses 30, 31, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is thus\npredicted: \u201cI will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood,\nand fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness,\nand the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord\ncome.\u201d God, threatening the Jews, is introduced saying, \u201cIn that day I\nwill cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in\nthe clear day,\u201d Amos viii, 9. The overthrow of Judaism and Heathenism is\nthus foretold: \u201cYet once and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and\nthe sea and the dry land,\u201d Haggai ii, 6. Lastly: our Lord, in his\nprophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, has the following expressions:\n\u201cAfter the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the\nmoon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and\nthe powers of heaven shall be shaken,\u201d Matt. xxiv, 29.\n\nNow it is remarkable that, in these prophecies, none of the prophets\nhave spoken, as Peter has done, of the entire destruction of this\nmundane system, nor of the destruction of any part thereof. They mention\nonly the rolling of the heavens together as a scroll, the obscuring of\nthe light of the sun and of the moon, the shaking of the heavens and the\nearth, and the falling down of the stars: whereas Peter speaks of the\nutter destruction of all the parts of this mundane system by fire. This\ndifference affords room for believing that the events foretold by the\nprophets are different in their nature from those foretold by the\nApostle; and that they are to be figuratively understood, while those\npredicted by the Apostle are to be understood literally. To this\nconclusion, likewise, the phraseology of the prophets, compared with\nthat of the Apostle, evidently leads: for the prophetic phraseology,\nliterally interpreted, exhibits impossibilities; such as the rolling of\nthe heavens together as a scroll; the turning of the moon into blood,\nand the falling down of the stars from heaven as the leaf of a tree. Not\nso the apostolic phraseology: for the burning of the heavens, or\natmosphere, and its passing away with a great noise; and the burning of\nthe earth and the works thereon, together with the burning and melting\nof the elements, that is, the constituent parts of which this\nterraqueous globe is composed; are all things possible, and therefore\nmay be literally understood; while the things mentioned by the prophets\ncan only be taken figuratively. This, however, is not all. There are\nthings in the Apostle\u2019s prophecy which show that he intended it to be\ntaken literally. As, 1. He begins with an account of the perishing of\nthe old world, to demonstrate against the scoffers the possibility of\nthe perishing of the present heavens and earth. But that example would\nnot have suited his purpose; unless, by the burning of the present\nheavens and earth, he had meant the destruction of the material fabric.\nWherefore, the opposition stated in this prophecy between the perishing\nof the old world by water, and the perishing of the present world by\nfire, shows that the latter is to be as real a destruction of the\nmaterial fabric as the former was. 2. The circumstance of the present\nheavens and earth being treasured up and kept, ever since the first\ndeluge, from all after deluges, in order to their being destroyed by\nfire at the day of judgment, shows, we think, that the Apostle is\nspeaking of a real, and not of a metaphorical, destruction of the\nheavens and earth. 3. This appears, likewise, from the Apostle\u2019s\nforetelling that, after the present heavens and earth are burned, new\nheavens and a new earth are to appear, in which the righteous are for\never to dwell. 4. The time fixed by the Apostle for the burning of the\nheavens and the earth, namely, the day of judgment and punishment of\nungodly men, shows that the Apostle is speaking, not of the destruction\nof a single city or nation during the subsistence of the world, but of\nthe earth itself, with all the wicked who have dwelt thereon. These\ncircumstances persuade us that this prophecy, as well as the one\nrecorded, 2 Thess. i, 9, is not to be interpreted metaphorically of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem; but should be understood literally of the\ngeneral judgment, and of the destruction of our mundane system.\n\nBut \u201cit is appointed unto men once to die, and after death the\njudgment.\u201d These two events are inseparably linked together in the\ndivine decree, and they reciprocally reflect importance on each other.\nDeath is, indeed, the terror of our nature. Men may contrive to keep it\nfrom their thoughts, but they cannot think of it without fearful\napprehensions of its consequences. It was justly to be dreaded by man in\nhis state of innocence; and to the unrenewed man it ever was, and ever\nwill be, a just object of abhorrence. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which\nhas brought life and immortality to light, is the only sovereign\nantidote against this universal evil. To the believer in Christ, its\nrough aspect is smoothed, and its terrors cease to be alarming. To him\nit is the messenger of peace; its sting is plucked out; its dark valley\nis the road to perfect bliss and life immortal. To him, \u201cto live is\nChrist, and to die is gain,\u201d Phil. i, 21. To die! speaking properly, he\ncannot die. He has already died in Christ, and with him: his \u201clife is\nhid with Christ in God,\u201d Romans vi, 8; Col. iii, 3.\n\nWith this conquest of the fear of death is nearly allied another\nglorious privilege resulting from union with the Redeemer; that, when he\nshall appear, we may have confidence, and \u201cnot be ashamed before him at\nhis coming,\u201d 1 John ii, 28. Were death all that we have to dread, death\nmight be braved. But after death there is a judgment; a judgment\nattended with circumstances so tremendous as to shake the hearts of the\nboldest of the sons of nature. Then \u201cmen shall seek death, and shall not\nfind it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them,\u201d Rev.\nix, 6. Then shall come indeed an awful day; a day to which all that have\npreceded it are intended to be subservient; when the Lord shall appear\nin the united splendour of creating, of governing, and of judicial\nmajesty, to finish his purposes respecting man and earth, and to\npronounce the final, irreversible sentence, \u201cIt is done!\u201d Rev. xxi, 6.\nNothing of terror or magnificence hitherto beheld,--no glory of the\nrising sun after a night of darkness and of storm,--no convulsions of\nthe earth,--no wide irruption of waters,--no flaming comet dragging its\nburning train over half the heaven, can convey to us an adequate\nconception of that day of terrible brightness and irresistible\ndevastation. Creation then shall be uncreated. \u201cThe heavens shall pass\naway with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat;\nthe earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up,\u201d 2\nPeter iii, 10. The Lord shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, 2\nThess. i, 7, 8, arrayed in all the glory of his Godhead, and attended by\nhis mighty angels, Matt. xvi, 27; xxv, 31. All that are in the grave\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth, John v, 28, 29. Earth and\nsea shall give up the dead which are in them. All that ever lived shall\nappear before him, Rev. xx, 12, 13. The judgment shall sit; and the\nbooks shall be opened, Dan. vii, 10. The eye of Omniscience detects\nevery concealment by which they would screen from observation\nthemselves, or their iniquity. The last reluctant sinner is finally\nseparated from the congregation of the righteous, Psalm i, 5; and\ninflexible justice, so often disregarded, derided, and defied, gives\nforth their eternal doom! But to the saints this shall be a day of glory\nand honour. They shall be publicly acknowledged by God as his people;\npublicly justified from the slanders of the world; invested with\nimmortal bodies; presented by Christ to the Father; and admitted into\nthe highest felicity in the immediate presence of God for ever. These\nare the elevating, the transporting views, which made the Apostle Paul\nspeak with so much desire and earnest expectation of the \u201cday of\nChrist.\u201d\n\nJUSTICE is in Scripture taken for that essential perfection in God,\nwhereby he is infinitely righteous and just, both in himself and in all\nhis proceedings with his creatures, Psalm lxxxix, 14. 2. That political\nvirtue which renders to every man his due; and is first, distributive,\nwhich concerns princes, magistrates, &c, Job xxix, 14; secondly,\ncommunicative, which concerns all persons in their dealings one with\nanother, Gen. xviii, 19.\n\nJUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION OF. According to the Mosaic law, there were to\nbe judges in all the cities, whose duty it was likewise to exercise\njudicial authority in the neighbouring villages; but weighty causes and\nappeals went up to the supreme judge or ruler of the commonwealth, and,\nin case of a failure here, to the high priest, Deut. xvii, 8, 9. In the\ntime of the monarchy, weighty causes and appeals went up, of course, to\nthe king, who, in very difficult cases, seems to have consulted the high\npriest, as is customary at the present day among the Persians and\nOttomans. The judicial establishment was reorganized after the\ncaptivity, and two classes of judges, the inferior and superior, were\nappointed, Ezra vii, 25. The more difficult cases, nevertheless, and\nappeals, were either brought before the ruler of the state, called \u05e4\u05d7\u05d4,\nor before the high priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a\nsupreme, judicial tribunal was instituted, which is first mentioned\nunder Hyrcanus II. This tribunal is not to be confounded with the\nseventy-two counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil\nadministration of the government, but who never filled the office of\njudges. See SANHEDRIM.\n\nJosephus states, that in every city there was a tribunal of seven\njudges, with two Levites as apparitors, and that it was a Mosaic\ninstitution. That there existed such an institution in his time, there\nis no reason to doubt, but he probably erred in referring its origin to\nso early a period as the days of Moses. (See _Judges_.) This tribunal,\nwhich decided causes of less moment, is denominated in the New Testament\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or _the judgment_, Matt. v, 22. The Talmudists mention a\ntribunal of twenty-three judges, and another of three judges; but\nJosephus is silent in respect to them. The courts of twenty-three judges\nwere the same with the synagogue tribunals, mentioned in John xvi, 2;\nwhich merely tried questions of a religious nature, and sentenced to no\nother punishment than \u201cforty stripes save one,\u201d 2 Cor. xi, 24. The court\nof three judges was merely a session of referees, which was allowed to\nthe Jews by the Roman laws; for the Talmudists themselves, in describing\nthis court, go on to observe, that one judge was chosen by the accuser,\nanother by the accused, and a third by the two parties conjunctly; which\nshows at once the nature of the tribunal.\n\nThe time at which courts were held, and causes were brought before them\nfor trial, was in the morning, Jer. xxi, 12; Psalm ci, 8. According to\nthe Talmudists, it was not lawful to try causes of a capital nature in\nthe night; and it was equally unlawful to examine a cause, pass\nsentence, and put it in execution on the same day. The last particular\nwas very strenuously insisted on. It is worthy of remark, that all of\nthese practices, which were observed in other trials, were neglected in\nthe tumultuous trial of Jesus, Matt. xxvi, 57; John xviii, 13\u201318. The\nplaces for judicial trials were in very ancient times the gates of\ncities, which were well adapted to this purpose. (See _Gates_.)\nOriginally, trials were every where very summary, excepting in Egypt;\nwhere the accuser committed the charge to writing, the accused replied\nin writing, the accuser repeated the charge, and the accused answered\nagain, &c, Job xiv, 17. It was customary in Egypt for the judge to have\nthe code of laws placed before him, a practice which still prevails in\nthe east. Moses interdicted, in the most express and decided manner,\ngifts or bribes, which were intended to corrupt the judges, Exod. xxii,\n20, 21; xxiii, 1\u20139; Lev. xix, 15; Deut. xxiv, 14, 15. Moses also, by\nlegal precautions, prevented capital punishments, and corporal\npunishments which were not capital, from being extended, as was done in\nother nations, both to parents and their children, and thus involving\nthe innocent and the guilty in that misery which was justly due only to\nthe latter, Exod. xxiii, 7; Deut. xxiv, 16; Dan. vi, 24.\n\nThe ceremonies which were observed in conducting a judicial trial, were\nas follows: 1. The accuser and the accused both made their appearance\nbefore the judge or judges, Deut. xxv, 1, who sat with legs crossed upon\nthe floor, which was furnished for their accommodation with carpet and\ncushions. A secretary was present, at least in more modern times, who\nwrote down the sentence, and, indeed, every thing in relation to the\ntrial; for instance, the articles of agreement that might be entered\ninto previous to the commencement of the judicial proceedings, Isaiah x,\n1, 2; Jer. xxxii, 1\u201314. The Jews assert that there were two secretaries,\nthe one being seated to the right of the judge, who wrote the sentence\nof not guilty, the other to the left, who wrote the sentence of\ncondemnation, Matt. xxv, 33\u201346. That an apparitor or beadle was present,\nis apparent from other sources. 2. The accuser was denominated in Hebrew\n\u05e9\u05d8\u05df, or _the adversary_, Zech. iii, 1\u20133; Psalm cix, 6. The judge or\njudges were seated, but both of the parties implicated stood up, the\naccuser standing to the right hand of the accused: the latter, at least\nafter the captivity, when the cause was one of great consequence,\nappeared with hair dishevelled, and in a garment of mourning. 3. The\nwitnesses were sworn, and, in capital cases, the parties concerned, 1\nSam. xiv, 37\u201340; Matt. xxvi, 63. In order to establish the charges\nalleged, two witnesses were necessary, and, including the accuser,\nthree. The witnesses were examined separately, but the person accused\nhad the liberty to be present when their testimony was given in, Num.\nxxxv, 30; Deut. xvii, 1\u201315; Matt. xxvi, 59. Proofs might be brought from\nother sources; for instance, from written contracts, or from papers in\nevidence of any thing purchased or sold, of which there were commonly\ntaken two copies, the one to be sealed, the other to be left open, as\nwas customary in the time of Jerom, Jer. xxxii, 10\u201313. 4. The parties\nsometimes, as may be inferred from Prov. xviii, 18, made use of the lot\nin determining the points of difficulty between them, but not without a\nmutual agreement. The sacred lot of Urim and Thummim was anciently\nresorted to, in order to detect the guilty, Joshua vii, 14\u201324; 1 Sam.\nxiv; but the determination of a case of right or wrong in this way was\nnot commanded by Moses. 5. The sentence, very soon after the completion\nof the examination, was pronounced; and the criminal, without any delay,\neven if the offence were a capital one, was hastened away to the place\nof punishment, Joshua vii, 22, &c; 1 Sam. xxii, 18; 1 Kings ii, 23.\n\nA few additional remarks will cast some light upon some passages of\nScripture: the station of the accused was in an eminent place in the\ncourt, that the people might see them, and hear what was alleged against\nthem, and the proofs of it, together with the defence made by the\ncriminals. This explains the reason of the remark by the Evangelist\nMatthew, concerning the posture of our Lord at his trial: \u201cJesus stood\nbefore the governor;\u201d and that, in a mock trial, many ages before the\nbirth of Christ, in which some attention was also paid to public forms,\nNaboth was set on high among the people, 1 Kings xxi, 9. The accusers\nand the witnesses also stood, unless they were allowed to sit by the\nindulgence of the judges, when they stated the accusation, or gave their\ntestimony. To this custom of the accusers rising from their seats, when\ncalled by the court to read the indictment, our Lord alludes in his\nanswer to the scribes and Pharisees, who expressed a wish to see him\nperform some miracle: \u201cThe queen of the south shall rise up in the\njudgment with this generation, and shall condemn it,\u201d Matt. xii, 42.\nAccording to this rule, which seems to have been invariably observed,\nthe Jews who accused the Apostle Paul at the bar of Festus the Roman\ngovernor, \u201cstood round about,\u201d while they stated the crimes which they\nhad to lay to his charge, Acts xxv, 7. They were compelled to stand as\nwell as the prisoner, by the established usage of the courts of justice\nin the east. The Romans often put criminals to the question, or\nendeavoured to extort a confession from them by torture. Agreeably to\nthis cruel and unjust custom, \u201cthe chief captain commanded Paul to be\nbrought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by\nscourging,\u201d Acts xxii, 24. It was usual, especially among the Romans,\nwhen a man was charged with a capital crime, and during his arraignment,\nto let down his hair, suffer his beard to grow long, to wear filthy,\nragged garments, and appear in a very dirty and sordid habit; on account\nof which they were called _sordidati_. When the person accused was\nbrought into court to be tried, even his near relations, friends, and\nacquaintances, before the court voted, appeared with dishevelled hair,\nand clothed with garments foul and out of fashion, weeping, crying, and\ndeprecating punishment. The accused sometimes appeared before the judges\nclothed in black, and his head covered with dust. In allusion to this\nancient custom, the Prophet Zechariah represents Joshua, the high\npriest, when he appeared before the Lord, and Satan stood at his right\nhand to accuse him, as clothed with filthy garments, Zech. iii, 3. After\nthe cause was carefully examined, and all parties impartially heard, the\npublic crier, by command of the presiding magistrate, ordered the judges\nto bring in their verdict. The most ancient way of giving sentence, was\nby white and black sea shells, or pebbles. This custom has been\nmentioned by Ovid in these lines:--\n\n             _Mos erat antiquis, niveis atrisque lapillis,\n             His damnare reos, illis absolvere culpa._\n\n\u201cIt was a custom among the ancients, to give their votes by white or\nblack stones; with these they condemned the guilty, with those acquitted\nthe innocent.\u201d In allusion to this ancient custom, our Lord promises to\ngive the spiritual conqueror \u201ca white stone,\u201d Rev. ii, 17; the white\nstone of absolution or approbation. When sentence of condemnation was\npronounced, if the case was capital, the witnesses put their hands on\nthe head of the criminal, and said, \u201cThy blood be upon thine own head.\u201d\nTo this custom the Jews alluded, when they cried out at the trial of\nChrist, \u201cHis blood be on us and on our children.\u201d Then was the\nmalefactor led to execution, and none were allowed openly to lament his\nmisfortune. His hands were secured with cords, and his feet with\nfetters; a custom which furnished David with an affecting allusion, in\nhis lamentation over the dust of Abner: \u201cThy hands were not bound, nor\nthy feet put in fetters,\u201d 2 Sam. iii, 34; that is, he was put\ntreacherously to death, without form of justice.\n\n2. Executions in the east are often very prompt and arbitrary, when\nresulting from royal authority. In many cases the suspicion is no sooner\nentertained, or the cause of offence given, than the fatal order is\nissued; the messenger of death hurries to the unsuspecting victim, shows\nhis warrant, and executes his orders that instant in silence and\nsolitude. Instances of this kind are continually occurring in the\nTurkish and Persian histories. When the enemies of a great man among the\nTurks have gained influence enough over the prince to procure a warrant\nfor his death, a _capidgi_, the name of the officer who executes these\norders, is sent to him, who shows him the order he has received to carry\nback his head; the other takes the warrant of the grand signior, kisses\nit, puts it on his head in token of respect, and then, having performed\nhis ablutions and said his prayers, freely resigns his life. The\n_capidgi_, having strangled him, cuts off his head, and brings it to\nConstantinople. The grand signior\u2019s order is implicitly obeyed; the\nservants of the victim never attempt to hinder the executioner, although\nthese _capidgis_ come very often with few or no attendants. It appears\nfrom the writings of Chardin, that the nobility and grandees of Persia\nare put to death in a manner equally silent, hasty, and unobstructed.\nSuch executions were not uncommon among the Jews under the government of\ntheir kings. Solomon sent Benaiah as his _capidgi_, or executioner, to\nput Adonijah, a prince of his own family, to death; and Joab, the\ncommander-in-chief of the forces in the reign of his father. A _capidgi_\nlikewise beheaded John the Baptist in prison, and carried his head to\nthe court of Herod. To such silent and hasty executioners the royal\npreacher seems to refer in that proverb, \u201cThe wrath of a king is as\nmessengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it,\u201d Prov. xvi, 14: his\ndispleasure exposes the unhappy offender to immediate death, and may\nfill the unsuspecting bosom with terror and dismay, like the appearance\nof a _capidgi_; but by wise and prudent conduct a man may sometimes\nescape the danger. From the dreadful promptitude with which Benaiah\nexecuted the commands of Solomon on Adonijah and Joab, it may be\nconcluded that the executioner of the court was as little ceremonious,\nand the ancient Jews, under their kings, nearly as passive, as the Turks\nor Persians. The Prophet Elisha is the only person on the inspired\nrecord who ventured to resist the bloody mandate of the sovereign; the\nincident is recorded in these terms: \u201cBut Elisha sat in his house, and\nthe elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him; but\nere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See how this son\nof a murderer hath sent to take away mine head? Look ye, when the\nmessenger cometh, shut the door and hold him fast at the door; is not\nthe sound of his master\u2019s feet behind him?\u201d 2 Kings vi, 32. But if such\nmandates had not been too common among the Jews, and in general\nsubmitted to without resistance, Jehoram had scarcely ventured to\ndespatch a single messenger to take away the life of so eminent a person\nas Elisha.\n\nCriminals were at other times executed in public; and then commonly\nwithout the city. To such executions without the gate, the Psalmist\nundoubtedly refers in this complaint: \u201cThe dead bodies of thy saints\nhave they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven; the flesh of\nthy saints unto the beasts of the earth; their blood have they shed like\nwater round about Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them,\u201d Psalm\nlxxix, 2, 3. The last clause admits of two senses: 1. There was no\nfriend or relation left to bury them. 2. None were allowed to perform\nthis last office. The despotism of eastern princes often proceeds to a\ndegree of extravagance which is apt to fill the mind with astonishment\nand horror. It has been thought, from time immemorial, highly criminal\nto bury those who had lost their lives by the hand of an executioner,\nwithout permission. In Morocco, no person dares to bury the body of a\nmalefactor without an order from the emperor; and Windus, who visited\nthat country, speaking of a man who was sawn in two, informs us, that\nhis body must have remained to be eaten by the dogs if the emperor had\nnot pardoned him; an extravagant custom to pardon a man after he is\ndead; but unless he does so, no person dares bury the body. To such a\ndegree of savage barbarity it is probable the enemies of God\u2019s people\ncarried their opposition, that no person dared to bury the dead bodies\nof their innocent victims.\n\nIn ancient times, persons of the highest rank and station were employed\nto execute the sentence of the law. They had not then, as we have at\npresent, public executioners; but the prince laid his commands on any of\nhis courtiers whom he chose, and probably selected the person for whom\nhe had the greatest favour. Gideon commanded Jether, his eldest son, to\nexecute his sentence on the kings of Midian; the king of Israel ordered\nthe footmen who stood around him, and who were probably a chosen body of\nsoldiers for the defence of his person, to put to death the priests of\nthe Lord; and when they refused, Doeg, an Edomite, one of his principal\nofficers. Long after the days of Saul, the reigning monarch commanded\nBenaiah, the chief captain of his armies, to perform that duty.\nSometimes the chief magistrate executed the sentence of the law with his\nown hands; for when Jether shrunk from the duty which his father\nrequired, Gideon, at that time the supreme magistrate in Israel, did not\nhesitate to do it himself. In these times such a command would be\nreckoned equally barbarous and unbecoming; but the ideas which were\nentertained in those primitive ages of honour and propriety, were in\nmany respects extremely different from ours. In Homer, the exasperated\nUlysses commanded his son Telemachus to put to death the suitors of\nPenelope, which was immediately done. The custom of employing persons of\nhigh rank to execute the sentence of the law, is still retained in the\nprincipality of Senaar, where the public executioner is one of the\nprincipal nobility; and, by virtue of his office, resides in the royal\npalace.\n\nJUSTIFICATION, in common language, signifies a vindication from any\ncharge which affects the moral character; but in theology it is used for\nthe acceptance of one, by God, who is, and confesses himself to be,\nguilty. To justify a sinner, says Mr. Bunting, in an able sermon on this\nimportant subject, is to account and consider him relatively righteous;\nand to deal with him as such, notwithstanding his past actual\nunrighteousness, by clearing, absolving, discharging, and releasing him\nfrom various penal evils, and especially from the wrath of God, and the\nliability to eternal death, which, by that past unrighteousness, he had\ndeserved; and by accepting him as if just, and admitting him to the\nstate, the privileges, and the rewards of righteousness. Hence it\nappears that justification, and the remission or forgiveness of sin, are\nsubstantially the same thing. These expressions relate to one and the\nsame act of God, to one and the same privilege of his believing people.\nAccordingly, St. Paul clearly uses justification and forgiveness as\nsynonymous terms, when he says, \u201cBe it known unto you, therefore, men\nand brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness\nof sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from\nwhich ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,\u201d Acts xiii, 38, 39.\nAlso in the following passage: \u201cTo him that worketh not, but believeth\non him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for\nrighteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,\nunto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are\nthey whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed\nis the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin,\u201d Rom. iv, 5\u20138. Here,\nthe justification of the ungodly, the counting or imputation of\nrighteousness, the forgiveness of iniquity, and the covering and\nnon-imputation of sin, are phrases which have all, perhaps, their\nvarious shades of meaning, but which express the very same blessing\nunder different views. But (1.) the justification of a sinner does not\nin the least degree alter or diminish the evil nature and desert of sin.\nFor we know \u201cit is God,\u201d the holy God, \u201cthat justifieth.\u201d And he can\nnever regard sin, on any consideration, or under any circumstances, with\nless than perfect and infinite hatred. Sin, therefore, is not changed in\nits nature, so as to be made less \u201cexceedingly sinful,\u201d or less worthy\nof wrath, by the pardon of the sinner. The penalty is remitted, and the\nobligation to suffer that penalty is dissolved; but it is still\nnaturally due, though graciously remitted. Hence appear the propriety\nand duty of continuing to confess and lament even pardoned sin with a\nlowly and contrite heart. Though released from its penal consequences by\nan act of divine clemency, we should still remember that the dust of\nself-abasement is our proper place before God, and should temper our\nexultation in his mercy by an humbling recollection of our natural\nliability to his wrath. \u201cI will establish my covenant with thee, and\nthou shalt know that I am the Lord: that thou mayest remember, and be\nconfounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when\nI am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord\nGod,\u201d Ezek. xvi, 62, 63. (2.) The account which has been given of\njustification, if correct, sufficiently points out the error of many of\nthe Roman Catholic divines, and of some mystic theologians, who seem to\nsuppose that to be justified is to be, not reckoned righteous, but\nactually made righteous, by the infusion of a sanctifying influence,\nproducing a positive and inherent conformity to the moral image of God.\nThis notion confounds the two distinct though kindred blessings of\njustification and regeneration. The former, in its Scriptural sense, is\nan act of God, not in or upon man, but for him, and in his favour; an\nact which, abstractedly considered, to use the words of Dr. Barrow,\n\u201crespects man only as its object, and translates him into another\nrelative state. The inherent principle of righteousness is a consequent\nof this act of God; connected with it, but not formally of it.\u201d (3.) The\njustification extends to all past sins; that is, to all guilt contracted\npreviously to that time at which the act of justification takes place.\nIn respect of this, it is, while it remains in force, a most full,\nperfect, and entire absolution from wrath. \u201cAll manner of sin\u201d is then\nforgiven. The pardon which is granted is a \u201cjustification,\u201d not merely\nfrom some things, from many things, from most things, but \u201cfrom all\nthings,\u201d Acts xiii, 39. God does not justify us, or pardon our\ninnumerable offences, by degrees, but at once. As by the law of works he\nis cursed, who \u201ccontinueth not in all things\u201d which that law enjoined,\nso he who is truly absolved by the Gospel is cleared from all and every\nthing which before stood against him; and \u201cthere is no condemnation to\nthem that are in Christ Jesus.\u201d Well may that Gospel which reveals and\noffers such a benefit be termed a \u201cgreat salvation!\u201d (4.) Another\nremark, which it may not be unnecessary to make, is, that justification,\nhowever effectual to our release from past guilt, does not terminate our\nstate of probation. It is not irreversible, any more than eternal. As he\nwho is now justified was once condemned, so he may in future come again\ninto condemnation, by relapsing into sin and unbelief, although at\npresent \u201caccepted in the Beloved.\u201d Thus Adam, before transgression, was\nin a state of favour; but as he had not then fulfilled, to the end of\nhis probation, the righteousness of that law under which he was placed,\nhis ultimate and final acceptance was not absolutely certain. His\nprivilege, as one accepted of God, might be forfeited, and was actually\nforfeited, by his subsequent sin. Now our own justification or pardon\nonly places us, as to this point, in similar circumstances. Though ever\nso clearly and fully forgiven, we are yet on our trial for eternity, and\nshould \u201clook to ourselves, that we lose not the things which we have\ngained.\u201d That justification may for our sin be reversed, appears from\nour Lord\u2019s parable of the two debtors, in which one who had obtained the\nblessing of forgiveness is represented as incurring the forfeiture of it\nby the indulgence of an unforgiving spirit toward his fellow servant,\nMatt. xviii, 23\u201335. Let us therefore \u201cwatch and pray, that we enter not\ninto temptation.\u201d\n\n2. The immediate results of justification are (1.) The restoration of\namity and intercourse between the pardoned sinner and the pardoning God.\nFor, \u201cbeing justified by faith, we have peace with God,\u201d and,\nconsequently, unforbidden access to him. The matter and ground of God\u2019s\ncontroversy with us being then removed by his act of gracious\nabsolution, we become the objects of his friendship. \u201cAbraham believed\nGod, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and he was\u201d\nimmediately \u201ccalled the friend of God,\u201d Jas. ii, 23; and so are all\nthose who are similarly justified. This reconciliation, however, does\nnot extend to their instant and absolute deliverance from all those\nevils which transgression has entailed on man. They are still liable,\nfor a season, to affliction and pain, to temporal suffering and\nmortality. These are portions of the original curse from which their\njustification does not as yet release them. But it entitles them to such\nsupports under all remaining trouble, and to such promises of a\nsanctifying influence with it, as will, if embraced, \u201cturn the curse\ninto a blessing.\u201d Whom the Lord loveth, he may still chasten, and in\nvery faithfulness afflict them. But these are acts of salutary\ndiscipline, rather than of vindictive displeasure. His friendship, not\nhis righteous hostility, is the principle from which they all proceed;\nand the salvation, not the destruction, of the sufferer is the end to\nwhich they are all directed. (2.) Another immediate result of\njustification is the adoption of the persons justified into the family\nof God, and their consequent right to eternal life of body and soul. God\ncondescends to become not only their Friend, but their Father; they are\nthe objects not merely of his amicable regard, but of his paternal\ntenderness. And, admitted to the relation of children, they become\nentitled to the children\u2019s inheritance; for, \u201cif children, then heirs;\nheirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with\nhim, that we may be also glorified together,\u201d Rom. viii, 17. (3.) With\nthese results of justification is inseparably connected another, of the\nutmost value and importance; namely, _the habitual indwelling of the\nHoly Spirit_. \u201cChrist hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being\nmade a curse for us; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the\nGentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the\nSpirit through faith,\u201d Gal. iii, 13, 14. \u201cBecause ye are sons, God hath\nsent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,\u201d Gal. iv, 6. With the\nremission of sins, St. Peter also connects, as an immediate result, as a\ndistinct but yet a simultaneous blessing, \u201cthe gift of the Holy Ghost,\u201d\nActs ii, 38. And in the fifth verse of this chapter, the Holy Ghost is\nsaid to be given to those who are justified by faith. Of this indwelling\nthe immediate effects are, (i.) _Tranquillity of conscience_. For he\ntestifies and manifests to those in whom he dwells their free\njustification and gracious adoption. The spirit which such persons have\nreceived is \u201cnot the spirit of bondage to fear, but the Spirit of\nadoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth\nwitness with our spirit that we are the children of God,\u201d Rom. viii, 15,\n16. (ii.) _Power over sin_; a prevailing desire and ability to walk\nbefore God in holy obedience. No sooner is the Holy Spirit enthroned in\nthe heart, than he begins to make all things new. In his genuine work,\npurity is always connected with consolation. Those to whom he witnesses\ntheir freedom from condemnation he also enables to \u201cwalk, not after the\nflesh, but after the Spirit,\u201d Rom. viii, 1. (iii.) _A joyous hope of\nheaven._ Their title results from the fact of their adoption; their\npower to rejoice in hope, from the Spirit\u2019s testimony of that fact. \u201cWe,\nthrough the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith,\u201d and\n\u201cabound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost,\u201d Gal. v, 5; Rom.\nxv, 13.\n\n3. To have a complete view of the method by which justification and all\nits consequent blessings are attained, we must consider the originating,\nthe meritorious, and the instrumental cause of justification. (1.) The\noriginating cause is the grace, the free, undeserved, and spontaneous\nlove of God toward fallen man. He remembered and pitied us in our low\nestate; for his mercy endureth for ever. \u201cAfter that the kindness and\nlove of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of\nrighteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved\nus. The grace of God bringeth salvation,\u201d Titus ii, 11; iii, 4, 5. We\nare \u201cjustified freely by his grace,\u201d Rom. iii, 24. But God is wise, and\nholy, and just, as well as merciful and gracious. And his wisdom\ndetermined, that, in order to reconcile the designs of his mercy toward\nsinners with the claims of his purity and justice, those designs should\nbe accomplished only through the intervention of a divine Redeemer. We\nare justified \u201cthrough our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d Rom. i, 5. (2.) Our Lord\nJesus Christ is the sole meritorious cause of our justification. All he\ndid and all he suffered in his mediatorial character may be said to have\ncontributed to this great purpose. For what he did, in obedience to the\nprecepts of the law, and what he suffered, in satisfaction of its\npenalty, taken together, constitute that mediatorial righteousness, for\nthe sake of which the Father is ever well pleased in him. Now, in this\nmediatorial righteousness all who are justified have a saving interest.\nIt is not meant that it is personally imputed to them in its formal\nnature or distinct acts; for against any such imputation there lie\ninsuperable objections both from reason and from Scripture. But the\ncollective merit and moral effects of all which the Mediator did and\nsuffered are so reckoned to our account when we are justified, that, for\nthe sake of Christ and in consideration of his obedience unto death, we\nare released from guilt, and accepted of God. From this statement of the\nmeritorious cause of justification, it appears that while our pardon is,\nin its origin, an act of the highest grace, it is also, in its mode, an\nact most perfectly consistent with God\u2019s essential righteousness, and\ndemonstrative of his inviolable justice. It proceeds not on the\nprinciple of abolishing the law or its penalty; for that would have\nimplied that the law was unduly rigorous, either in its precepts or in\nits sanctions. But it rests on the ground that the law has been\nmagnified and vindicated, and that its penalty, or sufferings, which\nwere fully equivalent to that penalty in a moral view, when the dignity\nof the sufferer is considered, have been sustained by our voluntary\nSubstitute. Thus \u201cgrace reigns through righteousness,\u201d not at the\nexpense of righteousness. \u201cNow, the righteousness of God without the law\nis manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the\nrighteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon\nall them that believe: being justified freely by his grace, through the\nredemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a\npropitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness\nfor the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;\nto declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be\njust, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,\u201d Romans iii,\n21\u201326. (3.) As to the instrumental cause of justification, the merit of\nthe blood of Jesus does not operate necessarily so as to produce our\npardon as an immediate and unavoidable effect, but through the\ninstrumentality of faith. The faith by which we are justified is present\nfaith, faith actually existing and exercised. We are not justified by\nto-morrow\u2019s faith foreseen; for that would lead to the Antinomian notion\nof justification from eternity, a notion which to mention is to confute.\nWe are not justified by yesterday\u2019s faith recorded or remembered; for\nthat would imply the opinion that justification is irreversible. The\njustification offered in the Scriptures is a justification upon\nbelieving, in which we are never savingly interested until we believe,\nand which continues in force only so long as we continue to believe. On\nall unbelievers the wrath of God abides. The atonement of Jesus was\nindeed accepted, as from him, at the time when it was offered; but it is\nnot accepted, as for us, to our individual justification, until we\nindividually believe, nor after we cease to believe. The OBJECT of\njustifying faith may be inferred from what has been before said, as to\nthe originating and meritorious causes of justification. It has respect,\nin general, to all that Christ is set forth in the Gospel as doing or\nsuffering, by the gracious appointment of the Father, in order to our\nredemption and pardon. But it has respect, in particular, to the atoning\nsacrifice of Christ, as exhibited by divine authority in the Scriptures,\nand as attested to be acceptable and sufficient by his resurrection from\nthe dead, and by his mediatorial exaltation at the right hand of God.\nThe acts or exercises of this faith seem to be three; or rather, that\nfaith which is required in order to our justification is a complex act\nof the mind, which includes three distinct but concurrent exertions of\nits powers. It includes, (1.) The assent of the understanding to the\ntruth of the testimony of God in the Gospel; and especially to that part\nof it which concerns the design and efficacy of the death of Jesus as a\nsacrifice for sin. (2.) The consent of the will and affections to this\nplan of salvation; such an approbation and choice of it as imply a\nrenunciation of every other refuge, and a steady and decided preference\nof this. Unbelief is called a disallowing of the foundation laid in\nZion; whereas faith includes a hearty allowance of it, and a thankful\nacquiescence in God\u2019s revealed method of forgiveness. (3.) From this\nassent of the enlightened understanding, and consent of the rectified\nwill, to the evangelical testimony concerning Christ crucified, results\nthe third thing, which is supposed to be implied in justifying faith;\nnamely, actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of his\nmerits. When, under the promised leading and influence of the Holy\nGhost, the penitent, sinner thus confidently relies and individually\nlays hold on Christ, then the work of justifying faith is complete;\nthen, and not till then, he is immediately justified. On the whole, it\nmay be said that the faith to which the privilege of justification is\nannexed, is such a belief of the Gospel, by the power of the Spirit of\nGod, as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in\nChrist, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble\nconfidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.\n\nThe grand doctrine of the Reformation was that of justification by\nfaith, and was therefore held by all the Lutheran and Reformed churches.\nThe Papists assert that man\u2019s inherent righteousness is the meritorious\ncause of his justification; many Protestant divines have endeavoured to\nunite the two, and have held that men are justified by faith and good\nworks; and others have equally departed from the opinions of the\nearliest reformers on the subject of justification, in representing it\nas resulting from the imputation of Christ\u2019s active and passive\nrighteousness to those that believe, instead of confining the imputation\nto the moral consequence and effect of both. In other words, that which\nis reckoned to us in our justification for righteousness is our faith in\nChrist\u2019s merits, and that not because of any intrinsic value in faith;\nbut only for the sake of those merits. In a mere moral sense man\u2019s sin\nor righteousness is imputed to him, when he is considered as actually\nthe doer of sinful or of righteous acts. A man\u2019s sin or righteousness is\nimputed to him in its _legal consequence_, under a government of rewards\nand punishments; and then to impute sin or righteousness signifies, in a\nlegal sense, to reckon and to account it, to acquit or condemn, and\nforthwith to punish, or to exempt from punishment. Thus Shimei entreats\nDavid, that he would \u201cnot impute folly to him,\u201d that is, that he would\nnot punish his folly. In this sense, too, David speaks of the\nblessedness of the man whose \u201ctransgression is forgiven,\u201d and to whom\nthe Lord \u201cimputeth not sin,\u201d that is, whom he forgives, so that the\nlegal consequence of his sin shall not fall upon him. This\nnon-imputation of sin, to a sinner, is expressly called the \u201cimputation\nof righteousness, without works;\u201d the imputation of righteousness is,\nthen, the non-punishment, or the pardon of sin; and if this passage be\nread in its connection, it will also be seen, that by \u201cimputing\u201d faith\nfor righteousness, the Apostle means precisely the same thing: \u201cBut to\nhim that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,\nhis faith is counted for righteousness; even as David also describeth\nthe man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying,\nBlessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are\ncovered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin.\u201d This\nquotation from David would have been nothing to the Apostle\u2019s purpose,\nunless he had understood the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of\nrighteousness, and the non-imputation of sin, to signify the same thing\nas \u201ccounting faith for righteousness,\u201d with only this difference, that\nthe introduction of the term \u201cfaith\u201d marks the _manner_ in which the\nforgiveness of sin is obtained. To have faith imputed for righteousness,\nis nothing more than to be justified by faith, which is also called by\nSt. Paul, \u201cbeing made righteous,\u201d that is, being placed by an act of\nfree forgiveness, through faith in Christ, in the condition of righteous\nmen, in this respect, that the penalty of the law does not lie against\nthem, and that they are the acknowledged objects of the divine favour.\nSee FAITH.\n\n\nKADESH-BARNEA, a station of the Israelites, to which they returned again\nafter thirty-eight years, is said to be in the wilderness of Zin, Num.\nxiii, 21; xx, 1; Deut. xxxii, 51; but in the wilderness of Paran, Num.\nxii, 16. In the Itinerary it is simply called Rithmah, \u201cthe wilderness.\u201d\nDr. Hales observes, that Wells, Shaw, the authors of the \u201cUniversal\nHistory,\u201d &c, have greatly perplexed and obscured the geography of this\nItinerary, by supposing that there were two places of this name distinct\nfrom each other. They consider the latter of them as situated on the\nwestern side of Mount Hor, toward the land of Canaan, and thus confound\nit with that Kadesh in the land of the Philistines, where Abraham\nsojourned, Gen. xvi, 13; xx, 1. But that it lay on the east side of\nMount Hor, is evident; for why should Moses send messengers from Kadesh\nto the king of Edom, requesting permission to pass through his\nterritories in the way to Canaan, if they were already at the verge of\nPalestine, Num. xx, 14? This application, however, was necessary if his\nterritories were situated between Canaan and the Israelites. The true\nsituation of Kadesh is ascertained beyond a doubt, from its lying\nbetween Mount Hor and Ezion-Geber, on the Elanitic Gulf, Num. xxxiii,\n35\u201337.\n\nKADMONITES, ancient inhabitants of the land of Canaan, whose habitation\nwas beyond Jordan, to the east of Phenicia, Gen. xv, 19. The Kadmonites\nwere descended from Canaan, the son of Ham. It has been conjectured that\nthe celebrated Cadmus, the founder of Thebes in B\u0153otia, was\noriginally a Kadmonite; and that his wife, Hermione, was so named from\nMount Hermon.\n\nKEDAR. This name signifies _black_ in the original; and hence Bochart\nconcludes that it refers to a people or tribe of Arabs who were more\nthan others burned by the sun; but none of the Arabs are black. The name\nis also supposed to refer to the black tents made of felt, which are\nstill in use; and Cant. i, 5, is quoted in support of this usage of the\nword: \u201cI am black, but comely as the tents of Kedar.\u201d But the Arabic\nroot is by some said to signify power and dignity. Kedar was the second\nson of Ishmael, whose family probably became more numerous, or more\nwarlike, than those of his brethren, and so took precedence of name.\nThis latter supposition appears probable from the manner in which they\nare mentioned by Isaiah, xxi, 16, 17, who speaks of \u201cthe glory of\nKedar,\u201d and \u201cthe archers and mighty men of Kedar.\u201d Their flocks are also\nspoken of by the same Prophet, Isaiah lx, 7, together with those of\nNebaioth, whose tribe or family both shared and outlived the glory of\nKedar.\n\nKEDRON, a small brook which, rising near Jerusalem, runs through the\nvalley on the east of the city, between it and the Mount of Olives.\nDescending into the valley from St. Stephen\u2019s gate, the traveller comes\nto the bed of the brook Kedron, which is but a few paces over. This\nbrook is stated by Pococke to have its rise a little way farther to the\nnorth, but its source does not appear to have been ascertained. Like the\nIlissus, it is dry at least nine months in the year; its bed is narrow\nand deep, which indicates that it must formerly have been the channel\nfor waters that have found some other and probably subterranean course.\nThere is now no water in it, except after heavy rains. A bridge is\nthrown over it a little below the gate of St. Stephen; and they say,\nthat when there is water, unless the torrent swells much, which very\nrarely occurs, it all runs under ground to the north of this bridge. The\ncourse of the brook is along the valley of Jehoshaphat, to the\nsouth-west corner of the city, and then turning to the south, it runs to\nthe Dead Sea.\n\nKENITES, people who dwelt westward of the Dead Sea, and extended\nthemselves pretty far into Arabia Petr\u00e6a; for Jethro, the priest of\nMidian, and father-in-law to Moses, was a Kenite, Judges i, 16; 1 Chron.\nii, 55; 1 Sam. xv, 6. When Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites, the\nKenites, who had joined them, perhaps by compulsion, were ordered to\ndepart from them, that they might not share in their fate; and the\nreason assigned was, that they \u201cshowed kindness to the children of\nIsrael when they came up out of Egypt,\u201d 1 Sam. xv, 6. Which, according\nto the margin of our Bible, is to be understood of the father-in-law of\nMoses and his family. From the story of Jethro, who is expressly said to\nbe a Midianite, they appear to have retained the worship of the true God\namong them; for which, and their kindness to the Israelites when passing\ntheir country, they were spared in the general destruction of the\nnations bordering on Canaan. Of these Kenites were the Rechabites, the\nTirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Suchathites, mentioned in 1 Chron.\nii, 55, whose chief office was that of scribes. (See _Rechabites_.)\nBalaam, when invited by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel, stood upon\na mountain, whence he addressed the Kenites, and said, \u201cStrong is thy\ndwelling place, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock; nevertheless, the\nKenite shall be wasted until Ashur shall carry thee away captive,\u201d Num.\nxxiv, 21, 22. The Kenites dwelt in mountains and rocks almost\ninaccessible. They were conquered and carried into captivity by\nNebuchadnezzar. After Saul the Kenites are not mentioned; but they\nsubsisted, being mingled among the Edomites and other nations of Arabia\nPetr\u00e6a.\n\nKENIZZITES, an ancient people of Canaan, whose land God promised to the\ndescendants of Abraham, Gen. xv, 19. It is thought that this people\ndwelt in the mountains south of Judea.\n\nKETURAH, the name of Abraham\u2019s second wife. Abraham married Keturah,\nwhen he was one hundred and forty years of age, and by her he had six\nsons, Zimram, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Some\nchronologers, as Bishop Clayton, Hallet, &c, thinking it improbable that\nAbraham should marry again at such an advanced age, have dislocated the\nchronology of this period, by supposing that Abraham took Keturah as a\nconcubine, in consequence of his wife Sarah\u2019s barrenness, even before he\nleft Charran; and that Keturah\u2019s children were among the souls born to\nhim and Lot during their residence in that country. But it seems evident\nfrom the whole tenor of the history, that Abraham was childless until\nthe birth of Ishmael, Gen. xv, 2, 3; that he had no other son than\nIshmael when he received the promise of Isaac, Gen. xvii, 18; and that\nIsaac and Ishmael jointly, as his eldest sons, celebrated his funeral,\nGen. xxv, 9. His second marriage, at the age of one hundred and forty\nyears, shows his faith in the divine promise, that he should be \u201ca\nfather of many nations;\u201d for which purpose his constitution might be\nmiraculously renewed, as Sarah\u2019s was. Beside, Abraham himself was born\nwhen his father Terah was one hundred and thirty years of age. Abraham\nsettled the sons of Keturah in the east country of Arabia, near the\nresidence of Ishmael.\n\nKEY is frequently mentioned in Scripture, as well in a natural as in a\nfigurative sense. The keys of the ancients were very different from\nours; because their doors and trunks were closed generally with bands,\nand the key served only to loosen or fasten these bands in a certain\nmanner. In a moral sense key has many significations: \u201cAnd the key of\nthe house of David will I lay upon his shoulder: so he shall open, and\nnone shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open,\u201d Isaiah xxii,\n22,--he shall be grand master and principal officer of his prince\u2019s\nhouse. Christ promises to St. Peter, that he should first open the gate\nof his kingdom, both to Jew and Gentile, in making the first converts\namong them, Matt. xvi, 19. It is observable that no supremacy is here\ngiven to St. Peter; as the power of binding and loosing belonged equally\nto all the Apostles, Matt. xviii, 18. The term binding and loosing was\ncustomarily applied by the Jews to a decision respecting doctrines or\nrites, establishing which were lawful and which unlawful. (See _Bind_.)\nAnd it may also denote, to bind with sickness, and to loose by restoring\nto health. Jesus Christ says that he has the key of death and hell, Rev.\ni, 18; that is, it is in his power to bring to the grave, or to deliver\nfrom it; to appoint to life or to death.\n\nKIBROTH HATAAVAH, one of the encampments of the Israelites in the\nwilderness, Numbers xi, 34, 35.\n\nKID, \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9, the young of the goat. Among the Hebrews the kid was reckoned\na great delicacy; and appears to have been served for food in preference\nto the lamb. (See _Goat_.) It continues to be a choice dish in the\nneighbouring countries. \u201cAfter drinking,\u201d says Salt, \u201c_caf\u00e9 \u00e0 la\nSultane_, as it is termed by French writers, hookahs were offered to us;\nand soon afterward, to my great surprise, dinner was announced. We\naccordingly retired with the dola of Aden to another apartment, where a\nkid, broiled and cut into small pieces, with a quantity of pillaued\nrice, was served up to us, agreeably to the fashion of the country. No\npeople in the world is more straitened than the Abyssinians with respect\nto the necessaries of life: a little juwarry bread, a small quantity of\nfish, an adequate supply of goat\u2019s and camel\u2019s milk, and a kid on very\nparticular occasions, constitute the whole of their subsistence. As soon\nas we arrived at the village of Howakil, a very neat hut was prepared\nfor me; and as the evening was far advanced, I consented to stay for the\nnight. Nothing could exceed the kindness of these good people; a kid was\nkilled, and a quantity of fresh milk was brought and presented in straw\nbaskets made of the leaves of the doom tree, seared over with wax, a\nmanufacture in which the natives of these islands particularly excel.\u201d\nThe village of Engedi, situate in the neighbourhood of Jericho, derives\nits name from the Hebrew word \u05e2\u05d9\u05df, _a fountain_, and \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9, _a kid_. It is\nsuggested by the situation among lofty rocks, which, overhanging the\nvalleys, are very precipitous. A fountain of pure water rises near the\nsummit, which the inhabitants called Engedi, \u201cthe fountain of the goat,\u201d\nbecause it is hardly accessible to any other creature.\n\nKINGDOM, in Scripture, is a term of frequent occurrence, and variously\napplied. Thus we read of the kingdom of God, Psalm ciii, 19; Dan. iv, 3;\nor his universal empire and dominion over all creatures; in reference to\nwhich it is said, \u201cJehovah is a great God, and a great King above all\ngods,\u201d Psalm xcv, 3. \u201cHis throne is established in the heavens, and his\nkingdom ruleth over all.\u201d Again: we frequently read in the evangelists\nof the kingdom of heaven; a phrase, says Dr. Campbell, in which there is\na manifest allusion to the predictions in which the dispensation of the\nMessiah was revealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly\nby Daniel, who mentions it as \u201ca kingdom which the God of heaven would\nset up, and which should never be destroyed,\u201d Dan. ii, 44. The same\nprophet also speaks of it as a kingdom to be given, with glory and\ndominion over all people, nations, and languages, to one like unto the\nSon of man, Dan. vii, 13, 14. And the Prophet Micah, speaking of the\nsame era, represents it as a time when Jehovah, having removed all the\nafflictions of his people, would reign over them in Mount Zion\nthenceforth even for ever, Micah iv, 6, 7. According to the prophecy of\nDaniel, this kingdom was to take place during the existence of the Roman\nempire, the last of the four great monarchies that had succeeded each\nother, Dan. ii, 44. And as it was set up by the God of heaven, it is, in\nthe New Testament, termed \u201cthe kingdom of God,\u201d or \u201cthe kingdom of\nheaven.\u201d It was typified by the Jewish theocracy, and declared to be at\nhand by John the Baptist, and by Christ and his Apostles also in the\ndays of his flesh; but it did not come with power till Jesus rose from\nthe dead and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Acts ii,\n32\u201337. Then was he most solemnly inaugurated, and proclaimed King of the\nNew Testament church, amidst adoring myriads of attendant angels, and\n\u201cthe spirits of just men made perfect.\u201d Then were fulfilled the words of\nJehovah by the Psalmist David, \u201cI have set my King upon my holy hill of\nZion,\u201d Psalm ii, 6. This is that spiritual empire to which he himself\nreferred when interrogated before Pontius Pilate, and in reference to\nwhich he said, \u201cMy kingdom is not of this world,\u201d John xviii, 36, 37.\nHis empire, indeed, extends to every creature; for all authority is\ncommitted into his hands, both in heaven and on earth,\u201d and he is head\nover all things to the church;\u201d but his kingdom primarily imports the\nGospel church, which is the subject of his laws, the seat of his\ngovernment, and the object of his care; and, being surrounded with\npowerful opposers, he is represented as ruling in the midst of his\nenemies. This kingdom is not of a worldly origin, or nature, nor has it\nthis world for its end or object. It can neither be promoted nor\ndefended by worldly power, influence, or carnal weapons, but by bearing\nwitness unto the truth, or by the preaching of the Gospel with the Holy\nGhost sent down from heaven. Its real subjects are only those who are of\nthe truth, and hear Christ\u2019s voice; for none can enter it but such as\nare born from above, John iii, 3\u20135; nor can any be visible subjects of\nit, but such as appear to be regenerated, by a credible profession of\nfaith and obedience. Its privileges and immunities are not of this\nworld, but such as are spiritual and heavenly; they are all spiritual\nblessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus, Ephesians i, 3.\n\nKINGS. This word does not always imply the same degree of power, nor the\nsame degree of importance; nor does it imply the magnitude of the\ndominion or territory of these officers. In Scripture many persons are\ncalled kings, whom we should rather denominate chiefs or leaders; and\nmany single towns, or, at most, together with their adjacent villages,\nare said to have had kings. Not aware of this lower sense of the word\nking, or unwilling to adopt it, many persons have been embarrassed by\nthe following passage: Moses commanded us a law,--he was king in\nJeshurun,\u201d Deut. xxxiii, 4, 5, or king among the Israelites; that is, he\nwas the principal among the assembly of the superiors of the Israelites.\nSome refer this to Jehovah. Moses was the chief, the leader, the guide\nof his people, fulfilling the duties of a king; but he was not king in\nthe same sense as David or Solomon was afterward. This remark reconciles\nthe following observation: These kings reigned in Edom, before there\nreigned any king over the children of Israel,\u201d Gen. xxxvi, 31; for\nMoses, though he was king in an inferior sense, did not reign, in the\nstronger sense, over the children of Israel, their constitution not\nbeing monarchical under him. Beside, we find in Joshua, that almost\nevery town in Canaan had its king; and we know that the territories of\nthese towns must have been very inconsiderable, Joshua xii, 9\u201324.\nAdonizedek, himself no very powerful king, mentions seventy kings whom\nhe had subdued and mutilated.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  MAP OF\n  JUDAH AND ISRAEL.\n  Illustrating the\n  BOOKS OF KINGS.\n]\n\nKINGS, BOOKS OF. The first book of Kings commences with an account of\nthe death of David, and contains a period of a hundred and twenty-six\nyears, to the death of Jehoshaphat; and the second book of Kings\ncontinues the history of the kings of Israel and Judah through a period\nof three hundred years, to the destruction of the city and temple of\nJerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. These two books formed only one in the\nHebrew canon, and they were probably compiled by Ezra from the records\nwhich were regularly kept, both in Jerusalem and Samaria, of all public\ntransactions. These records appear to have been made by the contemporary\nprophets, and frequently derived their names from the kings whose\nhistory they contained. They are mentioned in many parts of Scripture;\nthus 1 Kings xi, 41, we read of the book of the Acts of Solomon, which\nis supposed to have been written by Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo, 2 Chron.\nix, 29. We elsewhere read that Shemaiah the prophet, and Iddo the seer,\nwrote the Acts of Rehoboam, 2 Chron. xii, 15; that Jehu wrote the Acts\nof Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xx, 34; and Isaiah those of Uzziah and\nHezekiah, 2 Chron. xxvi, 22; xxxii, 32. We may therefore conclude, that\nfrom these public records, and other authentic documents, were composed\nthe two books of Kings; and the uniformity of their style favours the\nopinion of their being put into their present shape by the same person.\n\nKISHON. That ancient river, the river Kishon,\u201d falls into the bay of\nAcre, and has its source in the hills to the east of the plain of\nEsdraelon, which it intersects. Being enlarged by several small streams,\nit passes between Mount Carmel and the hills to the north, and then\nfalls into the sea at this point. In the condition we saw it, says\nMaundrell, its waters were low and inconsiderable; but in passing along\nthe side of the plain, we discerned the tracts of many lesser torrents,\nfalling down into it from the mountains, which must needs make it swell\nexceedingly upon sudden rains, as doubtless it actually did at the\ndestruction of Sisera\u2019s host.\n\nKISS, a mode of salutation, and token of respect, which has been\npractised in all nations. It was also in ordinary use among the Jews;\nhence Judas in this way saluted his Master. But there was also the kiss\nof homage, as one of the ceremonies performed at the inauguration of the\nkings of Israel. The Jews called it the kiss of majesty. Psalm ii, 12,\nseems to be an allusion to this. St. Paul speaks frequently of the kiss\nof peace, which was in use among believers, and was given by them to one\nanother as a token of charity and union, publicly in their religious\nassemblies, Heb. xiii, 24. Kissing the feet is in eastern countries\nexpressive of exuberant gratitude or reverence.\n\nKITE, \u05d0\u05d9\u05d4, Lev. xi, 14; Deut. xiv, 13; Job xxviii, 7. Bochart supposes\nthis to be the bird which the Arabians call the _ja-jao_, from its note;\nand which the ancients named _\u00e6salon_, the merlin,\u201d a bird celebrated\nfor its sharp-sightedness. This faculty is referred to in Job xxviii, 7,\nwhere the word is rendered vulture.\u201d As a noun masculine plural, \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd,\nin Isaiah xiii, 22; xxxiv, 14; and Jer. 1, 39, Bochart says that jackals\nare intended; but, by the several contexts, particularly the last, it\nmay well mean a kind of unclean bird, and so be the same with that\nmentioned above.\n\nKOHATH, the second son of Levi, and father of Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and\nUzziel, Gen. xlvi, 11; Exod. vi, 18. Kohath\u2019s family was appointed to\ncarry the ark and sacred vessels of the tabernacle, while the Israelites\nmarched through the wilderness, Num. iv, &c.\n\nKORAH was the son of Izhar, of the race of Levi, and father of Asher,\nElkanah, and Aliasaph, and head of the Korites, a celebrated family\namong the Levites. Korah, being dissatisfied with the rank he held among\nthe sons of Levi, and envying the authority of Moses and Aaron, formed a\nparty against them, in which he engaged Dathan, Abiram, and On, with two\nhundred and fifty of the principal Levites, Num. xvi, 1\u20133, &c. Korah, at\nthe head of the rebels, went to Moses and Aaron, and complained that\nthey alone arrogated to themselves all the authority over the people of\nthe Lord. Moses falling with his face on the earth, answered them as\nfollows: Tomorrow, in the morning, the Lord will discover who are his.\nLet every one of you take, therefore, his censer, and to-morrow he shall\nput incense into it, and offer it before the Lord; and he shall be\nacknowledged priest whom the Lord shall choose and approve.\u201d The next\nday, Korah, with two hundred and fifty of his faction, presenting\nthemselves with their censers before the Lord, the glory of the Lord\nappeared visibly over the tabernacle, and a voice was heard to say,\nSeparate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume\nthem in a moment.\u201d Upon this, Moses and Aaron, falling with their faces\nto the ground, said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall\none man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?\u201d And the\nLord said unto Moses, Command all the people to depart from about the\ntents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.\u201d When, therefore, the people were\nretired, Moses said, If these men die the common death of all men, then\nthe Lord hath not sent me; but if the earth open and swallow them up\nquick, ye shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord.\u201d As soon as he\nhad spoken, the earth opened from under their feet, and swallowed them\nup with what belonged to them. There was one thing which added to this\nsurprising wonder, and which was, that when Korah was thus swallowed up\nin the earth, his sons were preserved from his misfortunes. We know not\nthe exact year in which the death of Korah and his companions happened.\nThe sons of Korah continued as before to serve in the tabernacle of the\nLord. David appointed them their office in the temple, to guard the\ndoors, and sing the praises of God. To them are ascribed several psalms,\nwhich are designated by the name of Korah; as the forty-second,\nforty-fourth to the forty-ninth, eighty-fourth to the eighty-seventh; in\nall, eleven psalms.\n\n\nLABAN, the son of Bethuel, grandson of Nahor, brother to Rebekah, and\nfather of Rachel and Leah, Gen. xxviii, 2, &c. Of this man, the first\nthing we hear is his entertainment of Abraham\u2019s servant when he came on\nhis errand to Rebekah. Hospitality was the virtue of his age and\ncountry. In his case, however, it seems to have been no little\nstimulated by the sight of \u201cthe ear ring and the bracelets on his\nsister\u2019s hands,\u201d which the servant had already given her, Gen. xxiv, 30;\nso he speedily made room for the camels. He next is presented to us as\nbeguiling that sister\u2019s son, who had sought a shelter in his house, and\nwhose circumstances placed him at his mercy, of fourteen years\u2019 service,\nwhen he had covenanted with him for seven only; endeavouring to retain\nhis labour when he would not pay him his labour\u2019s worth, himself\ndevouring the portion which he should have given to his daughters,\ncounting them but as strangers, Gen. xxxi, 15. Compelled, at length, to\npay Jacob wages, he changes them ten times, and, in the spirit of a\ncrafty, griping worldling, makes him account for whatever of the flock\nwas torn of beasts or stolen, whether by day or night. When Jacob flies\nfrom this iniquitous service with his family and cattle, Laban still\npursues and persecutes him, intending, if his intentions had not been\noverruled by a mightier hand, to send him away empty, even after he had\nbeen making, for so long a period, so usurious a profit of him.\n\nLACHISH, a city of Palestine, Joshua x, 23; xv, 39. Sennacherib besieged\nLachish, but did not make himself master of it. From thence it was that\nhe sent Rabshakeh against Jerusalem, 2 Kings xviii, 17; xix, 8; 2 Chron.\nxxxii, 9.\n\nLAMAISM, the religion of the people of Thibet. The _Delai Lama_, Grand\nLama,\u201d is at once the high priest, and the visible object of adoration,\nto this nation, to the hordes of wandering Tartars, and to the\nprodigious population of China. He resides at Patoli, a vast palace on a\nmountain near the banks of the Burampooter, about seven miles from\nLahasse. The foot of the mountain is surrounded by twenty thousand\nlamas, or priests, in attendance on their sovereign pontiff, who is\nconsidered as the viceregent of the Deity on earth; and the remote\nTartars are said to regard him absolutely as the Deity himself, and call\nhim God, the everlasting Father of heaven. They believe him to be\nimmortal, and endowed with all knowledge and virtue. Every year they\ncome up from different parts to worship, and make rich offerings at his\nshrine. Even the emperor of China, who is a Mantchou Tartar, does not\nfail in acknowledgments to him in his religious capacity; and entertains\nin the palace of Pekin an inferior lama, deputed as his nuncio from\nThibet. The grand lama is only to be seen in a secret place of his\npalace, amidst a great number of lamps, sitting cross-legged on a\ncushion, and decked all over with gold and precious stones; while, at a\ndistance, the people prostrate themselves before him, it being not\nlawful for any so much as to kiss his feet. He returns not the least\nsign of respect, nor ever speaks, even to the greatest princes; but only\nlays his hand upon their heads, and they are fully persuaded that they\nthereby receive a full forgiveness of their sins. The _Sunniasses_, or\nIndian pilgrims, often visit Thibet as a holy place; and the lama\nentertains a body of two or three hundred in his pay. Beside his\nreligious influence and authority, he is possessed of unlimited power\nthroughout his dominions, which are very extensive. The inferior lamas,\nwho form the most numerous as well as the most powerful body in the\nstate, have the priesthood entirely in their hands, and, beside, fill up\nmany monastic orders, which are held in great veneration among them. The\nwhole country, like Italy, abounds with priests; and they entirely\nsubsist on the rich presents sent them from the utmost extent of\nTartary, from the empire of the great mogul, and from almost all parts\nof the Indies. The opinion of the orthodox among the Thibetians is, that\nwhen the grand lama seems to die, either of old age or infirmities, his\nsoul, in fact, only quits a crazy habitation to enter another, younger\nand better; and is discovered again in the body of some child, by\ncertain tokens, known only to the lamas, or priests, in which order he\nalways appears. Almost all the nations of the east, except the\nMohammedans, believe the _metempsychosis_, or transmigration of the\nsoul, as the most important article of their faith; especially the\ninhabitants of Thibet and Ava, the Peguans, the Siamese, the greater\npart of the Chinese and Japanese, and the Monguls and Kalmucks.\nAccording to their doctrine, the soul no sooner leaves her old\nhabitation than she enters a new one. The _delai lama_, therefore, or\nrather the god Foe or Fuh, residing in the _delai lama_, passes to his\nsuccessor; and he being a god, to whom all things are known, the grand\nlama is therefore acquainted with every thing which happened during his\nresidence in his former bodies. This religion, which was early adopted\nin a large part of the globe, is said to have been of three thousand\nyears\u2019 standing; and neither time, nor the influence of men, has had the\npower of shaking the authority of the grand lama. This theocracy, which\nextends as fully to temporal as to spiritual concerns, is professed all\nover Thibet and Mongalia; is almost universal in Greater and Less\nBucharia, and several provinces of Tartary; has some followers in the\nkingdom of Cashmere, in India; and is the predominant religion of China.\n\nIt has been observed that the religion of Thibet is the counterpart of\nthe Roman Catholic, since the inhabitants of that country use holy\nwater, and a singing service. They also offer alms, prayers, and\nsacrifices for the dead. They have a vast number of convents filled with\nmonks and friars, amounting to thirty thousand, and confessors chosen by\ntheir superiors. They use beads, wear the mitre, like the bishops; and\ntheir _delai lama_ is nearly the same among them as the sovereign\npontiff was formerly, in the zenith of his power, among the Roman\nCatholics. So complete is the resemblance, that, when one of the first\nRomish missionaries penetrated Thibet, he came to the conclusion that\nthe devil had set up there an imitation of the rites of the Catholic\nchurch, in order the more effectually to destroy the souls of men.\nCaptain Turner, speaking of the religion of Thibet, says, It seems to be\nthe schismatical offspring of the religion of the Hindoos, deriving its\norigin from one of the followers of that faith, a disciple of Bouddhu,\nwho first broached the doctrine which now prevails over the wide extent\nof Tartary. It is reported to have received its earliest admission in\nthat part of Tibet, or Thibet, bordering upon India, which from hence\nbecame the seat of the sovereign lamas, to have traversed over\nMantchieux Tartary, and to have been ultimately disseminated over China\nand Japan. Though it differs from the Hindoo in many of its outward\nforms, yet it still bears a very close affinity with the religion of\nBrumha in many important particulars. The principal idol in the temples\nof Tibet, or Thibet, is Muha-Moonee, the Booddhu of Bengal, who is\nworshipped under these and various other epithets, throughout the great\nextent of Tartary, and among all nations to the eastward of the\nBrumhapootru. In the wide-extended space over which this faith prevails,\nthe same object of veneration is acknowledged under numerous titles:\namong others, he is styled Godumu, or Gotumu, in Assam and Ava, Shumunu\nin Siam, Amida Buth in Japan, Fohi in China,\u201d &c.\n\nLAMBETH ARTICLES. See PREDESTINATION.\n\nLAMECH, a descendant of Cain, the son of Mathusael, and father of Jabal,\nJubal, Tubal-Cain, and Naamah, Gen. iv, 18\u201320, &c. He stands branded as\nthe father of polygamy, the first who dared to violate the sacred\ncommand, Gen. ii, 24; giving way to his unbridled passion, and thus\noverleaping the divine mound raised by the wisdom of our great Creator;\nwhich restraint is enforced by the laws of nature herself, who peoples\nthe earth with an equal number of males and females, and thereby teaches\nfoolish man that polygamy is incompatible with her wise regulations. He\nmarried Adah and Zillah: the former was the mother of Jabal and Jubal,\nand the latter of Tubal-Cain and Naamah, his sister.\n\n2. LAMECH, the son of Methuselah, and father of Noah. He lived a hundred\nfourscore and two years before the birth of Noah, Gen. v, 25, 31; after\nwhich he lived five hundred and ninety-five years longer: thus the whole\nterm of his life was seven hundred and seventy-seven years.\n\nLAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. This book was formerly annexed to his\nprophecies, though it now forms a separate book. Josephus, and several\nother learned men, have referred them to the death of Josiah; but the\nmore common opinion is, that they were applicable only to some period\nsubsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But though\nit be allowed that the Lamentations were primarily intended as a\npathetic description of present calamities, yet while Jeremiah mourns\nthe desolation of Judah and Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity,\nhe may be considered as prophetically painting the still greater\nmiseries they were to suffer at some future time: this seems plainly\nindicated by his referring to the time when the punishment of their\niniquity shall be accomplished, and they shall no more be carried into\ncaptivity, Lam. iv, 22. The Lamentations are written in metre, and\nconsist of a number of plaintive effusions, composed after the manner of\nfuneral dirges. They seem to have been originally written by their\nauthor as they arose in his mind, and to have been afterward joined\ntogether as one poem. There is no regular arrangement of the subject, or\ndisposition of the parts: the same thought is frequently repeated with\ndifferent imagery, or expressed in different words. There is, however,\nno wild incoherency, or abrupt transition; the whole appears to have\nbeen dictated by the feelings of real grief. Tenderness and sorrow form\nthe general character of these elegies; and an attentive reader will\nfind great beauty in many of the images, and great energy in some of the\nexpressions. This book of Lamentations is divided into five chapters; in\nthe first, second, and fourth, the prophet speaks in his own person, or\nby an elegant and interesting personification introduces the city of\nJerusalem as lamenting her calamities, and confessing her sins; in the\nthird chapter a single Jew, speaking in the name of a chorus of his\ncountrymen, like the Coryph\u00e6us of the Greeks, describes the punishment\ninflicted upon him by God, but still acknowledges his mercy, and\nexpresses some hope of deliverance; and in the fifth chapter, the whole\nnation of the Jews pour forth their united complaints and supplications\nto almighty God.\n\nEvery chapter, with the exception of the third, contains twenty-two\nverses, corresponding in number with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet;\nand each verse commences with a different letter, the first with aleph,\nthe second with beth, the third with gimel, &c. The third chapter,\nconsisting of sixty-six verses, has three verses together beginning with\nthe same letter, the following three with the next letter, &c. This\npeculiarity may be seen in Psalm cxix; the first eight verses in which\ncommence with aleph, the next eight with beth, &c, till the whole\nalphabet has been consecutively taken. This mode of versification, which\nhas some distant resemblance to the modern acrostic style, seems to have\nbeen employed by the Hebrews in some of their elegiac poetry, perhaps to\nassist the memory.\n\nLAMP, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2. There is frequent mention of lamps in Scripture, and the\nword is often used figuratively. The houses in the east were, from the\nremotest antiquity, lighted with lamps; and hence it is so common in\nScripture to call every thing which enlightens the body or mind, which\nguides or refreshes, by the name of a lamp. These lamps were sustained\nby a large candlestick set upon the ground. The houses of Egypt, in\nmodern times, are never without lights: they burn lamps all the night\nlong, and in every occupied apartment. So requisite to the comfort of a\nfamily is this custom reckoned, or so imperious is the power which it\nexercises, that the poorest people would rather retrench part of their\nfood than neglect it. As this custom no doubt prevailed in Egypt and the\nadjacent regions of Arabia and Palestine in former times, it imparts a\nbeauty and force to some passages of Scripture which have been little\nobserved. Thus, in the language of Jeremiah, to extinguish the light in\nan apartment is a convertible phrase for total destruction; and nothing\ncan more properly and emphatically represent the total destruction of a\ncity than the extinction of the lights: I will take from them the light\nof a candle, and this whole land shall be a desolation and an\nastonishment.\u201d Job describes the destruction of a family among the\nArabs, and the desolation of their dwellings, in the very language of\nthe prophet: How oft is the candle of the wicked put out, and how oft\ncometh their destruction upon them!\u201d Job xxi, 17. Bildad expresses the\nsame idea in the following beautiful passage: Yea, the light of the\nwicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine. The\nlight shall be dark in his tabernacle, and his candle shall be put out\nwith him,\u201d Job xviii, 5, 6. A burning lamp is, on the other hand, the\nchosen symbol of prosperity, a beautiful instance of which occurs in the\ncomplaint of Job: O that I were as in months past, as in the days when\nGod preserved me; when his candle shined upon my head, and when by his\nlight I walked through darkness,\u201d Job xxix, 2, 3. When the ten tribes\nwere taken from Rehoboam, and given to his rival, Jehovah promised to\nreserve one tribe, and assigns this reason: That David my servant may\nhave a light always before me in Jerusalem,\u201d 1 Kings xi, 36. In many\nparts of the east, and in particular in the Indies, instead of torches\nand flambeaux, they carry a pot of oil in one hand, and a lamp full of\noily rags in the other.\n\nLANGUAGE, the faculty of human speech, concerning the origin of which\nthere have been entertained different opinions among philosophers and\nlearned men. The Mosaic history, which gives us an account of the\nformation and first occupations of man, represents him as being\nimmediately capable of conversing with his Maker; of giving names to the\nvarious tribes and classes of animals; and of reasoning consecutively,\nand in perfectly appropriate terms, concerning his own situation, and\nthe relation he stood in to the other creatures. As in man\u2019s first\nattempt at speech, according to this account, there appear no crudeness\nof conception, no barrenness of ideas, and no inexpressive or\nunappropriate terms, we must certainly infer, that God who made and\nendued him with corporeal and mental powers perfectly suited to his\nstate and condition in life, endued him, also, not only with the faculty\nof speech, but with speech or language itself; which latter was as\nnecessary to his comfort, and to the perfection and end of his being, as\nany other power or faculty which his Creator thought proper to bestow\nupon him.\n\nAmong the antediluvians there was but one language; and even now the\nindications that the various languages of the earth have had one common\nsource are very convincing. Whether this primitive language was the same\nwith any of the languages of which we have still any remains, has been a\nsubject of much dispute. That the primitive language continued at least\ntill the dispersion of mankind, consequent upon the building of Babel,\nthere seems little reason to doubt. When, by an immediate interposition\nof divine power, the language of men was confounded, we are not informed\nto what extent this confusion of tongues prevailed. Under the article\n_Confusion of Tongues_ some reasons are given to show that the primitive\nlanguage was not lost at that event, but continued in the form of the\nHebrew.\n\nThere are, however, other opinions on the oft disputed subject as to the\nprimitive language. The Armenians allege, that as the ark rested in\ntheir country, Noah and his children must have remained there a\nconsiderable time, before the lower and marshy country of Chaldea could\nbe fit to receive them; and it is therefore reasonable to suppose they\nleft their language there, which was probably the very same that Adam\nspoke. Some have fancied the Greek the most ancient tongue, because of\nits extent and copiousness. The Teutonic, or that dialect of it which is\nspoken in the Lower Germany and Brabant, has found a strenuous patron in\nGeropius Becanus, who endeavours to derive even the Hebrew itself from\nthat tongue. The pretensions of the Chinese to this honour have been\nallowed by several Europeans. The patrons of this opinion endeavour to\nsupport it, partly, by the great antiquity of the Chinese, and their\nhaving preserved themselves so many ages from any considerable mixture\nor intercourse with other nations. It is a notion advanced by Dr. Allix,\nand maintained by Mr. Whiston, with his usual tenacity and fervour, that\nthe Chinese are the posterity of Noah, by his children born after the\nflood; and that Fohi, the first king of China, was Noah. As for those\nwhich are called the oriental languages, they have each their partisans.\nThe generality of eastern writers allow the preference to the Syriac,\nexcept the Jews, who assert the antiquity of the Hebrew with the\ngreatest warmth; and with them several Christian writers agree,\nparticularly Chrysostom, Austin, Origen, and Jerome, among the ancients;\nand among the moderns, Bochart, Heidegger, Selden, and Buxtorf. The\nSanscrit has also put in its claims; and some have thought that the Pali\nbears the character of the highest antiquity. All these are however\nuseless speculations. The only point worth contending for is, that\nlanguage was conveyed at once to the first pair in sufficient degree for\nintellectual intercourse with each other, and devotional intercourse\nwith God; and that man was not left, as infidel writers have been\npleased to say, to form it for himself out of rude and instinctive\nsounds. On this subject the remarks of Delaney are conclusive: \u201cThat God\nmade man a sociable creature, does not need to be proved; and that when\nhe made him such, he withheld nothing from him that was in any wise\nnecessary for his well being in society, is a clear consequence from the\nwisdom and goodness of God; and if he withheld nothing any way necessary\nto his well being, much less would he withhold from him that which is\nthe instrument of the greatest happiness a reasonable creature is\ncapable of in this world. If the Lord God made \u2018Adam a help meet for\nhim,\u2019 because \u2018it was not good for man to be alone,\u2019 can we imagine he\nwould leave him unfurnished with the means to make that help useful and\ndelightful to him? If it was not good for him to be alone, certainly\nneither was it good for him to have a companion to whom he could not\nreadily communicate his thoughts, with whom he could neither ease his\nanxieties, nor divide or double his joys, by a kind, a friendly, a\nreasonable, a religious conversation; and how he could do this in any\ndegree of perfection, or to any height of rational happiness, is utterly\ninconceivable without the use of speech.\n\n\u201cIf it be said, that the human organs being admirably fitted for the\nformation of articulate sounds, these, with the help of reason, might in\ntime lead men to the use of language. I own it imaginable that they\nmight: but still, till that end were attained in perfection, which\npossibly might not be in a series of many generations, it must be owned\nthat brutes were better dealt by, and could better attain all the ends\nof their creation. And if that be absurd to be supposed, certainly the\nother is not less absurd to be believed. Nay, I think it justly\ndoubtful, whether, without inspiration from God in this point, man could\never attain the true ends of his being; at least, if we may judge in\nthis case, by the example of those nations who, being destitute of the\nadvantages of a perfect language, are, in all probability, from the\nmisfortune of that sole defect, sunk into the lowest condition of\nbarbarism and brutality. And as to the perfection in which the human\norgans are framed and fitted for the formation of articulate sounds,\nthis is clearly an argument for believing that God immediately blessed\nman with the use of speech, and gave him wherewithal to exert those\norgans to their proper ends; for this is surely as credible, as that\nwhen he gave him an appetite for food, and proper organs to eat and to\ndigest it, he did not leave him to seek painfully for a necessary\nsupply, (till his offence had made such a search his curse and\npunishment,) but placed him at once in the midst of abundant plenty. The\nconsequence from all which is, that the perfection and felicity of man,\nand the wisdom and goodness of God, necessarily required that Adam\nshould be supernaturally endowed with the knowledge and use of language.\nAnd therefore, as certain as it can be, that man was made perfect and\nhappy, and that God is wise and good; so certain is it, that, when Adam\nand Eve were formed, they were immediately enabled by God to converse\nand communicate their thoughts, in all the perfection of language\nnecessary to all the ends of their creation. And as this was the conduct\nmost becoming the goodness of God, so we are assured from Moses, that it\nwas that to which his infinite wisdom determined him; for we find that\nAdam gave names to all the creatures before Eve was formed; and,\nconsequently, before necessity taught him the use of speech.\u201d\n\nIt is true that many languages bear marks of being raised to their\nimproved state from rude and imperfect elements, and that all are\ncapable of being enriched and rendered more exact; and it is this which\nhas given some colour to those theories which trace all language itself\nup from elemental sounds, as the necessities of men, their increasing\nknowledge, and their imagination led to the invention of new words and\ncombinations. All this is, however, consistent with the Scripture fact,\nthat language was taught at first by God to our first parents. The\ndispersion of mankind carried many tribes to great distances, and wars\nstill farther scattered them, and often into wide regions where they\nwere farther dispersed to live chiefly by the chase, by fishing, or at\nbest but an imperfect agriculture. In various degrees we know they lost\nuseful arts; and for the same reasons they would lose much of their\noriginal language; those terms being chiefly retained which their\nimmediate necessities, and the common affairs of a gross life, kept in\nuse. But when civilization again overtook these portions of mankind, and\nkingdoms and empires were founded among them, or they became integral\nparts of the old empires, then their intercourse with each other\nbecoming more rapid, and artificial, and intellectual, their language\nwas put into a new process of improvement, and to the eye of the critic\nwould exhibit the various stages of advancement; and in many it would be\npushed beyond that perfection which it had when it first began to\ndeteriorate. See LETTERS.\n\nLANTERN. The word occurs, John xviii, 3: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd: with\ntorches and lanterns:\u201d but both terms appear to signify _torches_; the\nformer of a ruder kind than the latter, being formed of split laths\nbound into bundles, throwing around a strong glare of light. They came\nthus furnished to apprehend our Lord, lest he should escape through the\ndarkness of the night.\n\nLAODICEA. There were several cities of this name, but the Scripture\nspeaks only of that in Phrygia, upon the river Lycus, near Colosse. Its\nancient name was Diospolis: it was afterward called Rhoas. Lastly,\nAntiochus, the son of Stratonice, rebuilt it, and called it Laodicea,\nfrom the name of his wife Laodice. It became the mother church of\nsixteen bishoprics. Its three theatres, and the immense circus, which\nwas capable of containing upward of thirty thousand spectators, the\nspacious remains of which (with other ruins buried under ruins) are yet\nto be seen, give proof of the greatness of its ancient wealth and\npopulation; and indicate too strongly that in that city where Christians\nwere rebuked, without exception, for their lukewarmness, there were\nmultitudes who were lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. The\namphitheatre was built after the Apocalypse was written, and the warning\nof the Spirit had been given to the church of the Laodiceans to be\nzealous and repent. There are no sights of grandeur, nor scenes of\ntemptation around it now. Its own tragedy may be briefly told. It was\nlukewarm, and neither cold nor hot; and therefore it was loathsome in\nthe sight of God. And it has been blotted from the world. It is now as\ndesolate as its inhabitants were destitute of the fear and love of God.\nIt is, as described in his Travels by Dr. Smith, utterly desolated, and\nwithout any inhabitant except wolves, and jackals, and foxes.\u201d It can\nboast of no human inhabitants, except occasionally when wandering\nTurcomans pitch their tents in its spacious amphitheatre. The finest\nsculptured fragments are to be seen at a considerable depth, in\nexcavations which have been made among the ruins. And Colonel Lake\nobserves, There are few ancient cities more likely than Laodicea to\npreserve many curious remains of antiquity beneath the surface of the\nsoil. Its opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was subject, render\nit probable that valuable works of art were often there buried beneath\nthe ruins of the public and private edifices.\u201d\n\nLAPWING, \u05d3\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05e4\u05ea, Levit. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18. The bird intended by the\nHebrew name in these places is undoubtedly the _hoopoe_; a very\nbeautiful, but most unclean and filthy, species of birds. The Septuagint\nrenders it \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1; and the Vulgate, _upupa_; which is the same with the\nArabian interpreters. The Egyptian name of the bird is _kukuphah_; and\nthe Syrian, _kikuphah_; which approach the Hebrew _dukiphath_. It may\nhave its name from the noise or cry it makes, which is very remarkable,\nand may be heard a great way.\n\nLATITUDINARIANS, a term applied to those divines who, in the seventeenth\ncentury, attempted to bring Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and\nIndependents, into one communion, by compromising the differences\nbetween them. The chief leaders of this party were the great\nChillingworth and John Hales; to whom may be added More, Cudworth, Gale,\nTillotson, and Whitchcot. They were zealously attached to the church of\nEngland, but did not look upon episcopacy as indispensable to the\nconstitution of the Christian church. Hence they maintained that those\nwho adopted other forms of government and worship, were not on that\naccount to be excluded from the communion, or to forfeit the title of\nbrethren. They reduced the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to a\nfew points. By this way of proceeding, they endeavoured to show that\nneither the Episcopalians, who, generally speaking, were then Arminians,\nnor the Presbyterians and Independents, who as generally adopted the\ndoctrines of Calvin, had any reason to oppose each other with such\nanimosity and bitterness; since the subjects of their debates were\nmatters non-essential to salvation, and might be variously explained and\nunderstood without prejudice to their eternal interests. This plan\nfailing, through the violence of the bishops on one hand, (though\nsanctioned by the Lord Chancellor Clarendon,) and by the jealousy of the\nmore rigid on the other, the name Latitudinarian became a term of\nreproach, as implying an indifferency to all religions, and has been\ngenerally so used ever since.\n\nLAVER. Between the altar and the tabernacle, a little to the south,\nstood a circular laver, which, together with its base, was made of the\nbrazen ornaments which the women had presented for the use of the\ntabernacle, and was thence called \u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05ea, Exodus xxx, 18; xl, 7. The\npriests, when about to perform their duties, washed their hands in this\nlaver.\n\nLAW, a rule of action; a precept or command, coming from a superior\nauthority, which an inferior is bound to obey. The manner in which God\ngoverns rational creatures is by a law, as the rule of their obedience\nto him, and this is what we call God\u2019s moral government of the world.\nThe term, however, is used in Scripture with considerable latitude of\nmeaning; and to ascertain its precise import in any particular place, it\nis necessary to regard the scope and connection of the passage in which\nit occurs. Thus, for instance, sometimes it denotes the whole revealed\nwill of God as communicated to us in his word. In this sense it is\ngenerally used in the book of Psalms, i, 2; xix, 7; cxix; Isaiah viii,\n20; xlii, 21. Sometimes it is taken for the Mosaical institution\ndistinguished from the Gospel, John i, 17; Matt. xi, 13; xii, 5; Acts\nxxv, 8. Hence we frequently read of the law of Moses as expressive of\nthe whole religion of the Jews, Heb. ix, 19; x, 28. Sometimes, in a more\nrestricted sense, for the ritual or ceremonial observances of the Jewish\nreligion. In this sense the Apostle speaks of the law of commandments\ncontained in ordinances,\u201d Eph. ii, 15; Heb. x, 1; and which, being only\na shadow of good things to come,\u201d Christ Jesus abolished by his death,\nand so in effect destroyed the ancient distinction between Jew and\nGentile, Gal. iii, 17. Very frequently it is used to signify the\ndecalogue, or ten precepts which were delivered to the Israelites from\nMount Sinai. It is in this acceptation of the term that the Lord Jesus\ndeclares he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,\u201d Matt. v, 17;\nand he explains its import as requiring perfect love to God and man,\nLuke x, 27. It is in reference to this view that St. Paul affirms, By\nthe deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified; for by the law\nis the knowledge of sin,\u201d Rom. iii, 20. The language of this law is, The\nsoul that sinneth it shall die,\u201d and Cursed is every one that continueth\nnot in all things that are written,\u201d or required, in the book of the\nlaw, to do them,\u201d Gal. iii, 10. To deliver man from this penalty, Christ\nhath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being himself made a curse\nfor us,\u201d Gal. iii, 13. The law, in this sense, was not given that men\nshould obtain righteousness or justification by it, but to convince them\nof sin, to show them their need of a Saviour, to shut them up, as it\nwere, from all hopes of salvation from that source, and to recommend the\nGospel of divine grace to their acceptance, Gal. iii, 19\u201325. Again, the\nlaw often denotes the rule of good and evil, or of right and wrong,\nrevealed by the Creator and inscribed on man\u2019s conscience, even at his\ncreation, and consequently binding upon him by divine authority; and in\nthis respect it is in substance the same with the decalogue. That such a\nlaw was connate with, and, as it were, implanted in, man, appears from\nits traces, which, like the ruins of some noble building, are still\nextant in every man. It is from those common notions, handed down by\ntradition, though often imperfect and perverted, that the Heathens\nthemselves distinguished right from wrong, by which they were a law unto\nthemselves, showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their\nconscience bearing witness,\u201d Rom. ii, 12\u201315, although they had no\nexpress revelation.\n\nThe term law, is, however, eminently given to the Mosaic law; on the\nprinciples and spirit of which, a few general remarks may be offered.\nThe right consideration of this divine institute, says Dr. Graves, will\nsurround it with a glory of truth and holiness, not only worthy of its\nclaims, but which has continued to be the light of the world on\ntheological and moral subjects, and often on great political principles,\nto this day. If we examine the Jewish law, to discover the principle on\nwhich the whole system depends, the primary truth, to inculcate and\nillustrate which is its leading object, we find it to be that great\nbasis of all religion, both natural and revealed, the self-existence,\nessential unity, perfections, and providence of the supreme Jehovah, the\nCreator of heaven and earth. The first line of the Mosaic writings\ninculcates this great truth: In the beginning God created the heaven and\nthe earth.\u201d When the lawgiver begins to recapitulate the statutes and\njudgments he had enjoined to his nation, it is with this declaration:\nHear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,\u201d Deut. vi, 4; or, as it\nmight be more closely expressed, Jehovah our Elohim, or God, is one\nJehovah. And at the commencement of that sublime hymn, delivered by\nMoses immediately before his death, in which this illustrious prophet\nsums up the doctrines he had taught, the wonders by which they had been\nconfirmed, and the denunciations by which they were enforced, he\ndeclares this great tenet with the sublimity of eastern poetry, but at\nthe same time with the precision of philosophic truth: Give ear,\u201d says\nhe, O ye heavens, and I will speak: and hear, O earth, the words of my\nmouth. My doctrine shall drop rain: my speech shall distil as the dew,\nas the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the\ngrass,\u201d Deut. xxxii, 1, &c. What, is that doctrine so awful, that the\nwhole universe is thus invoked to attend to it? so salutary as to be\ncompared with the principle whose operation diffuses beauty and\nfertility over the vegetable world? Hear the answer: Because I will\npublish the name of Jehovah; ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is\nthe rock, his work is perfect: a God of truth, and without iniquity,\njust and right is he.\u201d\n\nThis, then, is one great leading doctrine of the Jewish code. But the\nmanner in which this doctrine is taught displays such wise accommodation\nto the capacity and character of the nation to whom it is addressed, as\ndeserves to be carefully remarked. That character by which the supreme\nBeing is most clearly distinguished from every other, however exalted;\nthat character from which the acutest reasoners have endeavoured\ndemonstratively to deduce, as from their source, all the divine\nattributes, is self-existence. Is it not then highly remarkable, that it\nis under this character the Divinity is described on his first\nmanifestation to the Jewish lawgiver? The Deity at first reveals himself\nunto him as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and therefore\nthe peculiar national and guardian God of the Jewish race. Moses,\nconscious of the degeneracy of the Israelites, their ignorance of, or\ntheir inattention to, the true God, and the difficulty and danger of any\nattempt to recall them to his exclusive worship, and to withdraw them\nfrom Egypt, seems to decline the task; but when absolutely commanded to\nundertake it, he said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of\nIsrael, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me\nunto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say\nunto them? And God said unto Moses, _I am that I am_: and he said, Thus\nshalt thou say unto the children of Israel, _I Am_ hath sent me unto\nyou,\u201d Exod. iii, 13, 14. Here we observe, according to the constant\nmethod of the divine wisdom, when it condescends to the prejudices of\nmen, how in the very instance of indulgence it corrects their\nsuperstition. The religion of names arose from an idolatrous polytheism;\nand the name given here directly opposes this error, and in the\nignorance of that dark and corrupted period establishes that great\ntruth, to which the most enlightened philosophy can add no new lustre,\nand on which all the most refined speculations on the divine nature\nultimately rest, the self-existence, and, by consequence, the eternity\nand immutability, of the one great Jehovah.\n\nBut though the self-existence of the Deity was a fact too abstract to\nrequire its being frequently inculcated, his essential unity was a\npractical principle, the sure foundation on which to erect the structure\nof true religion, and form a barrier against the encroachments of\nidolatry: for this commenced not so frequently in denying the existence,\nor even the supremacy, of the one true God, as in associating with him\nfor objects of adoration inferior intermediate beings, who were supposed\nto be more directly employed in the administration of human affairs. To\nconfute and resist this false principle was, therefore, one great object\nof the Jewish scheme. Hence the unity of God is inculcated with\nperpetual solicitude; it stands at the head of the system of moral law\npromulgated to the Jews from Sinai by the divine voice, heard by the\nassembled nation, and issuing from the divine glory, with every\ncircumstance which could impress the deepest awe upon even the dullest\nminds: I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of\nEgypt, out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods beside\nme,\u201d Exod. xx, 2, 3. And in the recapitulation of the divine laws in\nDeuteronomy, it is repeatedly enforced with the most solemn earnestness:\nHear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord,\u201d Deut. vi, 4. And again:\nUnto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is\nGod; there is none else beside him. Know, therefore, this day, and\nconsider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and\nin the earth beneath: there is none else,\u201d Deut. iv, 35, 39.\n\nThis self-existent, supreme and only God is moreover described as\npossessed of every perfection which can be ascribed to the Divinity: Ye\nshall be holy,\u201d says the Lord to the people of the Jews; for I the Lord\nyour God am holy,\u201d Lev. xix, 2. Ascribe ye,\u201d says the legislator,\ngreatness unto our God; he is the rock; his work is perfect; a God of\ntruth, and without iniquity, just and right is he,\u201d Deut. xxxii, 4. And\nin the hymn of thanksgiving on the miraculous escape of the Israelites\nat the Red Sea, this is its burden: Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among\nthe gods? who is like unto thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in\npraises, doing wonders?\u201d Exod. xv, 11. And when the Lord delivered to\nMoses the two tables of the moral law, he is described as descending in\nthe cloud, and proclaiming the name of the Lord: And the Lord passed by\nbefore him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and\ngracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness, keeping mercy for\nthousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will by\nno means clear the guilty,\u201d Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7.\n\nBut to teach the self-existence, the unity, the wisdom, and the power of\nthe Deity, nay, even his moral perfections of mercy, justice, and truth,\nwould have been insufficient to arrest the attention, and command the\nobedience of a nation, the majority of which looked no farther than mere\npresent objects, and at that early period cherished scarcely any hopes\nhigher than those of a temporal kind,--if, in addition to all this, care\nhad not been taken to represent the providence of God as not only\ndirecting the government of the universe by general laws, but also\nperpetually superintending the conduct and determining the fortune of\nevery nation, of every family, nay, of every individual. It was the\ndisbelief or the neglect of this great truth which gave spirit and\nenergy, plausibility and attraction, to the whole system of idolatry.\nWhile men believed that the supreme God and Lord of all was too exalted\nin his dignity, too remote from this sublunary scene, to regard its\nvicissitudes with an attentive eye, and too constantly engaged in the\ncontemplation of his own perfections, and the enjoyment of his own\nindependent and all-perfect happiness, to interfere in the regulation of\nhuman affairs, they regarded with indifference that supreme Divinity who\nseemed to take no concern in their conduct, and not to interfere as to\ntheir happiness. However exalted and perfect such a Being might appear\nto abstract speculation, he was to the generality of mankind as if he\ndid not exist; as their happiness or misery were not supposed to be\ninfluenced by his power, they referred not their conduct to his\ndirection. If he delegated to inferior beings the regulation of this\ninferior world; if all its concerns were conducted by their immediate\nagency, and all its blessings or calamities distributed by their\nimmediate determination; it seemed rational, and even necessary, to\nsupplicate their favour and submit to their authority; and neither\nunwise nor unsafe to neglect that Being, who, though all-perfect and\nsupreme, would, on this supposition appear, with respect to mankind,\naltogether inoperative. In truth, this fact of the perpetual providence\nof God extending even to the minutest events, is inseparably connected\nwith every motive which is offered to sway the conduct of the Jews, and\nforcibly inculcated by every event of their history. This had been\nmanifested in the appointment of the land of Canaan for the future\nsettlement of the chosen people on the first covenant which God entered\ninto with the Patriarch Abraham; in the prophecy, that for four hundred\nyears they should be afflicted in Egypt, and afterward be thence\ndelivered; in the increase of their nation, under circumstances of\nextreme oppression, and their supernatural deliverance from that\noppression. The same providence was displayed in the destruction of the\nEgyptians in the Red Sea; the travels of the thousands of Israel through\nthe wilderness, sustained by food from heaven; and in their subsequent\nsettlement in the promised land by means entirely distinct from their\nown strength. Reliance on the same providence was the foundation of\ntheir civil government, the spirit and the principle of their\nconstitution. On this only could they be commanded to keep the sabbatic\nyear without tilling their land, or even gathering its spontaneous\nproduce; confiding in the promise, that God would send his blessing on\nthe sixth year, so that it should bring forth fruit for three years,\nLev. xxv, 21. The same faith in Divine Providence alone could prevail on\nthem to leave their properties and families exposed to the attack of\ntheir surrounding enemies; while all the males of the nation assembled\nat Jerusalem to celebrate the three great festivals, enjoined by divine\ncommand, with the assurance that no man should desire their land when\nthey went up to appear before the Lord their God thrice in the year,\nExodus xxxiv, 24. And, finally, it is most evident, that, contrary to\nall other lawgivers, the Jewish legislator renders his civil\ninstitutions entirely subordinate to his religious; and announces to his\nnation that their temporal adversity or prosperity would entirely\ndepend, not on their observance of their political regulations; not on\ntheir preserving a military spirit, or acquiring commercial wealth, or\nstrengthening themselves by powerful alliances; but on their continuing\nto worship the one true God according to the religious rites and\nceremonies by him prescribed, and preserving their piety and morals\nuntainted by the corruptions and vices which idolatry tended to\nintroduce.\n\nSuch was the theology of the Jewish religion, at a period when the whole\nworld was deeply infected with idolatry; when all knowledge of the one\ntrue God, all reverence for his sacred name, all reliance on his\nprovidence, all obedience to his laws, were nearly banished from the\nearth; when the severest chastisements had been tried in vain; when no\nhope of reformation appeared from the refinements of civilization or the\nresearches of philosophy; for the most civilized and enlightened nations\nadopted with the greatest eagerness, and disseminated with the greatest\nactivity, the absurdities, impieties, and pollutions of idolatry. Then\nwas the Jewish law promulgated to a nation, who, to mere human judgment,\nmight have appeared incapable of inventing or receiving such a high\ndegree of intellectual and moral improvement; for they had been long\nenslaved to the Egyptians, the authors and supporters of the grossest\nidolatry; they had been weighed down by the severest bondage,\nperpetually harassed by the most incessant manual labours; for the\nEgyptians made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in\nbrick, and in all manner of service in the field,\u201d Exod. i, 14. At this\ntime, and in this nation, was the Mosaic law promulgated, teaching the\ngreat principles of true religion, the self-existence, the unity, the\nperfections, and the providence of the one great Jehovah; reprobating\nall false gods, all image worship, all the absurdities and profanations\nof idolatry. At this time, and in this nation, was a system of\ngovernment framed, which had for its basis the reception of, and steady\nadherence to, this system of true religion; and establishing many\nregulations, which would be in the highest degree irrational, and could\nnever hope to be received, except from a general and thorough reliance\non the superintendence of Divine Providence, controlling the course of\nnature, and directing every event, so as to proportion the prosperity of\nthe Hebrew people, according to their obedience to that law which they\nhad received as divine.\n\nIt is an obvious, but it is not therefore a less important remark, that\nto the Jewish religion we owe that admirable summary of moral duty,\ncontained in the ten commandments. All fair reasoners will admit that\neach of these must be understood to condemn, not merely the extreme\ncrime which it expressly prohibits, but every inferior offence of the\nsame kind, and every mode of conduct leading to such transgression; and,\non the contrary, to enjoin opposite conduct, and the cultivation of\nopposite dispositions. Thus, the command, Thou shalt not kill,\u201d condemns\nnot merely the single crime of deliberate murder, but every kind of\nviolence, and every indulgence of passion and resentment, which tends\neither to excite such violence, or to produce that malignant disposition\nof mind, in which the guilt of murder principally consists: and\nsimilarly of the rest. In this extensive interpretation of the\ncommandments, we are warranted, not merely by the deductions of reason,\nbut by the letter of the law itself. For the addition of the last, Thou\nshalt not covet,\u201d proves clearly that in all, the dispositions of the\nheart, as much as the immediate outward act, is the object of the divine\nLegislator; and thus it forms a comment on the meaning, as well as a\nguard for the observance, of all the preceding commands. Interpreted in\nthis natural and rational latitude, how comprehensive and important is\nthis summary of moral duty! It inculcates the adoration of the one true\nGod, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is;\u201d who\nmust, therefore, be infinite in power, and wisdom, and goodness; the\nobject of exclusive adoration; of gratitude for every blessing we enjoy;\nof fear, for he is a jealous God; of hope, for he is merciful. It\nprohibits every species of idolatry; whether by associating false gods\nwith the true, or worshipping the true by symbols and images. Commanding\nnot to take the name of God in vain, it enjoins the observance of all\noutward respect for the divine authority, as well as the cultivation of\ninward sentiments and feelings suited to this outward reverence; and it\nestablishes the obligation of oaths, and, by consequence, of all\ncompacts and deliberate promises; a principle, without which the\nadministration of laws would be impracticable, and the bonds of society\nmust be dissolved. By commanding to keep holy the Sabbath, as the\nmemorial of the creation, it establishes the necessity of public\nworship, and of a stated and outward profession of the truths of\nreligion, as well as of the cultivation of suitable feelings; and it\nenforces this by a motive which is equally applicable to all mankind,\nand which should have taught the Jew that he ought to consider all\nnations as equally creatures of that Jehovah whom he himself adored;\nequally subject to his government, and, if sincerely obedient, entitled\nto all the privileges his favour could bestow. It is also remarkable,\nthat this commandment, requiring that the rest of the Sabbath should\ninclude the man-servant, and the maid-servant, and the stranger that was\nwithin their gates, nay, even their cattle, proved that the Creator of\nthe universe extended his attention to all his creatures; that the\nhumblest of mankind were the objects of his paternal love; that no\naccidental differences, which so often create alienation among different\nnations, would alienate any from the divine regard; and that even the\nbrute creation shared the benevolence of their Creator, and ought to be\ntreated by men with gentleness and humanity.\n\nWhen we proceed to the second table, comprehending more expressly our\nsocial duties, we find all the most important principles on which they\ndepend clearly enforced. The commandment which enjoins, Honour thy\nfather and mother,\u201d sanctions the principles, not merely of filial\nobedience, but of all those duties which arise from our domestic\nrelations; and, while it requires not so much any one specific act, as\nthe general disposition which should regulate our whole course of\nconduct in this instance, it impresses the important conviction, that\nthe entire law proceeds from a Legislator able to search and judge the\nheart of man. The subsequent commands coincide with the clear dictates\nof reason, and prohibit crimes which human laws in general have\nprohibited as plainly destructive of social happiness. But it was of\ninfinite importance to rest the prohibitions, Thou shalt not kill,\u201d Thou\nshalt not commit adultery,\u201d Thou shalt not steal,\u201d Thou shalt not bear\nfalse witness,\u201d not merely on the deductions of reason, but also on the\nweight of a divine authority. How often have false ideas of public good\nin some places, depraved passions in others, and the delusions of\nidolatry in still more, established a law of reputation contrary to the\ndictates of reason, and the real interests of society. In one country we\nsee theft allowed, if perpetrated with address; in others, piracy and\nrapine honoured, if conducted with intrepidity. Sometimes we perceive\nadultery permitted, the most unnatural crimes committed without remorse\nor shame; nay, every species of impurity enjoined and consecrated as a\npart of divine worship. In others, we find revenge honoured as spirit,\nand death inflicted at its impulse with ferocious triumph. Again, we see\nevery feeling of nature outraged, and parents exposing their helpless\nchildren to perish for deformity of body or weakness of mind; or, what\nis still more dreadful, from mercenary or political views; and this\ninhuman practice familiarized by custom, and authorized by law. And, to\nclose the horrid catalogue, we see false religions leading their deluded\nvotaries to heap the altars of their idols with human victims; the\nmaster butchers his slave, the conqueror his captive; nay, dreadful to\nrelate, the parent sacrifices his children, and, while they shriek\namidst the tortures of the flames, or in the agonies of death, he drowns\ntheir cries by the clangour of cymbals and the yells of fanaticism. Yet\nthese abominations, separate or combined, have disgraced ages and\nnations which we are accustomed to admire and celebrate as civilized and\nenlightened,--Babylon and Egypt, Phenicia and Carthage, Greece and Rome.\nMany of these crimes legislators have enjoined, or philosophers\ndefended. What, indeed, could be hoped from legislators and\nphilosophers, when we recollect the institutions of Lycurgus, especially\nas to purity of manners, and the regulations of Plato on the same\nsubject, in his model of a perfect republic; when we consider the\nsensuality of the Epicureans, and immodesty of the Cynics; when we find\nsuicide applauded by the Stoics, and the murderous combats of gladiators\ndefended by Cicero, and exhibited by Trajan? Such variation and\ninconstancy in the rule and practice of moral duty, as established by\nthe feeble or fluctuating authority of human opinion, demonstrates the\nutility of a clear divine interposition, to impress these important\nprohibitions; and it is difficult for any sagacity to calculate how far\nsuch an interposition was necessary, and what effect it may have\nproduced by influencing human opinions and regulating human conduct,\nwhen we recollect that the Mosaic code was probably the first written\nlaw ever delivered to any nation; and that it must have been generally\nknown in those eastern countries, from which the most ancient and\ncelebrated legislators and sages derived the models of their laws and\nthe principles of their philosophy.\n\nBut the Jewish religion promoted the interests of moral virtue, not\nmerely by the positive injunctions of the decalogue; it also inculcated\nclearly and authoritatively the two great principles on which all piety\nand virtue depend, and which our blessed Lord recognised as the\ncommandments on which hang the law and the prophets,--the principles of\nlove to God and love to our neighbour. The love of God is every where\nenjoined in the Mosaic law, as the ruling disposition of the heart, from\nwhich all obedience should spring, and in which it ought to terminate.\nWith what solemnity does the Jewish lawgiver impress it at the\ncommencement of his recapitulation of the divine law: Hear, O Israel:\nthe Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with\nall thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,\u201d Deut.\nvi, 4, 5. And again: And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require\nof thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to\nlove him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all\nthy soul?\u201d Deut. x, 12. Nor is the love of our neighbour less explicitly\nenforced: Thou shalt not,\u201d says the law, avenge, nor bear any grudge\nagainst the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself: I am the Lord,\u201d Lev. xix, 18. The operation of this\nbenevolence, thus solemnly required, was not to be confined to their own\ncountrymen; it was to extend to the stranger, who, having renounced\nidolatry, was permitted to live among them, worshipping the true God,\nthough without submitting to circumcision or the other ceremonial parts\nof the Mosaic law: If a stranger,\u201d says the law, sojourn with thee in\nyour land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you\nshall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as\nthyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord thy\nGod,\u201d Lev. xix, 33, 34.\n\nThus, on a review of the topics we have discussed, it appears that the\nJewish law promulgated the great principles of moral duty in the\ndecalogue, with a solemnity suited to their high pre\u00ebminence; that it\nenjoined love to God with the most unceasing solicitude, and love to our\nneighbour, as extensively and forcibly, as the peculiar design of the\nJewish economy, and the peculiar character of the Jewish people, would\npermit; that it impressed the deepest conviction of God\u2019s requiring, not\nmere external observances, but heart-felt piety, well regulated desires,\nand active benevolence; that it taught sacrifice could not obtain pardon\nwithout repentance, or repentance without reformation and restitution;\nthat it described circumcision itself, and, by consequence, every other\nlegal rite, as designed to typify and inculcate internal holiness, which\nalone could render men acceptable to God; that it represented the love\nof God as designed to act as a practical principle, stimulating to the\nconstant and sincere cultivation of purity, mercy, and truth; and that\nit enforced all these principles and precepts by sanctions the most\nlikely to operate powerfully on minds unaccustomed to abstract\nspeculations and remote views, even by temporal rewards and punishments;\nthe assurance of which was confirmed from the immediate experience of\nsimilar rewards and punishments, dispensed to their enemies and to\nthemselves by that supernatural Power which had delivered the Hebrew\nnation out of Egypt, conducted them through the wilderness, planted them\nin the land of Canaan, regulated their government, distributed their\npossessions, and to which alone they could look to obtain new blessings,\nor secure those already enjoyed. From all this we derive another\npresumptive argument for the divine authority of the Mosaic code; and it\nmay be contended, that a moral system thus perfect, promulgated at so\nearly a period, to such a people, and enforced by such sanctions as no\nhuman power could undertake to execute, strongly bespeaks a divine\noriginal.\n\n2. The moral law is sometimes called the Mosaic law, because it was one\ngreat branch of those injunctions which, under divine authority, Moses\nenjoined upon the Israelites when they were gathered into a political\ncommunity under the theocracy. But it existed previously as the law of\nall mankind; and it has been taken up into the Christian system, and\nthere more fully illustrated. As the obligation of the moral law upon\nChristians has, however, been disputed by some perverters of the\nChristian faith, or held by others on loose and fallacious grounds, this\nsubject ought to be clearly understood. It is, nevertheless, to be\nnoticed, that the morals of the New Testament are not proposed to us in\nthe form of a regular code. Even in the books of Moses, which have the\nlegislative form to a great extent, not all the principles and duties\nwhich constituted the full character of godliness,\u201d under that\ndispensation, are made the subjects of formal injunction by particular\nprecepts. They are partly infolded in general principles, or often take\nthe form of injunction in an apparently incidental manner, or are\nmatters of obvious inference. A preceding code of traditionary moral law\nis all along supposed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, as well\nas a consuetudinary ritual and a doctrinal theology, both transmitted\nfrom the patriarchs. This, too, is eminently the case with Christianity.\nIt supposes that all who believed in Christ admitted the divine\nauthority of the Old Testament; and it assumes the perpetual authority\nof its morals, as well as the truth of its fundamental theology. The\nconstant allusions in the New Testament to the moral rules of the Jews\nand patriarchs, either expressly as precepts, or as the data of\nargument, sufficiently guard us against the notion, that what has not in\nso many words been re-enacted] by Christ and his Apostles is of no\nauthority among Christians. In a great number of instances, however, the\nform of injunction is directly preceptive, so as to have all the\nexplicitness and force of a regular code of law, and is, as much as a\nregular code could be, a declaration of the sovereign will of Christ,\nenforced by the sanctions of eternal life and death. This, however, is a\npoint on which a few confirmatory observations may be usefully adduced.\nNo part of the preceding dispensation, designated generally by the\nappellation of the law,\u201d is repealed in the New Testament, but what is\nobviously ceremonial, typical, and incapable of co\u00ebxisting with\nChristianity. Our Lord, in his discourse with the Samaritan woman,\ndeclares, that the hour of the abolition of the temple worship was come;\nthe Apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, teaches us that the\nLevitical services were but shadows, the substance and end of which is\nChrist; and the ancient visible church, as constituted upon the ground\nof natural descent from Abraham, was abolished by the establishment of a\nspiritual body of believers to take its place. No precepts of a purely\npolitical nature, that is, which respect the civil subjection of the\nJews to their theocracy, are, therefore, of any force to us as laws,\nalthough they may have, in many cases, the greatest authority as\nprinciples. No ceremonial precepts can be binding, since they were\nrestrained to a period terminating with the death and resurrection of\nChrist; nor are even the patriarchal rites of circumcision and the\npassover obligatory upon Christians, since we have sufficient evidence\nthat they were of an adumbrative character, and were laid aside by the\nfirst inspired teachers of Christianity.\n\nWith the moral precepts which abound in the Old Testament the case is\nvery different, as sufficiently appears from the different, and even\ncontrary, manner in which they are always spoken of by Christ and his\nApostles. When our Lord, in his sermon on the mount, says, Think not\nthat I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to\ndestroy the law, but to fulfil;\u201d that is, to confirm or establish it;\nthe entire scope of his discourse shows that he is speaking exclusively\nof the moral precepts of the law,\u201d eminently so called, and of the moral\ninjunctions of the prophets founded upon them, and to which he thus\ngives an equal authority. And in so solemn a manner does he enforce\nthis, that he adds, doubtless as foreseeing that attempts would be made\nby deceiving or deceived men professing his religion, to lessen the\nauthority of the moral law, Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of\nthese least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the\nleast in the kingdom of heaven;\u201d that is, as St. Chrysostom interprets,\nHe shall be the farthest from attaining heaven and happiness, which\nimports that he shall not attain it at all.\u201d In like manner St. Paul,\nafter having strenuously maintained the doctrine of justification by\nfaith alone, anticipates an objection by asking, Do we then make void\nthe law through faith?\u201d and subjoins, God forbid: yea, we establish the\nlaw;\u201d meaning by the law,\u201d as the context and his argument clearly show,\nthe moral and not the ceremonial law.\n\nAfter such declarations, it is worse than trifling for any to contend\nthat, in order to establish the authority of the moral law of the Jews\nover Christians, it ought to have been formally re\u00ebnacted. To this we\nmay, however, farther reply, not only that many important moral\nprinciples and rules found in the Old Testament were never formally\nenacted among the Jews; were traditional from an earlier age; and\nreceived at different times the more indirect authority of inspired\nrecognition; but, to put the matter in a stronger light, that all the\nleading moral precepts of the Jewish Scriptures are, in point of fact,\nproposed in the New Testament in a manner which has the full force of\nformal re\u00ebnactment, as the laws of the Christian church. This argument,\nfrom the want of formal re\u00ebnactment, will therefore have no weight. The\nsummary of the law and the prophets, which is to love God with all our\nheart, and to serve him with all our strength, and to love our neighbour\nas ourselves, is unquestionably enjoined, and even re\u00ebnacted by the\nChristian lawgiver. When our Lord is explicitly asked by one who came\nunto him and said, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may\nhave eternal life?\u201d the answer given shows that the moral law contained\nin the decalogue is so in force under the Christian dispensation, that\nobedience to it is necessary to final salvation:--\u201cIf thou wilt enter\ninto life, keep the commandments.\u201d And that nothing ceremonial is\nintended by this term, is manifest from what follows: He saith unto him,\nWhich? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder. Thou shalt not commit\nadultery. Thou shalt not steal,\u201d &c. Matt. xix, 17\u201319. Here, also, we\nhave all the force of a formal re\u00ebnactment of the decalogue, a part of\nit being evidently put for the whole. Nor were it difficult to produce\npassages from the discourses of Christ and the writings of the Apostles,\nwhich enjoin all the precepts of this law taken separately, by their\nauthority, as indispensable parts of Christian duty, and that, too,\nunder their original sanctions of life and death; so that the two\ncircumstances which form the true character of a law in its highest\nsense, divine authority and penal sanctions, are found as truly in the\nNew Testament as in the Old. It will not, for instance, be contended,\nthat the New Testament does not enjoin the acknowledgment and worship of\none God alone; nor that it does not prohibit idolatry; nor that it does\nnot level its maledictions against false and profane swearing; nor that\nthe Apostle Paul does not use the very words of the fifth commandment\npreceptively, when he says, Honour thy father and mother, which is the\nfirst commandment with promise,\u201d Eph. vi, 2; nor that murder, adultery,\ntheft, false witness, and covetousness are not all prohibited under pain\nof exclusion from the kingdom of God. Thus, then, we have the whole\ndecalogue brought into the Christian code of morals, by a distinct\ninjunction of its separate precepts, and by their recognition as of\npermanent and unchangeable obligation; the fourth commandment,\nrespecting the Sabbath only, being so far excepted, that its injunction\nis not so expressly marked. This, however, is no exception in fact; for\nbeside that its original place in the two tables sufficiently\ndistinguishes it from all positive, ceremonial, and typical precepts,\nand gives it a moral character, in respect to its ends, which are,\nfirst, mercy to servants and cattle, and, second, the worship of\nalmighty God, undisturbed by worldly interruptions and cares, it is\nnecessarily included in that law\u201d which our Lord declares he came not to\ndestroy, or abrogate; in that law\u201d which St. Paul declares to be\nestablished by faith,\u201d and among those commandments\u201d which our Lord\ndeclares must be kept,\u201d if any one would enter into life.\u201d To this,\nalso, the practice of the Apostles is to be added, who did not cease\nthemselves from keeping one day in seven holy, nor teach others so to\ndo; but gave to \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d that eminence and sanctity in the\nChristian church which the seventh day had in the Jewish, by\nconsecrating it to holy uses; an alteration not affecting the precept at\nall, except in an unessential circumstance, (if indeed in that,) and in\nwhich we may suppose them to have acted under divine suggestion.\n\nThus, then, we have the obligation of the whole decalogue as fully\nestablished in the New Testament as in the Old, as if it had been\nformally re\u00ebnacted; and that no formal re\u00ebnactment of it took place, is\nitself a presumptive proof that it was never regarded by the lawgiver as\ntemporary, which the formality of republication might have supposed. It\nis important to remark, however, that, although the moral laws of the\nMosaic dispensation pass into the Christian code, they stand there in\nother and higher circumstances; so that the New Testament is a more\nperfect dispensation of the knowledge of the moral will of God than the\nOld. In particular, (1.) They are more expressly extended to the heart,\nas by our Lord, in his sermon on the mount; who teaches us that the\nthought and inward purpose of any offence is a violation of the law\nprohibiting its external and visible commission. (2.) The principles on\nwhich they are founded are carried out in the New Testament into a\ngreater variety of duties, which, by embracing more perfectly the social\nand civil relations of life, are of a more universal character. (3.)\nThere is a much more enlarged injunction of positive and particular\nvirtues, especially those which constitute the Christian temper. (4.) By\nall overt acts being inseparably connected with corresponding principles\nin the heart, in order to constitute acceptable obedience, which\nprinciples suppose the regeneration of the soul by the Holy Ghost. This\nmoral renovation is, therefore, held out as necessary to our salvation,\nand promised as a part of the grace of our redemption by Christ. (5.) By\nbeing connected with promises of divine assistance, which is peculiar to\na law connected with evangelical provisions. (6.) By their having a\nliving illustration in the perfect and practical example of Christ. (7.)\nBy the higher sanctions derived from the clearer revelation of a future\nstate, and the more explicit promises of eternal life, and threatenings\nof eternal punishment. It follows from this, that we have in the Gospel\nthe most complete and perfect revelation of moral law ever given to men;\nand a more exact manifestation of the brightness, perfection, and glory\nof that law, under which angels and our progenitors in paradise were\nplaced, and which it is at once the delight and the interest of the most\nperfect and happy beings to obey.\n\nLAZARUS, brother to Martha and Mary. He dwelt at Bethany with his\nsisters, near Jerusalem; and the Lord Jesus did him the honour sometimes\nof lodging at his house when he visited the city. See the account of his\nresurrection related at large in John xi, 5, &c.\n\nLEAD, \u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea, Exod. xv, 10; Num. xxxi, 22; Job xix, 24; Jer. vi, 29; Ezek.\nxxii, 18; xxvii, 12; Zech. v, 7, 8; a mineral of a bluish white colour.\nIt is the softest next to gold, but has no great tenacity, and is not in\nthe least sonorous. It is mentioned with five other species of metal,\nNum. xxxi, 22; and there is no doubt but that this is the meaning of the\nword; so the Septuagint render it throughout, \u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03d0\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03d0\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nLEAVEN. The Hebrews were forbidden by the law to eat leavened bread, or\na food with leaven in it, during the seven days of the passover, Exod.\nxii, 15\u201319; Lev. ii, 11. They were very careful in purifying their\nhouses from all leaven before this feast began. God forbad either leaven\nor honey to be offered to him in his temple; that is, in cakes or in any\nbaked meats. But on other occasions they might offer leavened bread or\nhoney. St. Paul, 1 Cor. v, 7, 8, expresses his desire that the faithful\nshould celebrate the Christian passover with unleavened bread; which,\nfiguratively, signifies sincerity and truth. In this he teaches us two\nthings; first, that the law which obliged the Jews to a literal\nobservance of the passover is no longer in force; and, secondly, that by\nunleavened bread, truth and purity of heart were denoted. The same\nApostle alludes to the ceremony used at the passover, when he says, A\nlittle leaven leaveneth the whole lump;\u201d that is, a small portion of\nleaven, in a quantity of bread or paste, corrupts the whole, and renders\nit unclean. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, Matthew xvi, 11, warns his\nApostles to beware of the leaven of the Herodians and Pharisees; meaning\ntheir doctrines.\n\nLEBANON, or LIBANUS, signifying _white_, from its snows,--the most\nelevated mountain or mountain chain in Syria, celebrated in all ages for\nits cedars; which, as is well known, furnished the wood for Solomon\u2019s\ntemple. This mountain is the centre, or nucleus, of all the mountain\nridges which, from the north, the south, and the east, converge toward\nthis point; but it overtops them all. This configuration of the\nmountains, and the superiority of Lebanon, are particularly striking to\nthe traveller approaching both from the Mediterranean on the west, and\nthe desert on the east. On either side, he first discovers, at a great\ndistance, a clouded ridge, stretching from north to south, as far as the\neye can see; the central summits of which are capped with clouds, or\ntipped with snow. This is Lebanon, which is often referred to in Holy\nWrit for its streams, its timber, and its wines; and at the present day\nthe seat of the only portion of freedom of which Syria can boast.\n\nThe altitude of Lebanon is so considerable, that it appears from the\nreports of travellers to have snow on its highest eminences all the year\nround. Volney says, that it thus remains toward the north-east, where it\nis sheltered from the sea winds and the rays of the sun. Maundrell found\nthat part of the mountain which he crossed, and which in all probability\nwas by no means the highest, covered with deep snow in the month of May.\nDr. E. D. Clarke, in the month of July, saw some of the eastern summits\nof Lebanon, or Anti-Libanus, near Damascus, covered with snow, not lying\nin patches, as is common in the summer season with mountains which\nborder on the line of perpetual congelation, but do not quite reach it,\nbut with that perfect white, smooth, and velvetlike appearance, which\nsnow only exhibits when it is very deep,--a striking spectacle in such a\nclimate, where the beholder, seeking protection from a burning sun,\nalmost considers the firmament to be on fire. At the time this\nobservation was made, the thermometer, in an elevated situation near the\nsea of Tiberias, stood at 102\u00bd\u00b0 in the shade. Sir Frederic Henniker\npassed over snow in July; and Ali Bey describes the same eastern ridge\nas covered with snow in September. Of the noble cedars which once\nadorned the upper parts of this mountain but few now remain, and those\nmuch decayed. Burckhardt, who crossed Mount Libanus in 1810, counted\nabout thirty-six large ones, fifty of middle size, and about three\nhundred smaller and young ones: but more might exist in other parts of\nthe mountain. The wine, especially that made about the convent of\nCanobin, still preserves its ancient celebrity; and is reported by\ntravellers, more particularly by Rauwolff, Le Bruyn, and De la Roque, to\nbe of the most exquisite kind for flavour and fragrance. The rains which\nfall in the lower regions of Lebanon, and the melting of the snow in the\nupper ones, furnish an abundance of perennial streams, which are alluded\nto by Solomon, Cant. iv, 15. On the declivities of the mountain grew the\nvines which furnished the rich and fragrant wine which Hosea celebrated,\nxiv, 7, and which may still be obtained by proper culture.\n\nThe cedar of Lebanon has, in all ages, been reckoned as an object of\nunrivalled grandeur and beauty in the vegetable kingdom. It is,\naccordingly, one of the natural images which frequently occur in the\npoetical style of the Hebrew prophets; and is appropriated to denote\nkings, princes, and potentates of the highest rank. Thus, the Prophet\nIsaiah, whose writings abound with metaphors and allegories of this\nkind, in denouncing the judgments of God upon the proud and arrogant,\ndeclares that the day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon all the cedars\nof Lebanon that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of\nBashan,\u201d Isaiah ii, 13. The king of Israel used the same figure in his\nreply to the challenge of the king of Judah: The thistle that was in\nLebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter\nto my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon,\nand trod down the thistle,\u201d 2 Kings xiv, 9. The spiritual prosperity of\nthe righteous man is compared by the Psalmist to the same noble plant:\nThe righteous shall flourish as the palm tree; he shall grow as the\ncedar in Lebanon.\u201d To break the cedars, and shake the enormous mass on\nwhich they grow, are the figures that David selects to express the awful\nmajesty and power of Jehovah: The voice of the Lord is powerful; the\nvoice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the\ncedars: yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon. He maketh them\nalso to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn,\u201d\nPsalm xxix, 4\u20136. This description of the divine majesty and power\npossesses a character of awful sublimity.\n\nThe stupendous size, the extensive range, and great elevation of\nLibanus; its towering summits capped with perpetual snow, or crowned\nwith fragrant cedars; its olive plantations; its vineyards, producing\nthe most delicious wines; its clear fountains, and cold-flowing brooks;\nits fertile vales, and odoriferous shrubberies,--combine to form in\nScripture language, the glory of Lebanon.\u201d But that glory, liable to\nchange, has, by the unanimous consent of modern travellers, suffered a\nsensible decline. The extensive forests of cedar, which adorned and\nperfumed the summits and declivities of those mountains, have almost\ndisappeared. Only a small number of these trees of God, planted by his\nalmighty hand,\u201d which, according to the usual import of the phrase,\nsignally displayed the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, now remain.\nTheir countless number in the days of Solomon, and their prodigious\nbulk, must be recollected, in order to feel the force of that sublime\ndeclaration of the prophet: Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the\nbeasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering,\u201d Isaiah xl, 16. Though\nthe trembling sinner were to make choice of Lebanon for the altar; were\nto cut down all its forests to form the pile; though the fragrance of\nthis fuel, with all its odoriferous gums, were the incense; the wine of\nLebanon pressed from all its vineyards, the libation; and all its\nbeasts, the propitiatory sacrifice; all would prove insufficient to make\natonement for the sins of men; would be regarded as nothing in the eyes\nof the supreme Judge for the expiation of even one transgression. The\njust and holy law of God requires a nobler altar, a costlier sacrifice,\nand a sweeter perfume,--the obedience and death of a divine Person to\natone for our sins, and the incense of his continual intercession to\nsecure our acceptance with the Father of mercies, and admission into the\nmansions of eternal rest. The conversion of the Gentile nations from the\nworship of idols and the bondage of corruption, to the service and\nenjoyment of the true God, is foretold in these beautiful and striking\nterms: The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them: and\nthe desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom\nabundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon\nshall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon: they shall\nsee the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God,\u201d Isaiah xxxv,\n4.\n\nLEEK, \u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8, in Numbers xi, 5, translated leek;\u201d in 1 Kings xviii, 5; 2\nKings xix, 26; Job xl, 15; Psalm xxxvii, 2; xc, 5; ciii, 15; civ, 14;\ncxxix, 6; cxlvii, 8; Isaiah xxxv, 7; xxxvii, 27; xl, 6, it is rendered\ngrass;\u201d in Job viii, 12, herb;\u201d in Prov. xxvii, 25; Isaiah xv, 6, hay;\u201d\nand in Isaiah xxxiv, 13, a court.\u201d It is much of the same nature with\nthe onion. The kind called _karrat_ by the Arabians, the _allium porrum_\nof Linn\u00e6us, Hasselquist says, must certainly have been one of those\ndesired by the children of Israel, as it has been cultivated and\nesteemed from the earliest times to the present in Egypt. The\ninhabitants are very fond of eating it raw, as sauce for their roasted\nmeat; and the poor people eat it raw with their bread, especially for\nbreakfast. There is reason, however, to doubt whether this plant is\nintended in Num. xi, 5, and so differently rendered every where else: it\nshould rather intend such vegetables as grow promiscuously with grass.\nLudolphus supposes that it may mean lettuce and sallads in general; and\nMaillet observes, that the succory and endive are eaten with great\nrelish by the people in Egypt: some or all of these may be meant.\n\nLEGION. The Roman legions were composed each of ten cohorts; a cohort,\nof fifty maniples; a maniple, of fifteen men; consequently, a full\nlegion contained six thousand soldiers. Jesus cured one who called\nhimself legion,\u201d as if possessed by a legion of devils, Mark v, 9. He\nalso said to Peter, who drew his sword to defend him in the olive\ngarden: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, who shall\npresently give me more than twelve legions of angels?\u201d Matt. xxvi, 53.\n\nLEMUEL. See AGUR.\n\nLENTIL, \u05e2\u05d3\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd, Gen. xxv, 34; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; xxiii, 11; Ezek. iv, 9, a\nsort of pulse; in the Septuagint \u03c6\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, and Vulgate _lens_. The lentils\nof Egypt were very much esteemed among the ancients. St. Austin says,\nthey grow abundantly in Egypt, are much used as a food there, and those\nof Alexandria are considered particularly valuable. Dr. Shaw says,\nbeans, lentils, kidney beans, and garvancos are the chief of their pulse\nkind. Beans, when boiled and stewed with oil and garlic, are the\nprincipal food of persons of all distinctions. Lentils are dressed in\nthe same manner as beans, dissolving easily into a mass, and making a\npottage of a chocolate colour. This, we find, was the red pottage\u201d which\nEsau, from thence called Edom, exchanged for his birthright.\n\nLEOPARD, \u05e0\u05de\u05e8, Cant. iv, 8; Isaiah xi, 6; Jer. v, 6; xiii, 23; Hosea\nxiii, 7; Hab. i, 8; Dan. vii, 6; \u03d6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, Rev. xiii, 2; Ecclus. xxviii,\n23. There can be no doubt that the pard or leopard is the animal\nmentioned. Bochart shows that the name is similar in the Chaldee,\nSyriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic. The LXX uniformly render it by \u03d6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2;\nand Jerom, _pardus_. Probably, these animals were numerous in Palestine;\nas we find places with a name intimating their having been the haunts of\nleopards: _Nimrah_, Num. xxxii, 3; _Beth-Nimrah_, Num. xxxii, 36; Joshua\nxiii, 27; and waters of _Nimrim_,\u201d Isa. xv, 6; Jer. xlviii, 34; and\nmountains of leopards,\u201d Cant. iv, 8. Nimrod might have his name from\nthis animal: He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is\nsaid, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord,\u201d Gen. x, 9. It\nis supposed, however, that his predations were not confined to the brute\ncreation. Dr. Geddes remarks, that the word hunter\u201d expresses too\nlittle. He was a freebooter, in the worst sense of the word; a lawless\ndespot:\n\n               Proud Nimrod first the bloody chase began,\n               A mighty hunter, and his prey was man.\n\nIsaiah, describing the happy state of the reign of Messiah, says, The\nleopard shall lie down with the kid,\u201d Isaiah xi, 6. Even animals shall\nlose their fierceness and cruelty, and become gentle and tame. Jeremiah,\nv, 6, mentions the artful ambuscades of this animal; and in xiii, 23,\nalludes to his spots: Can a Cushite change his skin; or a leopard his\nspots? Then may ye prevail with them to do good who are habituated to do\nevil;\u201d and Habakkuk, i, 8, refers to its alertness.\n\nLEPROSY. See DISEASES.\n\nLETTERS, marks for the purpose of expressing sounds, used in writing.\nFew subjects have given rise to more discussion than the origin of\nalphabetic characters. If they are of human invention, they must be\nconsidered as one of the most admirable efforts of the ingenuity of man.\nSo wonderful is the facility which they afford for recording human\nthought; so ingenious, and at the same time so simple, is the analysis\nwhich they furnish for the sounds of articulate speech, and for all the\npossible variety of words; that we might expect the author of this happy\ninvention to have been immortalized by the grateful homage of succeeding\nages, and his name delivered down to posterity with the ample honours it\nso justly merited. But the author and the era of this discovery, if such\nit be, are both lost in the darkness of remote antiquity. Even the\nnation to which the invention is due cannot now be ascertained. The\nEgyptians, the Assyrians, the Phenicians, the Persians, the Indians,\nhave all laid claim to the honour of it; and each has named its inventor\namong the remote, and probably fabulous, personages that figure in the\nearlier ages of their history. In consequence of this uncertainty\nrespecting the author of alphabetic writing, and the high value and\nextreme difficulty of the invention itself, many have been inclined to\nattribute this art to an immediate revelation from the Deity; contending\nthat it was communicated with other invaluable gifts from above, in\nremote ages, to the descendants of Abraham, and probably to the\nPatriarch Moses, who was the author of the most ancient compositions in\nalphabetical writing that we at present possess. The arguments which are\nbrought in support of the divine revelation of the alphabet, are chiefly\nthese: 1. The high antiquity of the use of letters; the Hebrew\ncharacters having existed in a perfect state when Moses composed the\nPentateuch, the most ancient writing now known to be extant. 2. The\nsimilarity between the various alphabets of different nations, which,\nfor the most part, are the same, in the order, power, and even form, of\ntheir letters with the Hebrew. 3. The complete want of alphabetic\ncharacters among those nations, which have been cut off from all\ncommunication with the ancient civilized world, as the aboriginal\nAmericans; or that part of the human race which had no opportunity of\nborrowing the system of written characters revealed to the Hebrews, as\nChina.\n\nHad man been left to himself, the first and most natural way of making\nhis thoughts visible to the eye would be by pictorial representations.\nThe second step would, for convenience\u2019 sake, be to invent an\nabbreviated form of these pictures, sufficiently legible to call to mind\nthe original picture in full, and yet so reduced and intermixed with a\nfew easily remembered arbitrary characters, or symbols, as to be more\nextensively useful. The next and most difficult step would be the\nalphabet so formed as to express all the sounds of the language, by\nconvenient combination. The Egyptian monuments show specimens of each;\nthe hieroglyph, the mixed and abbreviated, and the alphabetical. The\nmagnificent ruins of Persepolis, the capital of ancient Persia, exhibit\nalso the pure pictorial style, and tablets of abbreviated emblems. The\ncharacters on the bricks dug up from the ruins of ancient Babylon have\ncharacters, which are supposed to be, not alphabetic, but abbreviated\nsymbols, and therefore suppose the existence of the larger picture\nwriting, whether the people possessed a proper alphabet or not. All the\nsavage tribes of America had their picture writings, and this style was\ncarried to great perfection by the Mexicans. The latter had, likewise,\nabbreviated marks, which were used as symbols; and thus made an approach\nto letters, although they never reached this discovery. It is a curious\nfact, that in our day a Cherokee chief has actually invented an\nalphabet, and that in the process he commenced with a pictorial\nrepresentation of animals which uttered sounds somewhat like those of\nhis own tongue; which thought seems not to have entered into the picture\nwriting of the ancients, whose delineations spoke wholly to the eye, and\nnot at all to the ear. Finding this method imperfect and cumbersome, he\nat last hit upon the expedient of arbitrary characters, which he\ngradually reduced in number, and so perfected, that, with a few European\nimprovements, books are now printed in them for the use of his nation.\nIn China the language is a complete system of abbreviated pictures,\nemblems, or symbols; and there is no proper alphabet to this day.\n\nThese facts are urged as direct proofs or strong presumptions that all\nalphabetical characters have been preceded by picture or imitative\ncharacters; and that as the whole is within the compass of human\ningenuity, the notion of a divine suggestion of letters, or of the\nimportant art of alphabetical writing, is bringing in the divine agency\nwithout necessity. But the assumption that alphabets have in all cases\nbeen formed through this process, is wholly hypothetic. Certain it is\nthat we can prove from the Scriptures that _literal_ writing was in use\nat an earlier period than can be assigned to any picture writing\nwhatever. Writing and reading were familiar to Moses and the Israelites\nwhen the law was given, and must have long previously existed among\nthem, and, probably, among the Egyptians of the same age too; which is\nmuch earlier than any of those monuments bearing hieroglyphical\ncharacters reach. We have given sufficient reason to conclude that Job\nlived at an earlier period still, and as he expresses a wish that his\nwords should be written in a book, and engraven on the rock, the\nknowledge of reading as well as writing must have been pretty general in\nhis country, or the book and the inscription could not have been a\ntestimony of his faith and hope to his countrymen, as he passionately\ndesired it to be. Here, too, it is to be observed, that in the early\nMosaic history we have not the least intimation of writing by pictures\nor symbols, nor any that the art of writing had been revealed from\nheaven in the days of Moses, preparatory to the giving of a written law\nand the introduction of inspired books for the religious instruction of\nthe people. We must trace it up higher; though whether of divine\nrevelation, or human invention, cannot certainly be determined. Its\nimportance was assuredly worthy of the former; and if this was not done\nby particular revelation, doubtless we may reasonably and piously\nascribe it to a divine suggestion.\n\nIt may, indeed, be asked, How then is it that in other nations we can so\naccurately trace the progress from the picture to the symbol, and thence\non to the alphabet; as for instance in Egypt? We answer, that if this\nwere allowed, still it might be, and probably was, a part of the divine\nprocedure with reference to the preservation of the true religion, that\nthe knowledge of letters should be early given to the Abrahamic family,\nor, at least, preserved among them, while many others of the more\ndispersed branches of the human race becoming barbarous, as stated under\nthe article _Language_, might lose it; because picture writing was\neasily convertible to idolatrous purposes, and in reality was greatly\nencouraged from that source. The same care would be exerted to prevent\npictorial representations of spiritual beings and things as the forming\nof images; and the race of true worshippers of God was never therefore\nplaced under the necessity of thus expressing their thoughts by such\ndelineations. But it is, in fact, far from being proved, that the\nhieroglyph, or picture writing, of Egypt for example, was more ancient\namong that people than alphabetic writing. One of the most recent\nwriters on this side is the Marquis Spineto, in his Lectures on Egyptian\nHieroglyphics.\u201d His theory is, in fact, that of Warburton; and he thinks\nthat the recent discoveries as to the hieroglyphics of Egypt fully\nestablish it. The opinion of this learned prelate was, that the\nprimitive mode of writing among the Egyptians was by figurative\ndelineations or hieroglyphics; that this becoming too tedious and\nvoluminous, by degrees they perfected another character, which he calls\nthe running-hand of hieroglyphics, resembling the Chinese characters;\nwhich being at first formed only by the outlines of figures, became at\nlength a kind of marks; and at last led to the compendious use of\nletters by an alphabet. His argument against the knowledge of letters by\nthe immediate descendants of Noah is as follows: For, if the invention\nof the alphabet had preceded the dispersion, we should have found the\nuse of it generally established among mankind, and hieroglyphics and\npicture writing entirely lain aside. But this is not the case. The\nMexicans and the Peruvians, up to the fifteenth century, and, to this\nday, the Chinese, have no knowledge of the alphabet. They all, like the\nEgyptians, made use of hieroglyphics, more or less abridged, more or\nless symbolical, or, if you please, more or less arbitrary; but they had\nno knowledge of the alphabet. The invention of letters, therefore, must\nhave happened after the dispersion, at a time when picture or\nhieroglyphical writing was generally used; it was thus imported into the\nrespective countries, by the primitive inhabitants, as they separated\nthemselves from the common society, carrying in their migrations those\npartly true and partly false notions of the Deity, and of the great\nevent which had submerged the world; notions which, in fact, are to be\nfound in the theology and ritual of all the nations in the universe,\nalthough more or less disfigured and altered.\u201d\n\nBut as the running-hand hieroglyphics, spoken of by Warburton, were no\nmore alphabetical than the hieroglyphics themselves, still we are left\nto make the inquiry, Who was the inventor of the Egyptian alphabet? This\nis supposed by the Marquis on the authority of a passage in Plato, to be\na secretary of one of the kings of Egypt. This king is called Thamus;\nwho forbade his ingenius secretary, Thouth, or Theuth, to make the\ninvention public; lest the people should no longer pay attention to the\nhieroglyphics, which would then be soon forgotten. The secret, however,\nsoon escaped; and as it diminished to a prodigious degree the difficulty\nof writing, it was generally adopted by the Egyptians, and from them\npassed into other nations. The first,\u201d says the Marquis, who seem to\nhave got a knowledge of this system, were the Phenicians; they imparted\nit to the Arabians, to the Jews, and carried it over to Greece. From\nthat country it was exported to the several islands, carried to the\ncontinent, and reached the northern nations. The Chinese alone refused\nto adopt the valuable discovery; proud of the antiquity of their social\nestablishment, believing themselves superior to the rest of mankind,\nthey still adhered to their ancient mode of writing. This, as I have\nalready observed, though originally the same with that used by the\nEgyptians, became, in process of time, materially different, being made\nup of arbitrary marks, which are for the most part ideographical. With\nthe discovery of the alphabet, however, a very material change took\nplace in regard to hieroglyphics. Originally, as we have seen, they had\nbeen the common, nay, the sole mode of writing, employed by the nation\nat large, in all the transactions of life, and through the policy of\nKing Thamus, the alphabetical letters were kept secret: but, as soon as\nthis discovery became known, the contrary happened; alphabetical writing\nbecame common, and hieroglyphics mysterious, not because they were\npurposely hidden in mystery, but simply because they required greater\napplication and greater trouble. They indeed still continued to be used\nin matters of religion, funerals, public monuments, and the like; but in\nall business, and common transactions, the alphabetical writing was\nemployed. This was a necessary consequence of the general use of\nhieroglyphics in their primitive state; for although the Egyptians\nmight, and, in fact, did, give the preference to the alphabet, yet they\ndid not think it necessary to erase the old hieroglyphical characters\nfrom their temples, from their obelisks, from their tombs, and religious\nvases. The priests, therefore, still continued to study and preserve the\nknowledge of hieroglyphics; and these, partly by their showy nature,\npartly by the continuation of the old custom, continued still to be used\nin public monuments of a votive and funeral nature. To distinguish them,\ntherefore, from the alphabetical letters newly invented, they obtained\nthe name of sacred, on the score of their being employed only in matters\nof religion. The priests, however, who had already invented a new set of\narbitrary marks, as a shorter way of hieroglyphical writing, which they\nemployed exclusively in transactions which concerned their body and\ntheir pursuits, after the invention of the alphabet turned these marks\ninto letters, and thus they formed another set of characters, or mode of\nwriting, to which they gave the appellation of hieratic, as belonging\nexclusively to their order. In these characters they wrote all\nhistorical, political, and religious transactions. And as the common, or\ndemotic letters were employed in all the common business of life, and\nhieroglyphics confined to public monuments, and funereal and votive\nceremonies, the Egyptians became possessed of at least three different\nmodes of writing, or sets of characters, which were hieroglyphic,\ndemotic, and hieratic. Whether the priests had invented another set of\ncharacters, unknown to the people, and in which they concealed their\ndoctrine and their knowledge, is a question which cannot be solved at\npresent. The want of monuments disables us from saying any thing of a\ndecisive nature on this subject. One thing alone we can suppose with\ncertainty, that if such a mode of writing did ever exist, and for the\npurpose for which it is supposed to have existed, the knowledge of it\nmust have been confined to the priests only, and the records so written\nconcealed with the greatest care from the eye of the nation. If,\ntherefore, such records exist, they must be sought for in the dwelling\nof the hierophant, in the most recondite places of the temples; perhaps\nin those subterraneous passages which now lie hidden under mountains of\nsand, and in which no one but the priests were ever permitted to enter.\u201d\n\nThe whole of this account, we may however observe, is far from being\nsatisfactory. Whether the early Egyptians wrote hieroglyphics at all, no\nmonuments yet discovered are so ancient as to prove; since all such\ncharacters now known must have been written subsequently to the\nadvancement of the kingdom into great power, and after considerable\nprogress had been made in architecture and other arts. The passage, too,\nin Plato, on which the argument is made to depend, may just as well\nrefer to the running-hand or abridged hieroglyphical signs, as to\nalphabetical writing; and the supposition, that the priests gave an\nalphabetical character to this kind of abridged pictorial writing\n_after_ the discovery of the real alphabet, (and alphabetical Ackerblad\nand Dr. Young have proved it to be,) is quite hypothetic. We think it\nmore probable that alphabetical writing is much older than the\nhieroglyphics; that the phonetic hieroglyphics were fanciful\nrepresentations of the alphabetic characters, intermingled with those\nsymbols which idolatry and the natural peculiarities of Egypt would\nsuggest; that the whole was originally easy to be deciphered by those\nwho knew letters at all; and that the leading motive of fixing them on\npublic monuments in preference to literal inscriptions, was the taste of\nthe day, which custom, and antiquity, and superstition at length\nconsecrated. We have thus an easy way of accounting for the\nalphabetical, though obscure, character of the hieroglyphic\nrunning-hand, or hieratic writing, so much used in manuscripts. As an\nabridged form of the hieroglyphical outline, it would at least be\nphonetic wherever the hieroglyphic was so; and where that was\nsymbolical, it would naturally present greater difficulty in\ndeciphering, which, in fact, has been proved to be the case, by modern\nstudents in the art. It is, indeed, acknowledged by those who advocate\nthe priority of the hieroglyphic to the alphabetic signs, that the\nnumber of ideas which could thus be expressed is few; and this the\nMarquis Spineto considers as a presumptive proof of his theory. In these\nearly ages, the position of mankind after the flood,\u201d he observes, was\nsuch as to preclude the possibility of supposing that they had many\nideas and many wants; therefore we may reasonably conclude, that their\nlanguage consisted of words only which were intended to express the\nthings most necessary to life, and consequently contained a small number\nof words.\u201d We know, indeed, that it is the notion of many infidel\nwriters, that the original race or races of mankind were a sort of\nsavages; and that a state of society gradually increased the ideas, and\nenriched the language of those who at first were capable of uttering but\na few simple articulate sounds; but that any person should talk in a\nsimilar strain, who professes to receive the Mosaic history, is absurd.\nThe antediluvians had surely much knowledge. Many arts were invented\nbefore the flood; and the ark itself is a vast monument of mechanical\nskill. Arts, science, morals, legislation, theology, were all known\nbefore the flood; and were all transmitted from the old world to the\nnew, by Noah and his sons. These were not men of few ideas,\u201d nor was the\npastoral mode of life incompatible with great moral knowledge,\neloquence, and the highest and richest poetry, as we see in the book of\nJob. Men were not then, as many moderns have supposed, a race of babies,\nable only to ask for what they needed to eat and drink, or childishly to\nplay with; and we may therefore rest assured that they had a language so\ncopious, and enunciations of ideas so various in their respective\ntongues, that picture writing neither was nor could be adequate to their\nfull expression. The true origin of hieroglyphic writing is still\nunexplained; and will, after all, probably, remain inexplicable: but it\nhas little claim to be considered as the first mode of expressing the\nsounds of language. As for the Chinese language, it is evident that it\ncannot be urged in proof of alphabetical writing having in all cases\npassed through the process above mentioned; for to this day the Chinese\nhave no alphabet. As a language it is indeed peculiar, as being wholly\nmonosyllabic; and we must be better acquainted with the early\ncircumstances of that people before we can account for either. See\nWRITING.\n\nLEVIATHAN, \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df, Job iii, 8; xli, 1; Psalm lxxiv, 14; civ, 26; Isa.\nxxvii, 1. The old commentators concurred in regarding the whale as the\nanimal here intended. Beza and Diodati were among the first to interpret\nit the crocodile: and Bochart has since supported this last rendering\nwith a train of argument which has nearly overwhelmed all opposition,\nand brought almost every commentator over to his opinion. It is very\ncertain that it could not be the whale, which does not inhabit the\nMediterranean, much less the rivers that empty themselves into it; nor\nwill the characteristics at all apply to the whale. The crocodile, on\nthe contrary, is a natural inhabitant of the Nile, and other Asiatic and\nAfrican rivers; of enormous voracity and strength, as well as fleetness\nin swimming; attacks mankind and the largest animals with most daring\nimpetuosity; when taken by means of a powerful net, will often overturn\nthe boats that surround it; has, proportionally, the largest mouth of\nall monsters whatever; moves both its jaws equally, the upper of which\nhas not less than forty, and the lower than thirty-eight sharp, but\nstrong and massy, teeth; and is furnished with a coat of mail, so scaly\nand callous as to resist the force of a musket ball in every part,\nexcept under the belly. Indeed, to this animal the general character of\nthe leviathan seems so well to apply, that it is unnecessary to seek\nfarther.\n\nLEVITES. Under this name may be comprised all the descendants of Levi;\nbut it principally denotes those who were employed in the lowest\nministries of the temple, by which they were distinguished from the\npriests, who, being descended from Aaron, were likewise of the race of\nLevi by Kohath, but were employed in higher offices. The Levites were\ndescendants of Levi, by Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, excepting the\nfamily of Aaron; for the children of Moses had no part in the\npriesthood, and were only common Levites. God chose the Levites instead\nof the first-born of all Israel, for the service of his tabernacle and\ntemple, Num. iii, 6, &c. They obeyed the priests in the ministrations of\nthe temple, and brought to them wood, water, and other things necessary\nfor the sacrifices. They sung and played on instruments, in the temple,\n&c; they studied the law, and were the ordinary judges of the country,\nbut subordinate to the priests. God provided for the subsistence of the\nLevites, by giving them the tithe of corn, fruit, and cattle; but they\npaid to the priests the tenth of their tithes; and as the Levites\npossessed no estates in the land, the tithes which the priests received\nfrom them were looked on as the first-fruits which they were to offer to\nthe Lord, Num. xviii, 21\u201324. God assigned them for their habitations\nforty-eight cities, with fields, pastures, and gardens, Num. xxxv. Of\nthese thirteen were given to the priests, six of which were cities of\nrefuge, Joshua xx, 7; xxi, 19, 20, &c. While the Levites were actually\nemployed in the temple, they were subsisted out of the provisions in\nstore there, and out of the daily offerings there made; and if any\nLevite quitted the place of his abode, to serve the temple, even out of\nthe time of his half-yearly or weekly waiting, he was received there,\nkept and provided for, in like manner as his other brethren, who were\nregularly in waiting, Deut. xviii, 6\u20138. The consecration of Levites was\nwithout much ceremony. They wore no particular habit to distinguish them\nfrom the other Israelites, and God ordained nothing particularly for\ntheir mourning, 2 Chron. xxix, 34. The manner of their consecration may\nbe seen in Num. viii, 5\u20137, &c.\n\nJosephus says, that in the reign of Agrippa, king of the Jews, about A.\nD. 62, six years before the destruction of the temple by the Romans, the\nLevites desired permission from that prince to wear the linen tunic like\nthe priests; and this was granted. This innovation was displeasing to\nthe priests; and the Jewish historian remarks, that the ancient customs\nof the country were never forsaken with impunity. He adds, that Agrippa\npermitted likewise the families of the Levites, whose duty it was to\nguard the doors, and perform other troublesome offices, to learn to sing\nand play on instruments, that they might be qualified for the temple\nservice as musicians. The Levites were divided into different classes:\nGershonites, Kohathites, Merarites, and Aaronites or priests, Num. iii,\n&c. The Gershonites, whose number was seven thousand five hundred, were\nemployed in the marches through the wilderness in carrying the veils and\ncurtains of the tabernacle; the Kohathites, whose number was eight\nthousand six hundred, in carrying the ark and sacred vessels of the\ntabernacle; the Merarites, whose number was six thousand two hundred, in\ncarrying the several pieces of the tabernacle which could not be placed\nupon the chariots; and the Aaronites were the priests who served the\nsanctuary. When the Hebrews encamped in the wilderness, the Levites were\nplaced around the tabernacle; Moses and Aaron at the east, Gershon at\nthe west, Kohath at the south, and Merari at the north. Moses ordained\nthat the Levites should not begin in the service of the tabernacle till\nthey were five-and-twenty years of age, Num. viii, 24\u201326; or, as he says\nelsewhere, from thirty to fifty years old, Num. iv, 3. But David,\nfinding that they were no longer employed in these grosser offices of\ntransporting the vessels of the tabernacle, appointed them to enter on\nservice at the temple at twenty years of age. The priests and Levites\nwaited by turns, weekly, in the temple. They began their weeks on one\nSabbath day, and on the Sabbath day in the following week went out of\nwaiting, 1 Chronicles xxiii, 24; 2 Chron. xxi, 17; Ezra iii, 8. When an\nIsraelite made a religious entertainment in the temple, God required\nthat the Levites should be invited to it, Deut. xii, 18, 19.\n\nLEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the\nPentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the\nlaws and regulations relating to the Levites, priests, and sacrifices;\nfor which reason the Hebrews call it the law of the priests, because it\nincludes many ordinances concerning their services. See PENTATEUCH.\n\nLIBATION. This word is used in sacrificial language, to express an\naffusion of liquors, poured upon victims to be sacrificed to the Lord.\nThe quantity of wine for a libation was the fourth part of a hin, rather\nmore than two pints. Libations among the Hebrews were poured on the\nvictim after it was killed, and the several pieces of it were laid on\nthe altar, ready to be consumed by the flames, Lev. vi, 20; viii, 25,\n26; ix, 4; xvi, 12, 20. These libations consisted in offerings of bread,\nwine, and salt. The Greeks and Latins offered libations with the\nsacrifices, but they were poured on the victim\u2019s head while it was\nliving. So Sinon, relating the manner in which he was to be sacrificed,\nsays he was in the priest\u2019s hands ready to be slain, was loaded with\nbands and garlands; that they were preparing to pour upon him the\nlibations of grain and salted meal:--\n\n           _Jamque dies infanda aderat, mihi sacra parari,\n           Et sals\u00e6 fruges, et circum tempora vitt\u00e6._\n                                         \u00c6neid ii, 130, 131.\n\n[And now the horrible day being come, they began to prepare for me the\nsacred rites.]\n\n              The salted barley on my front was spread,\n              The sacred fillets bound my destined head.\u201d\n                                               PITT.\n\nAnd Dido, beginning to sacrifice, pours wine between the horns of the\nvictim:--\n\n             _Ipsa tenens dextra pateram pulcherrima Dido,\n             Candentsi vacc\u00e6 media inter cornua fudit._\n                                                \u00c6neid iv.\n\n              The queen before the snowy heifer stands,\n              Amid the shrines, a goblet in her hands;\n              Between the horns she sheds the sacred wine,\n              And pays due honours to the powers divine.\u201d\n                                                 PITT.\n\nSt. Paul describes himself, as it were, a victim about to be sacrificed,\nand that the accustomed libations of meal and wine were already, in a\nmanner, poured upon him: For I am ready to be offered, and the time of\nmy departure is at hand,\u201d 2 Tim. iv, 6. The same expressive sacrificial\nterm occurs in Phil. ii, 17, where the Apostle represents the faith of\nthe Philippians as a sacrifice, and his own blood as a libation poured\nforth to hallow and consecrate it: \u201cYea, and if I be offered, \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\nupon the sacrifice and service of your faith, \u1f10\u03c0\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1fc6 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3, I joy and rejoice with you all.\u201d\n\nLIBERTINES. Mention is made of the synagogue of the Libertines, Acts vi,\n9; concerning whom there are different opinions, two of which bid\nfairest for the truth. The first is that of Grotius and Vitringa, that\nthey were Italian Jews or proselytes. The ancient Romans distinguished\nbetween _libertus_ and _libertinus_. _Libertus_ was one who had been a\nslave, and obtained his freedom; _libertinus_ was the son of a\n_libertus_. But this distinction in after ages was not strictly\nobserved; and _libertinus_ also came to be used for one not born, but\nmade free, in opposition to _ingenuus_, or one born free. Whether the\n_libertini_ mentioned in this passage of the Acts were Gentiles, who had\nbecome proselytes to Judaism, or native Jews, who having been made\nslaves to the Romans were afterward set at liberty, and in remembrance\nof their captivity called themselves _libertini_, and formed a synagogue\nby themselves, is differently conjectured by the learned. It is probable\nthe Jews of Cyrenia, Alexandria, &c, built synagogues at Jerusalem at\ntheir own charge, for the use of their brethren who came from those\ncountries; as the Danes, Swedes, &c, build churches for the use of their\nown countrymen in London; and that the Italian Jews did the same; and\nbecause the greatest number of them were _libertini_, their synagogue\nwas therefore called the synagogue of the Libertines. The other opinion,\nwhich is hinted by \u0152cumenius on the Acts, and mentioned by Dr.\nLardner, as more lately advanced by Mr. Daniel Gerdes, professor of\ndivinity in the university of Groningen, is this, that the Libertines\nare so called from a city or country called Libertus, or Libertina, in\nAfrica, about Carthage. Suidas, in his Lexicon, on the word \u03bb\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nsays it was \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _nomen gentis_. [The name of a nation.] And\nthe _glossa interlinearis_, of which Nicolas de Lyra made great use in\nhis notes, hath over the word _libertini, e regione_, denoting that they\nwere so styled from a country. In the acts of the famous conference with\nthe Donatists at Carthage, A. D. 411, there is mentioned one Victor,\nbishop of the church of Libertina: and in the acts of the Lateran\ncouncil, which was held in 649, there is mention of _Januarius grati\u00e2\nDei episcopus sanct\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 Libertinensis_; [Januarius by the grace of\nGod bishop of the holy church of Libertina;] and therefore Fabricius, in\nhis Geographical Index of Christian Bishoprics,\u201d has placed Libertina in\nwhat was called Africa Propria, or the proconsular province of Africa.\nNow, as all the other people of the several synagogues, mentioned in\nthis passage of the Acts, are denominated from the places from whence\nthey came, it is probable that the Libertines were so too; and as the\nCyrenians and Alexandrians, who came from Africa, are placed next to the\nLibertines in that catalogue, it is probable they also belonged to the\nsame country. So that, upon the whole, there is little reason to doubt\nof the Libertines being so called from the place from whence they came;\nand the order of the names in the catalogue might lead us to think, that\nthey were farther off from Jerusalem than Alexandria and Cyrenia, which\nwill carry us to the proconsular province in Africa about Carthage.\n\nLIBNAH, a city in the southern part of the tribe of Judah, Joshua xv,\n42, of which a cession was made to the priests for their habitation, and\nwhich was declared a city of refuge, 1 Chron. vi, 57.\n\nLIBYA. The name, in its largest sense, was used by the Greeks to denote\nthe whole of Africa. But Libya Proper, or the Libya of the New\nTestament, the country of the Lubims of the Old, was a large country\nlying along the Mediterranean, on the west of Egypt. It was called\nPentapolitana Regio by Pliny, from its five chief cities, Berenice,\nArsinoe, Ptolemais, Apollonia, and Cyrene; and Libya Cyrenaica by\nPtolemy, from Cyrene its capital. Libya is supposed to have been first\npeopled by, and to have derived its name from, the Lehabim, or Lubim.\nThese, its earlier inhabitants, appear in the times of the Old\nTestament, to have consisted of wandering tribes, who were sometimes in\nalliance with Egypt, and at others with the Ethiopians of Arabia; as\nthey are said to have assisted both Shishak and Zerah in their\nexpeditions into Judea, 2 Chron. xii, xiv, xvi. They were for a time\nsufficiently powerful to maintain a war with the Carthaginians, by whom\nthey were in the end entirely overcome. Since that period, Libya, in\ncommon with the rest of the east, has successively passed into the hands\nof the Greeks, Romans, Saracens, and Turks. The city Cyrene, built by a\nGrecian colony, was the capital of this country, in which, and other\nparts, dwelt many Jews, who came up to Jerusalem at the feast of\npentecost, together with those dispersed among other nations, and are\ncalled by St. Luke dwellers in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,\u201d Acts\nii, 10.\n\nLICE. Swarms of lice was the third plague with which God punished the\nEgyptians, Exod. viii, 16. The Hebrew word \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, which the LXX render\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2, some translate flies,\u201d and think them the same as gnats. Origen\nsays that the _sciniphe_ is so small a fly, that it is scarcely\nperceptible to the eye, but that it occasions a sharp stinging pain.\nHowever, the original, according to the Syriac, and several good\ninterpreters, signifies lice.\u201d\n\nBut Josephus, the Jewish rabbins, and most of the modern translators\nrender the Hebrew word at large _lice_; and Bochart and Bryant support\nthis interpretation. The former argues that _gnats_ could not be meant.\n1. Because the creatures here mentioned sprang from the dust of the\nearth, and not from the waters. 2. Because they were both on men and\ncattle, which cannot be spoken of gnats. 3. Because their name comes\nfrom the radix \u05db\u05d5\u05df, which signifies _to make firm, fix, establish_,\nwhich can never agree to gnats, flies, &c, which are ever changing their\nplace, and are almost constantly on the wing. 4. Because \u05db\u05e0\u05d4 is the term\nby which the talmudists express the term louse, &c. To which may be\nadded, that if they were winged and stinging insects, as Jerom, Origen,\nand others have supposed, the plague of flies is unduly anticipated; and\nthe next miracle will be only a repetition of the former. Mr. Bryant, in\nillustrating the aptness of this miracle, has the following remarks:\n\u201cThe Egyptians affected great external purity, and were very nice both\nin their persons and clothing; bathing and making ablutions continually.\nUncommon care was taken not to harbour any vermin. They were\nparticularly solicitous on this head; thinking it would be a great\nprofanation of the temple which they entered, if any animalcule of this\nsort were concealed in their garments.\u201d The priests, says Herodotus, are\nshaved, both as to their heads and bodies, every third day, to prevent\nany louse, or any other detestable creature, being found upon them when\nthey are performing their duty to the gods. The same is mentioned by\nanother author, who adds, that all woollen was considered as foul, as\nfrom a perishable animal; but flax is the product of the immortal earth,\naffords a delicate and pure covering, and is not liable to harbour lice.\nWe may hence see what an abhorrence the Egyptians showed toward this\nsort of vermin, and what care was taken by the priests to guard against\nthem. The judgments, therefore, inflicted by the hands of Moses, were\nadapted to their prejudices. It was, consequently, not only most noisome\nto the people in general, but was no small odium to the most sacred\norder in Egypt, that they were overrun with these filthy and detestable\nvermin.\n\nLIGHT, \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, is used in a physical sense, Matt. xvii, 2; Acts ix, 3; xii,\n7; 2 Cor. iv, 6; for a fire giving light, Mark xiv, 54; Luke xxii, 56;\nfor a torch, candle, or lamp, Acts xvi, 29; and for the material light\nof heaven, as the sun, moon, or stars, Psalm cxxxvi, 7; James i, 17.\nFiguratively taken, it signifies a manifest or open state of things,\nMatt. x, 27; Luke xii, 3; also prosperity, truth, and joy.\n\nGod is said to dwell in light inaccessible, 1 Tim. vi, 16. This seems to\ncontain a reference to the glory and splendour which shone in the holy\nof holies, where Jehovah appeared in the luminous cloud above the mercy\nseat, and which none but the high priest, and he only once a year, was\npermitted to approach unto, Lev. xvi, 2; Ezek. i, 22, 26, 28; but this\nwas typical of the glory of the celestial world. It signifies, also,\ninstruction, both by doctrine and example, Matt. v, 16; John v, 35; or\npersons considered as giving such light, Matt. v, 14; Rom. ii, 19. It is\napplied figuratively to Christ, the true Light, the Sun of\nRighteousness, who is that in the spiritual, which the material light is\nin the natural, world; who is the great Author, not only of illumination\nand knowledge, but of spiritual life, health, and joy to the souls of\nmen.\n\nThe images of light and darkness, says Bishop Lowth, are commonly made\nuse of in all languages to imply or denote prosperity and adversity,\nagreeably to the common sense and perception which all men have of the\nobjects themselves. But the Hebrews employ those metaphors more\nfrequently and with less variation than other people: indeed, they\nseldom refrain from them whenever the subject requires or will even\nadmit of their introduction. These expressions, therefore, may be\naccounted among those forms of speech, which in the parabolic style are\nestablished and defined; since they exhibit the most noted and familiar\nimages, and the application of them on this occasion is justified by an\nacknowledged analogy, and approved by constant and unvarying custom. In\nthe use of images, so conspicuous and so familiar among the Hebrews, a\ndegree of boldness is excusable. The Latins introduce them more\nsparingly, and therefore are more cautious in the application of them.\nBut the Hebrews, upon a subject more sublime indeed, in itself, and\nillustrating it by an idea which was more habitual to them, more\ndaringly exalt their strains, and give a loose rein to the spirit of\npoetry. They display, for instance, not the image of the spring, of\nAurora, of the dreary night, but the sun and stars as rising with\nincreased splendour in a new creation, or again involved in chaos and\nprimeval darkness. Does the sacred bard promise to his people a renewal\nof the divine favour, and a recommencement of universal prosperity? In\nwhat magnificent colours does he depict it! Such, indeed, as no\ntranslation can illustrate, but such as none can obscure:--\n\n        The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,\n        And the light of the sun shall be sevenfold.\u201d\n                                            Isaiah xxx, 26.\n\nBut even this is not sufficient:--\n\n     No longer shalt thou have the sun for thy light by day;\n     Nor by night shall the brightness of the moon enlighten thee:\n     For Jehovah shall be to thee an everlasting light,\n     And thy God shall be thy glory.\n     Thy sun shall no more decline;\n     Neither shall thy moon wane;\n     For Jehovah shall be thine everlasting light;\n     And the days of thy mourning shall cease.\u201d\n                                            Isaiah lx, 19, 20.\n\nIn another place he has admirably diversified the same sentiment:--\n\n    And the moon shall be confounded, and the sun shall be ashamed;\n    For Jehovah, God of Hosts, shall reign\n    On Mount Sion, and in Jerusalem:\n    And before his ancients shall he be glorified.\u201d\n                                            Isaiah xxiv, 25.\n\nOn the other hand, denouncing ruin against the proud king of Egypt:--\n\n    And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heavens,\n    And the stars thereof will I make dark:\n    I will involve the sun in a cloud,\n    Nor shall the moon give out her light.\n    All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee,\n    And I will set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord Jehovah.\u201d\n                                               Ezekiel xxvii, 7, 8.\n\nThese expressions are bold and daring; but the imagery is well known,\nthe use of it is common, the signification definite: they are therefore\nperspicuous, clear, and truly magnificent.\n\nLIGN-ALOES. See ALOE.\n\nLIGURE, \u05dc\u05e9\u05dd, Exod. xxviii, 19; xxxix, 12, a precious stone of a deep red\ncolour, with a considerable tinge of yellow. Theophrastus and Pliny\ndescribe it as resembling the carbuncle, of a brightness sparkling like\nfire.\n\nLILY, \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05df, 1 Kings vii, 19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. iv, 5; Cant. ii, 2, 16;\niv, 5; v, 13; vi, 2, 3; vii, 2; Hosea xiv, 5; \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Matt. vi, 28; Luke\nxii, 27; a well known sweet and beautiful flower, which furnished\nSolomon with a variety of charming images in his Song, and with graceful\nornaments in the fabric and furniture of the temple. The title of some\nof the Psalms upon Shushan,\u201d or Shoshanim,\u201d Psalms xlv; lx; lxix; lxxx,\nprobably means no more than that the music of these sacred compositions\nwas to be regulated by that of some odes, which were known by those\nnames or appellations. By the lily of the valley,\u201d Cant. ii, 2, we are\nnot to understand the humble flower, generally so called with us, the\n_lilium convallium_, but the noble flower which ornaments our gardens,\nand which in Palestine grows wild in the fields, and especially in the\nvalleys. Pliny reckons the lily the next plant in excellency to the\nrose; and the gay Anacreon compares Venus to this flower. In the east,\nas with us, it is the emblem of purity and moral excellence. So the\nPersian poet, Sadi, compares an amiable youth to the white lily in a bed\nof narcissuses,\u201d because he surpassed all the young shepherds in\ngoodness. As, in Cant. v, 13, the lips are compared to the lily, Bishop\nPatrick supposes the lily here instanced to be the same which, on\naccount of its deep red colour, is particularly called by Pliny _rubens\nlilium_, and which, he tells us, was much esteemed in Syria. Such may\nhave been the lily mentioned in Matt. vi, 28\u201330; for the royal robes\nwere purple: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil\nnot, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all\nhis glory was not arrayed like one of these:\u201d so in Luke xii, 27. The\nscarcity of fuel in the east obliges the inhabitants to use, by turns,\nevery kind of combustible matter. The withered stalks of herbs and\nflowers, the tendrils of the vine, the small branches of rosemary, and\nother plants, are all used in heating their ovens and bagnios. We can\neasily recognize this practice in that remark of our Lord, If God so\nclothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast\ninto the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?\u201d\nMatt. vi, 30. The grass of the field, in this passage, evidently\nincludes the lilies of which he had just been speaking, and, by\nconsequence, herbs in general; and in this extensive sense the word\n\u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is not unfrequently taken. Those beautiful productions of nature,\nso richly arrayed, and so exquisitely perfumed, that the splendour even\nof Solomon is not to be compared to theirs, shall soon wither and decay,\nand be used as fuel. God has so adorned these flowers and plants of the\nfield, which retain their beauty and vigour but for a few days, and are\nthen applied to some of the meanest purposes of life: will he not much\nmore take care of his servants who are so precious in his sight, and\ndesigned for such important services in the world? This passage is one\nof those of which Sir Thomas Browne says, The variously interspersed\nexpressions from plants and flowers elegantly advantage the significancy\nof the text.\u201d\n\nMr. Salt, in his Voyage to Abyssinia,\u201d says, \u201cAt a few miles from Adowa,\nwe discovered a new and beautiful species of _amaryllis_, which bore\nfrom ten to twelve spikes of bloom on each stem, as large as those of\nthe _belladonna_, springing from one common receptacle. The general\ncolour of the corolla was white, and every petal was marked with a\nsingle streak of bright purple down the middle. The flower was sweet\nscented, and its smell, though much more powerful, resembled that of the\nlily of the valley. This superb plant excited the admiration of the\nwhole party; and it brought immediately to my recollection the beautiful\ncomparison used on a particular occasion by our Saviour: \u2018I say unto\nyou, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.\u2019\u201d\nAnd Sir James E. Smith observes, \u201cIt is natural to presume the divine\nTeacher, according to his usual custom, called the attention of his\nhearers to some object at hand; and as the fields of the Levant are\noverrun with the _amaryllis lutea_, whose golden lilaceous flowers in\nautumn afford one of the most brilliant and gorgeous objects in nature,\nthe expression of \u2018Solomon in all his glory not being arrayed like one\nof these,\u2019 is peculiarly appropriate. I consider the feeling with which\nthis was expressed as the highest honour ever done to the study of\nplants; and if my botanical conjecture be right, we learn a\nchronological fact respecting the season of the year when the sermon on\nthe mount was delivered.\u201d\n\nLIME, \u05e9\u05d9\u05d3, Deut. xxvii, 2, 4; Isaiah xxxiii, 12; Amos ii, 1; a soft\nfriable substance, obtained by calcining or burning stones, shells, or\nthe like. From Isa. xxxiii, 12, it appears that it was made in a kiln\nlighted with thorn bushes; and from Amos ii, 1, that bones were\nsometimes calcined for lime. The use of it was for plaster or cement,\nthe first mention of which is in Deut. xxvii, where Moses directed the\nelders of the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command\nyou this day. And it shall be on the day when you shall pass over Jordan\nunto the land which the Lord your God giveth you, that you shall set up\ngreat stones, and plaster them with plaster, and shall write upon them\nall the words of this law,\u201d &c. The book of the law, in order to render\nit the more sacred, was deposited beside the ark of the covenant. The\nguardians of the law, to whom was entrusted the duty of making faithful\ntranscripts of it, were the priests. But Moses did not account even this\nprecaution sufficient for the due preservation of his law in its\noriginal purity; for he commanded that it should beside be engraven on\nstones, and these stones kept on a mountain near Sichem, in order that a\ngenuine exemplar of it might be transmitted even to the latest\ngenerations.\n\nLION, \u05d0\u05e8\u05d9, or \u05d0\u05e8\u05d4, Genesis xlix, 9; Deut. xxxiii, 22; Psalm vii, 2;\nxxii, 13; Hosea xiii, 8; Micah v, 8; a large beast of prey, for his\ncourage and strength called the king of beasts. This animal is produced\nin Africa, and the hottest parts of Asia. It is found in the greatest\nnumbers in the scorched and desolate regions of the torrid zone, in the\ndeserts of Zaara and Billdulgerid, and in all the interior parts of the\nvast continent of Africa. In these desert regions, from whence mankind\nare driven by the rigorous heat of the climate, this animal reigns sole\nmaster. His disposition seems to partake of the ardour of his native\nsoil. Inflamed by the influence of a burning sun, his rage is\ntremendous, and his courage undaunted. Happily, indeed, the species is\nnot numerous, and is said to be greatly diminished; for, if we may\ncredit the testimony of those who have traversed those vast deserts, the\nnumber of lions is not nearly so great as formerly. Mr. Shaw observes\nthat the Romans carried more lions from Libya in one year for their\npublic spectacles, than could be found in all that country at this time.\nThe lion was also found in Palestine, and the neighbouring countries.\nThe length of the largest lion is between eight and nine feet, the tail\nabout four, and its height about four feet and a half. The female is\nabout one-fourth part less, and without a mane. As the lion advances in\nyears, his mane grows longer and thicker. The hair on the rest of the\nbody is short and smooth, of a tawny colour, but whitish on the belly.\nIts roaring is loud and dreadful. When heard in the night it resembles\ndistant thunder. Its cry of anger is much louder and shorter. The\nattachment of a lioness to her young is remarkably strong. For their\nsupport she is more ferocious than the lion himself; makes her\nincursions with greater boldness; destroys, without distinction, every\nanimal that falls in her way, and carries it reeking to her cubs. She\nusually brings forth in the most retired and inaccessible places; and\nwhen afraid that her retreat should be discovered, endeavours to hide\nher track by brushing the ground with her tail. When much disturbed or\nalarmed, she will sometimes transport her young, which are usually three\nor four in number, from one place to another in her mouth; and, if\nobstructed in her course, will defend them to the last extremity. The\nhabits of the lion and the lioness afford many spirited, and often\nsublime, metaphors to the sacred writers.\n\nThe lion has several names in Scripture, according to his different ages\nor character: 1. \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8, a little lion, a lion\u2019s whelp, Deut. xxxiii, 22;\nJer. li, 38; Ezek. xix, 2; Nahum ii, 13. 2. \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8, a young lion that has\ndone sucking the lioness, and, leaving the covert, begins to seek prey\nfor himself. So Ezekiel xix, 2, 3: The lioness hath brought up one of\nher whelps; it became a _chephir_; it learned to catch the prey; it\ndevoured men.\u201d See Psalm xci, 13; Prov. xix, 12. 3. \u05d0\u05e8\u05d9, a grown and\nvigorous lion, having whelps, eager in pursuit of prey for them, Nahum\nii, 12; valiant, 2 Sam. xvii, 10; arrogantly opposing himself, Num.\nxxiii, 24. This is, indeed, the general name, and occurs frequently. 4.\n\u05e9\u05d7\u05dc, one in the full strength of his age; a black lion, Job iv, 10; x,\n16; Psalm xci, 13; Prov. xxvi, 13; Hosea v, 14; xiii, 7. 5. \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9, a\nfierce or enraged lion, Job iv, 11; Prov. xxx, 30; Isaiah xxv, 6. A\nregard to these characteristics and distinctions is very important for\nillustrating the passages of Scripture where the animal is spoken of,\nand discovering the propriety of the allusions and metaphors which he so\noften furnishes to the Hebrew poets. The lion of the tribe of Judah,\nmentioned Rev. v, 5, is Jesus Christ, who sprung from the tribe of\nJudah, and overcame death, the world, and the devil. The lion from the\nswelling of Jordan, Jer. l, 44, is Nebuchadnezzar marching against\nJudea, with the strength and fierceness of a lion. Isaiah, describing\nthe happy time of the Messiah, says, that then the calf, and the young\nlion, and the fatling should lie down together; and that a little child\nshould lead them; and that the lion should eat straw like the ox, Isaiah\nxi, 6, 7, which is hyperbolical, and signifies the peace and happiness\nwhich the church of Christ should enjoy. The lion hath roared, and who\nshall not fear?\u201d Amos iii, 8. \u201cThe king\u2019s wrath is as the roaring of a\nlion. Who provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul,\u201d Prov.\nxix, 12; xx, 2; that is, he seeketh his own death. Solomon says, A\nliving dog is better than a dead lion,\u201d Eccles. x, 4; showing that death\nrenders those contemptible who otherwise are the greatest, most\npowerful, and most terrible.\n\nThen went Samson down and, behold, a young lion roared against him, and\nthe Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he\nwould have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand,\u201d Judges xiv, 5,\n6. An instance in quite modern times of an unarmed man attempting to\ncombat a lion is related by Poiret: \u201cIn a douar, or a camp of Bedouin\nArabs, near La Calle, a French factory, a young lion had seized a cow. A\nyoung Moor threw himself upon the savage beast, to tear his booty from\nhim, and as it were to stifle him in his arms, but he would not let go\nhis prey. The father of the young man hastened to him, armed with a kind\nof hoe; and aiming at the lion, struck his son\u2019s hand, and cut off three\nof his fingers. It cost a great deal of trouble to rescue the prey from\nthe lion. I saw this young man, who was attended by Mr. Gay, at that\ntime surgeon to the hospital of La Calle.\u201d David, according to 1 Sam.\nxvii, 34, had, when a shepherd, once fought with a lion, and another\ntime with a bear, and rescued their prey from them. Tellez relates, that\nan Abyssinian shepherd had once killed a lion of extraordinary size with\nonly two poles. Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling\nof Jordan against the habitation of the strong,\u201d Jer. xlix, 19. The\ncomparison used by the prophet in these words will be perfectly\nunderstood by the account which Mr. Maundrell gives of the river Jordan:\nAfter having descended,\u201d says he, \u201cthe outermost bank of Jordan, you go\nabout a furlong upon a level strand, before you come to the immediate\nbank of the river. This second bank is so beset with bushes and trees,\nsuch as tamarisks, willows, oleanders, &c, that you can see no water\ntill you have made your way through them. In this thicket anciently, and\nthe same is reported of it at this day, several sorts of wild beasts\nwere wont to harbour themselves, whose being washed out of the covert by\nthe overflowings of the river gave occasion to that allusion: \u2018He shall\ncome up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan.\u2019\u201d\n\nHe shall be cast into the den of lions,\u201d Dan. vi, 7. In Morocco,\u201d says\nH\u00f6st, \u201cthe king has a lions\u2019 den, into which men, particularly Jews, are\nsometimes thrown; but the latter generally come off unhurt, because the\nkeepers of these animals are Jews, who may safely be with them, with a\nrod in the hand, if they only take care to go out backward, as the lion\ndoes not suffer any one to turn his back upon him. The other Jews do not\nlet their brethren remain longer than a night among the lions, as they\nmight otherwise become too hungry; but ransom them with money, which is,\nin fact, the king\u2019s object.\u201d In another place in the same work we find\nthe following description of the construction of this lions\u2019 den: \u201cAt\none end of the royal palace there is a place for ostriches and their\nyoung; and beyond the other end, toward the mountains, there is a large\nlions\u2019 den, which consists of a large square hole in the ground, with a\npartition, in the middle of which there is a door, which the Jews, who\nare obliged to maintain and keep them for nothing, are able to open and\nshut from above, and can thus entice the lions, by means of the food,\nfrom one division to the other, to clean the other in the mean time. It\nis all in the open air, and a person may look down over a wall, which is\na yard and a quarter high.\u201d\n\nLITANY, a solemn form of supplication to God. The word is derived from\n\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, _supplication_. At first the use of litanies was not fixed to\nany stated time; but they were employed only as exigencies required.\nThey were observed in imitation of the Ninevites with ardent\nsupplications and fastings, to avert the threatened judgments of fire,\nearthquake, inundations, or hostile invasions. The days on which they\nwere used were called rogation days. Several of these days were\nappointed by the canons of different councils, till the seventeenth\ncouncil of Toledo decreed that litanies should be used in every month.\nThus, by degrees, these solemn supplications came to be used weekly, on\nWednesdays and Fridays, the ancient stationary days in all churches. As\nto the form in which litanies are made, namely, in short petitions by\nthe priest with responses by the people, St. Chrysostom derives the\ncustom from the primitive ages, when the priest began and uttered by the\nSpirit some things fit to be prayed for, and the people joined the\nintercessions, saying, We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.\u201d When the\nmiraculous gift of the Spirit began to cease, they wrote down several of\nthese forms, which were the original of our present litanies. St.\nAmbrose has left us one, which agrees in many particulars with that of\nour own church. About the year 400, litanies began to be used in\nprocessions, the people walking barefoot, and repeating them with great\ndevotion. It is pretended that several countries were delivered from\ngreat calamities by this means. About the year 600, Gregory the Great,\nfrom all the litanies extant, composed the famous sevenfold litany, by\nwhich Rome, it is said, was delivered from a grievous mortality. This\nhas served as a pattern to all the western churches since; and to it\nours of the church of England comes nearer than that of the Romish\nmissal, in which later popes have inserted the invocation of saints,\nwhich our Reformers properly expunged. These processional litanies\nhaving occasioned much scandal, it was decreed that in future the\nlitanies should be used only within the walls of the church. Before the\nlast review of the Common Prayer, the litany was a distinct service by\nitself, and used some time after the morning prayer was ended. At\npresent it forms one office with the morning service, being ordered to\nbe read after the third collect for grace, instead of the intercessional\nprayers in the daily service.\n\nLITURGY denotes all the ceremonies in general belonging to divine\nservice. The word comes from the Greek, \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u0223\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, _public service_, or\n_public ministry_; formed of \u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _public_, and \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, _work_. In a\nmore restrained signification, liturgy is used among the Romanists to\nsignify the mass; and among us, the common prayer. All who have written\non liturgies agree that, in primitive days, divine service was\nexceedingly simple, clogged with very few ceremonies, and consisted of\nbut a very small number of prayers; but, by degrees, they increased the\nnumber of ceremonies, and added new prayers, to render the office more\nawful and venerable to the people. At length, things were carried to\nsuch a pitch that a regulation became necessary; and it was found\nneedful to put the service, and the manner of performing it, into\nwriting; and this was what they called a liturgy. Liturgies have been\ndifferent at different times and in different countries. We have the\nliturgy of St. Chrysostom, of St. Peter, the Armenian liturgy, Gallican\nliturgy, &c. The properties required in a public liturgy,\u201d says Paley,\nare these: it must be compendious; express just conceptions of the\ndivine attributes; recite such wants as a congregation are likely to\nfeel, and no other; and contain as few controverted propositions as\npossible.\u201d The liturgy of the church of England was composed A. D. 1547,\nand established in the second year of King Edward VI. In the fifth year\nof this prince, it was reviewed, because some things were contained in\nthat liturgy which showed a compliance with the superstitions of those\ntimes; and exceptions were taken against it by learned men at home, and\nby Calvin abroad. Some alterations were made in it, which consisted in\nadding the general confession and absolution, and the communion service,\nto begin with the commandments. The use of oil in confirmation and\nextreme unction, was left out, and also prayers for souls departed, and\nwhat related to a belief of the real presence of Christ in the\neucharist. The liturgy, so reformed, was established by the acts of 5th\nand 6th of Edward VI., chap. 1. However, it was abolished by Queen Mary,\nwho enacted that the service should stand as it was commonly used in the\nlast year of King Henry VIII. That of Edward VI. was re\u00ebstablished, with\nsome few alterations, by Elizabeth. Some farther alterations were\nintroduced, in consequence of the review of the Common Prayer Book, by\norder of King James, in the first year of his reign; particularly in the\noffice of private baptism, in several rubrics, and other passages, with\nthe addition of five or six new prayers and thanksgivings, and all that\npart of the catechism which contains the doctrines of the sacraments.\nThis Book of Common Prayer, so altered, remained in force from the first\nyear of King James to the fourteenth of Charles II. The last review of\nthe liturgy was in the year 1661. It is an invidious cavil, says Dr.\nNichols, that our liturgy was compiled out of popish books. Our\nreformers took nothing from them, but what was taken before from the\noldest writers. We have many things out of the Greek liturgies of Basil\nand Chrysostom; more out of the litanies of Ambrose and Gregory; very\nmuch out of the ancient forms of the church dispersed in the works of\nthe fathers, who wrote long before the Roman Breviary, and Canon of the\nMass. Our Reformers added many prayers, and thanksgivings, and\nexhortations, to supply the defect.\n\nLIZARD, \u05dc\u05d8\u05d0\u05d4, Levit. xi, 30. All interpreters agree that the original\nword here signifies a sort of lizard. Bochart takes it for that kind\nwhich is of a reddish colour, lies close to the earth, and is of a\nvenomous nature.\n\nLOCUST, \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4. The word is probably derived from \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4, which signifies _to\nmultiply_, _to become numerous_, &c; because of the immense swarms of\nthese animals by which different countries, especially in the east, are\ninfested. See this circumstance referred to, Judges vi, 5; vii, 12;\nPsalm cv, 34; Jer. xlvi, 23; li, 14; Joel i, 4; Nahum iii, 15; Judith\nii, 19, 20; where the most numerous armies are compared to the _arbeh_,\nor locust.\n\nThe locust, in entomology, belongs to a genus of insects known among\nnaturalists by the name of _grylli_. The common great\u03c3\u03ba\u03bd\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2 brown\nlocust is about three inches in length, has two antenn\u00e6 about an inch\nlong, and two pairs of wings. The head and horns are brown; the mouth,\nand insides of the larger legs, bluish; the upper side of the body, and\nupper wings, brown; the former spotted with black, and the latter with\ndusky, spots. The back is defended by a shield of a greenish hue; the\nunder wings are of a light brown hue, tinctured with green, and nearly\ntransparent. The general form and appearance of the insect is that of\nthe grasshopper so well known in this country. These creatures are\nfrequently mentioned in the Old Testament. They were employed as one of\nthe plagues for the punishment of the Egyptians; and their visitation\nwas threatened to the Israelites as a mark of the divine displeasure.\nTheir numbers and destructive powers very aptly fit them for this\npurpose. When they take the field, they always follow a leader, whose\nmotions they invariably observe. They often migrate from their native\ncountry, probably in quest of a greater supply of food. On these\noccasions they appear in such large flocks as to darken the air; forming\nmany compact bodies or swarms, of several hundred yards square. These\nflights are very frequent in Barbary, and generally happen at the latter\nend of March or beginning of April, after the wind has blown from the\nsouth for some days. The month following, the young brood also make\ntheir appearance, generally following the track of the old ones. In\nwhatever country they settle, they devour all the vegetables, grain,\nand, in fine, all the produce of the earth; eating the very bark off the\ntrees; thus destroying at once the hopes of the husbandman, and all the\nlabours of agriculture: for though their voracity is great, yet they\ncontaminate a much greater quantity than they devour; as their bite is\npoisonous to vegetables, and the marks of devastation may be traced for\nseveral succeeding seasons. There are various species of them, which\nconsequently have different names; and some are more voracious and\ndestructive than others, though all are most destructive and insatiable\nspoilers. Bochart enumerates ten different kinds which he thinks are\nmentioned in the Scripture.\n\nWriters in natural history bear abundant testimony to the Scriptural\naccount of these creatures. Dr. Shaw describes at large the numerous\nswarms and prodigious broods of those locusts which he saw in Barbary.\nDr. Russel says, Of the noxious kinds of insects may well be reckoned\nthe locusts, which sometimes arrive in such incredible multitudes, that\nit would appear fabulous to give a relation of them; destroying the\nwhole of the verdure wherever they pass.\u201d Captain Woodroffe, who was for\nsome time at Astrachan, a city near the Volga, sixty miles to the\nnorth-west of the Caspian Sea, in latitude 47\u00b0, assures us, that, from\nthe latter end of July to the beginning of October, the country about\nthat city is frequently infested with locusts, which fly in such\nprodigious numbers as to darken the air, and appear at a distance as a\nheavy cloud. As for the Mosaic permission to the Jews of eating the\nlocusts, Lev. xi, 22, however strange it may appear to the mere English\nreader, yet nothing is more certain than that several nations, both of\nAsia and Africa, anciently used these insects for food; and that they\nare still eaten in the east to this day. Niebhur gives some account of\nthe several species of locusts eaten by the Arabs, and of their\ndifferent ways of dressing them for food. The Europeans,\u201d he adds, do\nnot comprehend how the Arabs can eat locusts with pleasure; and those\nArabs who have had no intercourse with the Christians will not believe,\nin their turn, that these latter reckon oysters, crabs, shrimps,\ncray-fish, &c, for dainties. These two facts, however, are equally\ncertain.\u201d Locusts are often used figuratively by the prophets, for\ninvading armies; and their swarms aptly represented the numbers, the\ndesolating march of the vast military hordes and their predatory\nfollowers, which the ancient conquerors of the east poured down upon\nevery country they attacked.\n\nLOG, Lev. xiv, 12, a Hebrew measure for things liquid, containing\nfive-sixths of a pint.\n\nLOLLARDS, the supposed followers of Walter Lollard, or rather of Walter\nthe Lollard, who, according to Dr. Mosheim, was a Dutchman of remarkable\neloquence and piety, though tinctured with mysticism, and who, for\nteaching sentiments contrary to the church of Rome, and nearly\ncorresponding with those of Wickliffe, was burned alive at Cologne in\n1322. But before this there existed, in different parts of Germany and\nFlanders, various societies of Cellites, to whom the term Lollards was\napplied, and who were protected by the magistrates and inhabitants, on\naccount of their usefulness to the sick, and in burying the dead. They\nreceived the name Lollards, from the old German or Belgic word _lullen_,\n(Latin, _lallo_,) to sing with a low voice,\u201d to _lull_ to sleep,\u201d\n(whence _lullaby_,) because when they carried to the grave, the bed of\ndeath, such as died of the plague, which at that period ravaged all\nEurope, they sung a dirge or hymn, probably, in a soft and mournful\ntone. These Lollards obtained many papal grants, by which their\ninstitution was confirmed, their persons exempted from the cognizance of\nthe inquisitors, and subjected entirely to the jurisdiction of the\nbishops; and, at last, for their farther security, Charles, duke of\nBurgundy, in 1472, obtained a bull from Pope Sixtus IV., by which they\nwere ranked among the religious orders, and delivered from the\njurisdiction of their bishops; which privileges were yet more extended\nby Pope Julius II. in 1506.\n\nIn England the followers of Wickliffe were called Lollards by way of\nreproach, either on account of the humble offices of the original\nLollards, (the Cellites,) or from the attachment of the Wickliffites to\nsinging hymns. Their enemies probably meant to describe them as poor\nmelancholy creatures, only fit to sing psalms at a funeral.\n\nLOOKING GLASS. Moses states that the women who waited all night at the\ndoor of the tabernacle, cheerfully offered their looking glasses, to be\nemployed in making a brazen laver for the purification of the priests,\nExod. xxxviii, 8. These looking glasses were doubtless of brass, since\nthe basin here mentioned, and the basis thereof, were made from them.\nThe ancient looking glasses were mirrors, not made of glass as ours; but\nof brass, tin, silver, and a mixture of brass and silver, which last\nwere the best and most valuable.\n\nLORD\u2019s DAY. See SABBATH.\n\nLORD\u2019s SUPPER, an ordinance instituted by our Saviour in commemoration\nof his death and sufferings. The institution of this sacrament is\nrecorded by the first three evangelists, and by the Apostle Paul, whose\nwords differ very little from those of his companion St. Luke; and the\nonly difference between St. Matthew and St. Mark is, that the latter\nomits the words, for the remission of sins.\u201d There is so general an\nagreement among them all, that it will only be necessary to recite the\nwords of one of them: Now, when the even was come, he sat down with the\ntwelve,\u201d to eat the passover which had been prepared by his direction;\nand as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it,\nand gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And\nhe took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye\nall of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for\nmany for the remission of sins,\u201d Matt. xxvi, 20, 26\u201328. The sacrament of\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper being thus instituted, was adopted by all the early\nChristians, with very few exceptions; and no modern sect rejects it,\nexcept the Quakers and some mystics, who make the whole of religion to\nconsist of contemplative love.\n\nIn the early times of the Gospel the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper\nwas both frequent and numerously attended. Voluntary absence was\nconsidered as a culpable neglect; and exclusion from it, by the sentence\nof the church, as a severe punishment. Every one brought an offering\nproportioned to his ability; these offerings were chiefly of bread and\nwine; and the priests appropriated as much as was necessary for the\nadministration of the eucharist. The clergy had a part of what was left\nfor their maintenance; and the rest furnished the repast called \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7,\nor _love-feast_, which immediately followed the celebration of the\nLord\u2019s Supper, and of which all the communicants, both rich and poor,\npartook. The sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper greatly resembled the\nreligious feasts to which the Jews were accustomed. At those feasts they\npartook of bread and wine in a serious and devout manner, after a solemn\nblessing or thanksgiving to God for his manifold mercies. This was\nparticularly the case at the feast of the passover, which our Saviour\nwas celebrating with his Apostles when he instituted this holy\nsacrament. At that feast, they commemorated the deliverance of their own\npeculiar nation from the bondage of Egypt; and there could not be a more\nsuitable opportunity for establishing an ordinance which was to\ncommemorate the infinitely more important deliverance of all mankind\nfrom the bondage of sin. The former deliverance was typical of the\nlatter; and instead of keeping the Jewish passover, which was now to be\nabrogated, they were to commemorate Christ, their passover, who was\nsacrificed for them; the bread broken was to represent his body offered\nupon the cross; and the wine poured out was to represent his blood,\nwhich was shed for the salvation of men. The nourishment which these\nelements afford to our bodies is figurative of the salutary effects\nwhich the thing signified has upon our souls. And as the celebration of\nthe passover was not only a constant memorial of the deliverance of the\nIsraelites out of the land of Egypt, but also a symbolical action, by\nwhich they had a title to the blessings of the old covenant; so the\ncelebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper is not only a constant memorial of the\ndeath of Christ, but also a pledge or earnest to the communicant of the\nbenefits promised by the new covenant. As the passover was instituted\nthe night before the actual deliverance of the Israelites, so the Lord\u2019s\nSupper was instituted the night before the redemption of man was\naccomplished by the crucifixion of the blessed Jesus. It is to be\npartaken of by all who look for remission of sins by the death of\nChrist; we are not only to cherish that trust in our minds, and express\nit in our devotions, but we are to give an outward proof of our reliance\nupon the merits of his passion as the means of our salvation, by eating\nthat bread, and drinking that wine, which are typical representations of\nthe body and blood of Christ, who by his one oblation of himself once\noffered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and\nsatisfaction for the sins of the whole world.\u201d See SACRAMENTS.\n\nLOT, the son of Haran, and nephew to Abraham. He accompanied his uncle\nfrom Ur to Haran, and from thence to Canaan; a proof of their mutual\nattachment, and similarity of principles respecting the true religion.\nWith Abraham he descended into Egypt, and afterward returned with him\ninto Canaan: but the multiplicity of their flocks, and still more the\nquarrels of their servants, rendered a friendly separation necessary.\nWhen God destroyed the cities of the plain with fire and brimstone, he\ndelivered just Lot\u201d from the conflagration, according to the account of\nthe divine historian. The whole time that Lot resided there was\ntwenty-three years. During all this period he had been a preacher of\nrighteousness among this degenerate people. In him they had before their\neyes an illustrious example of the exercise of genuine piety, supported\nby unsullied justice and benevolent actions. And doubtless it was for\nthese purposes that Divine Providence placed him for a time in that\ncity. The losses which Lot sustained on this melancholy occasion were\nvery great; his wife, property, and all the prospects of the future\nsettlement of his family blasted. Pity must therefore draw a friendly\nveil over the closing scene of this man of affliction; and let him that\nthinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall into deeds more\nreprehensible than those of Lot, without having equal trials and\nsufferings to plead in his favour. Respecting his wife, whether grieving\nfor the loss of her property, or inwardly censuring the severity of the\ndivine dispensation, or whether moved by unbelief or curiosity, cannot\nnow be known; but, looking back, she became a pillar of salt, Gen. xix,\n26. It would be endless to present the reader with all the opinions on\nthis subject. Some contend that nothing more is meant than that she was\nsuffocated: others, that a column or monument of metallic salt was\nerected upon her grave: others affirm that she became encrusted with the\nsulphur, insomuch that she appeared like an Egyptian mummy, which is\nembalmed with salt. Our Lord warns his disciples to remember Lot\u2019s wife\nin their flight from Jerusalem, and not to imitate her tardiness, Luke\nxvii, 32.\n\n2. Lot, any thing cast or drawn in order to determine any matter in\nquestion, Proverbs xviii, 18. We see the use of lots among the Hebrews\nin many places of Scripture: God commands, for example, that lots should\nbe cast upon the two goats which were offered for the sins of the\npeople, upon the solemn day of expiation, to know which of the two\nshould be sacrificed, and which liberated, Lev. xvi, 8\u201310. He required\nalso that the land of promise should be divided by lot as soon as it was\nconquered; which command Joshua accordingly executed, Num. xxvi, 55, 56;\nxxxiii, 54; xxxiv, 13, &c; Joshua xiv-xvi; hence the term lot\u201d is used\nfor an inheritance, Thou maintainest my lot;\u201d and figuratively for a\nhappy state or condition. The priests and Levites had their cities\nappointed by lot. Lastly, in the time of David, the four and twenty\nclasses of the priests and Levites were distributed by lot, to determine\nin what order they should wait in the temple, 1 Chron. vi, 54, 61; xxiv,\n5; xxv, 8. In the division of the spoil, after victory, lots were\nlikewise cast, to give every man his portion, Obadiah 11; Nahum iii, 10,\n&c. In the New Testament, after the death of Judas, lots were cast to\ndecide who should occupy the place of the traitor, Acts i, 26. From the\nabove instances, it is clear that when men have recourse to this method,\nthe matter ought to be of the greatest importance, and no other apparent\nway left to determine it; and the manner of making the appeal should be\nsolemn and grave, if we would escape the guilt of taking the name of God\nin vain. It unquestionably implies a solemn appeal to the Most High to\ninterpose by his decision; and so every thinking man will be very\ncareful that he has a true and religious ground for so serious a\nproceeding; and few if any cases can now occur in which it can have any\njustification. The ancient manner of casting lots, was either in some\nperson\u2019s lap,\u201d or fold of the robe; into a helmet, or urn, or other\nvessel, in which they might be shaken before they were drawn or cast.\n\nLOVE-FEASTS. It is Godwin\u2019s opinion, that the _agap\u00e6_, or love-feasts,\nof the primitive Christians, were derived from the \u05d7\u05d2\u05d9\u05dd or feasts upon\nthe sacrifices, at which the Jews entertained their friends, and fed the\npoor; Deut. xii, 18; xxvi, 12. There were also feasts of much the same\nkind in use among the Greeks and Romans. The former were wont to offer\ncertain sacrifices to their gods, which were afterward given to the\npoor. They had likewise public feasts for certain districts, suppose for\na town or a city, toward which all who could afford it, contributed, in\nproportion to their different abilities, and all partook of it in\ncommon. Of this sort were the \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 of the Cretans; and the \u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\nof the Laced\u00e6monians, instituted by Lycurgus, and so called \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, (the \u03bb being changed into \u03b4 according to their usual\northography,) as denoting that love and friendship which they were\nintended to promote among neighbours and fellow citizens. The Romans\nlikewise had a feast of the same kind, called _charistia_; which was a\nmeeting only of those who were akin to each other; and the design of it\nwas, that if any quarrel or misunderstanding had happened among any of\nthem, they might there be reconciled. To this Ovid alludes in the second\nbook of his Fasti:--\n\n         _Proxima cognati dixere charistia cari,\n         Et venit ad socios turba propinqua deos._     v. 617.\n\n[The feasts next in order beloved relatives called _charistia_, at which\nthe kindred throng assembled under their family household gods.]\n\nIn imitation either of these Jewish or Gentile love-feasts, or probably\nof both, the primitive Christians, in each particular church, had\nlikewise their love-feasts, which were supplied by the contribution of\nthe members, according to their several abilities, and partaken of by\nall in common. And whether they were converts from among the Jews or\nGentiles, they retained their old custom with very little alteration,\nand as their \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9 had been commonly annexed to their sacrifices, so\nthey were now annexed to the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ at\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper; and were therefore held on the Lord\u2019s day before or\nafter the celebration of that ordinance. It would seem at Corinth, in\nthe Apostles\u2019 days, they were ordinarily held before; for when the\nCorinthians are blamed for unworthily receiving the Lord\u2019s Supper, it is\npartly charged upon this, that some of them came drunk to that\nordinance, having indulged to excess at the preceding love-feast: Every\none taketh before, \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03d0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, his own supper, and one is hungry, and\nanother is drunken,\u201d 1 Cor. xi, 21. This shows, says Dr. Whitby, that\nthis banquet, namely, the love-feast, was celebrated before the Lord\u2019s\nSupper. But Chrysostom gives an account of it, as being in his time kept\nafter it. It is commonly supposed, that when St. Jude mentions certain\npersons, who were spots in the feasts of charity, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, verse\n12, he means in the Christian love-feasts; though Dr. Lightfoot and Dr.\nWhitby apprehend the reference in this passage is rather a custom of the\nJews, who, on the evening of their Sabbath, had their \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, or\ncommunion, when the inhabitants of the same city met in a common place\nto eat together. However that be, all antiquity bears testimony to the\nreality of the Christian \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9, or love-feasts.\n\nThe most circumstantial account, says Dr. Townley, of the manner in\nwhich the ancient _agap\u00e6_ were celebrated, is given by Tertullian, in\nhis Apology,\u201d written in the second century: Our supper,\u201d says he, which\nyou accuse of luxury, shows its reason in its very name, for it is\ncalled \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, that is, _love_. Whatever charge we are at, it is gain to\nbe at expense upon the account of piety. For we therewith relieve and\nrefresh the poor. There is nothing vile or immodest committed in it. For\nwe do not sit down before we have first offered up prayer to God. We eat\nonly to satisfy hunger, and drink only so much as becomes modest\npersons. We fill ourselves in such a manner, as that we remember still\nthat we are to worship God by night. We discourse as in the presence of\nGod, knowing that he hears us. Then, after water to wash our hands, and\nlights brought in, every one is moved to sing some hymn to God, either\nout of Scripture, or, as he is able, of his own composing, and by this\nwe judge whether he has observed the rules of temperance in drinking.\nPrayer again concludes our feast; and thence we depart, not to fight and\nquarrel; not to run about and abuse all we meet; not to give up\nourselves to lascivious pastime; but to pursue the same care of modesty\nand chastity, as men that have fed at a supper of philosophy and\ndiscipline, rather than a corporeal feast.\u201d Ignatius, in his epistle to\nthe church of Smyrna, in the first century, affords us the additional\ninformation, that it was not lawful to baptize, or celebrate the\nlove-feasts, without the bishop, or minister.\u201d Lucian, the epicurean,\nhas also a passage which seems to refer to the _agap\u00e6_. He tells us that\nwhen Peregrinus, a Christian, was in prison, you might have seen, early\nin the morning, old women, some widows, and orphans, waiting at the\nprison. Their presidents bribed the guards, and lodged in the prison\nwith him. Afterward (that is, in the evening) various suppers (that is,\nsuppers consisting of various dishes, and various kinds of meat, brought\nthither by various persons of the company) were brought in, and they\nheld their sacred conversations, \u1f34\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, or their sacred discourses\nwere delivered.\u201d Pliny, in his celebrated epistle to Trajan, mentions\nthe \u201c_cibus promiscuus et innoxius_,\u201d--\u201ccommon and harmless meal\u201d of the\nChristians, which they ate together after the celebration of the\neucharist. This primitive practice, though under a simpler form, and\nmore expressly religious, is retained in modern times, only by the\nMoravians, and by the Wesleyan Methodists.\n\nLOVE TO GOD. To serve and obey God on the conviction that it is right to\nserve and obey him, is in Christianity joined with that love to God\nwhich gives life and animation to service, and renders it the means of\nexalting our pleasures, at the same time that it accords with our\nconvictions. The supreme love of God is the chief, therefore, of what\nhave sometimes been called our theopathetic affections. It is the sum\nand the end of the law; and though it has been lost by us in Adam, it is\nrestored to us by Christ. When it regards God absolutely, and in\nhimself, as a Being of infinite and harmonious perfections and moral\nbeauties, it is that movement of the soul toward him which is produced\nby admiration, approval, and delight. When it regards him relatively, it\nfixes upon the ceaseless emanations of his goodness to us all in the\ncontinuance of the existence which he at first bestowed; the\ncircumstances which render that existence felicitous; and, above all,\nupon that great love wherewith he loved us,\u201d manifested in the gift of\nhis Son for our redemption, and in saving us by his grace; or, in the\nforcible language of St. Paul, upon the exceeding riches of his grace in\nhis kindness to us through Christ Jesus.\u201d Under all these views an\nunbounded gratitude overflows the heart which is influenced by this\nspiritual affection. But the love of God is more than a sentiment of\ngratitude: it rejoices in his perfections and glories, and devoutly\ncontemplates them as the highest and most interesting subjects of\nthought; it keeps the idea of this supremely beloved object constantly\npresent to the mind; it turns to it with adoring ardour from the\nbusiness and distractions of life; it connects it with every scene of\nmajesty and beauty in nature, and with every event of general and\nparticular providence; it brings the soul into fellowship with God, real\nand sensible, because vital; it moulds the other affections into\nconformity with what God himself wills or prohibits, loves or hates; it\nproduces an unbounded desire to please him, and to be accepted of him in\nall things; it is jealous of his honour, unwearied in his service, quick\nto prompt to every sacrifice in the cause of his truth and his church;\nand it renders all such sacrifices, even when carried to the extent of\nsuffering and death, unreluctant and cheerful. It chooses God as the\nchief good of the soul, the enjoyment of which assures its perfect and\neternal interest and happiness: Whom have I in heaven but thee? and\nthere is none upon earth that I desire beside thee,\u201d is the language of\nevery heart, when its love of God is true in principle and supreme in\ndegree.\n\nIf, then, the will of God is the perfect rule of morals; and if supreme\nand perfect love to God must produce a prompt and unwearied, a\ndelightful subjection to his will, or rather an entire and most free\nchoice of it as the rule of all our principles, affections, and actions;\nthe importance of this affection in securing that obedience to the law\nof God in which true morality consists, is manifest; and we clearly\nperceive the reason why an inspired writer has affirmed, that love is\nthe fulfilling of the law.\u201d The necessity of keeping this subject before\nus under those views in which it is placed in the Christian system, and\nof not surrendering it to mere philosophy, is, however, an important\nconsideration. With the philosopher the love of God may be the mere\napproval of the intellect; or a sentiment which results from the\ncontemplation of infinite perfection, manifesting itself in acts of\npower and goodness. In the Scriptures it is much more than either, and\nis produced and maintained by a different process. We are there taught\nthat the carnal mind is enmity to God,\u201d and is not, of course, capable\nof loving God. Yet this carnal mind may consist with deep attainments in\nphilosophy, and with strongly impassioned poetic sentiment. The mere\napproval of the understanding, and the susceptibility of being impressed\nwith feelings of admiration, awe, and even pleasure, when the character\nof God is manifested in his works, as both may be found in the carnal\nmind which is enmity to God, are not therefore the love of God. They are\nprinciples which enter into that love, since it cannot exist without\nthem; but they may exist without this affection itself, and be found in\na vicious and unchanged nature. The love of God is a fruit of the Holy\nSpirit; that is, it is implanted by him only in the souls which he has\nregenerated; and as that which excites its exercise is chiefly, and in\nthe first place, a sense of the benefits bestowed by the grace of God in\nour redemption, and a well grounded persuasion of our personal interest\nin those benefits, it necessarily presupposes our reconciliation to God\nthrough faith in the atonement of Christ, and that attestation of it to\nthe heart by the Spirit of adoption. We here see, then, another proof of\nthe necessary connection of Christian morals with Christian doctrine,\nand how imperfect and deceptive every system must be which separates\nthem. Love is essential to true obedience; for when the Apostle declares\nlove to be the fulfilling of the law,\u201d he declares, in effect, that the\nlaw cannot be fulfilled without love; and that every action which has\nnot this for its principle, however virtuous in its show, fails of\naccomplishing the precepts which are obligatory upon us. But this love\nto God cannot be felt so long as we are sensible of his wrath, and are\nin dread of his judgments. These feelings are incompatible with each\nother, and we must be assured of his reconciliation to us, before we are\ncapable of loving him. Thus the very existence of love to God implies\nthe doctrines of atonement, repentance, faith, and the gift of the\nSpirit of adoption to believers; and unless it be taught in this\nconnection, and through this process of experience, it will be exhibited\nonly as a bright and beauteous object to which man has no access; or a\nfictitious and imitative sentimentalism will be substituted for it, to\nthe delusion of the souls of men.\n\nLUCIAN, a philosopher and wit, who appeared as one of the early opposers\nof the Christian religion and its followers. The hostile sentiments of\nthe Heathens toward Christianity, says Dr. Neander, were different\naccording to the difference of their philosophical and religious views.\nThere entered then upon the contest two classes of men, who have never\nsince ceased to persecute Christianity. These were the superstitious, to\nwhom the honouring God in spirit and in truth was a stumbling stone, and\nthe careless unbeliever, who, unacquainted with all feelings of\nreligious wants, was accustomed to laugh and to mock at every thing\nwhich proceeded from them, whether he understood it or not, and at all\nwhich supposed such feelings, and proposed to satisfy them. Such was\nLucian. To him Christianity, like every other remarkable religious\nphenomenon, appeared only as a fit object for his sarcastic wit. Without\ngiving himself the trouble to examine and to discriminate, he threw\nChristianity, superstition, and fanaticism, into the same class. It is\neasy enough, in any system which lays deep hold on man\u2019s nature, to find\nout some side open to ridicule, if a man brings forward only that which\nis external in the system, abstracted from all its inward power and\nmeaning, and without either understanding, or attempting to understand,\nthis power. He, therefore, who looked on Christianity with cold\nindifference, and the profane every-day feelings of worldly prudence,\nmight easily here and there find objects for his satire. The Christian\nmight indeed have profited by that ridicule, and have learned from the\nchildren of darkness to join the wisdom of the serpent with the meekness\nof the dove. In the end the scoffer brings himself to derision, because\nhe ventures to pass sentence on the phenomena of a world of which he has\nnot the slightest conception, and which to his eyes, buried as they are\nin the films of the earth, is entirely closed. Such was Lucian. He\nsought to bring forward all that is striking and remarkable in the\nexternal conduct and circumstances of Christians, which might serve for\nthe object of his sarcastic raillery, without any deeper inquiry as to\nwhat the religion of the Christians really was. And yet even in that at\nwhich he scoffed, there was much which might have taught him to remark\nin Christianity no common power over the hearts of men, had he been\ncapable of such serious impressions. The firm hope of eternal life which\ntaught them to meet death with tranquillity, their brotherly love one\ntoward another, might have indicated to him some higher spirit which\nanimated these men; but instead of this he treats it all as delusion,\nbecause many gave themselves up to death with something like fanatical\nenthusiasm. He scoffs at the notion of a crucified man having taught\nthem to regard all mankind as their brethren, the moment they should\nhave abjured the gods of Greece; as if it were not just the most\nremarkable part of all this, that an obscure person in Jerusalem, who\nwas deserted by every one, and executed as a criminal, should be able, a\ngood century after his death, to cause such effects as Lucian, in his\nown time, saw extending in all directions, and in spite of every kind of\npersecution. How blinded must he have been to pass thus lightly over\nsuch a phenomenon! But men of his ready wit are apt to exert it with too\ngreat readiness on all subjects. They are able to illustrate every thing\nout of nothing; with their miserable _nil admirari_,\u201d they can close\ntheir hearts against all lofty impressions. With all his wit and\nkeenness, with all his undeniably fine powers of observation in all that\nhas no concern with the deeper impulses of man\u2019s spirit, he was a man of\nvery little mind. But hear his own language: The wretched people have\npersuaded themselves that they are altogether immortal, and will live\nfor ever; therefore they despise death, and many of them meet it of\ntheir own accord. Their first lawgiver has persuaded them also to regard\nall mankind as their brethren, as soon as they have abjured the Grecian\ngods, and, honouring their crucified Master, have begun to live\naccording to his laws. They despise every thing Heathen equally, and\nregard all but their own notions as profaneness, while they have yet\nembraced those notions without sufficient examination.\u201d He has no\nfarther accusation to make against them here, except the ease with which\nthey allowed their benevolence toward their fellow Christians to be\nabused by impostors, in which there may be much truth, but there is,\nnevertheless, some exaggeration.\n\nLUDIM. There were two Luds; the one the son of Shem, from whom the\nLydians of Asia Minor are supposed to have sprung, and the other the son\nof Mizraim, whose residence was in Africa. The descendants of the latter\nonly are mentioned in Scripture: they are joined by Isaiah, lxvi, 19,\nwith Pul, whose settlement is supposed to have been about the island\nPhiloe, near the first cataract of the Nile; by Jeremiah, xlvi, 9, with\nthe Ethiopians and Libyans; by Ezekiel, xxvii, 10, with Phut, as the\nmercenary soldiers of Tyre, and xxx, 5, with the Ethiopians and Libyans;\nall plainly denoting their African position; but in what particular part\nof that continent this position was, is not known.\n\nLUKE. The New Testament informs us of very few particulars concerning\nSt. Luke. He is not named in any of the Gospels. In the Acts of the\nApostles, which were, as will hereafter be shown, written by him, he\nuses the first person plural, when he is relating some of the travels of\nSt. Paul; and thence it is inferred, that at those times he was himself\nwith that Apostle. The first instance of this kind is in the eleventh\nverse of the sixteenth chapter; he there says, Loosing from Troas, we\ncame up with a straight course to Samothracia.\u201d Thus, we learn that St.\nLuke accompanied St. Paul in this his first voyage to Macedonia. From\nSamothracia they went to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. At this last\nplace we conclude that St. Paul and St. Luke separated, because in\ncontinuing the history of St. Paul, after he left Philippi, St. Luke\nuses the third person, saying, Now when _they_ had passed through\nAmphipolis,\u201d &c, Acts xvii, 1; and he does not resume the first person\ntill St. Paul was in Greece the second time. We have no account of St.\nLuke during this interval; it only appears that he was not with St.\nPaul. When St. Paul was about to go to Jerusalem from Greece, after his\nsecond visit into that country, St. Luke, mentioning certain persons,\nsays, These going before tarried for _us_ at Troas; and _we_ sailed away\nfrom Philippi,\u201d Acts xx, 5, 6. Thus again we learn that St. Luke\naccompanied St. Paul out of Greece, through Macedonia to Troas; and the\nsequel of St. Paul\u2019s history in the Acts, and some passages in his\nepistles, 2 Tim. iv, 11; Col. iv, 14, Philemon 24, written while he was\na prisoner at Rome, informs us that St. Luke continued from that time\nwith Paul, till he was released from his confinement at Rome; which was\na space of about five years, and included a very interesting part of St.\nPaul\u2019s life, Acts xx-xxviii.\n\nHere ends the certain account of St. Luke. It seems probable, however,\nthat he went from Rome into Achaia; and some authors have asserted that\nhe afterward preached the Gospel in Africa. None of the most ancient\nfathers having mentioned that St. Luke suffered martyrdom, we may\nsuppose that he died a natural death; but at what time, or in what\nplace, is not known. We are told by some that St. Luke was a painter,\nand Grotius and Wetstein thought that he was in the earlier part of his\nlife a slave; but I find, says Bishop Tomline, no foundation for either\nopinion in any ancient writer. It is probable that he was by birth a\nJew, and a native of Antioch in Syria; and I see no reason to doubt that\nLuke, the beloved physician,\u201d mentioned in the Epistle to the\nColossians, iv, 14, was Luke the evangelist.\n\nLardner thinks that there are a few allusions to this Gospel in some of\nthe apostolical fathers, especially in Hermas and Polycarp; and in\nJustin Martyr there are passages evidently taken from it; but the\nearliest author, who actually mentions St. Luke\u2019s Gospel, is Iren\u00e6us;\nand he cites so many peculiarities in it, all agreeing with the Gospel\nwhich we now have, that he alone is sufficient to prove its genuineness.\nWe may however observe, that his testimony is supported by Clement of\nAlexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and many\nothers. Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson have compared many parallel passages of\nSt. Mark\u2019s and St. Luke\u2019s Gospels; and Dr. Townson has concluded that\nSt. Luke had seen St. Mark\u2019s Gospel, and Dr. Owen, that St. Mark had\nseen St. Luke\u2019s; but there does not appear to be a sufficient similarity\nof expression to justify either of these conclusions. There was among\nthe ancients a difference of opinion concerning the priority of these\ntwo Gospels; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point.\n\nThere is also great doubt about the place where this Gospel was\npublished. It seems most probable that it was published in Greece, and\nfor the use of Gentile converts. Dr. Townson observes, that the\nevangelist has inserted many explanations, particularly concerning the\nscribes and Pharisees, which he would have omitted if he had been\nwriting for those who were acquainted with the customs and sects of the\nJews. We must conclude that the histories of our Saviour, referred to in\nthe preface to this Gospel, were inaccurate and defective, or St. Luke\nwould not have undertaken this work. It does not, however, appear that\nthey were written with any bad design; but being merely human\ncompositions, and perhaps put together in great haste, they were full of\nerrors. They are now entirely lost, and the names of their authors are\nnot known. When the four authentic Gospels were published, and came into\ngeneral use, all others were quickly disregarded and forgotten.\n\nSt. Luke\u2019s Gospel is addressed to Theophilus; but there was a doubt,\neven in the time of Epiphanius, whether a particular person, or any good\nChristian in general, be intended by that name. Theophilus was probably\na real person, that opinion being more agreeable to the simplicity of\nthe sacred writings. We have seen that St. Luke was for several years\nthe companion of St. Paul; and many ancient writers consider this Gospel\nas having the sanction of St. Paul, in the same manner as St. Mark\u2019s had\nthat of St. Peter. Whoever will examine the evangelist\u2019s and the\nApostle\u2019s account of the eucharist in their respective original works,\nwill observe a great coincidence of expression, Luke xxii; 1 Cor. xi.\nSt. Luke seems to have had more learning than any other of the\nevangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This\nsuperiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in\nGreece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education, than\nfell to the lot of the writers of the other three Gospels. This Gospel\ncontains many things which are not found in the other Gospels; among\nwhich are the following: the birth of John the Baptist; the Roman census\nin Judea; the circumstances attending Christ\u2019s birth at Bethlehem; the\nvision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna;\nChrist\u2019s conversation with the doctors in the temple when he was twelve\nyears old; the parables of the good Samaritan, of the prodigal son, of\nDives and Lazarus, of the wicked judge, and of the publican and\nPharisee; the miraculous cure of the woman who had been bowed down by\nillness eighteen years; the cleansing of the ten lepers; and the\nrestoring to life the son of a widow at Nain; the account of Zaccheus,\nand of the penitent thief; and the particulars of the journey to Emmaus.\nIt is very satisfactory that so early a writer as Iren\u00e6us has noticed\nmost of these peculiarities; which proves not only that St. Luke\u2019s\nGospel, but that the other Gospels also, are the same now that they were\nin the second century.\n\nLUNATICS, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _lunatici_, Matt. iv, 24. Thus those sick\npersons were called, who were thought to suffer most severely at the\nchanges of the moon; for example, epileptical persons, or those who have\nthe falling sickness, insane persons, or those tormented with fits of\nmorbid melancholy. Mad people are still called lunatics, from an\nancient, but now almost exploded, opinion, that they are much influenced\nby that planet. A sounder philosophy has taught us, that, if there be\nany thing in it, it must be accounted for, not in the manner the\nancients imagined, nor otherwise than by what the moon has in common\nwith other heavenly bodies, occasioning various alterations in the\ngravity of our atmosphere, and thereby affecting human bodies. However,\nthere is considerable reason to doubt the fact; and it is certain that\nthe moon has no perceivable influence on our most accurate barometers.\nIt has been the fashion to decry and ridicule the doctrine of demoniacal\npossessions, and to represent the patients merely as lunatics or madmen.\nAnd some think that this is countenanced by the calumny of the\nunbelieving Jews concerning Christ, He hath a demon, and is mad,\u201d John\nx, 20; both possession and madness often producing the same symptoms of\nconvulsions, paralysis, &c, Matt. xvii, 15\u201318. But that they were\ndistinct diseases, may be collected from the following considerations:\n1. The evangelists, enumerating the various descriptions of patients,\ndistinguish \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, _demoniacs_, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, _lunatics_, and\n\u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, _paralytics_, from persons afflicted with other kinds of\ndiseases, Matt. iv, 24; Mark i, 34; Luke vi, 17, 18. 2. That a real\ndispossession took place, seems to follow from the number of these\nimpure inmates. Mary of Magdala, or the Magdalene, was afflicted with\nseven demons, Mark xvi, 9. A legion\u201d besought Christ\u2019s permission to\nenter into a numerous herd of two thousand swine; which they did, and\ndrove the whole herd down a precipice into the sea, where they were all\ndrowned. This remarkable case is noticed by the three evangelists most\ncircumstantially, Matt. viii, 28; Mark v, 1; Luke viii, 26. 3. The\ntestimony of the demoniacs to Christ was not that of madmen or idiots.\nIt evinced an intimate knowledge both of his person and character, which\nwas hidden from the wise and prudent\u201d of the nation, the chief priests,\nscribes, and Pharisees. Their language was, What hast thou to do with\nus, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to torment us before the time?\u201d I\nknow thee who thou art, the Holy One of God:\u201d thou art the Christ, the\nSon of God, the Son of the most high God,\u201d Matt. viii, 29; Mark i, 24;\niii, 11; Luke iv, 34\u201341. And they repeatedly besought him not to torment\nthem, not to order them to depart into the abyss, Luke viii, 28\u201331. See\nDEMONIACS.\n\nLUTHERANS, or the LUTHERAN CHURCH, the disciples and followers of Martin\nLuther, an Augustine friar, who was born at Isleben, in Upper Saxony, in\nthe year 1483. He possessed an invincible magnanimity, and uncommon\nvigour and acuteness of genius. He first took offence at the indulgences\nwhich were granted in 1517, by Pope Leo X., to those who contributed\ntoward finishing St. Peter\u2019s church at Rome, Luther being then professor\nof divinity at Wittemberg. Those indulgences promised remission of all\nsins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their nature, to all\nwho were rich enough to purchase them. At this Luther raised his warning\nvoice; and in ninety-five propositions, which he maintained publicly at\nWittemberg, September 30, 1517, exposed the doctrine of indulgences,\nwhich led him to attack also the authority of the pope. This was the\ncommencement of that memorable revolution in the church which is styled\nthe Reformation; though Mosheim fixes the era of the Reformation from\n1520, when Luther was excommunicated by the pope.\n\nIn 1523 Luther drew up a liturgy, that, in many things, differed but\nlittle from the Mass Book; but he left his followers to make farther\nreforms, as they saw them necessary; and, in consequence, the forms of\nworship in the Lutheran churches vary in points of minor importance: but\nthey agree in reading the Scriptures publicly, in offering prayers and\npraises to God through the Mediator in their own language, in popular\naddresses to the congregation, and the reverend administration of the\nsacraments.\n\nThe Augsburgh Confession (see _Confessions_) forms the established creed\nof the Lutheran church. The following are a few of the principal points\nof doctrine maintained by this great reformer, and a few of the\nScriptures by which he supported them.\n\n1. That the Holy Scriptures are the only source whence we are to draw\nour religious sentiments, whether they relate to faith or practice, John\nv, 39; 1 Cor. iv, 16; 2 Tim. iii, 15\u201317. Reason also confirms the\nsufficiency of the Scriptures; for, if the written word be allowed to be\na rule in one case, how can it be denied to be a rule in another?\n\n2. That justification is the effect of faith exclusive of good works;\nand that faith ought to produce good works purely in obedience to God,\nand not in order to our justification; for St. Paul, in his Epistle to\nthe Galatians, strenuously opposed those who ascribed our justification,\nthough but in part, to works: If righteousness come by the law, then\nChrist is dead in vain,\u201d Gal. ii, 21. Therefore it is evident we are not\njustified by the law, or by our works; but to him that believeth, sin is\npardoned, and Christ\u2019s righteousness imputed. This article of\njustification by faith alone, Luther used frequently to call _articulus\nstantis vel cadentis ecclesi\u00e6_;\u201d that by which the church must stand or\nfall.\n\n3. That no man is able to make satisfaction for his sins; for our Lord\nteaches us to say, when we have done all things that are commanded us,\nWe are unprofitable servants,\u201d Luke xvii, 10. Christ\u2019s sacrifice is\nalone sufficient to satisfy for sin, and nothing need be added to the\ninfinite value of his atonement.\n\nLuther also rejected tradition, purgatory, penance, auricular\nconfession, masses, invocation of saints, monastic vows, and other\ndoctrines of the church of Rome. Luther differed widely from Calvin on\nmatters of church discipline; and on the presence of Christ\u2019s body in\nthe sacrament. His followers also deviated from him in some things;\nbut the following may be considered as a fair statement of their\nprinciples, and the difference between them and the Calvinists: 1. The\nLutherans in Germany reject both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, but\nappoint superintendents for the government of the church, who preside\nin their consistories, when that office is not supplied by a delegate\nfrom the civil government; and they hold meetings in the different\ntowns and villages, to inquire into the state of the congregations and\nthe schools. The appointment of superintendents, and the presentation\nto livings, is generally in the prince, or ecclesiastical courts. The\nSwedes and Danes have an ecclesiastical hierarchy, similar to that of\nEngland. 2. They differ in their views of the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s\nSupper. All the Lutherans reject _trans_-substantiation, but affirm\nthat the body and blood of Christ are _materially_ present in the\nsacrament, though in an incomprehensible manner: this they called\n_con-_substantiation. The Calvinists hold, on the contrary, that Jesus\nChrist is only _spiritually_ present in the ordinance, by the external\nsigns of bread and wine. 3. They differ as to the doctrine of the\neternal decrees of God respecting man\u2019s salvation. The modern\nLutherans maintain that the divine decrees, respecting the salvation\nand misery of men, are founded upon the divine prescience. The\nCalvinists, on the contrary, consider these decrees as absolute and\nunconditional.\n\nThe Lutherans are generally divided into the moderate and the rigid. The\nmoderate Lutherans are those who submitted to the _Interim_ published by\nthe Emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this party, and they\nwere called Adiaphorists. The rigid Lutherans are those who would not\nendure any change in their master\u2019s sentiments, of whom M. Flaccius was\nthe head. The Lutherans are partial to the use of instrumental music in\ntheir churches, and admit statues and paintings, as the church of\nEngland does, without allowing them any religious veneration; but the\nrigid Calvinists reject these, and allow only the simplest forms of\npsalmody. The modern Lutherans, about the close of the seventeenth\ncentury, enlarged their liberality toward other sects, and gave up the\nsupposed right of persecution; confessing that Christians are\naccountable to God only for their religious faith. They admit, also,\ninto their sacred canon the Epistle of St. James, which Luther rashly\nrejected, because he could not reconcile it with St. Paul\u2019s doctrine of\njustification; and the Revelation of St. John, which Luther also\nrejected, because he could not explain it.\n\nOn some of the doctrines of the early German reformers the\nfollowing remarks by Archbishop Laurence are entitled to high\nconsideration:--Against the church of Rome, which always, when\nattacked, fled for protection to the shield of scholastical\nsophistry, Luther had waged a dauntless, unwearied, and effectual\nwarfare. He entered the field of contest without distrust or\napprehension, under a rooted persuasion that the victory over\nsuperstition would prove easy at an era when learning had already\nbegun to extend itself in every direction, and was become closely\nallied to theological attainments. When the light of day appeared,\nthe genuine doctrines of Scripture and the primitive opinions of\nantiquity began to be more distinctly perceived, and more\naccurately investigated. With an attachment to classical pursuits\narose a zeal for Biblical inquiries. Taste and truth went hand in\nhand. Luther, than whom no one was more capable of infusing energy\ninto the cause in which he had embarked, was of all men the worst\nadapted to conduct it with moderation: he was calculated to\ncommence, but not to complete, reformation. Prompt, resolute, and\nimpetuous, he laboured with distinguished success in the\ndemolition of long established error; he also hastily threw\ntogether the rough and cumbrous materials of a better system. But\nthe office of selecting, modelling, and arranging them was\nconsigned to a correcter hand. Melancthon was of a character\ndirectly opposite to that of Luther, possessing every requisite to\nrender truth alluring and reformation respectable; and hence upon\nhim, in preference, the princes of Germany conferred the honour of\ncompiling the public profession of their faith. But it ought not\nto be concealed, that, previously to the time when Lutheranism\nfirst became settled upon a permanent basis, and added public\nesteem to public notice, tenets were advanced, which retarded the\nprogress of truth more than all the subtleties of scholastic\nargument, or the terrors of papal anathema. At the beginning of\nthe Reformation, as Melancthon frankly observed to Cranmer, there\nexisted among its advocates stoical disputations respecting fate,\noffensive in their nature, and noxious in their tendency. The\nduration, however, of these stoical disputations was but short;\nand the substitution of a more rational as well as practical\nsystem, for the space of more than twenty years before the\nappearance of our Articles, prevented the founders of our church\nfrom mistaking, for the doctrines of the Lutherans, those which\nthey themselves wished to forget, and were anxious to obliterate.\nAs we descend to particulars, it will be necessary to keep our eye\nupon one prominent doctrine, which was eminently conspicuous in\nall the controversies of the Lutherans,--the doctrine of COMPLETE\nREDEMPTION BY CHRIST, which in their idea their adversaries (the\nPapists) disregarded, who denied in effect the depravity of our\nnature, believed the favour of Heaven in this life recoverable by\nwhat was denominated _merit of congruity_, and, in the life to\ncome, by that which was termed _merit of condignity_, and founded\npredestination upon merits of such a description; thus in every\ninstance, while retaining the name of Christians, rendering\nChristianity itself superfluous. In opposition to opinions so\nrepugnant in many respects to reason, and in almost all so\nsubversive of Scripture, the Lutherans constantly pressed the\nunsophisticated tenet of the atonement, not contractedly in a\nCalvinistical, but comprehensively in a Christian, point of\nview,--in one in which both Calvinists and Arminians alike embrace\nit.\n\nUpon original sin the doctrine of the schoolmen was no less fanciful and\nremote from every Scriptural idea, than flattering to human pride. They\ncontended that the infection of our nature is not a mental but a mere\ncorporeal taint; that the body alone receives and transmits the\ncontagion, while the soul in all instances proceeds immaculate from the\nhands of her Creator. This disposition to disease, such as they allowed\nit to be, was considered by some of them as the effect of a peculiar\nquality in the forbidden fruit; by others, as having been contracted\nfrom the poisonous breath of the infernal spirit which inhabited the\nserpent\u2019s body. On one point they were all united; by preserving to the\nsoul the bright traces of her divine origin unimpaired, they founded on\na deceitful basis an arrogant creed, which, in declaring peace and\npardon to the sinner, rested more upon personal merit than the\nsatisfaction of a Saviour. In commenting upon the celebrated _Book of\nSentences_, a work once not much less revered than the Scriptures\nthemselves, the disciples of Lombard never failed to improve every hint\nwhich tended to degrade the grace of God and exalt the pride of man.\nOriginal sin the Romish schoolmen directly opposed to original\nrighteousness; and this they considered not as something connatural with\nman, but as a superinduced habit or adventitious ornament, the removal\nof which could not prove detrimental to the native powers of his mind.\nWhen, therefore, they contemplated the effects of the fall, by confining\nthe evil to a corporeal taint, and not extending it to the nobler\nfaculties of the soul, they regarded man as an object of divine\ndispleasure, not because he possessed that which was offensive, but\nbecause he was defective in that which was pleasing to the Almighty.\nAdam, they said, received for himself and his posterity the gift of\nrighteousness, which he subsequently forfeited; in his loins we were\nincluded, and by him were virtually represented: his will was ours, and\nhence the consequence of his lapse is justly imputable to us his\ndescendants. By our natural birth, therefore, under this idea, we are\nalienated from God, _innocent_ in our individual persons, but _guilty_\nin that of him from whom we derived our existence; a guilt which,\nalthough contracted through the fault of another, yet so closely adheres\nto us that it effectually precludes our entrance at the gate of\neverlasting life, until the reception of a new birth in baptism. Thus\nthey contended, that the sin of Adam conveys to us solely imputed guilt;\nthe corporeal infection which they admitted not being sin itself, but\nonly the subject matter of it,--not _peccatum_, but, according to their\nphraseology, _fomes peccati_, a kind of fuel which the human will\nkindles or not at pleasure. Such was the outline of the doctrine\nmaintained in the church of Rome. The tenet of the Lutherans, on the\nother hand, is remarkable for its simplicity and perspicuity. Avoiding\nall intricate questions upon the subject, they taught that original sin\nis a corruption of our nature in a general sense, a depravation of the\nmental faculties and the corporeal appetites; that the resplendent image\nof the Deity, which man received at the creation of the world, although\nnot annihilated, is nevertheless greatly impaired; and that, in\nconsequence, the bright characters of unspotted sanctity, once deeply\nengraven on his mind by the hand of the living God, are become\nobliterated, the injury extending to his intellect, and affecting as\nwell his reason and his will as his affections and passions. To conceive\nthat inclination to evil incurs not in itself the disapprobation of\nHeaven, appeared to them little better than an apology for crime, or at\nleast a dangerous palliation of that which the Christian\u2019s duty compels\nhim not only to repress but abhor.\n\nThe case of Cornelius, whose prayers and alms are said to have ascended\nup for a memorial before God, was often quoted, by the advocates of the\nchurch of Rome, to prove the merit of works before the reception of\ngrace; to prove the human will capable, by its own inherent rectitude,\nof deserving the favour and approbation of Heaven. The Lutherans, on the\nother hand, contended, that the argument supported not the conclusion\ndrawn from it, and was therefore irrelevant; that the works of Cornelius\nwere not the _causes_ but the _effects_ of grace; and that this is\nsufficiently apparent from the context, in which he is described as a\ndevout man, who feared God and prayed continually.\u201d The disciples of\nLombard, in whatever mode disposed to pervert reason and annihilate\nScripture, universally held, that neither before nor after the fall was\nman in himself capable of meriting heaven; that by the gratuitous\nendowments of his creation, even in paradise, he was only enabled to\npreserve his innocence, and not to sin; and that he was utterly\nincompetent to proceed one step farther, efficaciously to will a\nremunerable good, and by his natural exertions to obtain a reward above\nhis nature; original righteousness being reputed not a connate quality,\nbut a supernatural habit. Thus, he could resist evil, but not advance\ngood to perfection; could in some sense live well, by living free from\nsin, but could not without divine aid so live as to deserve everlasting\nlife. For such a purpose they asserted that grace was necessary, to\noperate upon his will in its primary determinations, and to co-operate\nwith it in its ultimate acts. It was, therefore, in the loss of this\ncelestial aid, this superadded gift, and not in any depravity of his\nmind, that they supposed the principal evil derivable from his lapse to\nconsist; a loss, however, which, by a due exertion of his innate\nabilities, they deemed to be retrievable; and hence sprung that\noffensive doctrine of human sufficiency which, in the Lutheran\u2019s eye,\ncompletely obscured the glory of the Gospel, and which, when applied to\nthe sinner\u2019s conscience, taught the haughty to presume, and the humble\nto despair. According, then, to the system under consideration, the\nfavour of God in this life, and his beatific vision in the life to come,\nare both attainable by personal merit; the former by _congruous_, as it\nwas termed, the latter by _condign_; the one without, the other with,\nthe assistance of grace. By our natural strength, it was said, we can\nfulfil the commands of God as far as their obligation extends; yet was\nit added, that we cannot fulfil them according to the intention of the\ndivine Legislator; an intention of rewarding only those who obey them in\nvirtue formed by charity, under the influence of a quality rather\nregulating the tendency, than augmenting the purity, of the action. They\nstated, that we may so prepare ourselves for grace as to become entitled\nto it congruously, not as to a debt which in strict justice God is bound\nto pay, but as to a grant which it is congruous in him to give, and\nwhich it would be inconsistent with his attributes to withhold. This\nfavourite doctrine was supported by every denomination of scholastics,\nand by every individual of the church of Rome. Congruous merit was\nuniversally esteemed a pearl above all price, the intrinsic value of\nwhich attracted the regard, and conciliated the benevolence, of the\nAlmighty. According to their conception, we are endowed with an innate\npropensity to good, which vice itself can never obliterate, and are able\nnot only to reverence and adore the supreme Being, but to love him above\nother objects. They supposed man competent no less to the efficient\npractice, than to the barren admiration, of holiness; enabled as well to\nobey the laws, as to love the goodness, of the Almighty; and, if not to\ndeserve the rewards, at least to discharge the obligations, of religion.\nImpressed, therefore, with such exalted notions of human ability, and\nforgetful of the Christian propitiation for sin, the sophists of the\nschools maintained, that the soul of man possesses in the freedom, or\nrather in the capacity, of her WILL a faculty almost divine. Stimulated\nby the most upright propensities, and undepraved in her noblest powers,\nshe directs her progress in the path of truth and the road to bliss, by\nthe pure and inextinguishable light of an unperverted reason. Although\nmutable in her decisions, nevertheless complete controller of her\nconduct, she becomes at pleasure either the servant of righteousness or\nthe slave of sin; and, disdaining to be anticipated by God himself,\nprevents him in his supernatural gifts by a previous display of her own\nmeritorious deeds, challenging, as a congruous right, that which only\ncould have been otherwise conferred as a favour undeserved. By the bare\nobservance of my holy order,\u201d exclaimed the secluded devotee, I am able\nnot solely to obtain grace for myself, but, by the works which I then\nmay do, can accumulate merit sufficient both to supply my own wants and\nthose of others; so that I may sell the superabundance of my acquired\ntreasure.\u201d Can we be surprised that a reformer of Luther\u2019s manly\ndisposition, who wrote without reserve and reasoned without control,\nwhen adverting to opinions of so noxious a tendency, should sometimes,\nfrom excess of zeal, lose sight of moderation in his censures? The\nLutherans commenced the attack upon these unscriptural dogmas, under a\npersuasion that the position of their opponents militated against the\nleading principles of Christianity. If man,\u201d they said, be capable of\npleasing God by his own works abstractedly considered, without divine\nassistance, where is the necessity, and what is the utility, of that\nassistance?\u201d They argued, that, were it possible for the moral virtues\nof the mind by their own efficiency to render our persons acceptable to\nGod and obtain his lost favour, no need would exist of any other\nsatisfaction for sin, and thus the whole scheme of Gospel redemption\nwould have been fruitless, and Christ have died in vain. While,\ntherefore, the doctrine of the atonement presented nothing but _a cloud\nand darkness to their adversaries, it gave light by night to these_; on\nthem it shone, amidst surrounding gloom, with lustre unobscured. Luther\nadvanced a proposition which proved highly offensive to the Papists, and\nwhich they never ceased to condemn and calumniate. His assertion was,\nthat he who exerts himself to the utmost of his ability still continues\nto sin. On the other side, unassisted man was thought incapable of\nperforming an action remunerably good, or, as it was usually termed,\ncondignly meritorious, even before his lapse; and that consequently, in\nhis fallen state, all to which he was conceived competent by his innate\nstrength was _not to sin_. When Luther therefore drew up his thesis for\npublic disputation against the tenet of congruous works, if little\ndelicacy, yet some caution, and much discrimination, appeared requisite.\nHad he stated them to be thus good in a scholastic sense, he would have\ncompletely lost sight of his object, and allowed more than even his\nopponents themselves. Had he described them as not demeritorious, or, in\nother words, not sinful, he would have precisely maintained the adverse\nposition, and might consequently have spared his labour, at the same\ntime that he would have tacitly acknowledged them to possess, what he\ncould not consistently with truth attribute to them, every natural\nperfection of virtue and holiness. Under what denomination, then, could\nhe class them, except under that of _sinful_? a denomination which he\nthe more readily adopted because, even among his adversaries themselves,\nthe words SIN and GRACE, as he remarked, were in general immediately\nopposed to each other. Anxious to rescue Christian theology from the\ngrasp of those who embraced only to betray, the Lutherans laboured to\nrestore that importance to the doctrine of redemption with which the\nScriptures invest it, but of which, by a subtle perversity, it had been\ndeprived. The principal object, therefore, in their view evidently was,\nto Christianize the speculations of the schools; and the principal drift\nof their argument is to prove, that human virtue, how extravagantly\nsoever extolled by a vain philosophy, is wholly insufficient (because\nimperfect) to merit the favour of Heaven. Allowing no medium between\nrighteousness and unrighteousness, the approbation and disapprobation of\nthe Almighty, characterizing that as sinful which is confessedly not\nholy, and thus annihilating every ground of self-presumption, they\ninculcated the necessity of contemplating with the eye of faith those\nmeans of reconciliation which Christianity alone affords. But it has\nbeen insinuated, that the Lutheran doctrine went to prove man\u2019s total\ninability to extricate himself from crime, until the arrival of some\nuncertain moment, which brings with it a regeneration from on high, the\nsudden transfusion of a new light and new virtues. But those who thus\nconceive of it are not probably aware, that Melancthon, the venerable\nauthor of the Augsburgh Confession, warmly reprobates this precise idea,\nwhich he denominates _a Manichean conceit and a horrible falsehood_.\nUpon the abstract question of free will it is indeed true, that\nMelancthon, no less than Luther, at first held opinions which he was\nhappy to retract. But when this is acknowledged it should be added, that\nhe made ample amends for his indiscretion by not only expunging the\noffensive passages from the single work which contained them, but by\nintroducing others of a nature diametrically opposite. And although the\nmore inflexible coadjutor of Melancthon was too lofty to correct what he\nhad once made public, and too magnanimous to regard the charge of\ninconsistency which his adversaries urged against him; yet what his\nbetter judgment approved clearly appears from a preface written not long\nbefore his death; in which, while he expressed an anxiety to have his\nown chaotic labours, as he styled them, buried in eternal oblivion, he\nrecommended in strong terms, as a work admirably adapted to form the\nChristian divine, that very performance of his friend which was\nremarkable for something more than a mere recantation of the opinions\nalluded to. It was not against any conceived deficiency in the quality\nof our virtue that they argued, but against its supposed competency,\nwhether wrought in or out of grace, with greater or less degrees of\npurity, to effect that which the oblation of Christ alone accomplishes.\nUpon both points Luther treated the doctrine of his adversaries as\naltogether frivolous, and incapable of corroboration by a single fact.\nFutile, however, as the scholastical tenet appeared to be, although\ndeficient in proof and unsupported by example, upon this, he remarked\nwith indignation and grief, was founded the whole system of papal\ndelusion.\n\nJustification was on both sides supposed to consist entirely in the\nremission of sins. The popish scholastics, on this head, were\nremarkably distinct in their ideas, and express in their language.\nThey represented it as an effect produced by the infusion of divine\ngrace into the mind; not as a consequent to a well spent life, but as\npreceding all remunerable obedience, as the intervening point between\nnight and day, the gloom of a guilty and the light of a self-approving\nconscience; or, in other words, and to adopt their own phraseology, as\nthe exact boundary where merit of congruity ends and where merit of\ncondignity begins, the infallible result of a previous disposition on\nour part, which never fails of alluring from on high that supernatural\nquality which, being itself love, renders the soul beloved. While the\nLutherans, however, adhered to the general import of the term as\nunderstood in the schools, they waged an incessant warfare upon\nanother point; while they allowed that justification consists in the\nremission of sin, they denied that this remission is to be acquired by\nthe merit of the individual. Their scholastic opponents maintained\nthat man is justified in the sight of God in consequence of his own\npreparation, and on account of his personal qualities. They, on the\nother band, argued with an inflexibility which admitted of no\ncompromise, that, possessing not merits of his own to plead, man\nfreely received forgiveness through the mercy of God solely on account\nof the merits of Christ. The effective principle, therefore, or\n_meritorious cause of justification_, was the great point contested.\nThe doctrine of the popish divines, explained more at large, was this:\nWhen the sinner, conscious of his past transgressions, inquired where\nhe was to seek the expiation of his crime, and deliverance from the\ndreadful consequences of it, the general answer was, _In the merit of\npenitence_; a merit capable of annihilating guilt, and appeasing the\nanger of incensed Omnipotence. He, they argued, who, having disobeyed\nthe laws of Heaven, is desirous of returning into that state of\nacceptance from which he has fallen, must not expect free forgiveness;\nbut previously by unfeigned sorrow of heart deserve the restoration of\ngrace, and, with it, the obliteration of his offences. To effect this\ndesirable purpose he is bound strictly to survey and detest his former\nconduct, accurately to enumerate his transgressions and deeply feel\nthem; and, impressed with a due sense of their magnitude, impurity,\nand consequences, to condemn his folly and deplore his fault, which\nhave made him an outcast of Heaven, and exposed him to eternal misery.\nSo far he can proceed by that operation of the mind which they\ndenominated ATTRITION, and which, being within the sphere of his\nnatural powers, they regarded as _congruous piety meritorious of\njustification_, as a preparation of the soul more or less necessary to\nreceive and merit justifying grace. When, therefore, he is arrived at\nthis point, ATTRITION ceases and CONTRITION commences; the habit of\nsin is expelled, while that of holiness is superinduced in its stead,\nand with the infusion of charity, the plastic principle of a new\nobedience, justification becomes complete. But even here it was not\nconceived that a total deliverance takes place; a liberation from\nguilt and _eternal_ punishment is effected, but not from _temporal_,\nwhich is never remitted unless either by the infliction of some\npersonal suffering or satisfactory compensation required of him who is\nalready justified and approved by Heaven. However, to accomplish this\nremaining object, nothing more is wanting than a continuation, to a\nsufficient intensity, of that compunction of heart which is now\ndenominated CONTRITION, grace supplying the defects of nature, and\nenabling penitential merit not only to justify, but to obtain\nexemption from punishment of every species. But so great appeared to\nthe popish scholastics the frailty of man and the severity of God,\nthat no inconsiderable difficulty occurred in the due application of\nthis favourite doctrine to individuals; for the means of expiation,\nthey imagined, ought always to be proportionate to the magnitude of\nthe offences. How,\u201d they reasoned, are we to be assured that our\ncontrition has been either sufficient or sincere, and whether it has\nbeen so in the obliteration not only of one crime, but of all; whether\nit has atoned for past transgressions of every kind, the number of\nwhich may perplex, as well as their guilt confound, us?\u201d Instead,\ntherefore, of penitence in its strictest acceptation as a perfect\nvirtue, God, they said, in condescension to human infirmity, has\nsubstituted for general practice _the sacrament of penitence_, which,\nfor the attainment of full remission, requires only a moderate\ncompunction of soul, with confession to the priest, and the discharge\nof such satisfaction as he may enjoin. And, still lower to reduce the\nterms of acceptance, they even argued that it is not absolutely\nnecessary for the penitent to experience an entire conversion of\nheart, but only not to oppose the impediment of mortal crime, to feel\nsome displeasure at his past conduct, and to express a resolution of\namending it in future. But, after all, and in spite of the boasted\nauthority of the keys, complete confidence in divine forgiveness was\nnever inculcated; for it was neither the interest nor the inclination\nof the church of Rome to teach the simple doctrine of Christian faith,\nbut rather to involve it in metaphysical obscurity. Under the pretext,\ntherefore, of relieving the throbbing breast from its apprehensions,\nthey had recourse to numerous inventions for propping the insecure\nfabric of penitential hope; asserting, among other extravagancies,\nthat the sacraments are in themselves efficacious by virtue of their\nown operation, exclusively of all merit in the recipient; and that the\nsacrament of the altar, in particular, acts so powerful in this\nrespect as to communicate grace not only to those who partake of it,\nbut to others from whom it is received by substitution, provided its\noperation be not hindered by confessedly flagrant immorality. So\ndeeply rooted in the minds of the papists had become the persuasion of\nits thus effecting the best of purposes, and that even without the\nnecessity of an actual participation of it by him upon whom the\nbenefit is conferred, that the celebration of the mass was universally\nregarded as the means of appeasing the anger of Heaven, and obtaining\npardon and peace, of procuring divine assistance for the living, and,\nfor the dead, deliverance from the bitter pains of purgatory. Nor by\nthe sacraments alone, but by every good external work, as well as\ninternal disposition, was justifying grace supposed to be merited\n_congruously_, and satisfaction for sin to be made _condignly_. In\nmonastical institutions, likewise, were found no mean materials for\nsimilar purposes; for in those feigned religions,\u201d as the homily _On\nGood Works_ describes them, the devotees boasted of having lamps which\nran always over, able to _satisfy_ not only for their own sins, but\nalso for all other their benefactors, brothers and sisters of\nreligion, as most ungodly and craftily they had persuaded the\nmultitude of ignorant people; keeping in divers places marts or\nmarkets of merits, being full of their holy relics, images, shrines,\nand works of overflowing abundance, ready to be sold.\u201d Yet, whether\nthe dubious penitent was instructed to derive consolation from the\nefficacy of the sacraments, from his own personal qualities, or from\nany of what Cranmer aptly termed \u201cthe fantastical works of man\u2019s\ninvention,\u201d it should be observed that he was not directly taught to\nconsider these as wholly superseding the virtue of repentance, but as\nsupplying his deficiencies in the performance of it; an incongruous\nsystem of atonement, fabricated by the avarice of Rome, and the\nobsequiousness of scholastical philosophy, to augment the treasures\nand extend the influence of the church, to extinguish the light of\nGospel truth, and, while keeping the world at large in ignorance, to\nhold the conscience of the individual in slavery. Upon the whole,\nthen, the scholastics maintained that justification is unattainable\nwithout repentance, at least, without some degree of attrition on our\npart; but in the common apprehension of the doctrine even this seems\nto have been forgotten, and merit of congruity considered in a general\npoint of view as alone efficacious. Thus good works of every species\npreceding grace were said to deserve it, and, by deserving grace, to\ndeserve the justifying principle. And always were they careful to\nimpute the cause of forgiveness, not to the mercy of God in Christ,\nbut to the sole change in the individual, to his transmutation from a\nstate of unrighteousness to one of righteousness, to his possession of\na quality which renders him a worthy object of divine approbation. For\nin every instance personal merit was conceived to be the solid basis\nupon which rests the complete remission of sin. Upon no one point,\nperhaps, has the opinion of Luther been more misrepresented than upon\nthis. Some have ascribed to it a solifidian tendency, if not of the\nmost enthusiastical, at least, of the most unqualified, description.\nBut it seems indeed impossible accurately to comprehend the position\nwhich he maintained, if we examine it in an insulated point of view,\nunless we connect it with that of which in the church of Rome it\nproperly formed a part, and from which he never intended to separate\nit,--the doctrine of penitence. In opposing the absurdity of papal\nindulgences, (the first impiety against which his manly mind\nrevolted,) a ray of light, before unnoticed, darted upon him, and\nopened a completely new scene, which, while it stimulated his efforts\nas a reformer, animated his hopes as a Christian. Hence, averting with\ndisdain from the speculations of sophists, and turning to the sacred\npage of revelation, he there beheld an affiance very different from\nwhat the schools inculcated; and thus, while _their_ vain language\nwas, Repent, and trust to the efficacy of your contrition, either with\nor without extraneous works, according to the degree of its intensity,\nfor the expiation of your offences;\u201d _his_, more Scriptural and more\nconsoling, became simply this: Repent, and trust not for expiation to\nyour own merits of any kind, but solely to those of your Redeemer.\u201d\nRejecting the dreams of their adversaries with respect to the nature\nand effects of this important duty, they represented it as consisting\nof two essential parts, CONTRITION and FAITH, the latter as always\nassociated with the former. Hence, in the Apology of their Confession,\nthey repeatedly declared a disavowal of all faith, except such as\nexists in the contrite heart. Far was it from their intention to\nencourage the presumptuous or fanatical sinner in a false security;\ntheir object was very different and laudable,--they laboured to fix\nthe eye of him who both laments and detests his offences, upon the\nonly deserving object of human confidence and divine complacency.\nProperly, then, as they frequently remarked, their doctrine of\njustification was appropriated to troubled consciences, at every\nperiod of true repentance, and particularly at the awful hour of\ndeath, when the time for habitual proofs of amendment has elapsed, and\nwhen the past appears replete with guilt and the future with terror.\nAt such moments, they taught not, with the schools, an affiance in\nhuman merit, but in the gratuitous mercy of God through Christ: to\ncontrition, as a preparatory qualification or previous requisite, they\nadded faith; and from faith they deemed every principle of real piety\nand virtue inseparable. Good works, or the outward fruits of an inward\nrenovation of mind, were said to _follow_ remission of sins;\n_internal_ necessarily preceding _external_ reformation. For the\nindividual, they argued, must himself be good before the action can be\nso denominated, be justified before it can be deemed just, and\naccepted before it can prove acceptable,--distinguishing between the\nprimary admission into God\u2019s favour, and the subsequent preservation\nof that favour.\n\nThe unfathomable depths of divine predestination and predetermination\nhuman reason in vain attempts to sound, finite faculties to scan\ninfinite, or the limited intellect of man to comprehend the immensity of\nthe Godhead. Erasmus, a peculiar favourite with the reformers of our own\ncountry, when contemplating this inexplicable subject, observed, that in\nthe Holy Scriptures there are certain secret recesses, which God is\nunwilling for us too minutely to explore; and which, if we endeavour to\nexplore, in proportion as we penetrate farther, our minds become more\nand more oppressed with darkness and stupefaction; that thus we might\nacknowledge the inscrutable majesty of the divine wisdom, and the\nimbecility of the human mind.\u201d Congenial, also, with the feelings and\nsentiments of Erasmus upon this point were those of Luther. To acquire\nany knowledge,\u201d he remarked, of a deity not revealed in Scripture, to\nknow what his existence is, his actions and dispositions, belongs not to\nme. My duty is only this; to know what are his precepts, his promises,\nand his threatenings. Pernicious and pestilent is the thought of\ninvestigating causes, and brings with it inevitable ruin, especially\nwhen we ascend too high, and wish to philosophize upon predestination.\u201d\nHow differently Calvin felt upon the same subject, and with what little\nreserve, or rather with what bold temerity, he laboured to scrutinize\nthe unrevealed Divinity, is too well known to require any thing beyond a\nbare allusion to the circumstance. His sentiments, however, were much\nless regarded than some are disposed to allow; and upon this particular\nquestion, so far were they from having attained their full celebrity at\nthe period when the articles of the church of England were framed, that\nthey were not taught without opposition even in his own unimportant\nterritory of Geneva. For at that precise era he was publicly accused (by\nSebastian Castellio) of making God the author of sin; and although, not\ncontented with silencing, he first imprisoned and afterward banished his\naccuser, yet he could not expel the opinions of his adversary. While the\nchurch of Rome maintained a predestination to life of one man in\npreference to another individually _on account of personal merit_, the\nLutherans taught a gratuitous predestination of Christians collectively,\nof those whom God has chosen in Christ out of mankind; and by this\nsingle point of difference were the contending opinions principally\ncontradistinguished. With us the system of Calvin still retains so many\nzealous advocates, that to a modern ear the very term PREDESTINATION\nseems to convey a meaning only conformable with _his_ particular system.\nIt should, however, be observed that this word was in familiar use for\ncenturies before the Reformation, in a sense, very different from what\nCalvin imputed to it, not as preceding the divine prescience, but as\nresulting from it, much in the same sense as that in which it has since\nbeen supported by the Arminians. Yet, obvious as this appears, writers\nof respectability strangely persuade themselves, that, immediately prior\nto the Reformation, the doctrines of the church of Rome were completely\nCalvinistical; a conclusion to which, certainly, none can subscribe who\nare sufficiently conversant with the favourite productions of that time.\nSo far, indeed, was this from being the fact, that Calvin peculiarly\nprided himself on departing from the common definition of the term,\nwhich had long been adopted by the adherents of the schools, and\nretained with a scrupulous precision. For while they held that the\nexpression _predestinati_ is exclusively applicable to the elect, whom\nGod, foreknowing as meritorious objects of his mercy, predestinates to\nlife; and while they appropriated that of _pr\u00e6sciti_ to the non-elect,\nwhose perseverance in transgression is simply foreknown; Calvin, on the\nother side, treating the distinction as a frivolous subterfuge,\ncontended that God, decreeing the final doom of the elect and non-elect\nirrespectively, predestinates both, not subsequently but previously to\nall foreknowledge of their individual dispositions, especially devotes\nthe latter to destruction through the medium of crime, and creates them\nby a fatal destiny to perish. Whatever, therefore, modern conjecture may\nhave attributed to the popish scholastics, it is certain that, abhorring\nevery speculation which tends in the remotest degree to make God the\nauthor of sin, they believed that only salutary good is predestinated;\ngrace to those who deserve it _congruously_, and glory to those who\ndeserve it _condignly_. They maintained that almighty God, before the\nfoundations of the world were laid, surveying in his comprehensive idea,\nor, as they phrased it, in his prescience of simple intelligence, the\npossibilities of all things before he determined their actual existence,\nforesaw that, if mankind were created, (although he willed the salvation\nof all, and was inclined to assist all indifferently, yet) some would\ndeserve eternal happiness, and others eternal misery; and that therefore\nhe approved and elected the former, but disapproved or reprobated the\nlatter. Thus, grounding election upon foreknowledge, they contemplated\nit, not as an arbitrary principle, separating one individual from\nanother under the influence of a blind chance or an irrational caprice;\nbut, on the contrary, as a wise and just principle, which presupposes a\ndiversity between those who are accepted and those who are rejected.\nHence it was, that in order to systematize upon this principle of\nelection, and to show how consistent it is as well with the justice as\nthe benevolence of the Deity, the will of God was considered in a double\npoint of view, as _absolute_ and _conditional_, or, in the technical\nlanguage of the schools, as _antecedent_ and _consequent_. In the first\ninstance, by his absolute or antecedent will, he was said to desire the\nsalvation of every man; in the latter, by his conditional or consequent\nwill, that only of those whom he foresaw abstaining from sin and obeying\nhis commandments: the one expressed his general inclination, the other\nhis particular resolution upon the view of individual circumstances and\nconditions. To the inquiry, why some are unendowed with grace, their\nanswer was, Because some are not willing to receive it, and not because\nGod is unwilling to give it.\u201d He,\u201d they said, offers his light to all.\nHe is absent from none; but man absents himself from the present Deity,\nlike one who shuts his eyes against the noon-day blaze.\u201d To the\nforegoing statement it should be added, that they held an election, or\nrather an ordination, to grace (which they expressly asserted to be\ndefectible) distinct from an election to glory; that according to them,\na name may be written in the book of life at one period, which at\nanother many be erased from it; and that predestination to eternal\nhappiness solely depends upon final perseverance in well doing. On the\nwhole it is evident, that they considered the dignity or worthiness of\nthe individual as the meritorious basis of predestination; merit of\ncongruity as the basis of a preordination to grace, and merit of\ncondignity as that of a preordination to glory. Thus, not more\nfastidious in the choice of their terms than accurate in the use of\nthem, while they denied that the prescience of human virtue, correctly\nspeaking, could be the primary cause of the divine will, because nothing\nin time can properly give birth to that which has existed from eternity,\nthey strenuously maintained it to be a secondary cause, the ratio or\nrule in the mind of the Deity which regulated his will in the formation\nof its ultimate decisions. Although in the established confession of\ntheir faith the Lutherans avoided all allusion to the subject of\npredestination, it was nevertheless introduced into another work of\nimportance, and of considerable public authority, the _Loci Theologici_\nof Melancthon, a production which was every where received as the\nstandard of Lutheran divinity. Both Luther and Melancthon, after the\nDiet of Augsburgh, kept one object constantly in view,--to inculcate\nonly what was plain and practical, and never to attempt philosophizing.\nBut to what, it may be asked, did the Lutherans object in the theory of\ntheir opponents when they themselves abandoned the tenet of necessity?\nCertainly, not to the sobriety and moderation of that part of it which\nvindicated the justice, and displayed the benevolence, of the Almighty;\nbut, generally, to the principles upon which it proceeded; to the\n_presumption_, in overleaping the boundary which Heaven has prescribed\nto our limited faculties, and which we cannot pass without plunging into\ndarkness and error; and to its _impiety_ in disregarding, if not\ndespising, the most important truths of Christianity. A system of such a\nnature they hesitated not to reject, anxious to conduct themselves by\nthe light of Scripture alone, nor presuming to be wise above what God\nhas been pleased to discover. Maintaining not a particular election of\npersonal favourites, either by an absolute will, or even a conditional\none, dependent upon the ratio of merit, but a general election of all\nwho, by baptism in their infancy, or by faith and obedience in mature\nyears, become the adopted heirs of Heaven; they conceived this to be the\nonly election to which the Gospel alludes, and, consequently, the only\none upon which we can speak with confidence, or reason without\npresumption. If it be observed, that the selection of an integral body\nnecessarily infers that of its component parts, the answer is obvious:\nThe latter, although indeed it be necessarily inferred by the former, is\nnevertheless not a prior requisite, but a posterior result of the divine\nordination. What they deemed absolute on the part of God was his\neverlasting purpose to save his elect in Christ, or real Christians\nconsidered as a whole, and contrasted with the remainder of the human\nrace; the completion of this purpose being regulated by peculiar\ncircumstances, operating as inferior causes of a particular segregation.\nFor, persuaded of his good will toward all men without distinction, of\nhis being indiscriminately disposed to promote the salvation of all, and\nof his seriously (not _fictitiously_, as Calvin taught) including all in\nthe universal promise of Christianity, they imputed to him nothing like\na partial choice, no limitation of favours, no irrespective exclusion of\npersons; but assuming the Christian character as the sole ground of\nindividual preference, they believed that every baptized infant, by\nbeing made a member of Christ, not by being comprised in a previous\narbitrary decree, is truly the elect of God, and, dying in infancy,\ncertain of eternal happiness; that he who, in maturer years, becomes\npolluted by wilful crime, loses that state of salvation which before he\npossessed; that nevertheless by true repentance, and conversion to the\nFather of mercy and God of all consolation, he is again reinstated in\nit; and that, by finally persevering in it, he at length receives the\nkingdom prepared for every sincere Christian before the foundation of\nthe world. Can any man, whom prejudice has not blinded, rank these\nsentiments with those of Calvin? It may seem almost unnecessary to\nsubjoin, that the Lutherans held the defectibility of grace; its\nindefectibility being a position supported but by those who think that\nthe Redeemer died for a selected few alone. Upon the whole then it\nappears, that the Lutherans, affecting not in any way to philosophize,\nbut committing themselves solely to the guidance of Scripture, differed\nfrom the church of Rome in several important particulars. For, although\non some points they coincided with her, although they inculcated, with\nequal zeal and upon a better principle, both the universality and the\ndefectibility of grace, as well as a conditional admission into the\nnumber of the elect, they nevertheless were entirely at variance with\nher upon the very foundation of the system. Thus while their opponents\ntaught, that predestination consists in the prospective discrimination\nof individuals by divine favour, according to the foreseen ratio of\nevery man\u2019s own merit,--works of congruity deserving grace here, and\nworks of condignity eternal life hereafter, and that in this way it\nprincipally rests upon human worth; the Lutherans, disclaiming every\nidea of such a discrimination, placed it upon the same basis as they\nassumed in the case of justification,--that of an effectual redemption\nby Christ. Instead, therefore, of holding the election of individuals as\nmen _on account of personal dignity or worthiness_, they maintained the\nelection of a general mass as Christians _on account of Christ alone_;\nadding that we are admitted into that number, or discarded from it, in\nthe eye of Heaven, proportionably as we embrace or reject the salvation\noffered to all, embracing it with a faith inseparable from genuine\nvirtue, or rejecting it by incredulity and crime. For neither in this,\nnor in the instance of justification, did they exclude repentance and a\ntrue conversion of the heart and life, as _necessary requisites_, but\nonly as _meritorious causes_, from the contemplation of God\u2019s omniscient\nintellect. Let those,\u201d said Luther, who wish to be elected avoid an evil\nconscience, and not transgress the divine commandments.\u201d Instructed then\nby the unerring page of truth, they asserted no other predestination\nthan what is there expressly revealed; that of the good and gracious\nFather of mankind, who from eternity has been disposed to promote the\nhappiness and welfare of all men, has destined Christ to be the Saviour\nof the whole world, and withholden from none the exalted hope of the\nChristian calling. Convinced that this is the only predestination which\nChristianity discloses, and consequently the only one which we can\neither with safety or certainty embrace, they discouraged every attempt\nat investigating the will, out of the word, of God; every attempt at\neffecting impossibilities, at unveiling the secret counsels of Him who\nshrouds his divine perfections in darkness impervious to mortal eyes.\nWith such investigations, indeed, the world had already been\nsufficiently bewildered by the scholastics, who, endowed with a ready\ntalent at perplexing what before was plain, and at rendering\nabstruseness still more abstruse, had made the subject totally\ninexplicable, vainly labouring to develope with precision that\nmysterious will upon which the wise must ever think it _folly_, and the\ngood _impiety_, to speculate. Disquisitions of this presumptuous nature,\nfrom a personal experience of their mischievous tendency, Luther abjured\nhimself, and deprecated in others. Are we, miserable men,\u201d he exclaimed,\n\u201cwho as yet are incapable of comprehending the rays of God\u2019s promises,\nthe glimmerings of his precepts and his works, although confirmed by\nwords and miracles, are we, infirm and impure, eager to comprehend all\nthat is great and glorious in the solar light itself, in the\nincomprehensible light of a miraculous Godhead? Do we not know, that God\ndwells in splendour inaccessible? And yet do we approach, or rather do\nwe presume to approach it? Are we not aware, that his judgments are\ninscrutable? And yet do we endeavour to scrutinize them? And these\nthings we do, before we are habituated even to the faint lustre of his\npromises and precepts, with a vision still imperfect, blindly rushing\ninto the majesty of that light which, secret and unseen, has never been\nby words or miracles exhibited. What wonder, then, if, while we explore\nits majesty, we are overwhelmed with its glory?\u201d For a farther account\nof the Lutheran views on predestination, see the last pages of the\narticle CALVINISM.\n\nAfter this very ample exposition of the sentiments of the German\nreformers on the chief points of Christian doctrine, it is only\nnecessary to give a few additional particulars in corroboration of some\nportions of the preceding statement. The high estimation in which Luther\nheld the productions of the judicious Melancthon is apparent from a\npassage in the preface to the first volume of Luther\u2019s works, dated\n1545. In that year also appeared the last amended edition of\nMelancthon\u2019s Common Places,\u201d to which he alludes. Long and earnestly,\u201d\nhe says, have I resisted the importunity of those who have wished me to\npublish my works, or, to speak more correctly, my confused and\ndisorderly lucubrations; not only because I was unwilling that the\nlabours of the ancients should be turned aside by my novelties, and that\nthe reader should be hindered from perusing them, but likewise because\nnow, by the grace of God, a great number of methodical books are extant;\namong which the _Common Places_ of our Philip claim the preference, for\nby them a divine and a bishop may be abundantly and satisfactorily\nconfirmed, so as to become powerful in the word of the doctrine of\npiety, especially when the Holy Bible itself can now be procured in\nalmost every language. But the want of order in the matters to be\ndiscussed in my books induced, nay compelled, me to render them a sort\nof rude and indigested chaos, which it would now require even on my part\nno small exertion to digest into a methodical form. Under the influence\nof such motives as these, I was desirous that all my productions should\nbe buried in perpetual oblivion, that they might give place to others of\na better description.\u201d In this preface Luther also gives the following\ntestimony to the general usefulness of Melancthon\u2019s labours: In the same\nyear Philip Melancthon had been called to this university by Prince\nFrederick to fill the chair of Greek professor, but no doubt with the\nintention that I should have him as my colleague in the labours of the\ndivinity professorship. For his works are sufficiently in proof of what\nthe Lord hath effected by this his choice instrument, not only in polite\nliterature, but in theology, although Satan be enraged and all his\nparty.\u201d Though the early opinions of Luther upon the doctrine of a\nphilosophical necessity appear to have been occasionally expressed in a\nharsh and repulsive manner, yet his followers pertinaciously contend\nthat even the harshest of them cannot, with propriety, be construed into\na sense favourable to the Calvinistical system. Those of Melancthon in\nthe first edition of his _Loci Theologici_, although occurring but in\none or two instances, were nevertheless still more offensive, and less\ncapable of a mitigated interpretation. So far indeed did he carry the\ndoctrine of divine predetermination as to degrade man to a level with\nthe brutes, as will be obvious from the following passage in the edition\nof 1525. Lastly, divine predestination takes away human liberty. For all\nthings come to pass according to divine predestination, not only\nexternal works, but also internal thoughts in all creatures.\u201d After the\nDiet of Augsburgh in 1530, we hear no more of this obnoxious tenet.\nIndeed so early as 1527 these reformers seem to have abandoned it. At\nleast, when in that year a form of doctrine was drawn up for the\nchurches of Saxony, free will in acts of morality was thus inculcated:\nThe human will is so far free as to be able in some sort to perform the\nrighteousness of the flesh, or civil justice, when it is obliged by the\nlaw and by force not to steal, not to kill, not to commit adultery, &c.\nTherefore let ministers teach, that it is in a measure in our own hands\nto restrain carnal affections, and to perform civil justice; and let\nthem diligently exhort men to a strict and proper course of life,\nbecause God also requires this kind of righteousness, and will\ngrievously punish those men who live so negligent of their duty. For as\nwe are bound to make a good use of the other gifts of God, so is it\nlikewise our duty to employ to good purpose those powers which God has\nbestowed on nature.\u201d For God takes no delight in that ferocious mode of\nlife which is adopted by some men, who, after having heard that we are\nnot justified by our own powers and works, foolishly dream that they\nwill wait until they be drawn by God, and in the mean time their course\nof life is most impure. Such persons God will most severely punish; and\nthey must therefore be earnestly reprehended and admonished by those\nwhose province it is to teach in the churches.\u201d This work, which is\ngenerally termed, _Libellus Visitationis Saxonic_, was first composed in\nGerman by Melancthon in 1527, and afterward republished by Luther with a\npreface, in which he thus expresses himself: We do not publish these as\nrigorous precepts, nor do we again employ ourselves in drawing up\npontifical decrees, but we relate matters of history and public deeds,\nand present the confession and symbol of our belief.\u201d The previous\ncontroversy between Luther and Erasmus, on the topic of free will, had\nprobably tended to produce an amelioration of the doctrinal system of\nthe Lutheran church. In this view it was not without reason that Erasmus\nmade the following reflections in a letter dated 1528, soon after he had\nseen this production: The Lutheran fever, every succeeding day, assumes\na milder form; so that Luther himself now writes recantations on almost\nevery thing, and on this account he is considered by the rest as a\nheretic and a madman.\u201d Similar caustic remarks occur in other letters of\nErasmus; and as, in those days of high religious excitement, taunts of\nthis kind were considered too good to be confined as secrets within the\nbreast of the correspondents to whom they were addressed, it is not\nimprobable that Luther might be prevented through them, among other\nreasons, from making farther doctrinal concessions; it being no uncommon\ncircumstance in the history of the human mind for persons of otherwise\nstrong understandings to be under the influence of this pitiable\nweakness. That Melancthon not only abandoned but reprehended the\ndoctrine in 1529, we cannot doubt, because his own express testimony in\nproof of it remains on record. In a letter to Christopher Stathmio,\ndated March 20th, 1559, which was not long before his death, he notices\nthe subject in these words: Thirty years ago, not through the desire of\ncontention, but on account of the glory of God, and for the sake of\ndiscipline, I sharply reprehended the Stoical paradoxes concerning\nnecessity, because they are reproachful toward God and injurious to\nmorals. At this time the legions of the Stoics are waging war against\nme; but in the answer which I have written in opposition to the Bavarian\ninquisition, I have once more pointed out in a modest manner that\nopinion (on fate or predestination) in which anxious minds may acquiesce\nand be at rest.\u201d On consulting the tract to which his letter alludes, we\nfind him employing this strong and unequivocal language: I also openly\nreject and abhor those Stoical and Manichean furies who affirm that all\nthings _necessarily_ happen, evil as well as good actions. But\nconcerning these I refrain at present from any lengthened discussion;\nonly I entreat young people to avoid these monstrous opinions, which are\ncontumelious against God, and pernicious to morals.\u201d From the _Loci\nTheologici_, in which Melancthon had first introduced this obnoxious\ntenet, he expunged _necessity_ in the edition of 1533, and inserted in\nits place the opposite one of _contingency_. The following are extracts\nfrom this amended work: The discussion on _the cause of sin_ and that on\n_contingency_ have sometimes greatly agitated the church, and excited\nmighty tragedies. Men of acute minds collect multitudes of inextricable\nand absurd things about both these subjects. Because there is some\ndanger in them, young people must be warned to abstain from these\ninterminable disputes, and in preference to search out a simple and\npious opinion, beneficial to religion and morals, in which they may\nabide, nor suffer themselves to be withdrawn from it by those fallacious\ntricks of disputations. But this is a pious and true sentiment to be\nembraced with both hands, and to be retained rather by the whole\nheart,--that God is not the cause of sin, and that he does not will sin.\nBut the causes of sin are the will of the devil, and the will of man.\u201d\nBut this sentiment being once laid down, that God is not the cause of\nsin, it evidently follows that contingency must be granted. The freedom\nof the will is the cause of the contingency of our actions.\u201d Neither\nmust the delirious doatings about Stoical fate, or about necessity, be\nconveyed into the church, because they are inextricable and sometimes\ninjurious to piety and morals.\u201d From these opinions it becomes the pious\nto be abhorrent in their ears and in their hearts.\u201d These extracts serve\nto prove, that Melancthon reprobated the idea of introducing into the\nchurch the doctrine of Stoical fate, before Calvin had distinguished\nhimself either as an author or a reformer. Into his subsequent\nproductions of almost every description Melancthon introduced the\ndoctrine of contingency, and strenuously defended it, particularly in\nthe amended edition of his _Loci Theologici_ in 1545. Luther never\nformally revoked any of his own writings; but on this last corrected\nproduction of his friend, as we have shown, he bestowed the highest\ncommendations. Yet he did not scruple publicly to assert, that at the\nbeginning of the Reformation he had not completely settled his creed. In\nthe seventh volume of his works this sentence is found: I have also\npublished the confession of my faith; in which I have openly testified\nwhat and how I believe, and in what articles I think myself at length to\nbe at rest.\u201d He seems, indeed, to have generally avoided the subject,\nfrom the period of his controversy with Erasmus, to the publication of\nhis Commentary on Genesis,--his last work of any importance. But in\nthis, after a long argument to prove that, as we have no knowledge of\nthe unrevealed Deity, we have nothing to do with those things which are\nabove our comprehension; and that we are not to reason upon\npredestination out of Christianity; he thus apologizes for his former\nopinions: \u201cIt has been my wish diligently and accurately to deliver\nthese charges and admonitions; because, after my death, many persons\nwill publish my books to the world, and by that course will confirm\nerrors of every kind and their own delirious ravings. But among other\nmatters I have written, that all things are absolute and necessary; but\nat the same time I added, that we must behold God as he is revealed to\nus, as we sing in the Psalm, \u2018Jesus Christ is the Lord of sabaoth, nor\nis there any other God.\u2019 In several other passages I have used similar\nexpressions. But these people will pass by all such passages, and will\nonly seize upon those concerning a hidden Deity. You, therefore, who now\nhear me, recollect that I have taught this,--We must not inquire\nconcerning the predestination of a hidden God, but we must abide and\nacquiesce in those things which are revealed by calling and by the\nministry of the word.\u201d But in other passages of my different works I\nhave inculcated the same sentiments, and I now deliver them again with\nan audible voice; therefore I am excused.\u201d For the more modern state of\nthe Lutheran church see NEOLOGY.\n\nThe following account of the union between the Lutheran and Calvinistic\nchurches, as given in the advertisement to Baron Von Wessenberg\u2019s\nCorrespondence with the Court of Rome,\u201d may not be uninteresting to the\nreader: The Germans have just set the noble example of forming a union\nbetween these two branches of the Protestant faith. This union, which\noriginated, we believe, in the grand duchy of Nassau, has taken place\nalmost universally throughout Germany; and the separate appellations of\nLutheran and Calvinistic churches have merged in the common appellation\nof the Evangelical church. The Lutheran and Reformed churches of Prussia\nmet in synod together, on the invitation of their monarch, the first of\nOctober, 1817, and soon came to an agreement; and the union was\ncelebrated on the day of the tri-centenary festival of the Reformation.\nA similar synod of the Lutherans and Calvinists in Hesse-Cassel was held\nat Hanau in May and June, 1818, and attended with the same result. The\nroyal confirmation was given to the Bavarian union on the first of\nOctober following. Saxe-Weimar, and most of the other small states have\nfollowed this example. The Protestant Germans have now, therefore, only\none Gospel, one temple, one divine Instructer, and one mode of\ncommunion; and, what is singular, and highly honourable to their\nliberality, this union was every where accomplished with the greatest\nease, and without a dissentient voice having been raised against it.\u201d\nHow different was this result from that of the synods and councils of\nother times; and what a change in the state of public opinion does it\nindicate! And yet it is to be feared that the _liberality_ from which\nthis union has resulted, is rather indifference to the grand\npeculiarities of the Christian faith than mutual charity.\n\nLYCAONIA, a province of Asia Minor, accounted a part of Cappadocia,\nhaving Pisidia on the west, and Cilicia on the south. In it were the\ncities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, mentioned in the travels of St.\nPaul. The former was the capital, and the country itself at that time a\nRoman province. The speech of Lycaonia,\u201d mentioned Acts xiv, 11, is\nsupposed to have been a corrupt Greek, intermingled with many oriental\nwords.\n\nLYCIA, a country of Asia Minor, having Phrygia on the north, Pamphylia\non the east, the Mediterranean on the south, and Caria on the west. The\ngreatest part of the country, however, is a peninsula projecting into\nthe Mediterranean. Lycia derived its name from Lycus, the son of\nPandion, who settled here. It was conquered by Cr\u0153sus, king of Lydia,\nand passed with his kingdom into the hands of the Persians. It\nafterward, in common with the neighbouring countries of Asia Minor,\nformed part of the Macedonian empire, under Alexander; then of that of\nthe Seleucid\u00e6, his successors in those countries; and, at the time of\nthe Apostles, was reduced to the state of a Roman province.\n\nLYDDA, by the Greeks called Diospolis. It lay in the way from Jerusalem\nto C\u00e6sarea, four or five leagues to the east of Joppa. Lydda belonged to\nthe tribe of Ephraim. It seems to have been inhabited by the Benjamites,\nat the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Neh. xi, 35.\nSt. Peter coming to Lydda, cured a sick man of the palsy named Eneas,\nActs ix, 33, 34.\n\nLYDIA, a woman of Thyatira, a seller of purple, who dwelt in the city of\nPhilippi, in Macedonia. She was converted to the faith by St. Paul, and\nboth she and her family were baptized. She offered her house to the\nApostle, and pressed him to abide there so earnestly, that he yielded to\nher entreaties. She was not a Jewess by birth, but a proselyte, Acts\nxvi, 14, 15, 40.\n\n2. LYDIA, an ancient celebrated kingdom of Asia Minor, which, in the\ntime of the Apostles, was reduced to a Roman province. Sardis was the\ncapital.\n\nLYSTRA, a city of Lycaonia, the native place of Timothy. The Apostle\nPaul and Barnabas having preached here, and healed a cripple, were taken\nfor gods. But so fickle are human praise and popular encomiums, that, in\nthe space of a few hours, those who had been deemed gods were regarded\nas less than mortals, and were stoned by the very persons who so lately\ndeified them. See Acts xiv.\n\n\nMAACAH, or BETH-MAACHA, a little province of Syria to the east and the\nnorth of the sources of the river Jordan, upon the road to Damascus.\nAbel or Abela was in this country, whence it was called\nAbelbeth-Maachah. We learn from Joshua xiii, 13, that the Israelites did\nnot destroy the Maachathites, but permitted them to dwell in the land\namong them. The distribution of the half tribe of Manasseh, beyond\nJordan, extended as far as this country, Deut. iii, 14; Joshua xii, 5.\n\nMACCABEES, two apocryphal books of Scripture, containing the history of\nJudas and his brothers, and their wars against the Syrian kings in\ndefence of their religion and liberties, so called from Judas, the son\nof Mattathias, surnamed Maccab\u00e6us, as some authors say, from the word\n\u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d9, formed of the initials of \u05de\u05d9-\u05db\u05de\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, Who is like unto\nthee, O Lord, among the gods?\u201d Exod. xv, 11, which was the motto of his\nstandard; whence those who fought under his standard were called\nMaccabees, and the name was generally applied to all who suffered in the\ncause of true religion, under the Egyptian or Syrian kings. This name,\nformed by abbreviation according to the common practice of the Jews,\ndistinguished Judas Maccab\u00e6us by way of eminence, as he succeeded his\nfather, B. C. 166, in the command of those forces which he had with him\nat his death; and, being joined by his brothers, and all others that\nwere zealous for the law, he erected his standard, on which he inscribed\nthe above mentioned motto. Those, also, who suffered under Ptolemy\nPhilopater of Alexandria, fifty years before this period, were afterward\ncalled Maccabees; and so were Eleazar, and the mother and her seven\nsons, though they suffered before Judas erected his standard with the\nmotto from which the appellation originated. And therefore, as these\nbooks which contain the history of Judas and his brothers, and their\nwars against the Syrian kings, in defence of their religion and\nliberties, are called the first and second books of the Maccabees; so\nthat book which gives us the history of those who, in the like cause,\nunder Ptolemy Philopater, were exposed to his elephants at Alexandria,\nis called the third book of the Maccabees; and that which is written by\nJosephus, of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and the seven brothers and their\nmother, is called the fourth book of the Maccabees.\n\nThe first book of the Maccabees is an excellent history, and comes\nnearest to the style and manner of the sacred historians of any extant.\nIt was written originally in the Chaldee language, of the Jerusalem\ndialect, and was extant in this language in the time of Jerom, who bad\nseen it. From the Chaldee it was translated into Greek, from the Greek\ninto Latin. Theodotion is conjectured to have translated it into Greek;\nbut this version was probably more ancient, as we may infer from its use\nby ancient authors, as Tertullian, Origen, and others. It is supposed to\nhave been written by John Hyrcanus, the son of Simon, who was prince and\nhigh priest of the Jews near thirty years, and began his government at\nthe time where this history ends. It contains the history of forty\nyears, from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon, the\nhigh priest; that is, from the year of the world 3829 to the year 3869,\nB. C. 131. The second book of the Maccabees begins with two epistles\nsent from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt and Alexandria, to\nexhort them to observe the feast of the dedication of the new altar\nerected by Judas, on his purifying the temple. The first was written in\nthe 169th year of the era of the Seleucid\u00e6, that is, B. C. 144; and the\nsecond, in the 188th year of the same era, or B. C. 125; and both appear\nto be spurious. After these epistles follows the preface of the author\nto his history, which is an abridgment of a larger work, composed by one\nJason, a Jew of Cyrene, who wrote in Greek the history of Judas\nMaccab\u00e6us, and his brethren, and the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes,\nand Eupator his son. The two last chapters contain events under the\nreign of Demetrius Soter, the successor of Antiochus Eupator, and\ncontain such varieties in their style, as render it doubtful whether\nthey had the same author as the rest of the work. This second book does\nnot by any means equal the accuracy and excellency of the first. It\ncontains a history of about fifteen years, from the execution of\nHeliodorus\u2019s commission, who was sent by Seleucus to fetch away the\ntreasures of the temple, to the victory obtained by Judas Maccab\u00e6us over\nNicanor; that is, from the year of the world 3828 to the year 3843, B.\nC. 157.\n\nThere are in the Polyglott Bibles, both of Paris and London, Syriac\nversions of both these books; but they, as well as the English versions\nwhich we have among the apocryphal writers in our Bibles, are derived\nfrom the Greek. For a farther account of Judas Maccab\u00e6us, and of his\nbrothers, whose history is recorded in the first and second books of the\nMaccabees, and also by Josephus, we refer to the article JEWS. The third\nbook of the Maccabees contains the history of the persecution of Ptolemy\nPhilopater against the Jews in Egypt, and their sufferings under it; and\nseems to have been written by some Alexandrian Jew in the Greek\nlanguage, not long after the time of Siracides. This book, with regard\nto its subject, ought to be called the first, as the things which are\nrelated in it occurred before the Maccabees, whose history is recorded\nin the first and second books; but as it is of less authority and repute\nthan the other two, it is reckoned after them. It is extant in Syriac,\nthough the translator did not seem to have well understood the Greek\nlanguage. It is in most of the ancient manuscript copies of the Greek\nSeptuagint, particularly in the Alexandrian and Vatican, but was never\ninserted into the vulgar Latin version of the Bible, nor, consequently,\ninto any of our English copies. The first authentic mention we have of\nthis book is in Eusebius\u2019s _Chronicon_.\u201d It is also named with two other\nbooks of the Maccabees in the eighty-fifth of the apostolic canons. But\nit is uncertain when that canon was added. Grotius thinks that this book\nwas written after the two first books, and shortly after the book of\nEcclesiasticus, from which circumstance it was called the third book of\nMaccabees. Moreover, Josephus\u2019s history of the martyrs that suffered\nunder Antiochus Epiphanes, is found in some manuscript Greek Bibles,\nunder the name of the fourth book of the Maccabees. This book, ascribed\nto Josephus, occurs under the title, Concerning the Empire or Government\nof Reason;\u201d but learned men have expressed a doubt whether this was the\nbook known to the ancients as the fourth book of the Maccabees.\n\nMACEDONIA, a kingdom of Greece, having Thrace to the north, Thessaly\nsouth, Epirus west, and the \u00c6gean Sea east. Alexander the Great, son of\nPhilip, king of Macedonia, having conquered Asia, and subverted the\nPersian empire, the name of the Macedonians became very famous\nthroughout the east; and it is often given to the Greeks, the successors\nof Alexander in the monarchy. In like manner, the name of Greeks is\noften put for Macedonians, 2 Maccabees iv, 36. When the Roman empire was\ndivided, Macedonia fell to the share of the emperor of the east. After\nit had long continued subject to the Romans, it fell under the power of\nthe Ottoman Turks, who are the present masters of it.\n\nSt. Paul was invited by an angel of the Lord, who appeared to him at\nTroas, to come and preach the Gospel in Macedonia, Acts xvi, 9. After\nthis vision, the Apostle no longer doubted his divine call to preach the\nGospel in Macedonia; and the success that attended his ministry\nconfirmed him in his persuasion. Here he laid the foundation of the\nchurches of Thessalonica and Philippi.\n\nMAGDALA, a city on the west side of the sea of Galilee, near Dalmanutha;\nJesus, after the miracle of the seven loaves, being said by St. Matthew\nto have gone by ship to the coasts of Magdala, Matt. xv, 39; and by St.\nMark, to the parts of Dalmanutha,\u201d Mark viii, 10. Mr. Buckingham came to\na small village in this situation called Migdal, close to the edge of\nthe lake, beneath a range of high cliffs, in which small grottoes are\nseen, with the remains of an old square tower, and some larger\nbuildings, of rude construction, apparently of great antiquity. Migdol\nimplies a tower, or fortress; and this place, from having this name\nparticularly applied to it, was doubtless, like the Egyptian Migdol, one\nof considerable importance; and may be considered as the site of the\nMigdal of the Naphtalites, as well as the Magdala of the New Testament.\n\nMAGI, or MAGIANS, a title which the ancient Persians gave to their wise\nmen, or philosophers. Magi, among the Persians, answers to \u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, or\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, among the Greeks; _sapientes_, among the Latins; druids,\namong the Gauls; gymnosophists, among the Indians; and priests, among\nthe Egyptians.\n\nThe ancient magi, according to Aristotle and Laertius, were the sole\nauthors and conservators of the Persian philosophy; and the philosophy\nprincipally cultivated among them was theology and politics; they being\nalways esteemed as the interpreters of all law, both divine and human;\non which account they were wonderfully revered by the people. Hence\nCicero observes that none were admitted to the crown of Persia, but such\nas were well instructed in the discipline of the magi; who taught \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70, and showed princes how to govern. Plato, Apuleius, Laertius,\nand others, agree that the philosophy of the magi related principally to\nthe worship of the gods: they were the persons who were to offer\nprayers, supplications, and sacrifices, as if the gods would be heard by\nthem alone. But, according to Lucian, Suidas, &c, this theology, or\nworship of the gods, as it is called, about which the magi were\nemployed, was little more than the diabolical art of divination; so that\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af.\u1f01, strictly taken, was the art of divination. These people were\nheld in such veneration among the Persians, that Darius, the son of\nHystaspes, among other things, had it engraven on his monument, that he\nwas the master of the magi. Philo Jud\u00e6us describes the magi to be\ndiligent inquirers into nature, out of the love they bear to truth; and\nwho, setting themselves apart from other things, contemplate the divine\nvirtues the more clearly, and initiate others in the same mysteries. The\nmagi, or magians, formed one of the two grand sects into which the\nidolatry of the world was divided between 500 and 600 years before\nChrist. These abominated all those images which were worshipped by the\nother sect, denominated Sabians, and paid their worship to the Deity\nunder the emblem of fire. Their chief doctrine was, that there were two\nprinciples, one of which was the cause of all good, and the other the\ncause of all evil. The former was represented by light, and the latter\nby darkness, as their truest symbols; and of the composition of these\ntwo they supposed that all things in the world were made. The sect of\nthe magians was revived and reformed by Zoroaster. This celebrated\nphilosopher, called by the Persians Zerdusht, or Zaratush, began about\nthe thirty-sixth year of the reign of Darius to restore and reform the\nmagian system of religion. He was not only excellently skilled in all\nthe learning of the east that prevailed in his time, but likewise\nthoroughly versed in the Jewish religion, and in all the sacred writings\nof the Old Testament that were then extant: whence some have inferred\nthat he was a native Jew both by birth and profession; and that he had\nbeen servant to one of the prophets, probably Ezekiel or Daniel. He made\nhis first appearance in Media, in the city of Xix, now called Aderbijan,\nas some say; or, according to others in Ecbatana, now called Tauris.\nInstead of admitting the existence of two first causes, with the\nmagians, he asserted the existence of one supreme God, who created both\nthese, and out of these two produced, according to his sovereign\npleasure, every thing else. According to his doctrine, there was one\nsupreme Being independently and self-existing from all eternity. Under\nhim there are two angels: one the angel of light, the author and\ndirector of all good; and the other the angel of darkness, who is the\nauthor and director of all evil. These two, probably speaking\nfiguratively, out of the mixture of light and darkness, made all things\nthat are; and they are in a state of perpetual conflict; so that where\nthe angel of light prevails, there the most is good; and where the angel\nof darkness prevails, there the most is evil. This struggle shall\ncontinue to the end of the world; and then there shall be a general\nresurrection, and a day of judgment: after which, the angel of darkness\nand his disciples shall go into a world of their own, where they shall\nsuffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds; and\nthe angel of light and his disciples shall go into a world of their own,\nwhere they shall receive in everlasting light the reward due unto their\ngood deeds: and henceforward they shall for ever remain separate.\n\nOf the controversy as to Zoroaster, Zeratusht, or Zertushta, and the\nsacred books said to have been written by him, called Zend or\nZendavesta, which has divided the most eminent critics, it would answer\nno important end to give an abstract. Those who wish for information on\nthe subject are referred to Hyde\u2019s _Religio Veterum Persarum_;\u201d\nPrideaux\u2019s Connection;\u201d Warburton\u2019s Divine Legation;\u201d Bryant\u2019s\nMythology;\u201d The Universal History;\u201d Sir W. Jones\u2019s Works, vol. iii, p.\n115; M. Du Perron, and Richardson\u2019s Dissertation,\u201d prefixed to his\nPersian and Arabic Dictionary. But whatever may become of the authority\nof the whole or part of the Zendavesta, and with whatever fables the\nhistory of the reformer of the magian religion may be mixed, the learned\nare generally agreed that such a reformation took place by his\ninstrumentality. Zeratusht,\u201d says Sir W. Jones, reformed the old\nreligion by the addition of genii or angels, of new ceremonies in the\nveneration shown to fire, of a new work which he pretended to have\nreceived from heaven, and, _above all, by establishing the actual\nadoration of the supreme Being_;\u201d and he farther adds, The reformed\nreligion of Persia continued in force till that country was conquered by\nthe Musselmans; and, without studying the Zend, we have ample\ninformation concerning it in the modern Persian writings of several who\nprofess it. Bahman always named Zeratusht with reverence; he was, in\ntruth, a pure Theist, and strongly disclaimed any adoration of the fire\nor other elements; and he denied that the doctrine of two co\u00ebval\nprinciples, supremely good and supremely bad, formed any part of his\nfaith.\u201d The Zeratusht of Persia, or the Zoroaster of the Greeks,\u201d says\nRichardson, was highly celebrated by the most discerning people of\nancient times; and his tenets, we are told, were most eagerly and\nrapidly embraced by the highest in rank, and the wisest men in the\nPersian empire.\u201d He distinguished himself by denying that good and evil,\nrepresented by light and darkness, were co\u00ebval, independent principles;\nand asserted the supremacy of the true God, in exact conformity with the\ndoctrine contained in a part of that celebrated prophecy of Isaiah in\nwhich Cyrus is mentioned by name: I am the Lord, and there is none else,\nthere is no God beside me,\u201d no co\u00ebval power. I form the light, and\ncreate darkness, I make peace,\u201d or good, and create evil, I the Lord do\nall these things.\u201d Fire, by Zerdushta, appears to have been used\nemblematically only; and the ceremonies for preserving and transmitting\nit, introduced by him, were manifestly taken from the Jews, and the\nsacred fire of their tabernacle and temple.\n\nThe old religion of the Persians was corrupted by Sabianism, or the\nworship of the host of heaven, with its accompanying superstition. The\nmagian doctrine, whatever it might be at first, had degenerated; and two\neternal principles, good and evil, had been introduced. It was therefore\nnecessarily idolatrous also, and, like all other false systems,\nflattering to the vicious habits of the people. So great an improvement\nin the moral character and influence of the religion of a whole nation\nas was effected by Zoroaster, a change which is not certainly paralleled\nin the ancient history of the religion of mankind, can scarcely,\ntherefore, be thought possible, except we suppose a divine\ninterposition, either directly, or by the occurrence of some very\nimpressive events. Now as there are so many authorities for fixing the\ntime of Zoroaster or Zeratusht not many years subsequent to the death of\nthe great Cyrus, the events connected with the conquest of Babylon may\naccount for his success in that reformation of religion of which he was\nthe author. For, had not the minds of men been prepared for this change\nby something extraordinary, it is not supposable that they would have\nadopted a purer faith from him. That he gave them a better doctrine, is\nclear from the admission of even Dean Prideaux, who has very unjustly\nbranded him as an impostor. Let it then be remembered, that as the Most\nHigh ruleth in the kingdoms of men,\u201d he often overrules great political\nevents for moral purposes. The Jews were sent into captivity to Babylon\nto be reformed from their idolatrous propensities, and their reformation\ncommenced with their calamity. A miracle was there wrought in favour of\nthree Hebrew confessors of the existence of one only God, and that under\ncircumstances to put shame upon a popular idol in the presence of the\nking and all the rulers of the provinces,\u201d that the issue of this\ncontroversy between Jehovah and idolatry might be made known throughout\nthat vast empire.--Worship was refused to the idol by a few Hebrew\ncaptives, and the idol had no power to punish the public affront:--the\nservants of Jehovah were cast into a furnace, and he delivered them\nunhurt; and a royal decree declared that there was no god who could\ndeliver after this sort.\u201d The proud monarch himself also is smitten with\na singular disease;--he remains subject to it until he acknowledges the\ntrue God; and, upon his recovery, he publicly ascribes to him both the\njustice and the mercy of the punishment. This event takes place, also,\nin the accomplishment of a dream which none of the wise men of Babylon\ncould interpret. It was interpreted by Daniel, who made the fulfilment\nto redound to the honour of the true God, by ascribing to him the\nperfection of knowing the future, which none of the false gods, appealed\nto by the Chaldean sages, possessed; as the inability of their servants\nto interpret the dream sufficiently proved. After these singular events,\nCyrus takes Babylon, and he finds there the sage and the statesman,\nDaniel, the worshipper of the true God, who creates both good and evil,\u201d\nwho makes the light, and forms the darkness.\u201d There is little doubt but\nthat he and the principal Persians throughout the empire would have the\nprophecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, delivered more than a hundred years\nbefore he was born, and in which his name stood recorded, along with the\npredicted circumstances of the capture of Babylon, pointed out to them.\nEvery reason, religious and political, urged the Jews to make the\nprediction a matter of notoriety; and from Cyrus\u2019s decree in Ezra it is\ncertain that he was acquainted with it; because there is in the decree\nan obvious reference to the prophecy. This prophecy, so strangely\nfulfilled, would give mighty force to the doctrine connected with it,\nand which it proclaims with so much majesty:--\n\n             I am JEHOVAH, and none else,\n             Forming LIGHT, and creating DARKNESS,\n             Making PEACE, and creating EVIL;\n             I JEHOVAH am the author of all these things.\u201d\n\nHere the great principle of corrupted magianism was directly attacked;\nand, in proportion as the fulfilment of the prophecy was felt to be\nsingular and striking, the doctrine blended with it would attract\nnotice. Its force was both felt and acknowledged, as we have seen, in\nthe decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the temple. In that Cyrus\nacknowledged the true God to be supreme, and thus renounced his former\nfaith; and the example, the public example, of a prince so beloved, and\nwhose reign was so extended, could not fail to influence the religious\nopinions of his people. That the effect did not terminate in Cyrus, we\nknow; for, from the book of Ezra, it appears that both Darius and\nArtaxerxes made decrees in favour of the Jews, in which Jehovah has the\nemphatic appellation repeatedly given to him, the God of heaven,\u201d the\nvery terms used by Cyrus himself. Nor are we to suppose the impression\nconfined to the court; for the history of the three Hebrew youths, of\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream, sickness, and reformation from idolatry, of the\ninterpretation of the hand writing on the wall by Daniel the servant of\nthe living God, of his deliverance from the lions, and the publicity of\nthe prophecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, were too recent, too public,\nand too striking in their nature, not to be often and largely talked of.\nBeside, in the prophecy respecting Cyrus, the intention of almighty God\nin recording the name of that monarch in an inspired book, and showing\nbeforehand that he had chosen him to overturn the Babylonian empire, is\nexpressly mentioned as having respect to two great objects, first, the\ndeliverance of Israel, and, second, the making known his supreme\ndivinity among the nations of the earth. We again quote Lowth\u2019s\ntranslation:--\n\n           For the sake of my _servant Jacob_,\n           And of Israel my chosen,\n           I have even called thee by thy name,\n           I have surnamed thee, though thou knewest me not.\n           I am JEHOVAH, and none else,\n           Beside me there is no God;\n           I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me,\n           _That they may know, from the rising of the sun_,\n           And from the west, that there is NONE BESIDE ME.\u201d\n\nIt was therefore intended by this proceeding on the part of Providence\nto teach, not only Cyrus, but the people of his vast empire, and\nsurrounding nations, 1. That the God of the Jews was Jehovah, the\nself-subsistent, the eternal God; 2. That he was God alone, there being\nno deity beside himself; and, 3. That good and evil, represented by\nlight and darkness, were neither independent nor eternal subsistences,\nbut his great instruments, and under his control.\n\nThe Persians, who had so vastly extended their empire by the conquest of\nthe countries formerly held by the monarchs of Babylon, were thus\nprepared for such a reformation of their religion as Zoroaster effected.\nThe principles he advocated had been previously adopted by Cyrus and\nother Persian monarchs, and probably by many of the principal persons of\nthat nation. Zoroaster himself thus became acquainted with the great\ntruths contained in this famous prophecy, which attacked the very\nfoundations of every idolatrous and Manichean system. From the other\nsacred books of the Jews, who mixed with the Persians in every part of\nthe empire, he evidently learned more. This is sufficiently proved from\nthe many points of similarity between his religion and Judaism, though\nhe should not be allowed to speak so much in the style of the Holy\nScriptures as some passages in the Zendavesta would indicate. He found\nthe people, however, prepared of the Lord\u201d to admit his reformations,\nand he carried them. This cannot but be looked upon as one instance of\nseveral merciful dispensations of God to the Gentile world, through his\nown peculiar people, the Jews, by which the idolatries of the Heathen\nwere often checked, and the light of truth rekindled among them. In this\nview the ancient Jews evidently considered the Jewish church as\nappointed not to preserve only but to extend true religion. God be\nmerciful to us and bless us; that thy way may be known upon earth, thy\nsaving health unto all nations.\u201d This renders Pagan nations more\nevidently without excuse.\u201d That this dispensation of mercy was afterward\nneglected among the Persians, is certain. How long the effect continued\nwe know not, nor how widely it spread; perhaps longer and wider than may\nnow distinctly appear. If the magi, who came from the east to seek\nChrist, were Persians, some true worshippers of God would appear to have\nremained in Persia to that day; and if, as is probable, the prophecies\nof Isaiah and Daniel were retained among them, they might be among those\nwho waited for redemption,\u201d not at Jerusalem, but in a distant part of\nthe world. The _Parsees_, who were nearly extirpated by Mohammedan\nfanaticism, were charged by their oppressors with the idolatry of fire,\nand this was probably true of the multitude. Some of their writers,\nhowever, warmly defended themselves against the charge. A considerable\nnumber of them remain in India to this day, and profess to have the\nbooks of Zoroaster.\n\n2. The term _magi_ was also anciently used generally throughout the\neast, to distinguish philosophers, and especially astronomers. Pliny and\nPtolemy mention Arabi as synonymous with magi; and it was the opinion of\nmany learned men in the first ages of Christianity, that the magi who\npresented offerings to the infant Saviour, Matt. ii, 1, came from\nsouthern Arabia; for it is certain that gold, frankincense, and myrrh,\u201d\nwere productions of that country. They were philosophers among whom the\nbest parts of the reformed magian system, which was extensively\ndiffused, were probably preserved. They were pious men, also, who had\nsome acquaintance, it may be, with the Hebrew prophecies, and were\nfavoured themselves with divine revelations. They are to be regarded as\nmembers of the old patriarchal church, never quite extinguished among\nthe Heathen; and they had the special honour to present the homage of\nthe Gentile world to the infant Saviour.\n\nMAGICIAN not unfrequently occurs in Scripture. Generally it signifies a\ndiviner, a fortune teller, &c. Moses forbids recourse to such on pain of\ndeath: The soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and\nafter wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face\nagainst that soul, and even cut him off from among his people,\u201d\nLeviticus xix, 31; xx, 6. The Hebrew is \u05d0\u05dc-\u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc-\u05d4\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, which\nsignify literally,--the first, those possessed with a spirit of Python,\nor a demon that fortels future events;--the second, knowers, they who\nboast of the knowledge of secret things. It was such sort of people that\nSaul extirpated out of the land of Israel, 1 Sam. xxviii, 3. Daniel also\nspeaks of magicians and diviners in Chaldea, under Nebuchadnezzar,\nDaniel i, 20, &c; \u05dc\u05d7\u05e8\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05db\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd. He names four\nsorts: _Chartumim_, _Asaphim_, _Mecasphim_, and _Casdim_, Daniel ii, 2.\nThe first, _Chartumim_, according to Theodotion, signifies enchanters;\u201d\naccording to the LXX, sophists;\u201d according to Jerom, _hariolas_,\ndiviners, fortune tellers, casters of nativities.\u201d The second word,\n_Asaphim_, has a great resemblance to the Greek word \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2, wise man;\u201d\nwhether the Greeks took this word from the Babylonians, or _vice vers\u00e2_.\nTheodotion and Jerom have rendered it magicians;\u201d the LXX,\nphilosophers.\u201d The third word, _Mecasphim_, by Jerom and the Greeks, is\ntranslated _malefici_, enchanters;\u201d such as used noxious herbs and\ndrugs, the blood of victims, and the bones of the dead, for their\nsuperstitious operations. The fourth word, _Casdim_, or Chaldeans, has\ntwo significations: first, the Chaldean people, over whom Nebuchadnezzar\nwas monarch; the second, a sort of philosophers, who dwelt in a separate\npart of the city, who were exempt from all public offices and\nemployments. Their studies were physic, astrology, divination,\nforetelling of future events by the stars, interpretation of dreams,\naugury, worship of the gods, &c. All these inquisitive and superstitious\narts were prohibited among the Israelites, as founded on imposture or\ndevilism, and as inconsistent with faith in God\u2019s providence, and trust\nin his supremacy.\n\nMAGOG. See GOG.\n\nMAHANAIM, a city of the Levites, of the family of Merari, in the tribe\nof Gad, upon the brook Jabbok, Joshua xxi, 38; xiii, 26. The name\n_Mahanaim_ signifies two hosts,\u201d or two fields.\u201d The patriarch gave it\nthis name because in this place he had a vision of angels coming to meet\nhim, Genesis xxxii, 2. Mahanaim was the seat of the kingdom of\nIshbosheth, after the death of Saul, 2 Sam. ii, 9, 12. It was also to\nthis place that David retired during the usurpation of Absalom, 2 Sam.\nxvii, 24; and this rebellious son was subdued, and suffered death, not\nfar from this city.\n\nMAHOMETANISM. Mohammed, its distinguished founder, was born in Arabia,\ntoward the conclusion of the sixth century. Although he had been reduced\nto poverty, he was descended from ancestors who had long been\nconspicuous by rank and by influence; but having been shut out from the\nadvantages of education, which in his peculiar case might have rather\ncramped than invigorated the astonishing powers of his mind, he had been\ncompelled to seek his subsistence by devoting himself to a menial\noccupation. Yet although thus unfavourably situated, he was led, in\nconducting the commercial transactions which, in the service of Cadijah,\na woman of great wealth, he was employed to arrange, to survey the state\nof several of the neighbouring nations; became acquainted with the most\nstriking features in the characters of those by whom he was surrounded;\nand he was enabled to profit by the information which he thus procured,\nfrom his adding to the graces of personal elegance and beauty, the most\ncaptivating manners, and the most winning address. Exalted by the\npartiality of Cadijah, who conferred on him her hand and her extensive\npossessions, he seems early to have formed the scheme of announcing\nhimself as the author of a new religion, and, in virtue of this sacred\noffice, of ascending to that supremacy of political influence which it\nwas his singular fortune, soon after he unfolded his pretensions, to\nattain. Taking advantage of that insensibility into which, by the\nattacks of epilepsy, he was occasionally thrown, he pretended that he\nwas wrapped in divine contemplation, or was actually holding\ncommunication with higher orders of beings, who were committing to him\nthe divine instructions which he was to disseminate through the world.\n\nWhen the time which he conceived to be favourable for the grand object\nof his ambition had arrived, he openly declared that he was the prophet\nof the most high God; but the magistrates of Mecca, despising his\npretensions, or dreading the evils which might result from religious\ninnovation, vigorously opposed him, and he found himself compelled, in\norder to avoid the punishment which they were preparing to inflict on\nhim, to have recourse to flight. He did not, however, relinquish the\nscheme upon which he had so long meditated, and which he was convinced\nthat he was qualified to carry into execution. After his departure from\nMecca, from which event the Mohammedan era of the hegira takes its\ncommencement, he was joined by a few followers determined to share his\nfate; and having solemnly consecrated the banner under which he was to\nextend his power and propagate his tenets, he commenced hostilities\nagainst those by whom he had been opposed. His first efforts, however,\nwere not crowned with success, but he had infused into his attendants a\nspirit which misfortune could not subdue: they renewed their enterprise,\nand Mecca at length submitted to his arms. From this period his\nexaltation was very rapid; he was venerated as the favoured messenger of\nHeaven, and his countrymen bowed down before a sovereign protected, as\nthey believed, by the Omnipotent, and commissioned to reveal his will.\nThere were many causes which satisfactorily account for his success. The\nChristian religion, in the corrupted form in which it existed in the\nregions contiguous to the country of the prophet, was not interwoven\nwith the affections of its professors; they were split into factions,\ncontending about the most frivolous distinctions and the most ridiculous\ntenets; and the sword of persecution was mutually wielded by them all,\nto spread misery where there should have been the ties of charity and\nlove. Thus divided, they presented no steady resistance to the attempt\nmade to wrest from them their religion; and, indeed, as many of them had\nadopted that religion, not from conviction, but from dread of the\ntyranny by which it had been imposed on them, they only did what they\nhad previously done, when, shrinking from the ferocious zeal of the\nemissaries of the prophet, they submitted to his doctrine. With\nadmirable address, too, he had framed his religious system, so as to\ngratify those to whom it was announced. Laying down the sublime and\nunquestionable doctrine of the unity of God, he professed to revere the\npatriarchs, whose memory the Arabs held in veneration; he admitted that\nMoses was a messenger from God; he acknowledged Jesus as an exalted\nprophet; and he founded his own pretensions upon the intimation which\nour Saviour had given that the Paraclete, or Comforter, was to be sent\nto lead the world into all truth. Thus each party found in the Koran\nmuch of what it had been accustomed to believe; and the transition was\nin this way rendered more easy to the admission that a new revelation\nhad been vouchsafed.\n\nThis effect was facilitated by the ignorance which prevailed in Arabia.\nAccustomed to a wandering life, the Arabs had devoted no time to the\nacquisition of knowledge; most of them were even unable to read the\nKoran, the sublimity and beauty of which were held forth to them as\nincontestable proofs of the inspiration of its author. Had Mohammed,\nindeed rested his doctrine upon miracles, it might have happened that\nthe imposture by some would have been detected; but, with his usual\npolicy, he avoided what he knew was so hazardous; and, with the\nexception of his reference to the Koran, as surpassing the capacity of\nman, he explicitly disclaimed having been authorized to do such mighty\nworks as had been wrought to establish the previous dispensations of the\nAlmighty. The fascinating representation that he gave of the joys of\nparadise, which he accommodated to the conceptions and wishes of the\neastern nations, also made a deep and favourable impression; the\nwantonness of imagination was gratified with the anticipation of a state\nabounding with sensual gratification raised to the highest degree of\nexquisiteness; while the dismal fate allotted through eternity to all\nwho rejected the message which he brought, alarmed the fears of the\ncredulous and superstitious multitude whom he was eager to allure. When\nwith these causes are combined the vigour of his administration, and the\ncertainty of suffering or of death in the event of withstanding his\ndoctrine, there is sufficient to account for the success of his\nreligion; and there is in that success nothing which can, with the\nshadow of reason, be employed, as, with strange perversion of argument,\nit has sometimes been, to invalidate the proof for the truth of\nChristianity deduced from its rapid diffusion. That proof does not rest\nupon the mere circumstance that the religion of Jesus was widely and\nspeedily propagated; there might, under particular circumstances, have\nbeen in this nothing wonderful; but on the facts that it was so\npropagated, when all the human means to which they who preached it could\nhave recourse, would have retarded rather than promoted what actually\ntook place; that it employed no force; that it held out no earthly\nadvantages; that it accommodated itself to no previous religious\nprejudices; and that it opposed and reproved all, and did not gratify\nany, of the corruptions and lusts of human nature.\n\nBut Mohammed did not limit his views to the sovereignty of Arabia: he\nwas elevated by the hope of universal empire; and he moulded his system\nso as to promote what he was eager to attain. For this purpose he\npromised to all who enrolled themselves under his banner full license to\nplunder the nations against which they were led; and he made it a\nfundamental tenet of his faith that they who fell in the warlike\nenterprises destined to enlarge the number of believers were at once\ndelivered from the guilt and misery of their sins, and were admitted to\nthe happy scenes prepared for the faithful. He thus collected around him\nan army thoroughly devoted, prepared for meeting every danger,\nstimulated to the most laborious exertions by the hope of plunder, and\nsteeled against all which can weaken courage or exhaust resolution, by\nthe enthusiasm of hope; whatever was their fate, they had nothing to\ndread; if they escaped the weapons of their enemies, they were loaded\nwith spoil, and invited to indulgence; and if they fell, they were\ncanonized by those who survived, and exchanged the vicissitudes and\ntroubles of this world for the delights of a sensual paradise. An army\nthus constituted and thus impelled must, under any circumstances, have\nbeen formidable; against them the usual methods to defeat invasion and\nto prevent conquest would have failed; they could have been successfully\nencountered only by men who had imbibed a similar spirit, and who\nidentified patience and courage in the field with the most sacred duty\nrequired by religion. Of the advantages which, after Arabia had\nacknowledged his sway, and hailed him as the prophet of the Lord, he\nmight confidently anticipate, Mohammed was abundantly sensible; but\nwhile he was preparing to bring into action the mighty machine which he\nhad erected, his earthly career was terminated, and he left to others to\nexecute the schemes which he had fondly devised.\n\nThe energy of the system remained after the author of it was removed\nfrom the world; and his successors lost no time in extending their\ndominions far beyond the bounds of Arabia. The obstacles opposed to them\ninstantly yielded; a feeble and degenerate empire sinking under its own\nweight, and unable to resist any power acting against it, at once\nsubmitted to the host of fanatical plunderers, who spread desolation as\nthey advanced; the richest provinces soon were wrested from it; and the\nmost fertile regions of Asia fell under the conquering fury of the\ncaliphs. Persia, which had long persecuted Christianity, was added to\ntheir increasing territories; Syria submitted to their yoke; and, what\nfilled with horror and with anguish the believers in the Gospel,\nPalestine, that holy land from which the light of divine truth had\nbeamed upon the nations, which had been the scene of those awful or\ninteresting events recorded in the inspired Scriptures, which had\nwitnessed the life, the ministry, the death, the resurrection, and\nascension of the Redeemer of mankind, bent under the iron sceptre of an\ninfidel sovereign, nominally, indeed, revering the Founder of its\nreligion, but filled with bigoted and implacable hatred against the most\nattached and conscientious of his disciples. But the caliphs did not\naccomplish their principal object when they reduced to subjection the\ncountries which they ravaged: to them it was of infinitely more moment\nto propagate the Musselman faith; and, accordingly, although in the\ncommencement of that faith some indulgence was, from political\nconsiderations, granted to the Christians, there was soon no alternative\nleft to the trembling captives but to embrace the doctrine of the\nprophet, or to submit to slavery or death. We cannot wonder that tenets\nthus enforced rapidly spread; they supplanted, in many extensive\nregions, the religion of Jesus; and, incorporating themselves with civil\ngovernments, or rather founding all governments upon the Koran, they\ncontinue, at the distance of eleven hundred years, to be believed\nthrough a large proportion of the world.\n\nThe effect of this signal revolution was first experienced by those\nChristians who inhabited the eastern parts of the empire; but the\naccount of it must have been speedily conveyed throughout Christendom,\nand the gigantic enterprises of the Saracens soon threatened all nations\nwith slavery and superstition. The successors of the prophet, in the\neighth century, directed their steps toward Europe; and having at length\ncrossed the narrow sea which separates Africa from Spain, they dispersed\nthe troops of Roderick, king of the Goths, took possession of the\ngreater part of his dominions, subverted the empire of the Visigoths,\nwhich had been established in Spain for upward of three centuries, and\nplanted themselves along the coast of Gaul, from the Pyrenean mountains\nto the Rhine. Charlemagne, alarmed at their progress, made a great\neffort to crush them; but he failed in accomplishing his object, and\nthey committed, in various parts of Europe which they visited, the most\nshocking devastations.\n\nWhen a great part of the life of Mohammed had been spent in preparatory\nmeditation on the system he was about to establish, the chapters of the\nAlcoran or Koran, which was to contain the rule of the faith and\npractice of his followers, were dealt out slowly and separately during\nthe long period of three-and-twenty years. He entrusted his beloved\nwife, Raphsa, the daughter of Omar, with the keeping of the chest of his\napostleship, in which were laid up all the originals of the revelations\nhe pretended to have received by the ministration of the Angel Gabriel,\nand out of which the Koran, consisting of one hundred and fourteen\n_surats_, or chapters, of very unequal length, was composed after his\ndeath. Yet, defective in its structure, and not less exceptionable in\nits doctrines and precepts, was the work which he thus delivered to his\nfollowers as the oracles of God. We will not detract from the real merit\nof the Koran; we allow it to be generally elegant and often sublime; but\nat the same time we reject with disdain its arrogant pretensions to any\nthing supernatural. Nay, if, descending to a minute investigation of it,\nwe consider its perpetual inconsistency and absurdity, we shall indeed\nhave cause for astonishment at that weakness of humanity which could\never have received such compositions as the work of the Deity, and which\ncould still hold it in such high admiration as it is held by the\nfollowers of Mohammed to the present day. Far from supporting its\narrogant claim to a supernatural work, it sinks below the level of many\ncompositions confessedly of human original; and still lower does it fall\nwhen compared with that pure and perfect pattern which we justly admire\nin the Scriptures of truth. The first praise of all the productions of\ngenius is invention; but the Koran bears little impression of this\ntranscendent character. It does not contain one single doctrine which\nmay not fairly be derived either from the Jewish and Christian\nScriptures, from the spurious and apocryphal Gospels, then current in\nthe east, from the Talmudical legends, or from the traditions, customs,\nand opinions of the Arabians. And the materials collected from these\nseveral sources are here heaped together with perpetual and needless\nrepetitions, without any settled principle, or visible connection. The\nmost prominent feature of the Koran, that point of excellence in which\nthe partiality of its admirers has ever delighted to view it, is the\nsublime notion it generally impresses of the nature and attributes of\nGod. But if its author had really derived these just conceptions from\nthe inspiration of that Being whom they attempt to describe, they would\nnot have been surrounded, as they now are, on every side with error and\nabsurdity. By attempting to explain what is inconceivable, to describe\nwhat is ineffable, and to materialize what in itself is spiritual, he\nabsurdly and impiously aimed to sensualize the purity of the divine\nessence. But it might easily be proved, that whatever the Koran justly\ndefines of the divine attributes, was borrowed from our Holy Scriptures;\nwhich, even from their first promulgation, but especially from the\ncompletion of the New Testament, have extended the views, and\nenlightened the understandings, of mankind.\n\nThe Koran, indeed, every where inculcates that grand and fundamental\ndoctrine of the unity of the supreme Being, the establishment of which\nwas constantly alleged by the impostor as the primary object of his\npretended mission; but on the subject of the Christian trinity, its\nauthor seems to have entertained very gross and mistaken ideas, and to\nhave been totally ignorant of the perfect consistency of that opinion\nwith the unity of the Deity. With respect to the great doctrine of a\nfuture life, and the condition of the soul after its departure from the\nbody, it must indeed be acknowledged that the prophet of Arabia has\npresented us with a nearer prospect of the invisible world, and\ndisclosed to us a thousand particulars concerning it, which the Holy\nScriptures had wrapped in the most profound and mysterious silence. But\nin his various representations of another life, he generally descends to\nan unnecessary minuteness and particularity, which excite disgust and\nridicule, instead of reverence. He constantly pretended to have received\nthese stupendous secrets by the ministry of the Angel Gabriel, from that\neternal book in which the divine decrees have been written by the finger\nof the Almighty from the foundation of the world; but the learned\ninquirer will discover a more accessible, and a far more probable,\nsource whence they might be derived, partly in the wild and fanciful\nopinions of the ancient Arabs, and chiefly in those exhaustless stores\nof marvellous and improbable fiction, the works of the rabbins. Hence,\nthat romantic fable of the angel of death, whose peculiar office it is,\nat the destined hour, to dissolve the union between soul and body, and\nto free the departing spirit from its prison of flesh. Hence, too, the\nvarious descriptions of the general resurrection and final judgment with\nwhich the Koran every where abounds; and hence the vast but ideal\nbalance in which the actions of all mankind shall then be impartially\nweighed, and their eternal doom be assigned them, either in the regions\nof bliss or misery, according as their good or evil deeds shall\npreponderate. Here, too, may be traced the grand and original outlines\nof that sensual paradise, and those luxurious enjoyments, which were so\nsuccessfully employed in the Koran, to gratify the ardent genius of the\nArabs, and allure them to the standard of the prophet.\n\nThe same observation which has been applied with respect to the sources\nwhence the doctrines were drawn, may, with some few limitations, be\nlikewise extended to the precepts which the Arabian legislator has\nenjoined. That the Koran, amidst a various and confused heap of\nridiculous and even immoral precepts, contains many interesting and\ninstructive lessons of morality, cannot with truth be denied. Of these,\nhowever, the merit is to be ascribed, not to the feeble imitation, but\nto the great and perfect original from which they were manifestly drawn.\nInstead of improving on the Christian precepts by a superior degree of\nrefinement; instead of exhibiting a purer and more perfect system of\nmorals than that of the Gospel; the prophet of Arabia has miserably\ndebased and weakened even what he has borrowed from that system. We are\ntold by our Saviour, that a man is to be the husband of one wife, and\nthat there is to be an inseparable union between them. By Mohammed\u2019s\nconfession, Jesus Christ was a prophet of the true God, and the Holy\nSpirit was with him. Yet in the Koran we find permission for any person\nto have four wives, and as many concubines as he can maintain. Again:\nour Saviour expressly tells us, that, at the resurrection, they will\nneither marry nor be given in marriage; but be like the angels of God in\nheaven.\u201d We are informed also by St. Paul, that we shall be changed, and\nhave a spiritual and glorified body; for flesh and blood cannot inherit\nthe kingdom of heaven; neither can corruption inherit incorruption.\u201d But\nMohammed gives a very different account: it is clear, from his own\nconfession, that the happiness promised in the Koran consists in base\nand corporeal enjoyments. According to its author, there will not only\nbe marriage, but also servitude in the next world. The very meanest in\nparadise will have eighty thousand servants, and seventy-two wives of\nthe girls of paradise, beside the wives he had in this world; he will\nalso have a tent erected for him of pearls, hyacinths, and emeralds. And\nas marriage will take place, so a new race will be introduced in heaven;\nfor, says the Koran, If any of the faithful in paradise be desirous of\nissue, it shall be conceived, born, and grown up in the space of an\nhour.\u201d But on the contradictions in point of doctrine, though sufficient\nof themselves to confute the pretensions of Mohammed, we forbear to\ninsist.\n\nThe impure designs which gave birth to the whole system may be traced in\nalmost every subordinate part; even its sublimest descriptions of the\nDeity, even its most exalted moral precepts, not unfrequently either\nterminate in, or are interwoven with, some provision to gratify the\ninordinate cravings of ambition, or some license for the indulgence of\nthe corrupt passions of the human heart. It has allowed private revenge,\nin the case of murder; it has given a sanction to fornication; and, if\nany weight be due to the example of its author, it has justified\nadultery. It has made war, and rapine, and bloodshed, provided they be\nexercised against unbelievers, not only meritorious acts, but even\nessential duties to the good Musselman; duties by the performance of\nwhich he may secure the constant favour and protection of God and his\nprophet in this life, and in the next entitle himself to the boundless\njoys of paradise. In the Koran are advanced the following assertions,\namong others already noticed: That both Jews and Christians are\nidolaters; that the patriarchs and Apostles were Mohammedans; that the\nangels worshipped Adam, and that the fallen angels were driven from\nheaven for not doing so; that our blessed Saviour was neither God, nor\nthe Son of God; and that he assured Mohammed of this in a conference\nwith the Almighty and him; yet that he was both the word and Spirit of\nGod: not to mention numberless absurdities concerning the creation, the\ndeluge, the end of the world, the resurrection, the day of judgment, too\ngross to be received by any except the most debased understandings.\n\nIt was frequently the triumphant boast of St. Paul, that the Gospel of\nJesus Christ had for ever freed mankind from the intolerable burden of\nceremonial observances. But the Koran renews and perpetuates the\nslavery, by prescribing to its votaries a ritual still more oppressive,\nand entangling them again in a yoke of bondage yet more severe than that\nof the law. Of this kind, amidst a variety of instances, is that great\nand meritorious act of Mohammedan devotion, the pilgrimage to the holy\ncity of Mecca; an act which the Koran has enjoined, and the pious\nMusselman implicitly performs, as necessary to the obtaining pardon of\nhis sins, and qualifying him to be a partaker of the alluring pleasures\nand exquisite enjoyments of paradise. To the several articles of faith\nto which all his followers were to adhere, Mohammed added four\nfundamental points of religious practice; namely, prayer five times a\nday, fasting, alms-giving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. Under the first\nof these are comprehended those frequent washings or purifications which\nhe prescribed as necessary preparations for the duty of prayer. So\nnecessary did he think them, that he is said to have declared, that the\npractice of religion is founded upon cleanliness, which is one half of\nfaith, and the key of prayer. The second of these he conceived to be a\nduty of so great moment, that he used to say it was the gate of\nreligion, and that the odour of the mouth of him who fasteth is more\ngrateful to God than that of musk. The third is looked upon as so\npleasing in the sight of God, that the Caliph Omar Ebn Abdalaziz used to\nsay, Prayer carries us half way to God; fasting brings us to the door of\nhis palace; and alms procure us admission.\u201d The last of these practical\nreligious duties is deemed so necessary, that, according to a tradition\nof Mohammed, he who dies without performing it, may as well die a Jew or\na Christian.\u201d As to the negative precepts and institutions of this\nreligion, the Mohammedans are forbidden the use of wine, and are\nprohibited from gaming, usury, and the eating of blood and swine\u2019s\nflesh, and whatever dies of itself, or is strangled, or killed by a\nblow, or by another beast. They are said, however, to comply with the\nprohibition of gaming, (from which chess seems to be excepted,) much\nbetter than they do with that of wine, under which all strong and\ninebriating liquors are included; for both the Persians and Turks are in\nthe habit of drinking freely.\n\nHowever successful and triumphant from without, the progress of the\nfollowers of Mohammed received a considerable check by the civil\ndissensions which arose among themselves soon after his death. Abubeker\nand Ali, the former the father-in-law, the latter the son-in-law, of\nthis pretended prophet, aspired both to succeed him in the empire which\nhe had erected. Upon this arose a cruel and tedious contest, whose\nflames produced that schism which divided the Mohammedans into two great\nfactions; and this separation not only gave rise to a variety of\nopinions and rites, but also excited the most implacable hatred, and the\nmost deadly animosities, which have been continued to the present day.\nWith such furious zeal is this contention still carried on between these\ntwo factions, who are distinguished by the name of Sonnites and\nSchiites, that each party detest and anathematize the other as\nabominable heretics, and farther from the truth than either the\nChristians or the Jews. The chief points in which they differ are: 1.\nThe Schiites reject Abubeker, Omar, and Othman, the first three caliphs,\nas usurpers and intruders; but the Sonnites acknowledge and respect them\nas rightful caliphs or imams. 2. The Schiites prefer Ali to Mohammed,\nor, at least, esteem them both equal; but the Sonnites admit neither\nAli, nor any of the prophets, to be equal to Mohammed. 3. The Sonnites\ncharge the Schiites with corrupting the Koran, and neglecting its\nprecepts; and the Schiites retort the same charge on the Sonnites.\n\n4. The Sonnites receive the _Sonna_, or book of traditions of their\nprophet, as of canonical authority; but the Schiites reject it as\napocryphal, and unworthy of credit. The Sonnites are subdivided into\nfour chief sects, of which the first is that of the Hanefites, who\ngenerally prevail among the Turks and Tartars; the second, that of the\nMalecites, whose doctrine is chiefly followed in Barbary, and other\nparts of Africa; the third, that of the Shafeites, who are chiefly\nconfined to Arabia and Persia; and the fourth orthodox sect is that of\nthe Hanbalites, who are not very numerous, and seldom to be met with out\nof the limits of Arabia. The heretical sects among the Mohammedans are\nthose which are counted to hold heterodox opinions in fundamentals, or\nmatters of faith; and they are variously compounded and decompounded of\nthe opinions of four chief sects; the Motazalites, the Safatians, the\nKharejites, and the Schiites.\n\nEver since the valour of John Sobieski rolled back the hosts of Islamism\nfrom eastern and central Europe, the civil dominion of the false prophet\nhas been rather retrograde than advancing. A free philosophy in many\nplaces is destroying the influence of the system among the better\ninformed; and the barbarism and misery which a bad government inflicts\nupon the people, weakens its power, and is preparing the way for great\nchanges. The throwing off the Turkish yoke by the Greeks, and the rising\ngreatness of Russia, are symptoms of the approaching subversion of\nMohammedanism as a power; and thus the fall of this eastern antichrist\ncannot long be delayed. It is, indeed, even now supported only by the\nrival interests of Christian powers; and a new combination among them\nwould suddenly withdraw its only support.\n\nMALACHI, the last of the twelve minor prophets. Malachi prophesied about\nB. C. 400; and some traditionary accounts state that he was a native of\nSapha, and of the tribe of Zebulun. He reproves the people for their\nwickedness, and the priests for their negligence in the discharge of\ntheir office; he threatens the disobedient with the judgments of God,\nand promises great rewards to the penitent and pious; he predicts the\ncoming of Christ, and the preaching of John the Baptist; and with a\nsolemnity becoming the last of the prophets, he closes the sacred canon\nwith enjoining the strict observance of the Mosaic law, till the\nforerunner, already promised, should appear in the spirit of Elias, to\nintroduce the Messiah, who was to establish a new and everlasting\ncovenant.\n\nMAMMON, a Syriac word which signifies _riches_, Matt. vi, 24.\n\nMAMRE, an Amorite, brother of Aner and Eshcol, and friend of Abraham,\nGen. xiv, 13. It was with these three persons, together with his own and\ntheir domestics, that Abraham pursued and overcame the kings after their\nconquest of Sodom and Gomorrah.\n\n2. MAMRE, the same as Hebron. In Gen. xxiii, 19, it is said, that\nAbraham buried Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah, before\nMamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.\u201d And in Gen. xxxv, 27,\nit is said, that Jacob came unto Isaac his father, unto Mamre, unto the\ncity of Arba, which is Hebron.\u201d The city probably derived its name from\nthat Mamre who joined Abraham in the pursuit of Chedorlaomer, and the\nrescue of Lot, Gen. xiv.\n\nMAMRE, PLAIN OF, a plain near Mamre, or Hebron, said to be about two\nmiles to the south of the town. Here Abraham dwelt after his separation\nfrom Lot; here he received from God himself a promise of the land, in\nwhich he was then a stranger, for his posterity; here he entertained the\nangels under an oak, and received a second promise of a son; and here he\npurchased a burying place for Sarah; which served also as a sepulchre\nfor himself and the rest of his family.\n\nMANAHEM was the sixteenth king of Israel, and son of Gadi. He revenged\nthe death of his master Zachariah, by killing Shallum, son of Jabesh,\nwho had usurped the crown of Israel, A. M. 3232, 2 Kings xv, 13, &c.\nManahem reigned in his stead.\n\nMANASSEH, the eldest son of Joseph, and grandson of the patriarch Jacob,\nGen. xii, 50, was born, A. M. 2290, B. C. 1714. The name Manasseh\nsignifies _forgetfulness_, because Joseph said, \u201cGod hath made me forget\nall my toil, and all my father\u2019s house.\u201d When Jacob was going to die,\nJoseph brought his two sons to him, that his father might give them his\nlast blessing, Gen. xlviii. Jacob, having seen them, adopted them. The\ntribe of Manasseh came out of Egypt in number thirty-two thousand two\nhundred men, upward of twenty years old, under the conduct of Gamaliel,\nson of Pedahzur, Num. ii, 20, 21. This tribe was divided in the land of\npromise. One half tribe of Manasseh settled beyond the river Jordan, and\npossessed the country of Bashan, from the river Jabbok, to Mount\nLibanus; and the other half tribe of Manasseh settled on this side\nJordan, and possessed the country between the tribe of Ephraim south,\nand the tribe of Issachar north, having the river Jordan east, and the\nMediterranean Sea west, Joshua xvi; xvii.\n\n2. MANASSEH, the fifteenth king of Judah, and son and successor of\nHezekiah, was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned\nfifty-five years, 2 Kings xx, 21; xxi, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxxiii, 1, 2, &c.\nHis mother\u2019s name was Hephzibah. He did evil in the sight of the Lord;\nworshipped the idols of the land of Canaan; rebuilt the high places that\nhis father Hezekiah had destroyed; set up altars to Baal; and planted\ngroves to false gods. He raised altars to the whole host of heaven, in\nthe courts of God\u2019s house; made his son pass through the fire in honour\nof Moloch; was addicted to magic, divinations, auguries, and other\nsuperstitions; set up the idol Astarte in the house of God; finally, he\ninvolved his people in all the abomination of the idolatrous nations to\nthat degree, that Israel committed more wickedness than the Canaanites,\nwhom the Lord had driven out before them. To all these crimes Manasseh\nadded cruelty; and he shed rivers of innocent blood in Jerusalem. The\nLord being provoked by so many crimes, threatened him by his prophets, I\nwill blot out Jerusalem as a writing is blotted out of a writing\ntablet.\u201d The calamities which God had threatened began toward the\ntwenty-second year of this impious prince. The king of Assyria sent his\narmy against him, who, seizing him among the briers and brambles where\nhe was hid, fettered his hands and feet, and carried him to Babylon, 2\nChron. xxxiii, 11, 12, &c. It was probably Sargon or Esar-haddon, king\nof Assyria, who sent Tartan into Palestine, and who taking Azoth,\nattacked Manasseh, put him in irons, and led him away, not to Nineveh,\nbut to Babylon, of which Esar-haddon had become master, and had reunited\nthe empires of the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. Manasseh, in bonds at\nBabylon, humbled himself before God, who heard his prayers, and brought\nhim back to Jerusalem; and Manasseh acknowledged the hand of the Lord.\nManasseh was probably delivered out of prison by Saosduchin, the\nsuccessor of Esar-haddon, 2 Chron. xxxiii, 13, 14, &c. Being returned to\nJerusalem, he restored the worship of the Lord; broke down the altars of\nthe false gods; abolished all traces of their idolatrous worship; but he\ndid not destroy the high places: which is the only thing Scripture\nreproaches him with, after his return from Babylon. He caused Jerusalem\nto be fortified; and he inclosed with a wall another city, which in his\ntime was erected west of Jerusalem, and which went by the name of the\nsecond city, 2 Chron. xxxiii, 14. He put garrisons into all the strong\nplaces of Judah. Manasseh died at Jerusalem, and was buried in the\ngarden of his house, in the garden of Uzza, 2 Kings xxi, 18. He was\nsucceeded by his son Amon.\n\nMANDRAKE, \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd, Gen. xxx, 14\u201316; Cant. vii, 13. Interpreters have\nwasted much time and pains in endeavouring to ascertain what is intended\nby the Hebrew word _dudaim_. Some translate it by violet,\u201d others,\nlilies,\u201d jasmines,\u201d truffle or mushroom,\u201d and some think that the word\nmeans flowers,\u201d or fine flowers,\u201d in general. Bochart, Calmet, and Sir\nThomas Browne, suppose the citron intended; Celsius is persuaded that it\nis the fruit of the lote tree; Hiller, that cherries are spoken of; and\nLudolf maintains that it is the fruit which the Syrians call mauz,\nresembling in figure and taste the Indian fig; but the generality of\ninterpreters and commentators understand by _dudaim_, mandrakes, a\nspecies of melon; and it is so rendered in the Septuagint, and in both\nthe Targums, on Gen. xxx, 14. It appears from Scripture, that they were\nin perfection about the time of wheat harvest, have an agreeable odour,\nmay be preserved, and are placed with pomegranates. Hasselquist, the\npupil and intimate friend of Linn\u00e6us, who travelled into the Holy Land\nto make discoveries in natural history, imagines that the plant commonly\ncalled mandrake, is intended. Speaking of Nazareth, in Galilee, he says,\n\u201cWhat I found most remarkable at this village was the great number of\nmandrakes which grew in a vale below it. I had not the pleasure to see\nthis plant in blossom, the fruit now (May 5th, O. S.) hanging ripe on\nthe stem, which lay withered on the ground. From the season in which\nthis mandrake blossoms and ripens fruit, one may form a conjecture that\nit was Rachel\u2019s _dudaim_. These were brought her in the wheat harvest,\nwhich in Galilee is in the month of May, about this time, and the\nmandrake was now in fruit.\u201d\n\nMANICH\u00c6ANS, or MANICHEES, a denomination founded in the latter part of\nthe third century, by Mani, Manes, or Manich\u00e6us. Being a Persian or\nChaldean by birth, and educated among the magi, he attempted a coalition\nof their doctrine with the Christian system, or rather, the explication\nof the one by the other. Dr. Lardner, so far from taking Mani and his\nfollowers for enthusiasts, as some have done, thinks they erred on the\nother side, and were rather a sect of reasoners and philosophers, than\nvisionaries and enthusiasts. So Faustus, one of their leaders, says, the\ndoctrine of Mani taught him not to receive every thing recommended as\nsaid by our Saviour, but first to examine and consider whether it be\ntrue, sound, right, genuine; while the Catholics, he says, swallowed\nevery thing, and acted as if they despised the benefit of human reason,\nand were afraid to examine and distinguish between truth and falsehood.\nSt. Augustine, it is well known, was for some time among this sect; but\nthey were not pretensions to inspiration, but specious and alluring\npromises of rational discoveries, by which Augustine was deluded, as he\nparticularly states in his letter to his friend Honoratus. So Beausobre\nremarks: These heretics were philosophers, who, having formed certain\nsystems, accommodated revelation to them, which was the servant of their\nreason, not the mistress.\u201d\n\nMani, according to Dr. Lardner, believed in an eternal self-existent\nBeing, completely happy and perfect in goodness, whom alone he called\nGod, in a strict and proper sense; but he believed, also, in an evil\nprinciple or being, which he called _hyle_, or the devil, whom he\nconsidered as the god of this world, blinding the eyes of them that\nbelieve not, 2 Cor. iv, 4. God, the supreme and good, they considered as\nthe Author of the universe; and, according to St. Augustine, they\nbelieved, also, in a consubstantial trinity, though they strangely\nsupposed the Father to dwell in light inaccessible, the Son to have his\nresidence in the solar orb, and the Holy Spirit to be diffused\nthroughout the atmosphere; on which account they paid a superstitious,\nand perhaps an idolatrous, reverence to the sun and moon. Their belief\nin the evil principle was, no doubt, adopted to solve the mysterious\nquestion of the origin of evil, which, says Dr. Lardner, was the ruin of\nthese men, and of many others. As to the _hyle_, or the devil, though\nthey dared not to consider him as the creature of God, neither did they\nbelieve in his eternity; for they contended, from the Greek text of John\nviii, 44, that he had a father. But they admitted the eternity of\nmatter, which they called darkness; and supposed _hyle_ to be the result\nof some wonderful and unaccountable commotion in the kingdom of\ndarkness, which idea seems to be borrowed from the Mosaic chaos. In this\ncommotion darkness became mingled with light, and thus they account for\ngood and evil being so mixed together in the world. Having thus brought\n_hyle_, or Satan, into being, they next found an empire and employment\nfor him. Every thing, therefore, which they conceived unworthy of the\nfountain of goodness, they attributed to the evil being; particularly\nthe material world, the Mosaic dispensation, and the Scriptures on which\nit was founded. This accounts for their rejecting the Old Testament. Dr.\nLardner contends, however, that they received generally the books of the\nNew Testament, though they objected to particular passages as corrupted,\nwhich they could not reconcile to their system. On Rom. vii, Mani\nfounded the doctrine of two souls in man, two active principles; one,\nthe source and cause of vicious passions, deriving its origin from\nmatter; the other, the cause of the ideas of just and right, and of\ninclinations to follow those ideas, deriving its origin from God.\nConsidering all sensual enjoyments to be in some degree criminal, they\nwere enemies to marriage; though, at the same time, knowing that all men\ncannot receive this saying, they allowed it to the second class of their\ndisciples, called auditors; but by no means to the perfect or confirmed\nbelievers. Another absurd consequence of believing the moral evil of\nmatter was, that they denied the real existence of Christ\u2019s human\nnature, and supposed him to suffer and die in appearance only. According\nto them, he took the form only of man; a notion that was afterward\nadopted by Mohammed, and which necessarily excludes all faith in the\natonement. Construing too literally the assertion that flesh and blood\ncould not inherit the kingdom of God, they denied the doctrine of the\nresurrection. Christ came, they said, to save the souls of men, and not\nthe bodies. No part of matter, according to them, could be worthy of\nsalvation. In many leading principles they thus evidently agreed with\nthe Gnostics, of whom, indeed, they may be considered a branch.\n\nMANNA, \u05de\u05df, Exod. xvi, 15, 33, 35; Num. xi, 6, 7, 9; Josh. v, 12; Neh.\nix, 20; Psa. lxxviii, 24; \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1, John vi, 31, 49, 58; Heb. ix, 4; Rev.\nii, 17; the food which God gave the children of Israel during their\ncontinuance in the deserts of Arabia, from the eighth encampment in the\nwilderness of Sin. Moses describes it as white like hoar frost, round,\nand of the bigness of coriander seed. It fell every morning upon the\ndew; and when the dew was exhaled by the heat of the sun, the manna\nappeared alone, lying upon the rocks or the sand. It fell every day\nexcept on the Sabbath, and this only around the camp of the Israelites.\nEvery sixth day there fell a double quantity; and though it putrefied\nand bred maggots when it was kept any other day, yet on the Sabbath\nthere was no such alteration. The same substance which was melted by the\nheat of the sun when it was left abroad, was of so hard a consistence\nwhen brought into the tent, that it was beaten in mortars, and would\neven endure the fire, being made into cakes and baked in pans. It fell\nin so great quantities during the whole forty years of their journey,\nthat it was sufficient to feed the whole multitude of above a million of\nsouls. Every man, that is, every male or head of a family, was to gather\neach day the quantity of an omer, about three quarts English measure;\nand it is observed that he that gathered much had nothing over, and he\nthat gathered little had no lack,\u201d because his gathering was in\nproportion to the number of persons for whom he had to provide. Or every\nman gathered as much as he could; and then, when brought home and\nmeasured by an omer, if he had a surplus, it went to supply the wants of\nsome other family that had not been able to collect a sufficiency, the\nfamily being large, and the time in which the manna might be gathered,\nbefore the heat of the day, not being sufficient to collect enough for\nso numerous a household, several of whom might be so confined as not to\nbe able to collect for themselves. Thus there was an equality; and in\nthis light the words of St. Paul lead us to view the passage, 2 Cor.\nviii, 15. To commemorate their living upon manna, the Israelites were\ndirected to put one omer of it into a golden vase; and it was preserved\nfor many generations by the side of the ark.\n\nOur translators and others make a plain contradiction in the relation of\nthis account of the manna, by rendering it thus: And when the children\nof Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna; for they knew\nnot what it was;\u201d whereas the Septuagint, and several authors, both\nancient and modern, have translated the text according to the original:\n\u201cThe Israelites seeing this, said one to another, What is it? \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0;\nfor they knew not what it was,\u201d and therefore they could not give it a\nname. Moses immediately answers the question, and says, This is the\nbread which the Lord hath given you to eat.\u201d From Exod. xvi, 31, we\nlearn that this substance was afterward called \u05de\u05df, probably in\ncommemoration of the question they had asked on its first appearance.\nWhat this substance was, we know not. It was nothing that was common in\nthe wilderness. It is evident that the Israelites never saw it before;\nfor Moses says, He fed thee with manna which thou knewest not, neither\ndid thy fathers know,\u201d Deut. viii, 3, 16; and it is very likely that\nnothing of the kind had ever been seen before; and by a pot of it being\nlaid up in the ark, it is as likely that nothing of the kind ever\nappeared after the miraculous supply in the wilderness had ceased. The\nauthor of the book of Wisdom, xvi, 20, 21, says, that the manna so\naccommodated itself to every one\u2019s taste that it proved palatable and\npleasing to all. It has been remarked that at this day, what is called\nmanna is found in several places; in Arabia, on Mount Libanus, Calabria,\nand elsewhere. The most famous is that of Arabia, which is a kind of\ncondensed honey, which exudes from the leaves of trees, from whence it\nis collected when it has become concreted. Salmasius thinks this of the\nsame kind which fed the children of Israel; and that the miracle lay,\nnot in creating any new substance, but in making it fall duly at a set\ntime every day throughout the whole year, and that in such plenty as to\nsuffice so great a multitude. But in order for this, the Israelites must\nhe supposed every day to have been in the neighbourhood of the trees on\nwhich this substance is formed; which was not the case, neither do these\ntrees grow in those deserts. Beside, this kind of manna is purgative,\nand the stomach could not endure it in such quantity as is implied by\nits being eaten for food. The whole history of the giving the manna is\nevidently miraculous; and the manna was truly bread from heaven,\u201d as\nsent by special interposition of God.\n\nMANOAH, the father of Samson, was of the tribe of Dan, and a native of\nthe city of Zorah, Judges xiii, 6\u201323. See SAMSON.\n\nMARAH, or MARA, a word which signifies _bitterness_. When the Israelites\ncame out of Egypt, and had arrived at the desert of Etham, they found\nthe water so bitter that neither themselves nor their cattle could drink\nof it, Exod. xv, 23. On this account they gave the name of Marah to that\nencampment. And here their murmurings began against Moses; for they\nasked, What shall we drink?\u201d Moses prayed to the Lord, who instructed\nhim to take a particular kind of wood, and cast it into the water, which\nhe did; and immediately the water became palatable. According to the\norientals, this wood was called Alnah.\n\nMARANATHA. See ANATHEMA.\n\nMARBLE, \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9, 1 Chron. xxix, 2; Esther i, 6; Canticles v, 15; a valuable\nkind of stone, of a texture so hard and compact, and of a grain so fine,\nas readily to take a beautiful polish. It is dug out of quarries in\nlarge masses, and is much used in buildings, ornamental pillars, &c.\nMarble is of different colours, black, white, &c; and is sometimes\nelegantly clouded and variegated. The stone mentioned in the places\ncited above is called the stone of _sis_ or _sish_: the LXX and Vulgate\nrender it Parian stone,\u201d which was remarkable for its bright white\ncolour. Probably the cliff Ziz, 2 Chron. xx, 16, was so called from\nbeing a marble crag: the place was afterward called Petra. The variety\nof stones, \u05d1\u05d4\u05d8, \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9, \u05d3\u05e8, \u05e1\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea, mentioned in the pavement of Ahasuerus,\nmight be marble of different colours. The ancients sometimes made\npavements wherein were set very valuable stones.\n\nMARK was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister\u2019s son; and he is\nsupposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls\nhim his son, 1 Peter v, 13; but no circumstances of his conversion are\nrecorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New\nTestament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch,\nwith Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with\nthose Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of\nthe Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different\ncountries: but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at\nPerga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem, Acts xiii. Afterward, when\nPaul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which\nthey had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with\nthem; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former\njourney. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas,\nwhich ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to\nCyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that\nisland. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterward reconciled to St.\nMark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his epistles written\nsubsequently to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which\nhe gives to Timothy: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is\nprofitable to me for the ministry,\u201d 2 Tim. iv, 11. No farther\ncircumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is\nbelieved, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his\njourney with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with\nhim for some time; perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.\nEpiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerom, all assert that Mark preached the\nGospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him bishop of Alexandria.\n\nDr. Lardner thinks that St. Mark\u2019s Gospel is alluded to by Clement of\nRome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly\nmentions it is Papias. It is mentioned, also, by Iren\u00e6us, Clement of\nAlexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine,\nChrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous\nquotations from this Gospel; and, as their testimony is not contradicted\nby any ancient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St.\nMark is genuine. The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the\nquestion concerning the identity of Mark the evangelist, and Mark the\nnephew of Barnabas; since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was\nthe familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the\nwork which he undertook, by having heard, for many years, the public\ndiscourses and private conversation of that Apostle.\n\nSome writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this\nGospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to\nSt. Peter; by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark\u2019s right\nto be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the\nsanction of St. Peter\u2019s name. The following passage in Eusebius appears\nto contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this\nGospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that we think it\nright to transcribe it: \u201cThe lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of\nPeter\u2019s hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare\nhearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they\nearnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant\nupon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions\nwhich had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist\ntill they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the\nwriting of that Gospel, which is called according to St. Mark; and they\nsay, that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation\nof the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized\nthe writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this\naccount in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of\nHierapolis, bears testimony to it.\u201d Jerom also says, that St. Mark wrote\na short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of\nthe brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved, and\npublished it in the church, commanding the reading of it by his own\nauthority.\n\nDifferent persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel; but\nthere being almost a unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was\nwritten while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any\nancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till A.\nD. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.\nD. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians\nat Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre\nof all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all\npeculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons.\nQuotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs,\nare, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as\nmight be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is\nfirst mentioned in this Gospel, the word _river_ is prefixed, Mark i, 5;\nthe oriental word _corban_ is said to mean a gift, Mark vii, 11; _the\npreparation_ is said to be the day before the Sabbath, Mark xv, 42; and\ndefiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands, Mark vii, 2; and the\nsuperstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than\nit would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.\n\nSome learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew\u2019s and St. Mark\u2019s\nGospels have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so\nmany instances that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to\nwarrant such a conclusion; and seems no greater than might have arisen\nfrom other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the\nsame events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and\nthe same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who\nsought not after excellency of speech,\u201d but whose minds retained the\nremembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them,\neven without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural\nguidance. We may farther observe that the idea of St. Mark\u2019s writing\nfrom St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel does not correspond with the account given by\nEusebius and Jerom as stated above.\n\nMARK ON THE FOREHEAD. See FOREHEAD.\n\nMARONITES, a sect of eastern Christians who follow the Syrian rite, and\nare subject to the pope; their principal habitation being on Mount\nLibanus, or between the Ansarians to the north and the Druses to the\nsouth. Mosheim informs us, that the Monothelites, condemned and exploded\nby the council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the\nMardaites, signifying in Syriac _rebels_, a people who took possession\nof Lebanon, A. D. 676, which became the asylum of vagabonds, slaves, and\nall sorts of rabble; and about the conclusion of the seventh century\nthey were called Maronites, after Maro, their first bishop; a name which\nthey still retain. None, he says, of the ancient writers, give any\ncertain account of the first person who instructed these mountaineers in\nthe doctrine of the Monothelites; it is probable, however, from several\ncircumstances, that it was John Maro, whose name they have adopted; and\nthat this ecclesiastic received the name of Maro from his having lived\nin the character of a monk, in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the\nborders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites of\nMount Libanus. One thing is certain, from the testimony of Tyrius, and\nother unexceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic\nrecords, namely, that the Maronites retained the opinions of the\nMonothelites until the twelfth century, when, abandoning and renouncing\nthe doctrine of one will in Christ, they were re\u00e4dmitted into the\ncommunion of the Roman church. The most learned of the modern Maronites\nhave left no method unemployed to defend their church against this\naccusation; they have laboured to prove, by a variety of testimonies,\nthat their ancestors always persevered in the Catholic faith, and in\ntheir attachment to the Roman pontiff, without ever adopting the\ndoctrine of the Monophysites or Monothelites. But all their efforts are\ninsufficient to prove the truth of these assertions, and the testimonies\nthey allege will appear absolutely fictitious and destitute of\nauthority.\n\nThe nation may be considered as divided into two classes, the common\npeople and the _shaiks_, by whom must be understood the most eminent of\nthe inhabitants, who, from the antiquity of their families, and the\nopulence of their fortunes are superior to the ordinary class. They all\nlive dispersed in the mountains, in villages, hamlets, and even detached\nhouses; which is never the case in the plains. The whole nation consists\nof cultivators. Every man improves the little domain he possesses, or\nfarms, with his own hands. Even the _shaiks_ live in the same manner,\nand are only distinguished from the rest by a bad peliss, a horse, and a\nfew slight advantages in food and lodging; they all live frugally,\nwithout many enjoyments, but also with few wants, as they are little\nacquainted with the inventions of luxury. In general, the nation is\npoor, but no one wants necessaries; and if beggars are sometimes seen,\nthey come rather from the sea coast than the country itself. Property is\nas sacred among them as in Europe; nor do we see there those robberies\nand extortions so frequent with the Turks. Travellers may journey there,\neither by night or by day, with a security unknown in any other part of\nthe empire, and the stranger is received with hospitality, as among the\nArabs: it must be owned, however, that the Maronites are less generous,\nand rather inclined to the vice of parsimony. Conformably to the\ndoctrines of Christianity, they have only one wife, whom they frequently\nespouse without having seen, and always without having been much in her\ncompany. Contrary to the precepts of that same religion, however, they\nhave admitted, or retained, the Arab custom of retaliation, and the\nnearest relation of a murdered person is bound to avenge him. From a\nhabit founded on distrust, and the political state of the country, every\none, whether _shaik_ or peasant, walks continually armed with a musket\nand poinards. This is, perhaps, an inconvenience; but this advantage\nresults from it, that they have no novices in the use of arms among\nthem, when it is necessary to employ them against the Turks. As the\ncountry maintains no regular troops, every man is obliged to join the\narmy in time of war; and if this militia were well conducted, it would\nbe superior to many European armies. From accounts taken in late years,\nthe number of men fit to bear arms, amounts to thirty-five thousand.\n\nIn religious matters the Maronites are dependent on Rome. Though they\nacknowledge the supremacy of the pope, their clergy continue, as\nheretofore, to elect a head, with the title of _batrak_, or patriarch of\nAntioch. Their priests marry, as in the first ages of the church; but\ntheir wives must be maidens, and not widows; nor can they marry a second\ntime. They celebrate mass in Syriac, of which the greatest part of them\ncomprehend not a word. The Gospel, alone, is read aloud in Arabic, that\nit may be understood by the people. The communion is administered in\nboth kinds. In the small country of the Maronites there are reckoned\nupward of two hundred convents for men and women. These religious are of\nthe order of St. Anthony, whose rules they observe with an exactness\nwhich reminds us of earlier times. The court of Rome, in affiliating the\nMaronites, has granted them a _hospitium_ at Rome, to which they may\nsend several of their youth to receive a gratuitous education. It should\nseem that this institution might introduce among them the ideas and arts\nof Europe; but the pupils of this school, limited to an education purely\nmonastic, bring home nothing but the Italian language, which is of no\nuse, and a stock of theological learning, from which as little advantage\ncan be derived; they accordingly soon assimilate with the rest. Nor has\na greater change been operated by the three or four missionaries\nmaintained by the French capuchins at Gazir, Tripoli, and Bairout. Their\nlabours consist in preaching in their church, in instructing children in\nthe catechism, Thomas a Kempis, and the Psalms, and in teaching them to\nread and write. Formerly, the Jesuits had two missionaries at their\nhouse at Antoura, and the Lazarites have now succeeded them in their\nmission. The most valuable advantage that has resulted from these\nlabours is, that the art of writing has become more common among the\nMaronites, and rendered them, in this country, what the Copts are in\nEgypt, that is, they are in possession of all the posts of writers,\nintendants, and _kaiyas_ among the Turks, and especially of those among\ntheir allies and neighbours, the Druses.\n\nMosheim observes, that the subjection of the Maronites to the spiritual\njurisdiction of the Roman pontiff was agreed to with this express\ncondition, that neither the popes nor their emissaries should pretend to\nchange or abolish any thing that related to the ancient rites, moral\nprecepts, or religious opinions of this people; so that, in reality,\nthere is nothing to be found among the Maronites that savours of popery,\nif we except their attachment to the Roman pontiff. It is also certain\nthat there are Maronites in Syria, who still behold the church of Rome\nwith the greatest aversion and abhorrence; nay, what is still more\nremarkable, great numbers of that nation residing in Italy, even under\nthe eye of the pontiff, opposed his authority during the seventeenth\ncentury, and threw the court of Rome into great perplexity. One body of\nthese non-conforming Maronites retired into the valleys of Piedmont,\nwhere they joined the Waldenses; another, above six hundred in number,\nwith a bishop, and several ecclesiastics at their head, flew into\nCorsica, and implored the protection of the republic of Genoa, against\nthe violence of the inquisitors.\n\nMARRIAGE, a civil and religious contract, by which a man is joined and\nunited to a woman, for the ends of procreation. The essence of marriage\nconsists in the mutual consent of the parties. Marriage is a part of the\nlaw of nations, and is in use among all people. The public use of\nmarriage institutions consists, according to Archdeacon Paley, in their\npromoting the following beneficial effects: 1. The private comfort of\nindividuals. 2. The production of the greatest number of healthy\nchildren, their better education, and the making of due provision for\ntheir settlement in life. 3. The peace of human society, in cutting off\na principal source of contention, by assigning one or more women to one\nman, and protecting his exclusive right by sanctions of morality and\nlaw. 4. The better government of society, by distributing the community\ninto separate families, and appointing over each the authority of a\nmaster of a family, which has more actual influence than all civil\nauthority put together. 5. The additional security which the state\nreceives for the good behaviour of its citizens, from the solicitude\nthey feel for the welfare of their children, and from their being\nconfined to permanent habitations. 6. The encouragement of industry.\n\nWhether marriage be a civil or a religious contract, has been a subject\nof dispute. The truth seems to be that it is both. It has its\nengagements to men, and its vows to God. A Christian state recognizes\nmarriage as a branch of public morality, and a source of civil peace and\nstrength. It is connected with the peace of society by assigning one\nwoman to one man, and the state protects him, therefore, in her\nexclusive possession. Christianity, by allowing divorce in the event of\nadultery, supposes, also, that the crime must be proved by proper\nevidence before the civil magistrate; and lest divorce should be the\nresult of unfounded suspicion, or be made a cover for license, the\ndecision of the case could safely be lodged no where else. Marriage,\ntoo, as placing one human being more completely under the power of\nanother than any other relation, requires laws for the protection of\nthose who are thus so exposed to injury. The distribution of society\ninto families, also, can only be an instrument for promoting the order\nof the community, by the cognizance which the law takes of the head of a\nfamily, and by making him responsible, to a certain extent, for the\nconduct of those under his influence. Questions of property are also\ninvolved in marriage and its issue. The law must, therefore, for these\nand many other weighty reasons, be cognizant of marriage; must prescribe\nvarious regulations respecting it; require publicity of the contract;\nand guard some of the great injunctions of religion in the matter by\npenalties. In every well ordered society marriage must be placed under\nthe cognizance and control of the state. But then those who would have\nthe whole matter to lie between the parties themselves, and the civil\nmagistrate, appear wholly to forget that marriage is also a solemn\nreligious act, in which vows are made to God by both persons, who, when\nthe rite is properly understood, engage to abide by all those laws with\nwhich he has guarded the institution; to love and cherish each other;\nand to remain faithful to each other until death. For if, at least, they\nprofess belief in Christianity, whatever duties are laid upon husbands\nand wives in Holy Scripture, they engage to obey, by the very act of\ntheir contracting marriage. The question, then, is whether such vows to\nGod as are necessarily involved in marriage, are to be left between the\nparties and God privately, or whether they ought to be publicly made\nbefore his ministers and the church. On this the Scriptures are silent;\nbut though Micha\u00eblis has shown that the priests under the law were not\nappointed to celebrate marriage; yet in the practice of the modern Jews\nit is a religious ceremony, the chief rabbi of the synagogue being\npresent, and prayers being appointed for the occasion. This renders it\nprobable that the character of the ceremony under the law, from the most\nancient times, was a religious one. The more direct connection of\nmarriage with religion in Christian states, by assigning its celebration\nto the ministers of religion, appears to be a very beneficial custom,\nand one which the state has a right to enjoin. For since the welfare and\nmorals of society are so much interested in the performance of the\nmutual duties of the married state; and since those duties have a\nreligious as well as a civil character, it is most proper that some\nprovision should be made for explaining those duties; and for this a\nstanding form of marriage is best adapted. By acts of religion, also,\nthey are more solemnly impressed upon the parties. When this is\nprescribed in any state, it becomes a Christian cheerfully, and even\nthankfully, to comply with a custom of so important a tendency, as\nmatter of conscientious subjection to lawful authority, although no\nScriptural precept can be pleaded for it. That the ceremony should be\nconfined to the clergy of an established church, is a different\nconsideration. We think that the religious effect would be greater, were\nthe ministers of each religious body to be authorized by the state to\ncelebrate marriages among their own people, due provision being\npreviously made by the civil magistrate for the regular and secure\nregistry of them, and to prevent the laws respecting marriage from being\nevaded; which is indeed his business. The offices of religion would then\ncome in by way of sanction and moral enforcement.\n\nWhen this important contract is once made, then certain rights are\nacquired by the parties mutually, who are also bound by reciprocal\nduties, in the fulfilment of which the practical virtue of each\nconsists. And here the superior character of the morals of the New\nTestament, as well as their higher authority, is illustrated. It may,\nindeed, be within the scope of mere moralists to show that fidelity,and\naffection, and all the courtesies necessary to maintain affection, are\nrationally obligatory upon those who are connected by the nuptial bond;\nbut in Christianity nuptial fidelity is guarded by the express law, Thou\nshalt not commit adultery;\u201d and by our Lord\u2019s exposition of the spirit\nof that law which forbids the indulgence of loose thoughts and desires,\nand places the purity of the heart under the guardianship of that\nhallowed fear which his authority tends to inspire. Affection, too, is\nmade a matter of diligent cultivation upon considerations, and by a\nstandard, peculiar to our religion. Husbands are placed in a relation to\ntheir wives, similar to that which Christ bears to his church, and his\nexample is thus made their rule. As Christ loved the church, so husbands\nare to love their wives; as Christ gave himself,\u201d his life, for the\nchurch,\u201d Eph. v, 25, so are they to hazard life for their wives; as\nChrist saves his church, so is it the bounden duty of husbands to\nendeavour, by every possible means, to promote the religious edification\nand salvation of their wives. The connection is thus exalted into a\nreligious one; and when love which knows no abatement, protection at the\nhazard of life, and a tender and constant solicitude for the salvation\nof a wife, are thus enjoined, the greatest possible security is\nestablished for the exercise of kindness and fidelity. The oneness of\nthis union is also more forcibly stated in Scripture than any where\nbeside. They twain shall be one flesh.\u201d So ought men to love their wives\nas their own bodies; he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man\never yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as\nthe Lord the church.\u201d Precept and illustration can go no higher than\nthis; and nothing evidently is wanting either of direction or authority\nto raise the state of marriage into the highest, most endearing, and\nsanctified relation in which two human beings can stand to each other.\n\n2. We find but few laws in the books of Moses concerning the institution\nof marriage. Though the Mosaic law no where obliges men to marry, the\nJews have always looked upon it as an indispensable duty implied in the\nwords, Increase and multiply,\u201d Gen. i, 28; so that a man who did not\nmarry his daughter before she was twenty years of age, was looked upon\nas accessary to any irregularities the young woman might be guilty of\nfor want of being timely married. Moses restrained the Israelites from\nmarrying within certain degrees of consanguinity; which had till then\nbeen permitted, to prevent their taking wives from among the idolatrous\nnations among whom they lived. Abraham gave this as a reason for\nchoosing a wife for Isaac from among his own kindred, Gen. xxxiv, 3, &c.\nBut when his descendants became so exceedingly multiplied, this reason\nceased; and the great lawgiver prohibited, under pain of death, certain\ndegrees of kindred as incestuous. Polygamy, though not expressly\nallowed, is however tacitly implied in the laws of Moses, Gen. xxxi;\nExod. xxi, 10. This practice likewise was authorized by the example of\nthe patriarchs. Thus Jacob married both the daughters of Laban. In\nrespect to which custom, Moses enjoins that, upon the marriage of a\nsecond wife, a man shall be bound to continue to the first her food,\nraiment, and the duty of marriage. The Jews did not always content\nthemselves with the allowance of two wives, as may be seen in the\nexamples of David, Solomon, and many others. However, they made a\ndistinction between the wives of the first rank, and those of the\nsecond. The first they called _nashim_, and the other _pilgashim_; which\nlast, though most versions render it by the words concubines,\u201d harlots,\u201d\nand prostitutes,\u201d yet it has no where in Scripture any such bad sense.\nThere is a particular law called the Levirate, which obliged a man,\nwhose brother died without issue, to marry his widow, and raise up seed\nto his brother, Deut. xxv, 5, &c. But Moses in some measure left it to a\nman\u2019s choice, whether he would comply with this law or not; for in case\nof a refusal, the widow could only summon him before the judges of the\nplace, when, if he persisted, she untied his shoe, and spit in his face,\nand said, \u201cThus shall it be done unto the man who refuses to build up\nhis brother\u2019s house.\u201d A man was at liberty to marry not only in the\ntwelve tribes, but even out of them, provided it was among such nations\nas used circumcision; such were the Midianites, Ishmaelites, Edomites,\nMoabites, and Egyptians. Accordingly, we find Moses himself married to a\nMidianite, and Boaz to a Moabite. Amasa was the son of Jether, an\nIshmaelite, by Abigail, David\u2019s sister; and Solomon, in the beginning of\nhis reign, married Pharaoh\u2019s daughter. Whenever we find him and other\nkings blamed for marrying strange women, we must understand it of those\nnations which were idolatrous and uncircumcised.\n\nIt appears almost impossible to Europeans, says Mr. Hartley, that a\ndeception like that of Laban\u2019s could be practised. But the following\nextract, from a journal which I kept at Smyrna, presents a parallel\ncase: \u201cThe Armenian brides are veiled during the marriage ceremony; and\nhence deceptions have occurred, in regard to the person chosen for wife.\nI am informed that, on one occasion, a young Armenian at Smyrna\nsolicited in marriage a younger daughter, whom he admired. The parents\nof the girl consented to the request, and every previous arrangement was\nmade. When the time for solemnizing the marriage arrived, the elder\ndaughter, who was not so beautiful, was conducted by the parents to the\naltar, and the young man was unconsciously married to her. And \u2018it came\nto pass, that in the morning, behold, it was the elder daughter.\u2019 The\ndeceit was not discovered, till it could not be rectified; and the\nmanner in which the parents justified themselves was precisely that of\nLaban: \u2018It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger\nbefore the first-born.\u2019 It is really the rule among the Armenians, that\nneither a younger son nor daughter be married, till their elder brother\nor sister have preceded them.\u201d I was once present at the solemnization\nof matrimony among the Armenians; and some recollections of it may tend\nto throw light on this and other passages of Scripture. The various\nfestivities attendant on these occasions continue for three days; and\nduring the last night the marriage is celebrated. I was conducted to the\nhouse of the bride, where I found a very large assemblage of persons.\nThe company was dispersed through various rooms; reminding me of the\ndirections of our Saviour, in regard to the choice of the lowermost\nrooms at feasts. On the ground floor I actually observed that the\npersons convened were of an inferior order of the community, while in\nthe upper rooms were assembled those of higher rank. The large number of\nyoung females who were present, naturally reminded me of the wise and\nfoolish virgins in our Saviour\u2019s parable. These being friends of the\nbride, the virgins, her companions, had come to meet the bridegroom,\nPsalm xlv, 14. It is usual for the bridegroom to come at midnight; so\nthat, literally, at midnight the cry is made, Behold, the bridegroom\ncometh! go ye out to meet him,\u201d Matt. xxv, 6. But, on this occasion the\nbridegroom tarried: it was two o\u2019clock before he arrived. The whole\nparty then proceeded to the Armenian church, where the bishop was\nwaiting to receive them; and there the ceremony was completed. See\nDIVORCE and BRIDE.\n\nMARTHA was sister of Lazarus and Mary, and mistress of the house where\nour Saviour was entertained, in the village of Bethany. Martha is always\nnamed before Mary, probably because she was the elder sister.\n\nMARY, the mother of Jesus, and wife of Joseph. She is called by the Jews\nthe daughter of Eli; and by the early Christian writers, the daughter of\nJoakim and Anna: but Joakim and Eliakim are sometimes interchanged, 2\nChron. xxxvi, 4; and Eli, or Heli, is therefore the abridgment of\nEliakim, Luke iii, 23. She was of the royal race of David, as was also\nJoseph her husband; and she was also cousin to Elizabeth, the wife of\nZacharias the priest, Luke i, 5, 36. Mary being espoused to Joseph, the\nAngel Gabriel appeared to her, to announce to her that she should be the\nmother of the Messiah, Luke i, 26, 27, &c. To confirm his message, and\nto show that nothing is impossible to God, he added that her cousin\nElizabeth, who was old, and had been hitherto barren, was then in the\nsixth month of her pregnancy. Mary answered, Behold the handmaid of the\nLord, be it unto me according to thy word;\u201d and presently she conceived.\nShe set out for Hebron, a city in the mountains of Judah, to visit her\ncousin Elizabeth. As soon as Elizabeth heard the voice of Mary, her\nchild, John the Baptist, leaped in her womb; and she was filled with the\nHoly Ghost, and spake with a loud voice, saying, Blessed art thou among\nwomen,\u201d &c. Then Mary praised God, saying, My soul doth magnify the\nLord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,\u201d &c. Mary continued\nwith Elizabeth about three months, and then returned to her own house.\nAn edict of C\u00e6sar Augustus having decreed, that all subjects of the\nempire should go to their own cities, to register their names according\nto their families, Joseph and Mary, who were both of the lineage of\nDavid, went to Bethlehem, from whence sprung their family. But while\nthey were here, the time being fulfilled in which Mary was to be\ndelivered, she brought forth her first-born son. She wrapped him in\nswaddling clothes, and laid him in the manger of the stable or cavern\nwhither they had retired, because there was no room in the inn. Angels\nmade this event known to shepherds, who were in the fields near\nBethlehem, and these came in the night to Joseph and Mary, and saw the\nchild lying in the manger, and paid him their adoration. The\npresentation of Christ in the temple, the flight into Egypt, the\nslaughter of the innocents, and other events connected with the birth\nand infancy of our Lord, are plainly related in the Gospels.\n\nMary and Joseph went every year to Jerusalem to the passover; and when\nJesus was twelve years of age, they took him with them. When they were\nreturning, the youth continued at Jerusalem, without their perceiving\nit. Three days after, they found him in the temple, sitting among the\ndoctors, hearing them and asking them questions. Afterward, he returned\nwith them to Nazareth, and lived in filial submission to them. But his\nmother laid up all these things in her heart, Luke ii, 51, &c. The\nGospel speaks nothing more of the Virgin Mary till the marriage at Cana\nof Galilee, at which she was present with her son Jesus. She was at\nJerusalem at the last passover our Saviour celebrated there. There she\nsaw all that was transacted; followed him to Calvary; and stood at the\nfoot of his cross with an admirable constancy and courage. Jesus seeing\nhis mother, and his beloved disciple near, he said to his mother, Woman,\nbehold thy son; and to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that\nhour the disciple took her home to his own house.\u201d No farther\nparticulars of this favoured woman are mentioned, except that she was a\nwitness of Christ\u2019s resurrection. A veil is drawn over her character and\nhistory; as though with the design to reprove that wretched idolatry of\nwhich she was made the subject when Christianity became corrupt and\npaganized.\n\n2. MARY, the mother of John Mark, a disciple of the Apostles. She had a\nhouse in Jerusalem, whither, it is thought, the Apostles retired after\nthe ascension of our Lord, and where they received the Holy Ghost. After\nthe imprisonment of St. Peter, the faithful assembled in this house, and\nwere praying there when Peter, delivered by the ministry of an angel,\nknocked at the door of the house, Acts xii, 12.\n\n3. MARY, of Cleophas. St. Jerom says, she bore the name of Cleophas,\neither because of her father, or for some other reason which cannot now\nbe known. Others believe, with greater probability, that she was wife of\nCleophas, as our version of the New Testament makes her, by supplying\nthe word _wife_, John xix, 25, and mother of James the less, and of\nSimon, brethren of our Lord. These last mentioned authors take Mary\nmother of James, and Mary wife of Cleophas, to be the same person,\nMatthew xxvii, 56; Mark xv, 40, 41; Luke xxiv, 10; John xix, 25. St.\nJohn gives her the name of Mary of Cleophas; and the other evangelists,\nthe name of Mary, mother of James. Cleophas and Alpheus are the same\nperson; as James, son of Mary, wife of Cleophas, is the same as James,\nson of Alpheus. It is thought she was the sister of the Virgin Mary, and\nthat she was the mother of James the less, of Joses, of Simon, and of\nJudas, who in the Gospel are named the brethren of Jesus Christ, Matt.\nxiii, 55; xxvii, 56; Mark vi, 3; that is, his cousin-germans. She was an\nearly believer in Jesus Christ, and attended him on his journeys, to\nminister to him. She was present at the last passover, and at the death\nof our Saviour she followed him to Calvary; and during his passion she\nwas with the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross. She was also\npresent at his burial; and on the Friday before had, in union with\nothers, prepared the perfumes to embalm him, Luke xxiii, 56. But going\nto his tomb very early on the Sunday morning, with other women, they\nthere learned from the mouth of an angel, that he was risen; of which\nthey carried the news to the Apostles, Luke xxiv, 1\u20135; Matt. xxviii, 9.\nBy the way, Jesus appeared to them; and they embraced his feet,\nworshipping him. This is all we know with certainty concerning Mary, the\nwife of Cleophas.\n\n4. MARY, sister of Lazarus, who has been preposterously confounded with\nthat female sinner spoken of, Luke vii, 37\u201339. She lived with her\nbrother and her sister Martha at Bethany; and Jesus Christ, having a\nparticular affection for this family, often retired to their house with\nhis disciples. Six days before the passover, after having raised Lazarus\nfrom the dead, he came to Bethany with his disciples, and was invited to\nsup with Simon the leper, John xii, 1, &c; Matthew xxvi, 6, &c; Mark\nxiv, 3, &c. Martha attended at the table, and Lazarus was one of the\nguests. Upon this occasion, Mary, taking a pound of spikenard, which is\nthe most precious perfume of its kind, poured it upon the head and feet\nof Jesus. She wiped his feet with her hair, and the whole house was\nfilled with the odour of the perfume. Judas Iscariot murmured at this;\nbut Jesus justified Mary in what she had done, saying, that by this\naction she had prevented his embalmment, and in a manner had declared\nhis death and burial, which were at hand. From this period the\nScriptures make no mention of either Mary or Martha.\n\n5. MARY MAGDALENE, so called, it is probable, from Magdala, a town of\nGalilee, of which she was a native, or where she had resided during the\nearly part of her life. Out of her, St. Luke tells us, Jesus had cast\nseven devils, Luke viii, 2. He informs us, also, in the same place, that\nJesus, in company with his Apostles, preached the Gospel from city to\ncity; and that there were several women with them, whom he had delivered\nfrom evil spirits, and healed of their infirmities; among whom was this\nMary, whom some, without a shadow of proof, have supposed to be the\nsinful woman spoken of, Luke vii, 37\u201339; as others have as erroneously\nimagined her to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Mary Magdalene is\nmentioned by the evangelists as being one of those women that followed\nour Saviour, to minister to him, according to the custom of the Jews.\nShe attended him in the last journey he made from Galilee to Jerusalem,\nand was at the foot of the cross with the holy virgin, John xix, 25;\nMark xv, 47; after which she returned to Jerusalem, to buy and prepare\nwith others certain perfumes, that she might embalm him after the\nSabbath was over, which was then about to begin. All the Sabbath day she\nremained in the city; and the next day, early in the morning, went to\nthe sepulchre along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, Mark\nxvi, 1, 2; Luke xxiv, 1, 2. For other particulars respecting her, see\nalso Matt. xxviii, 1\u20135; John xx, 11\u201317. In Dr. Townley\u2019s Essays, there\nis one of considerable research on Mary Magdalene; and his conclusion\nis, that it is probable that the woman mentioned by St. Luke, and called\nin the English translation a sinner,\u201d had formerly been a Heathen; but\nwhether subsequently a proselyte to Judaism or not, is uncertain; and\nthat, having been brought to the knowledge of Christian truth, and\nhaving found mercy from the Redeemer, she pressed into Simon\u2019s house,\nand gave the strongest proofs of her gratitude and veneration by\nanointing the Saviour\u2019s feet, bedewing them with her tears, and wiping\nthem with the hairs of her head:--that by a wilful and malicious\nmisrepresentation, the Jews confounded Mary Magdalene with Mary the\nmother of Jesus, and represented her as an infamous character:--and\nthat, from the blasphemous calumny of the Jews, a stigma of infamy has\nbeen affixed to the name of Mary Magdalene, and caused her to be\nregarded in the false light of a penitent prostitute. There is no doubt\nbut that Mary Magdalene, both in character and circumstances, was a\nwoman of good reputation.\n\nMASCHIL, a title, or inscription, at the head of several psalms of David\nand others, in the book of Psalms. Thus Psalm xxxii is inscribed, A\nPsalm of David, Maschil;\u201d and Psalm xlii, To the chief musician,\nMaschil, for the sons of Korah.\u201d The word _Maschil_, in the Hebrew,\nsignifies, he that instructs;\u201d though some interpreters take it for the\nname of a musical instrument. Some of the rabbins believe that, in\nrepeating the psalms which have this inscription, it was usual to add an\ninterpretation or explication to them. Others, on the contrary, think it\nshows the clearness and perspicuity of such psalms, and that they needed\nno particular explication. The most probable opinion is, that Maschil\nmeans an instructive song.\n\nMASS, MISSA, in the church of Rome, the office of prayers used at the\ncelebration of the eucharist; or, in other words, the consecrating the\nbread and wine so that it is transubstantiated into the body and blood\nof Christ, and offer them as an expiatory sacrifice for the quick and\nthe dead. Nicod, after Baronius, observes that the word comes from the\nHebrew _missach_, (_oblatum_,) or from the Latin _missa missorum_;\nbecause in former times the catechumens and excommunicated were sent out\nof the church, when the deacons said, _Ite, missa est_,\u201d after sermon\nand reading of the epistle and Gospel; they not being allowed to assist\nat the consecration. Menage derives the word from _missio_, dismissing;\u201d\nothers, from _missa_, sending;\u201d because in the mass the prayers of men\non earth are sent up to heaven.\n\nAs the mass is in general believed to be a representation of the passion\nof our blessed Saviour, so every action of the priest, and every\nparticular part of the service, are supposed to allude to the particular\ncircumstances of his passion and death. The general division of masses\nis into high and low mass. The first is that sung by the choristers, and\ncelebrated with the assistance of a deacon and sub-deacon: low masses\nare those in which the prayers are barely rehearsed without singing.\nThere are a great number of different or occasional masses in the Romish\nchurch, many of which have nothing peculiar but the name. Such are the\nmasses of the saints: that of St. Mary of the Snow, celebrated on the\nfifth of August; that of St. Margaret, patroness of lying-in women; that\nat the feast of St. John the Baptist, at which are said three masses;\nthat of the Innocents, at which the _Gloria in excelsis_ and Hallelujah\nare omitted; and, it being a day of mourning, the altar is of a violet\ncolour. As to ordinary masses, some are said for the dead, and, as is\nsupposed, contribute to extricate the soul out of purgatory. At these\nmasses the altar is put in mourning, and the only decorations are a\ncross in the middle of six yellow wax lights; the dress of the\ncelebrant, and the very mass book, are black; many parts of the office\nare omitted, and the people are dismissed without the benediction. If\nthe mass be said for a person distinguished by his rank or virtues, it\nis followed with a funeral oration; they erect a _chapelle ardente_,\nthat is, a representation of the deceased, with branches and tapers of\nyellow wax, either in the middle of the church, or near the deceased\u2019s\ntomb, where the priest pronounces a solemn absolution of the deceased.\nThere are likewise private masses said for stolen or strayed goods or\ncattle, for health, for travellers, &c, which go under the name of\nvotive masses. There is still a farther distinction of masses,\ndenominated from the countries in which they were used: thus the Gothic\nmass, or _missa mosarabum_, is that used among the Goths when they were\nmasters of Spain, and which is still observed at Toledo and Salamanca;\nthe Ambrosian mass is that composed by St. Ambrose, and used only at\nMilan, of which city he was bishop; the Gallic mass, used by the ancient\nGauls; and the Roman mass, used by almost all the churches in the Roman\ncommunion.\n\nMATERIALISM, the doctrine which resolves the thinking principle in man,\nor the immaterial and immortal soul with which God was pleased to endue\nAdam at his creation, into mere matter, or into a faculty resulting from\nits organization. Much has been written of late years against this\ndoctrine, and the different modifications which it has assumed; but in\nsubstance nothing new has been said on either side; and the able and\ncondensed argument of Wollaston in his Religion of Nature Delineated,\u201d\nif well considered, will furnish every one with a most clear and\nsatisfactory refutation of this antiscriptural and irrational\nerror:--The soul cannot be mere matter: for if it is, then either all\nmatter must think; or the difference must arise from the different\nmodification, magnitude, figure, or motion of some parcels of matter in\nrespect of others; or a faculty of thinking must be superadded to some\nsystems of it, which is not superadded to others. But in the first\nplace, that position, which makes all matter to be cogitative, is\ncontrary to all the apprehensions and knowledge we have of the nature of\nit; nor can it be true, unless our senses and faculties be contrived\nonly to deceive us. We perceive not the least symptom of cogitation or\nsense in our tables, chairs, &c. Why doth the scene of thinking lie in\nour heads, and all the ministers of sensation make their reports to\nsomething there, if all matter be apprehensive and cogitative? For in\nthat case there would be as much thought and understanding in our heels,\nand every where else, as in our heads. If all matter be cogitative, then\nit must be so _quatenus_ [so far forth as] matter, and thinking must be\nof the essence and definition of it; whereas by matter no more is meant\nthan a substance extended and impenetrable to other matter. And since,\nfor this reason, it cannot be necessary for matter to think, (because it\nmay be matter without this property,) it cannot think as matter only; if\nit did, we should not only continue to think always, till the matter of\nwhich we consist is annihilated, and so the asserter of this doctrine\nwould stumble upon immortality unawares; but we must also have thought\nalways in time past, ever since that matter was in being; nor could\nthere be any the least intermission of actual thinking; which does not\nappear to be our case. If thinking, self-consciousness, &c, were\nessential to matter, every part of it must have them; and then no system\ncould have them. For a system of material parts would be a system of\nthings conscious, every one by itself of its own existence and\nindividuality, and, consequently, thinking by itself; but there could be\nno one act of self-consciousness or thought common to the whole.\nJuxtaposition, in this case, could signify nothing; the distinction and\nindividuation of the several particles would be as much retained in\ntheir vicinity, as if they were separated by miles.\n\nIn the next place, the faculties of thinking, &c, cannot arise from the\nsize, figure, texture, or motion of it; because bodies by the alteration\nof these only become greater or less, round or square, &c, rare or\ndense, translated from one place to another with this or that new\ndirection or velocity, or the like; all which ideas are quite different\nfrom that of thinking; there can be no relation between them. These\nmodifications and affections of matter are so far from being principles\nor causes of thinking and acting, that they are themselves but effects,\nproceeding from the action of some other matter or thing upon it, and\nare proofs of its passivity, deadness and utter incapacity of becoming\ncogitative: this is evident to sense. They who place the essence of the\nsoul in a certain motion given to some matter, (if any such men there\nreally be,) should consider, among many other things, that to move the\nbody spontaneously, is one of the faculties of the soul; and that this,\nwhich is the same with the power of beginning motion, cannot come from\nmotion already begun, and impressed _ab extra_. Let the materialist\nexamine well, whether he does not feel something within himself that\nacts from an internal principle; whether he does not experience some\nliberty, some power of governing himself, and choosing; whether he does\nnot enjoy a kind of invisible empire in which he commands his own\nthoughts, sends them to this or that place, employs them about this or\nthat business, forms such and such designs and schemes; and whether\nthere is any thing like this in bare matter, however fashioned or\nproportioned; which, if nothing should protrude or communicate motion to\nit, would for ever remain fixed to the place where it happens to be, an\neternal monument of its own being dead. Can such an active being as the\nsoul is, the subject of so many powers, be itself nothing but an\naccident? When I begin to move myself, I do it for some reason, and with\nrespect to some end, the means to effect which I have, if there be\noccasion for it, concerted within myself; and this does not at all look\nlike motion merely material, or in which matter is only concerned, which\nis all mechanical. Who can imagine matter to be moved by arguments, or\never placed syllogisms and demonstrations among levers and pullies? We\nnot only move ourselves upon reasons which we find in ourselves, but\nupon reasons imparted by words or writings from others, or perhaps\nmerely at their desire or bare suggestion: in which case, again, nobody\nsurely can imagine that the words spoken or written, the sound in the\nair, or the strokes on the paper, can, by any natural or mechanical\nefficience, cause the reader or hearer to move in any determinate\nmanner, or at all. The reason, request, or friendly admonition, which is\nthe true motive, can make no impression upon matter. It must be some\nother kind of being that apprehends the force and sense of them. Do not\nwe see in conversation, how a pleasant thing said makes people break out\ninto laughter, a rude thing into passion, and so on? These affections\ncannot be the physical effects of the words spoken; because then they\nwould have the same effect, whether they were understood or not. And\nthis is farther demonstrable from hence, that though the words do really\ncontain nothing which is either pleasant or rude, or perhaps words are\nthought to be spoken which are not spoken; yet if they are apprehended\nto do that, or the sound to be otherwise than it was, the effect will be\nthe same. It is therefore the sense of the words, which is an immaterial\nthing, that by passing through the understanding, and causing that which\nis the subject of the intellectual faculties to influence the body,\nproduces these motions in the spirits, blood, and muscles.\n\nThey who can fancy that matter may come to live, think, and act\nspontaneously, by being reduced to a certain magnitude, or having its\nparts placed after a certain manner, or being invested with such a\nfigure, or excited by such a particular motion; they, I say, would do\nwell to discover to us that degree of fineness, that alteration in the\nsituation of its parts, &c, at which matter may begin to find itself\nalive and cogitative; and which is the critical minute, that introduces\nthese important properties. If they cannot do this, nor have their eye\nupon any particular crisis, it is a sign that they have no good reason\nfor what they say. For if they have no reason to charge this change upon\nany particular degree or difference, one more than another, they have no\nreason to charge it upon any degree or difference at all; and then they\nhave no reason by which they can prove that such a change is made at\nall. Beside all which, since magnitude, figure, and motion are but\naccidents of matter, not matter, and only the substance is truly matter;\nand since the substance of any one part of matter does not differ from\nthat of another, if any matter can be by nature cogitative, all must be\nso: but this we have seen cannot be. So then, in conclusion, if there is\nany such thing as matter that thinks, &c, this must be a particular\nprivilege granted to it; that is, a faculty of thinking must be\nsuperadded to certain parts or parcels of it; which, by the way, must\ninfer the existence of some being able to confer this faculty; who, when\nthe ineptness of matter has been well considered, cannot appear to be\nless than omnipotent, or God. But the truth is, matter seems not to be\ncapable of such improvement, of being made to think. For since it is not\nthe essence of matter, it cannot be made to be so without making matter\nanother kind of substance from what it is. Nor can it be made to arise\nfrom any of the modifications or accidents of matter; and in respect of\nwhat else can any matter be made to differ from other matter.\n\nThe accidents of matter are so far from being made by any power to\nproduce cogitation, that some even of them show it incapable of having a\nfaculty of thinking superadded. The very divisibility of it does this.\nFor that which is made to think must either be one part, or more parts\njoined together. But we know no such thing as a part of matter purely\none, or indivisible. It may, indeed, have pleased the Author of nature,\nthat there should be atoms, whose parts are actually indiscerptible, and\nwhich may be the principles of other bodies; but still they consist of\nparts, though firmly adhering together. And if the seat of cogitation be\nin more parts than one, whether they lie close together, or are loose,\nor in a state of fluidity, it is the same thing, how can it be avoided,\nbut that either there must be so many several minds, or thinking\nsubstances, as there are parts, and then the consequence which has been\nmentioned would return upon us again; or else that there must be\nsomething else superadded for them to centre in, to unite their acts,\nand make their thoughts to be one? And then what can this be but some\nother substance, which is purely one?\n\nMatter by itself can never entertain abstracted and general ideas, such\nas many in our minds are. For could it reflect upon what passes within\nitself, it could possibly find there nothing but material and particular\nimpressions; abstractions and metaphysical ideas could not be printed\nupon it. How could one abstract from matter who is himself nothing but\nmatter?\n\nIf the soul were mere matter, external visible objects could only be\nperceived within us according to the impressions they make upon matter,\nand not otherwise. For instance: the image of a cube in my mind, or my\nidea of a cube, must be always under some particular prospect, and\nconform to the rules of perspective; nor could I otherwise represent it\nto myself; whereas now I can form an idea of it as it is in itself, and\nalmost view all its _hedr\u00e6_ at once, as it were encompassing it with my\nmind. I can within myself correct the external appearances and\nimpressions of objects, and advance, upon the reports and hints received\nby my senses, to form ideas of things that are not extant in matter. By\nseeing a material circle I may learn to form the idea of a circle, or\nfigure generated by the revolution of a ray about its centre; but then,\nrecollecting what I know of matter upon other occasions, I can conclude\nthere is no exact material circle. So that I have an idea, which perhaps\nwas raised from the hints I received from without, but is not truly to\nbe found there. If I see a tower at a great distance, which, according\nto the impressions made upon my material organs, seems little and round,\nI do not therefore conclude it to be either; there is something within\nthat reasons upon the circumstances of the appearance, and as it were\ncommands my sense, and corrects the impression; and this must be\nsomething superior to matter, since a material soul is no otherwise\nimpressible itself but as material organs are: instances of this kind\nare endless. If we know any thing of matter, we know that by itself it\nis a lifeless thing, inert and passive only; and acts necessarily, or\nrather is acted, according to the laws of motion and gravitation. This\npassiveness seems to be essential to it. And if we know any thing of\nourselves, we know that we are conscious of our own existence and acts,\nthat is, that we live; that we have a degree of freedom; that we can\nmove ourselves spontaneously; and, in short, that we can, in many\ninstances, take off the effect of gravitation, and impress new motions\nupon our spirits, or give them new directions, only by a thought.\nTherefore, to make mere matter do all this is to change the nature of\nit; to change death into life, incapacity of thinking into cogitativity,\nnecessity into liberty. And to say that God may superadd a faculty of\nthinking, moving itself, &c, to matter, if by this be meant, that he may\nmake matter to be the _suppositum_ of these faculties, that substance in\nwhich they inhere, is the same in effect as to say, that God may\nsuperadd a faculty of thinking to incogitativity, of acting freely to\nnecessity, and so on. What sense is there in this? And yet so it must\nbe, while matter continues to be matter.\n\nThat faculty of thinking, so much talked of by some as superadded to\ncertain systems of matter, fitly disposed, by virtue of God\u2019s\nomnipotence, though it be so called, must in reality amount to the same\nthing as another substance with the faculty of thinking. For a faculty\nof thinking alone will not make up the idea of a human soul, which is\nendued with many faculties; apprehending, reflecting, comparing,\njudging, making deductions and reasoning, willing, putting the body in\nmotion, continuing the animal functions by its presence, and giving\nlife; and therefore, whatever it is that is superadded, it must be\nsomething which is endued with all those other faculties. And whether\nthat can be a faculty of thinking, and so these other faculties be only\nfaculties of a faculty, or whether they must not all be rather the\nfaculties of some substance, which, being by their own concession,\nsuperadded to matter, must be different from it, we leave the\nunprejudiced to determine. If men would but seriously look into\nthemselves, the soul would not appear to them as a faculty of the body,\nor a kind of appurtenance to it, but rather as some substance, properly\nplaced in it, not only to use it as an instrument, and act by it, but\nalso to govern it, or the parts of it, as the tongue, hands, feet, &c,\naccording to its own reason. For I think it is plain enough, that the\nmind, though it acts under great limitations, doth, however, in many\ninstances govern the body arbitrarily; and it is monstrous to suppose\nthis governor to be nothing but some fit disposition or accident,\nsuperadded, of that matter which is governed. A ship, it is true, would\nnot be fit for navigation, if it was not built and provided in a proper\nmanner; but then, when it has its proper form, and is become a system of\nmaterials fitly disposed, it is not this disposition that governs it: it\nis the man, that other substance, who sits at the helm, and they who\nmanage the sails and tackle, that do this. So our vessels without a\nproper organization and conformity of parts would not be capable of\nbeing acted as they are; but still it is not the shape, or modification,\nor any other accident, that can govern them. The capacity of being\ngoverned or used can never be the governor, applying and using that\ncapacity. No, there must be at the helm something distinct, that\ncommands the body, and without which the vessel would run adrift or\nrather sink.\n\nFor the foregoing reasons it is plain, that matter cannot think, cannot\nbe made to think. But if a faculty of thinking can be superadded to a\nsystem of matter, without uniting an immaterial substance to it; yet a\nhuman body is not such a system, being plainly void of thought, and\norganized in such a manner as to transmit the impressions of sensible\nobjects up to the brain, where the percipient, and that which reflects\nupon them, certainly resides; and therefore that which there apprehends,\nthinks, and wills, must be that system of matter to which a faculty of\nthinking is superadded. All the premises then well considered, judge\nwhether, instead of saying that this inhabitant of our heads (the soul)\nis a system of matter to which a faculty of thinking is superadded, it\nmight not be more reasonable to say, it is a thinking substance\nintimately united to some fine material vehicle, which has its residence\nin the brain. Though I understand not perfectly the manner how a\ncogitative and spiritual substance can be thus closely united to such a\nmaterial vehicle, yet I can understand this union as well as how it can\nbe united to the body in general, perhaps as how the particles of the\nbody itself cohere together, and much better than how a thinking faculty\ncan be superadded to matter; and beside, several phenomena may more\neasily be solved by this hypothesis; which, in short, is this, that the\nhuman soul is a cogitative substance united to a material vehicle; that\nthese act in conjunction, that which affects the one affecting the\nother; that the soul is detained in the body till the habitation is\nspoiled, and their mutual tendency interrupted, by some hurt or disease,\nor by the decays and ruins of old age, or the like.\n\nBut many a man, says Mr. Rennell, has maintained, that the brain has the\npower of thought, from the conclusions which his own experience, and,\nperhaps, his extended knowledge of the human frame, have enabled him to\ndraw. He has observed the action of the brain, has watched the progress\nof its diseases, and has seen the close connection which exists between\nmany of its afflictions, and the power of thought. But in this, as in\nmost other cases, partial knowledge leads him to a more mistaken view of\nthe matter than total ignorance. Satisfied with the correctness of his\nobservations, he hastily proceeds to form his opinion, forgetting that\nit is not on the truth only, but on the whole truth, that he should rest\nhis decision. By an accidental blow, the scull is beaten in, the brain\nis pressed upon, and the patient lies without sense or feeling. No\nsooner is the pressure removed than the power of thought immediately\nreturns. It is known, again, that the phenomena of fainting arise from a\ntemporary deficiency of blood in the brain; the vessels collapse, and\nthe loss of sense immediately ensues. Restore the circulation, and the\nsense is as instantly recovered. On the contrary, when the circulation\nin the brain is too rapid, and inflammation of the organ succeeds, we\nfind that delirium, frenzy, and other disorders of the mind arise in\nproportion to the inflammatory action, by which they are apparently\nproduced. It is observed, also, that when the stomach is disordered by\nan excess of wine, or of ardent spirits, the brain is also affected\nthrough the strong sympathies of the nervous system, the intellect is\ndisordered, and the man has no longer a rational command over himself or\nhis actions. From these, and other circumstances of a similar nature, it\nis concluded, that thought is a quality or function of the brain, that\nit is inseparable from the organ in which it resides, and as Mr.\nLawrence, after the French physiologists, represents it, that medullary\nmatter thinks.\u201d\n\nNow it must certainly be inferred from all these circumstances, that\nthere is a close connection between the power of thinking and the brain;\nbut it by no means follows, that they are, therefore, one and the same.\nAllowing, however, for a moment, the justice of the inference, from the\npremises which have been stated, we must remember, that we have not as\nyet taken in all the circumstances of the case. We have watched the body\nrather than the mind, and that only in a diseased state; and from this\npartial and imperfect view of the subject, our conclusions have been\ndeduced. Let us take a healthy man in a sound sleep. He lies without\nsense or feeling, yet no part of his frame is diseased, nor is a single\npower of his life of vegetation suspended. All within his body is as\nactive as ever. The blood circulates as regularly, and, almost as\nrapidly, in the sleeping as in the waking subject. Digestion, secretion,\nnutrition, and all the functions of the life of vegetation proceed, and\nyet the understanding is absent. Sleep, therefore, is an affection of\nthe mind, rather than of the body; and the refreshment which the latter\nreceives from it, is from the suspension of its active and agitating\nprinciple. Now if thought was identified with the brain, when the former\nwas suspended, the latter would undergo a proportionate change. Memory,\nimagination, perception, and all the stupendous powers of the human\nintellect are absent; and yet the brain is precisely the same, the same\nin every particle of matter, the same in every animal function. Of not a\nsingle organ is the action suspended. When, again, the man awakens, and\nhis senses return, no change is produced by the recovery; the brain, the\norgans of sense, and all the material parts of his frame remain\nprecisely in the same condition. Dreaming may perhaps be adduced as an\nexception to this statement. But it is first to be remarked, that this\naffection is by no means general. There are thousands who never dream at\nall, and thousands who dream only occasionally. Dreaming therefore, even\nthough it were to be allowed as an exception, could not be admitted to\ninvalidate the rule. And if there be a circumstance, which to any\nphilosophic mind will clearly intimate the independency of thought upon\nmatter, it is the phenomenon of dreaming. Perception, that faculty of\nthe soul which unites it with the external world, is then suspended, and\nthe avenues of sense are closed. All communication with outward objects\nbeing thus removed, the soul is transported, as it were, into a world of\nits own creation. There appears to be an activity in the motions, and a\nperfection in the faculties, of the mind, when disengaged from the body,\nand disencumbered of its material organs. The slumber of its external\nperception seems to be but the awakening of every other power. The\nmemory is far more keen, the fancy far more vivid, in the dreaming than\nin the waking man. Ideas rise in rapid succession, and are varied in\nendless combination; so that the judgment, which, next to the\nperception, depends most upon external objects, is unable to follow the\nimagination in all its wild and unwearied flights. A better notion of\nthe separate and independent existence of the soul cannot be formed,\nthan that which we derive from our observations on the phenomena of\ndreaming. Again: when the mind is anxiously engaged in any train of\nthought, whether in company or alone, it frequently neglects the\nimpressions made upon the external organs. When a man is deeply immersed\nin meditation, or eagerly engaged in a discussion, he often neither\nhears a third person when he speaks, nor observes what he does, nor even\nwhen gently touched does he feel the pressure. Yet there is no defect\neither in the ear, the eye, or the nervous system; the brain is not\ndisordered, for if his mind were not so fully occupied, he would\nperceive every one of those impressions which he now neglects. In this\ncase, therefore, as in sleep, the independence of mind upon the external\norgan is clearly shown.\n\nBut let us take the matter in another point of view. We have observed\nthe action of the brain upon thought, and have seen that when the former\nis unnaturally compressed, the latter is immediately disordered or lost.\nLet us now turn our attention to the action of thought upon the brain. A\nletter is brought to a man containing some afflicting intelligence. He\ncasts his eye upon its contents, and drops down without sense or motion.\nWhat is the cause of this sudden affection? It may be said that the\nvessels have collapsed, that the brain is consequently disordered, and\nthat loss of sense is the natural consequence. But let us take one step\nbackward, and inquire what is the cause of the disorder itself, the\neffects of which are thus visible. It is produced by a sheet of white\npaper distinguished by a few black marks. But no one would be absurd\nenough to suppose, that it was the effect of the paper alone, or of the\ncharacters inscribed upon it, unless those characters conveyed some\nmeaning to the understanding. It is thought then which so suddenly\nagitates and disturbs the brain, and makes its vessels to collapse. From\nthis circumstance alone we discover the amazing influence of thought\nupon the external organ; of that thought which we can neither hear, nor\nsee, nor touch, which yet produces an affection of the brain fully equal\nto a blow, a pressure, or any other sensible injury. Now this very\naction of thought upon the brain clearly shows that the brain does not\nproduce it, while the mutual influence which they possess over each\nother, as clearly shows that there is a strong connection between them.\nBut it is carefully to be remembered, that _connection_ is not\n_identity_. While we acknowledge then, on the one side, the mutual\nconnection of the understanding and the brain, we must acknowledge, on\nthe other, their mutual independence. The phenomena which we daily\nobserve lead us of necessity to the recognition of these two important\nprinciples. If then from the observations which we are enabled to make\non the phenomena of the understanding and of the brain, we are led to\ninfer mutual independence, we shall find our conclusions still farther\nstrengthened by a consideration of the substance and composition of the\nlatter. Not only is the brain a material substance, endowed with all\nthose properties of matter which we have before shown to be inconsistent\nwith thought, but it is a substance, which, in common with the rest of\nour body, is undergoing a perpetual change. Indeed experiments and\nobservations give us abundant reason for concluding that the brain\nundergoes within itself precisely the same change with the remainder of\nthe body. A man will fall down in a fit of apoplexy, and be recovered;\nin a few years he will be attacked by another, which will prove fatal.\nUpon dissection it will be found that there is a cavity formed by the\nblood effused from the ruptured vessel, and that a certain action had\nbeen going on, which gradually absorbed the coagulated blood. If then an\nabsorbent system exists in the brain, and the organ thereby undergoes,\nin the course of a certain time, a total change, it is impossible that\nthis flux and variable substance can be endowed with consciousness or\nthought. If the particles of the brain, either separately or in a mass,\nwere capable of consciousness, then after their removal the\nconsciousness which they produced must for ever cease. The consequence\nof which would be, that personal identity must be destroyed, and that no\nman could be the same individual being that he was ten years ago. But\nour common sense informs us, that as far as our understanding and our\nmoral responsibility are involved, we are the same individual beings\nthat we ever were. If the body alone, or any substance subject to the\nlaws of body, were concerned, personal identity might reasonably be\ndoubted: but it is something beyond the brain that makes the man at\nevery period of his life the same: it is consciousness, that, amidst the\nperpetual change of our material particles, unites every link of\nsuccessive being in one indissoluble chain. The body may be gradually\nchanged, and yet by the deposition of new particles, similar to those\nwhich absorption has removed, it may preserve the appearance of\nidentity. But in consciousness there is real, not an apparent,\nindividuality, admitting of no change or substitution.\n\nSo inconsistent with reason is every attempt which has been made to\nreduce our thoughts to a material origin, and to identify our\nunderstanding with any part of our corporeal frame! The more carefully\nwe observe the operation, both of the mind and of the brain, the more\nclearly we shall distinguish, and the more forcibly shall we feel, the\nindependence of the one upon the other. We know that the brain is the\norgan or instrument by which the mind operates on matter, and we know\nthat the brain again is the chain of communication between the mind and\nthe material world. That certain disorders therefore in the chain should\neither prevent or disturb this communication is reasonably to be\nexpected; but nothing more is proved from thence than we knew before,\nnamely, that the link is imperfect. And when that link is again\nrestored, the mind declares its identity, by its memory of things which\npreceded the injury or the disease; and where the recovery is rapid, the\npatient awakes as it were from a disturbed dream. How indeed the brain\nand the thinking principle are connected, and in what manner they\nmutually affect each other, is beyond the reach of our faculties to\ndiscover. We must, for the present, be contented with our ignorance of\nthe cause, while from the effects we are persuaded both of their\nconnection on the one hand, and of their independence on the other.\n\nMATTHEW, called also Levi, was the son of Alpheus, but probably not of\nthat Alpheus who was the father of the Apostle James the less. He was a\nnative of Galilee; but it is not known in what city of that country he\nwas born, or to what tribe of the people of Israel he belonged. Though a\nJew, he was a publican or tax-gatherer under the Romans; and his office\nseems to have consisted in collecting the customs due upon commodities\nwhich were carried, and from persons who passed, over the lake of\nGennesareth. Our Saviour commanded him, as he was sitting at the place\nwhere he received these customs, to follow him. He immediately obeyed;\nand from that time he became a constant attendant upon our Saviour, and\nwas appointed one of the twelve Apostles. St. Matthew, soon after his\ncall, made an entertainment at his house, at which were present Christ\nand some of his disciples, and also several publicans. After the\nascension of our Saviour, he continued, with the other Apostles, to\npreach the Gospel for some time in Judea; but as there is no farther\naccount of him in any writer of the first four centuries, we must\nconsider it as uncertain into what country he afterward went, and\nlikewise in what manner and at what time he died.\n\nIn the few writings which remain of the apostolical fathers, Barnabas,\nClement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, there are manifest\nallusions to several passages in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel; but the Gospel\nitself is not mentioned in any one of them. Papias, the companion of\nPolycarp, is the earliest author on record who has expressly named St.\nMatthew as the writer of a Gospel; and we are indebted to Eusebius for\ntransmitting to us this valuable testimony. The work itself of Papias is\nlost; but the quotation in Eusebius is such as to convince us that in\nthe time of Papias no doubt was entertained of the genuineness of St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel. This Gospel is repeatedly quoted by Justin Martyr, but\nwithout mentioning the name of St. Matthew. It is both frequently\nquoted, and St. Matthew mentioned as its author, by Iren\u00e6us, Origen,\nAthanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and a long train of\nsubsequent writers. It was, indeed, universally received by the\nChristian church; and we do not find that its genuineness was\ncontroverted by any early profane writer. We may therefore conclude,\nupon the concurrent testimony of antiquity, that this Gospel is rightly\nascribed to St. Matthew. It is generally agreed, upon the most\nsatisfactory evidence, that St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel was the first which was\nwritten; but though this is asserted by many ancient authors, none of\nthem, except Iren\u00e6us and Eusebius, have said any thing concerning the\nexact time at which it was written. The only passage in which the former\nof these fathers mentions this subject, is so obscure, that no positive\nconclusion can be drawn from it; Dr. Lardner, and Dr. Townson,\nunderstand it in very different senses; and Eusebius, who lived a\nhundred and fifty years after Iren\u00e6us, barely says, that Matthew wrote\nhis Gospel just before he left Judea to preach the religion of Christ in\nother countries; but when that was, neither he nor any other ancient\nauthor informs us with certainty. The impossibility of settling this\npoint upon ancient authority has given rise to a variety of opinions\namong moderns. Of the several dates assigned to this Gospel, which\ndeserve any attention, the earliest is A.D. 38, and the latest, A.D. 64.\n\nIt appears very improbable that the Christians should be left any\nconsiderable number of years without a written history of our Saviour\u2019s\nministry. It is certain that the Apostles, immediately after the descent\nof the Holy Ghost, which took place only ten days after the ascension of\nour Saviour into heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with great\nsuccess; and surely it is reasonable to suppose, that an authentic\naccount of our Saviour\u2019s doctrines and miracles would very soon be\ncommitted to writing, for the confirmation of those who believed in his\ndivine mission, and for the conversion of others; and, more\nparticularly, to enable the Jews to compare the circumstances of the\nbirth, death, and resurrection of Jesus with their ancient prophecies\nrelative to the Messiah; and we may conceive that the Apostles would be\ndesirous of losing no time in writing an account of the miracles which\nJesus performed, and of the discourses which he delivered, because the\nsooner such an account was published, the easier it would be to inquire\ninto its truth and accuracy; and, consequently, when these points were\nsatisfactorily ascertained, the greater would be its weight and\nauthority. We must own that these arguments are so strong in favour of\nan early publication of some history of our Saviour\u2019s ministry, that we\ncannot but accede to the opinion of Jones, Wetstein, and Dr. Owen, that\nSt. Matthew\u2019s Gospel was written A.D. 38.\n\nThere has also of late been great difference of opinion concerning the\nlanguage in which this Gospel was originally written. Among the ancient\nfathers, Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, Iren\u00e6us, Origen, Cyril,\nEpiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerom, positively assert that it was written\nby St. Matthew in Hebrew, that is, in the language then spoken in\nPalestine; and indeed Dr. Campbell says, that this point was not\ncontroverted by any author for fourteen hundred years. Erasmus was one\nof the first who contended that the present Greek is the original; and\nhe has been followed by Le Clerc, Wetstein, Basnage, Whitby, Jortin,\nHug, and many other learned men. On the other hand, Grotius, Du Pin,\nSimon, Walton, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Micha\u00eblis, Owen, and Campbell have\nsupported the opinion of the ancients. In a question of this sort, which\nis a question of fact, the concurrent voice of antiquity is decisive.\nThough the fathers are unanimous in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his\nGospel in Hebrew, yet they have not informed us by whom it was\ntranslated into Greek. No writer of the first three centuries makes any\nmention whatever of the translator; nor does Eusebius: and Jerom tells\nus, that in his time it was not known who was the translator. It is,\nhowever, universally allowed, that the Greek translation was made very\nearly, and that it was more used than the original. This last\ncircumstance is easily accounted for. After the destruction of\nJerusalem, the language of the Jews, and every thing which belonged to\nthem, fell into great contempt; and the early fathers, writing in Greek,\nwould naturally quote and refer to the Greek copy of St. Matthew\u2019s\nGospel, in the same manner as they constantly used the Septuagint\nversion of the Old Testament. There being no longer any country in which\nthe language of St. Matthew\u2019s original Gospel was commonly spoken, that\noriginal would soon be forgotten; and the translation into Greek, the\nlanguage then generally understood, would be substituted in its room.\nThis early and exclusive use of the Greek translation is a strong proof\nof its correctness, and leaves us but little reason to lament the loss\nof the original.\n\nAs the sacred writers,\u201d says Dr. Campbell, \u201cespecially the evangelists,\nhave many qualities in common, so there is something in every one of\nthem, which, if attended to, will be found to distinguish him from the\nrest. That which principally distinguishes St. Matthew, is the\ndistinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our\nLord\u2019s discourses and moral instructions. Of these, his sermon on the\nmount, his charge to the Apostles, his illustrations of the nature of\nhis kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also\nwonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his\nMaster to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the\napostleship, he was an eye-witness and ear-witness of most of the things\nwhich he relates; and though I do not think it was the scope of any of\nthese historians to adjust their narratives to the precise order of time\nwherein the events happened, there are some circumstances which incline\nme to think, that St. Matthew has approached at least as near that order\nas any of them.\u201d And this, we may observe, would naturally be the\ndistinguishing characteristic of a narrative, written very soon after\nthe events had taken place. The most remarkable things recorded in St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel, and not found in any other, are the following: the\nvisit of the eastern magi; our Saviour\u2019s flight into Egypt; the\nslaughter of the infants at Bethlehem; the parable of the ten virgins;\nthe dream of Pilate\u2019s wife; the resurrection of many saints at our\nSaviour\u2019s crucifixion; and the bribing of the Roman guard appointed to\nwatch at the holy sepulchre by the chief priests and elders.\n\nMATTHIAS the Apostle was first in the rank of our Saviour\u2019s disciples,\nand one of those who continued with him from his baptism to his\nascension, Acts i, 21, 22. It is very probable he was of the number of\nthe seventy, as Clemens Alexandrinus and other ancients inform us. We\nhave no particulars of his youth or education, for we may reckon as\nnothing what is read in Abdias, or Obadiah, concerning this matter.\nAfter the ascension of our Lord, the Apostles retiring to Jerusalem in\nexpectation of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, as had been promised,\nPeter proposed to fill up the place of Judas: to this the disciples\nagreed. They then presented two persons, Joseph Barsabas, surnamed\nJustus, and Matthias. The lot falling on Matthias, he was from that time\nassociated with the eleven Apostles. The Greeks believe that Matthias\npreached and died at Colchis.\n\nMEASURE, that by which any thing is measured, or adjusted, or\nproportioned, Prov. xx, 10; Micah vi, 10. Tables of Scripture measures\nof length and capacity are found at the end of this volume.\n\nMEATS. The Hebrews had several kinds of animals which they refused to\neat. Among domestic animals they only ate the cow, the sheep, and the\ngoat; the hen and pigeon, among domestic birds; beside several kinds of\nwild animals. To eat the flesh with the blood was forbidden them, much\nmore to eat the blood without the flesh. We may form a judgment of their\ntaste by what the Scripture mentions of Solomon\u2019s table, 1 Kings iv, 22,\n23. Thirty measures of the finest wheat flour were provided for it every\nday, and twice as much of the ordinary sort; twenty stall-fed oxen,\ntwenty pasture oxen, a hundred sheep, beside the venison of deer and\nroebucks, and wild fowls. It does not appear that the ancient Hebrews\nwere very nice about the seasoning and dressing of their food. We find\namong them roast meat, boiled meat, and ragouts. They roasted the\npaschal lamb.\n\nAt the first settling of the Christian church, very great disputes arose\nconcerning the use of meats offered to idols. Some newly converted\nChristians, convinced that an idol was nothing, and that the distinction\nof clean and unclean creatures was abolished by our Saviour, ate\nindifferently of whatever was served up to them, even among Pagans,\nwithout inquiring whether these meats had been first offered to idols.\nThey took the same liberty in buying meat sold in the markets, not\nregarding whether it was pure or impure according to the Jews, or\nwhether it was that which had been offered to idols. But other\nChristians, weaker or less instructed, were offended at this liberty;\nand thought to eat of meat that had been once offered to idols, was a\nkind of partaking of that wicked and sacrilegious offering. This\ndiversity in opinion produced some scandal, to which St. Paul thought it\nbehoved him to provide a suitable remedy, Rom. xiv, 20; Titus i, 15. He\ndetermined, therefore, that all things were clean to such as were clean,\nand that an idol was nothing at all; that a man might safely eat of\nwhatever was sold in the shambles, and though it might be a part of what\nhad been previously offered in the temple, and there exposed to sale, he\nneed not scrupulously inquire whence it came; that if an unbeliever\nshould invite a believer to eat with him, the believer might eat of\nwhatever was set before him, &c, 1 Cor. x, 25\u201327. But at the same time\nhe enjoins, that the law of charity and prudence should be observed;\nthat men should be cautious of scandalizing or offending weak minds;\nthat though all things may be lawful, yet all things are not always\nexpedient; that no one ought to seek his own accommodation or\nsatisfaction, but that of his neighbour; that if any one should say to\nus, This has been offered to idols,\u201d we may not then eat of it, for the\nsake of him who gives the information; not so much for fear of wounding\nour own conscience, but his; in a word, that he who is weak, and thinks\nhe may not indifferently use all sorts of food, should forbear, and eat\nherbs, rather than offend a brother, Rom. xiv, 1, 2. Yet it is certain,\nthat generally Christians abstained from eating meat that had been\noffered to idols.\n\nMEDIA. It has been commonly thought that Media was peopled by the\ndescendants of Madai, son of Japheth, Gen. x, 2. The Greeks maintain\nthat this country took its name from Medus, the son of Medea. If,\nhowever, Madai and his immediate descendants did not people this\ncountry, some of his posterity might have carried his name thither,\nsince we find it so often given to Media, from the times of the Prophets\nIsaiah and Jeremiah, and from the transportation of the ten tribes, and\nthe destruction of Samaria under Salmaneser, A. M. 3283. Media Proper\nwas bounded by Armenia and Assyria Proper on the west, by Persia on the\neast, by the Caspian provinces on the north, and by Susiana on the\nsouth. It was an elevated and mountainous country, and formed a kind of\npass between the cultivated parts of eastern and western Asia. Hence,\nfrom its geographical position, and from the temperature, verdure, and\nfertility of its climate, Media was one of the most important and\ninteresting regions of Asia. Into this country the ten tribes who\ncomposed the kingdom of Israel were transplanted, in the Assyrian\ncaptivity, by Tiglath-pileser and Salmaneser. The former prince carried\naway the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, on the east side of\nJordan, to Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan. His\nsuccessor carried away the remaining seven tribes and a half, to the\nsame places, which are said to be cities of the Medes, by the river of\nGozan,\u201d 1 Chron. v, 26; 2 Kings xvii, 6. The geographical position of\nMedia was wisely chosen for the distribution of the great body of the\ncaptives; for, it was so remote, and so impeded and intersected with\ngreat mountains and numerous and deep rivers, that it would be extremely\ndifficult for them to escape from this natural prison, and return to\ntheir own country. They would also be opposed in their passage through\nKir, or Assyria Proper, not only by the native Assyrians, but also by\ntheir enemies, the Syrians, transplanted thither before them. The\nsuperior civilization of the Israelites, and their skill in agriculture\nand in the arts, would tend to civilize and improve those wild and\nbarbarous regions.\n\nMEDIATOR, one who stands in a middle office or capacity between two\ndiffering parties, and has a power of transacting every thing between\nthem, and of reconciling them to each other. Hence a mediator between\nGod and man is one whose office properly is to mediate and transact\naffairs between them relating to the favour of almighty God, and the\nduty and happiness of man. No sooner had Adam transgressed the law of\nGod in paradise, and become a sinful creature, than the Almighty was\npleased in mercy to appoint a Mediator or Redeemer, who, in due time\nshould be born into the world, to make an atonement both for his\ntransgression, and for all the sins of men. This is what is justly\nthought to be implied in the promise, that \u201cthe seed of the woman should\nbruise the serpent\u2019s head;\u201d that is, that there should some time or\nother be born, of the posterity of Eve, a Redeemer, who, by making\nsatisfaction for the sins of men, and reconciling them to the mercy of\nalmighty God, should by that means bruise the head of that old serpent,\nthe devil, who had beguiled our first parents into sin, and destroy his\nempire and dominion among men. Thus it became a necessary part of Adam\u2019s\nreligion after the fall, as well as that of his posterity after him, to\nworship God through hope in this Mediator. To keep up the remembrance of\nit God was pleased, at this time, to appoint sacrifices of expiation or\natonement for sin, to be observed through all succeeding generations,\ntill the Redeemer himself should come, who was to make the true and only\nproper satisfaction and atonement.\n\nThe particular manner in which Christ interposed in the redemption of\nthe world, or his office as Mediator between God and man, is thus\nrepresented to us in the Scripture. He is the light of the world, John\ni; viii, 12; the revealer of the will of God in the most eminent sense.\nHe is a propitiatory sacrifice, Rom. iii, 25; v, 11; 1 Cor. v, 7; Eph.\nv, 2; 1 John ii, 2; Matt. xxvi, 28; John i, 29, 36; and, as because of\nhis peculiar offering, of a merit transcending all others, he is styled\nour High Priest. He was also described beforehand in the Old Testament,\nunder the same character of a priest, and an expiatory victim, Isa.\nliii; Dan. ix, 24; Psa. cx, 4. And whereas it is objected, that all this\nis merely by way of allusion to the sacrifices of the Mosaic law, the\nApostle on the contrary affirms, that the law was a shadow of good\nthings to come, and not the very image of the things,\u201d Heb. x, 1; and\nthat the priests that offer gifts according to the law, serve unto the\nexample and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God,\nwhen he was about to make the tabernacle: for see, saith he, that thou\nmake all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount,\u201d\nHeb. viii, 4, 5; that is, the Levitical priesthood was a shadow of the\npriesthood of Christ; in like manner as the tabernacle made by Moses was\naccording to that showed him in the mount. The priesthood of Christ, and\nthe tabernacle in the mount, were the originals; of the former of which,\nthe Levitical priesthood was a type; and of the latter, the tabernacle\nmade by Moses was a copy. The doctrine of this epistle, then, plainly\nis, that the legal sacrifices were allusions to the great atonement to\nbe made by the blood of Christ; and not that it was an allusion to\nthose. Nor can any thing be more express or determinate than the\nfollowing passage: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of\ngoats should take away sin. Wherefore when he [Christ] cometh into the\nworld, he saith, Sacrifice and offering,\u201d that is, of bulls and of\ngoats, thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Lo, I come\nto do thy will, O God! By which will we are sanctified, through the\noffering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,\u201d Heb. x, 4, 5, 7, 9,\n10. And to add one passage more of the like kind: Christ was once\noffered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall\nhe appear the second time, without sin;\u201d that is, without bearing sin,\nas he did at his first coming, by being an offering for it; without\nhaving our iniquities again laid upon him; without being any more a\nsin-offering:--\u201cAnd unto them that look for him shall he appear the\nsecond time without sin unto salvation,\u201d Heb. ix, 28. Nor do the\ninspired writers at all confine themselves to this manner of speaking\nconcerning the satisfaction of Christ; but declare that there was an\nefficacy in what he did and suffered for us, additional to and beyond\nmere instruction and example. This they declare with great variety of\nexpression: that he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,\u201d 1 Peter\niii, 18; that he gave his life a ransom,\u201d Matt. xx, 28; Mark x, 45; 1\nTim. ii, 6; that we are bought with a price,\u201d 2 Pet. ii, 1; Rev. xiv, 4;\n1 Cor. vi, 20; that he redeemed us with his blood,\u201d redeemed us from the\ncurse of the law, being made a curse for us,\u201d 1 Peter i, 19; Rev. v, 9;\nGal. iii, 13; that he is our advocate, intercessor, and propitiation,\u201d\nHeb. vii, 25; 1 John ii, 1, 2; that he was made perfect, through\nsufferings; and being thus made perfect, he became the author of\nsalvation,\u201d Heb. ii, 10; v, 9; that God was in Christ, reconciling the\nworld to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,\u201d 2 Cor. v,\n19; Rom. v, 10; Eph. ii, 16; and that through death he destroyed him\nthat had the power of death,\u201d Heb. ii, 14. Christ, then, having thus\nhumbled himself, and become obedient to death, even the death of the\ncross; God, also, hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is\nabove every name;\u201d hath commanded us to pray in his name; constituted\nhim man\u2019s advocate and intercessor; distributes his grace only through\nhim, and in honour of his death; hath given all things into his hands;\nand hath committed all judgment unto him; that at the name of Jesus\nevery knee should bow,\u201d and that all men should honour the Son even as\nthey honour the Father,\u201d Phil. ii, 8\u201310; John iii, 35; v, 22, 23.\n\nAll the offices of Christ, therefore, arise out of his gracious\nappointment, and voluntary undertaking, to be the Mediator between God\nand man;\u201d between God offended, and man offending; and therefore under\nthe penalty of God\u2019s violated law, which denounces death against every\ntransgressor. He is the _Prophet_ who came to teach us the extent and\ndanger of our offences, and the means which God had appointed for their\nremission. He is the great _High Priest_ of our profession,\u201d who, having\noffered himself without spot to God,\u201d has entered the holiest to make\nintercession for us, and to present our prayers and services to God,\nsecuring to them acceptance by virtue of his own merits. He is _King_,\nruling over the whole earth, for the maintenance and establishment and\nenlargement of his church, and for the punishment of those who reject\nhis authority; and he is the final _Judge_ of the quick and the dead, to\nwhom is given the power of distributing the rewards and penalties of\neternity. See ATONEMENT and JESUS CHRIST.\n\nThere is an essential connection between the mediation of our Lord and\nthe covenant of grace. (See _Covenant_.) He is therefore called the\nMediator of a better covenant,\u201d and of a new covenant.\u201d The word \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\nliterally means a person in the middle,\u201d between two parties; and the\nfitness of there being a Mediator of the covenant of grace arises from\nthis, that the nature of the covenant implies that the two parties were\nat variance. Those who hold the Socinian principles understand a\nmediator to mean nothing more than a messenger sent from God to give\nassurance of forgiveness to his offending creatures. Those who hold the\ndoctrine of the atonement understand, that Jesus is called the Mediator\nof the new covenant, because he reconciles the two parties, by having\nappeased the wrath of God which man had deserved, and by subduing that\nenmity to God by which their hearts were alienated from him. It is plain\nthat this is being a mediator in the strict and proper sense of the\nword; and there seems to be no reason for resting in a meaning less\nproper and emphatical. This sense of the term _mediator_ coincides with\nthe meaning of another phrase applied to him, Heb. vii, 22, where he is\ncalled \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2. If he is a Mediator in the last\nsense, then he is also \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2, the _sponsor_, the _surety_, of the\ncovenant. He undertook, on the part of the supreme Lawgiver, that the\nsins of those who repent shall be forgiven; and he fulfilled this\nundertaking by offering, in their stead, a satisfaction to divine\njustice. He undertook, on their part, that they should keep the terms of\nthe covenant; and he fulfils this undertaking by the influence of his\nSpirit upon their hearts.\n\nIf a mediator be essential to the covenant of grace, and if all who have\nbeen saved from the time of the first transgression were saved by that\ncovenant, it follows that the Mediator of the new covenant acted in that\ncharacter before he was manifested in the flesh. Hence the importance of\nthat doctrine respecting the person of Christ; that all the\ncommunications which the Almighty condescended to hold with the human\nrace were carried on from the beginning by this person; that it is he\nwho spake to the patriarchs, who gave the law by Moses, and who is\ncalled in the Old Testament, the angel of the covenant.\u201d These views\nopen to us the full importance of a doctrine which manifestly unites in\none faith all who obtain deliverance from that condition; for, according\nto this doctrine, not only did the virtue of the blood which he shed as\na priest extend to the ages past before his manifestation, but all the\nintimations of the new covenant established in his blood were given by\nhim as the great Prophet, and the blessings of the covenant were applied\nin every age by the Spirit, which he, as the King of his people, sends\nforth. The Socinians, who consider Jesus as a mere man, having no\nexistence till he was born of Mary, necessarily reject the doctrine now\nstated: and the church of Rome, although they admit the divinity of our\nSaviour, yet, by the system which they hold with regard to the mediation\nof Christ, agree with the Socinians in throwing out of the dispensations\nof the grace of God that beautiful and complete unity which arises from\ntheir having been conducted by one person. The church of Rome considers\nChrist as Mediator only in respect of his human nature. As that nature\ndid not exist till he was born of Mary, they do not think it possible\nthat he could exercise the office of Mediator under the Old Testament;\nand as they admit that a mediator is essential to the covenant of grace,\nthey believe that those who lived under the Old Testament, not enjoying\nthe benefit of his mediation, did not obtain complete remission of sins.\nThey suppose, therefore, that persons in former times who believed in a\nSaviour that was to come, and who obtained justification with God by\nthis faith, were detained after death in a place of the infernal\nregions, which received the name of _limbus patrum_; a kind of prison\nwhere they did not endure punishment, but remained without partaking of\nthe joys of heaven, in earnest expectation of the coming of Christ, who,\nafter suffering on the cross, descended to hell that he might set them\nfree. This fanciful system has no other foundation than the slender\nsupport which it appears to receive from some obscure passages of\nScripture that admit of another interpretation. But if Christ acted as\nthe Mediator of the covenant of grace from the time of the first\ntransgression, this system becomes wholly unnecessary; and we may\nbelieve, according to the general strain of Scripture, and what we\naccount the analogy of faith, that all who died in faith,\u201d since the\nworld began, entered immediately after death into that heavenly country\nwhich they desired.\u201d\n\nAlthough the members of the church of Rome adopt the language of\nScripture, in which Jesus is styled the Mediator of the new covenant,\nthey differ from all Protestants in acknowledging other mediators; and\nthe use which they make of the doctrine that Christ is Mediator only in\nhis human nature is to justify their admitting those who had no other\nnature to share that office with him. Saints, martyrs, and especially\nthe Virgin Mary, are called _mediatores secundarii_, because it is\nconceived that they hold this character under Christ, and that, by\nvirtue of his mediation, the superfluity of their merits may be applied\nto procure acceptance with God for our imperfect services. Under this\ncharacter, supplications and solemn addresses are presented to them; and\nthe _mediatores secundarii_ receive in the church of Rome, not only the\nhonour due to eminent virtue, but a worship and homage which that church\nwishes to vindicate from the charge of idolatry, by calling it the same\nkind of inferior and secondary worship which is offered to the man\nChrist Jesus, who in his human nature acted as Mediator. In opposition\nto all this, we hold that Jesus Christ was qualified to act as Mediator\nby the union between his divine and his human nature; that his divine\nnature gave an infinite value to all that he did, rendering it effectual\nfor the purpose of reconciling us to God, while the condescension by\nwhich he approached to man, in taking part of flesh and blood, fulfilled\nthe gracious intention for which a Mediator was appointed; that the\nintroducing any other mediator is unnecessary, derives no warrant from\nScripture, and is derogatory to the honour of him who is there called\nthe one Mediator between God and men;\u201d and that as the union of the\ndivine to the human nature is the foundation of that worship which in\nScripture is often paid to the Mediator of the new covenant, this\nworship does not afford the smallest countenance to the idolatry and\nwill worship of those who ascribe divine honours to any mortal.\n\nMEGIDDO, a city of the tribe of Manasseh, famous for the battle fought\nthere between Pharaoh-Necho and King Josiah, in which the latter was\ndefeated and mortally wounded, Josh. xvii, 11; Judges i, 27; 2 Kings\nxxiii, 29.\n\nMELCHIZEDEK. When Abram returned from the slaughter of the Assyrians, in\nhis way to Hebron, he was met at Shaveh, or King\u2019s Dale, afterward the\nvalley of Jehoshaphat, between Jerusalem and Mount Olivet, by\nMelchizedek, king of Salem, the most ancient quarter of Jerusalem, a\npriest of the most high God, who gave him bread and wine, and blessed\nhim in the name of the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth;\u201d to\nwhom Abram in return piously gave tithes, or the tenth part of all the\nspoils as an offering to God, Heb. vii, 2. This Canaanitish prince was\nearly considered as a type of Christ in the Jewish church: Thou art a\npriest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,\u201d Psalm cx, 4. He\nresembled Christ in the following particulars: 1. In his name,\n_Melchizedek_, King of Righteousness;\u201d 2. In his city, _Salem_, Peace;\u201d\n3. In his offices of king and priest of the most high God; and 4. In the\nomission of the names of his parents and genealogy, the time of his\nbirth and length of his life, exhibiting an indefinite reign and\npriesthood, according to the Apostle\u2019s exposition, Heb. vii, 5. The\nimport of this is, that he came not to his office by right of\nprimogeniture, (which implies a genealogy,) or by the way of succession,\nbut was raised up and immediately called of God to it. In that respect\nChrist is said to be a priest after his order.\u201d Then, again, that he had\nno successor, nor could have; for there was no law to constitute an\norder of succession, so that he was a priest only upon an extraordinary\ncall. In this respect our Lord\u2019s priesthood answers to his, because it\nis wholly in himself, who has no successor. An infinite number of absurd\nopinions have been at different times held respecting this mystic\npersonage, as that he was Shem, or Ham; or, among those who think he was\nmore than human, that he was the Holy Ghost, or the Son of God himself;\nabsurdities which are too obsolete to need refutation.\n\nMELITA, now called Malta, an island in the African or Mediterranean Sea,\nbetween Africa and Sicily, twenty miles in length and twelve in breadth,\nformerly reckoned a part of Africa, but now belonging to Europe. St.\nPaul suffered shipwreck upon the coast of Malta, Acts xviii, 1\u20133. In the\nopinion of Dr. Hales, the island where this happened was not Malta, but\nMeleda. His words are: \u201cThat this island was Meleda, near the Illyrian\ncoast, not Malta, on the southern coast of Sicily, may appear from the\nfollowing considerations: 1. It lies confessedly in the Adriatic Sea,\nbut Malta a considerable distance from it. 2. It lies nearer the mouth\nof the Adriatic than any other island of that sea; and would of course,\nbe more likely to receive the wreck of any vessel driven by tempests\ntoward that quarter. And it lies north-west by north of the south-west\npromontory of Crete; and came nearly in the direction of a storm from\nthe south-east quarter. 3. An obscure island called Melite, whose\ninhabitants were \u2018barbarous,\u2019 was not applicable to the celebrity of\nMalta at that time, which Cicero represents as abounding in curiosities\nand riches, and possessing a remarkable manufacture of the finest linen;\nand Diodorus Siculus more fully: \u2018Malta is furnished with many and very\ngood harbours, and the inhabitants are very rich; for it is full of all\nsorts of artificers, among whom there are excellent weavers of fine\nlinen. Their houses are very stately and beautiful, adorned with\ngraceful eaves, and pargetted with white plaster. The inhabitants are a\ncolony of Phenicians, who, trading as merchants, as far as the western\nocean, resorted to this place on account of its commodious ports and\nconvenient situation for maritime commerce; and by the advantage of this\nplace, the inhabitants frequently became famous both for their wealth\nand their merchandise.\u2019 4. The circumstance of the viper, or venomous\nsnake, which fastened on St. Paul\u2019s hand, agrees with the damp and woody\nisland of Meleda, affording shelter and proper nourishment for such, but\nnot with the dry and rocky island of Malta, in which there are no\nserpents now, and none in the time of Pliny. 5. The disease with which\nthe father of Publius was affected, dysentery combined with fever,\nprobably intermittent, might well suit a country woody and damp, and\nprobably, for want of draining, exposed to the putrid effluvia of\nconfined moisture; but was not likely to affect a dry, rocky, and\nremarkably healthy island like Malta.\u201d\n\nMELON, \u05d0\u05d1\u05d8\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd, Numbers xi, 5, a luscious fruit so well known that a\ndescription of it would be superfluous. It grows to great perfection,\nand is highly esteemed in Egypt, especially by the lower class of\npeople, during the hot months. The juice is peculiarly cooling and\nagreeable in that sultry climate, where it is justly pronounced one of\nthe most delicious refreshments that nature, amidst her constant\nattention to the wants of man, affords in the season of violent heat.\nThere are varieties of this fruit; but that more particularly referred\nto in the text must be the water melon. It is cultivated, says\nHasselquist, on the banks of the Nile, in the rich clayey earth, which\nsubsides during the inundation. This serves the Egyptians for meat,\ndrink, and physic. It is eaten in abundance during the season, even by\nthe richer sort of people; but the common people, on whom Providence has\nbestowed nothing but poverty and patience, scarcely eat any thing but\nthese, and account this the best time of the year, as they are obliged\nto put up with worse fare at other seasons. This fruit sometimes serves\nthem for drink, the juice refreshing these poor creatures, and they have\nless occasion for water than if they were to live on more substantial\nfood in this burning climate. This well explains the regret expressed by\nthe Israelites for the loss of this fruit, whose pleasant liquor had so\noften quenched their thirst, and relieved their weariness in their\nservitude, and which would have been exceedingly grateful in a dry\nscorching desert.\n\nMEMPHIS. See NOPH.\n\nMENNONITES, a society of Baptists in Holland, so called from Menno Simon\nof Friesland, who lived in the sixteenth century. He was originally a\nRomish priest, but joined a party of the Anabaptists, and, becoming\ntheir leader, cured them of many extravagancies, and reduced the system\nto consistency and moderation. The Mennonites maintain that practical\npiety is the essence of religion, and that the surest mark of the true\nchurch is the sanctity of its members. They plead for universal\ntoleration in religion, and debar none from their societies who lead\npious lives, and own the Scriptures for the word of God. They teach that\ninfants are not the proper subjects of baptism; that ministers of the\nGospel ought to receive no salary. They also object to the terms\n_person_ and _trinity_, as not consistent with the simplicity of the\nScriptures. They are, like the Society of Friends, utterly averse to\noaths and war, and to capital punishments, as contrary to the spirit of\nthe Christian dispensation. In their private meetings every one has the\nliberty to speak, to expound the Scriptures, and to pray. They assemble,\nor used to do so, twice every year from all parts of Holland, at\nRynsbourg, a village two leagues from Leyden, at which time they receive\nthe communion, sitting at a table in the manner of the Independents; but\nin their form of discipline they are said more to resemble the\nPresbyterians. The ancient Mennonites professed a contempt of erudition\nand science, and excluded all from their communion who deviated in the\nleast from the most rigorous rules of simplicity and gravity: but this\nprimitive austerity is greatly diminished in their most considerable\nsocieties. Those who adhere to their ancient discipline are called\nFlemings or Flandrians. The whole sect were formerly called\nWaterlandians, from the district in which they lived. The Mennonites in\nPennsylvania do not baptize by immersion, though they administer the\nordinance to none but adult persons. Their common method is this: The\nperson to be baptized kneels, the minister holds his hands over him,\ninto which the deacon pours water, so that it runs on the head of the\nbaptized; after which follow imposition of hands and prayer.\n\nDivine worship is conducted among the Mennonites much as among the\nchurches of the reformed, or among the Dissenters in England, only with\nthis peculiarity, that collections are made every Sabbath day, sometimes\nin the middle of the sermon, in two bags, one for the poor, and the\nother for the expenses of public worship. They have a Mennonite college\nat Amsterdam, and the ministers are chosen in some places by the\ncongregation, and in others by the elders only. As they reject infant\nbaptism, they refuse to commune at the Lord\u2019s table with any who\nadminister the ordinance to children, unless resprinkled. They train up\ncatechumens under their ministers, and, about the age of sixteen,\nbaptize them, taking from the candidate, before the minister and elders,\nan account of his repentance and faith. In some parts of North Holland,\nyoung people are baptized on the day of their marriage. They baptize by\npouring or sprinkling thrice.\n\nWith respect to their confession of faith, as it is stated by one of\ntheir ministers, Mr. Gan, of Ryswick, they believe that in the fall man\nlost his innocence, and that all his posterity are born with a natural\npropensity to evil, and with fleshly inclinations, and are exposed to\nsickness and death. The posterity of Adam derive no moral guilt from his\nfall: sin is personal, and the desert of punishment cannot be inherited.\nThe incarnate Son of God is set forth to us as inferior to the Father,\nnot only in his state of humiliation, but in that of his exaltation, and\nas subject to the Father: he is nevertheless an object of religious\ntrust and confidence in like manner as the Father. With respect to the\nnumber of Mennonites in Holland, they are calculated at only thirty\nthousand, including children, and form about a hundred and thirty\nchurches. In the United States of America, it appears, there are more\nthan two hundred Mennonite churches, some of which contain as many as\nthree hundred members in each. They are mostly the descendants of the\nMennonites who emigrated in great numbers from Paltz.\n\nMERCY SEAT, \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03db\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _propitiatory_. This word is properly an\nadjective, agreeing with \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1, _a lid_, understood, which is\nexpressed by the LXX, Exod. xxv, 17. In that version, \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03db\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\ngenerally answers to the Hebrew \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea, from the verb \u05db\u05e4\u05e8, _to cover_,\n_expiate_, and was the _lid_ or _covering_ of the ark of the covenant,\nmade of pure gold, on and before which the high priest was to sprinkle\nthe blood of the expiatory sacrifices on the great day of atonement, and\nwhere God promised to meet his people, Exod. xxv, 17, 22; xxix, 42; xxx,\n36; Lev. xvi, 2, 14. St. Paul, by applying this name to Christ, Rom.\niii, 25, assures us that he is the true mercy seat, the reality of what\nthe \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea represented to the ancient believers; by him our sins are\ncovered or expiated, and through him God communes with us in mercy. The\nmercy seat also represents our approach to God through Christ; we come\nto the throne of grace;\u201d which is only a variation of the term mercy\nseat.\u201d\n\nMEROM, WATERS OF, or _lacus Samechonitis_: the most northern and the\nsmallest of the three lakes which are supplied by the waters of the\nJordan. Indeed the numerous branches of this river, descending from the\nmountains, unite in this small piece of water; out of which issues the\nsingle stream which may be considered as the Jordan Proper. It is at\npresent called the lake of Houle; and is situated in a hollow or valley,\nabout twelve miles wide, called the Ard Houle, formed by the Djebel\nHeish on the west, and Djebel Safat on the east, the two branches into\nwhich the mountains of Hasbeya, or Djebel Esheikh, the ancient Hermon,\ndivides itself about fifteen miles to the north.\n\nMEROZ, a place in the neighbourhood of the brook Kishon, whose\ninhabitants, refusing to come to the assistance of their brethren, when\nthey fought with Sisera, were put under an anathema, Judges v, 23.\n\nMESHECH, COUNTRY OF. Meshech was the sixth son of Japheth, and is\ngenerally mentioned in conjunction with his brother Tubal; and both were\nfirst seated in the northeastern angle of Asia Minor, from the shores of\nthe Euxine, along to the south of Caucasus; where were the Montes\nMoschisi, and where, in after times, were the Iberi, Tibareni, and\nMoschi; near to whom also, or mingled with them, were the Chalybes, who,\nit is probable, derived their Grecian appellation from the general\noccupation of the families of Tubal and Meshech, as workers in brass and\niron, as the inhabitants of the same countries have been in all ages,\nfor the supply of Tyre, Persia, Greece, and Armenia. There appears also\nto have been in the same neighbourhood, namely, in Armenia, a river and\ncountry termed Rosh: for so, Bochart says, the river Araxes is called by\nthe Arabs; and that there was a people in the adjoining country called\nRhossi. That passage in Ezekiel, xxxviii, also, which in our Bibles is\nrendered the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,\u201d is, in the Septuagint,\nthe prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.\u201d These Rossi and Moschi, who\nwere neighbours in Asia, dispersed their colonies jointly over the vast\nempire of Russia; and preserve their names still in those of Russians\nand Muscovites.\n\nMESOPOTAMIA, an extensive province of Asia, the Greek name of which\ndenotes between the rivers,\u201d and on this account Strabo says, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, that it was situated between the\nEuphrates and the Tigris.\u201d In Scripture this country is called Aram, and\nAramea. But as Aram also signifies Syria, it is denominated Aram\nNaharaim, or the Syria of the rivers. This province, which inclines from\nthe south-east to the north-west, commenced at 33\u00b0 20\u00b4 N. lat., and\nterminated near 37\u00b0 30\u00b4 N. lat. Toward the south it extended as far as\nthe bend formed by the Jordan at Cunaxa, and to the wall of Semiramis\nwhich separated it from Messene. Toward the north, it comprehended part\nof Taurus and the Mesius, which lay between the Euphrates and the\nTigris. The modern name, given by the Arabs to this part, is of the same\nimport with the ancient appellation; they call it isle,\u201d or, in their\nlanguage, _Al-Dgezera_. In this northern part is found Osrhoene, which\nseems to have been the same place with Anthemusir. The northern part of\nMesopotamia is occupied by chains of mountains passing from north-west\nto south-east, in the situation of the rivers. The central parts of\nthese mountains were called Singar\u00e6 Montes. The principal rivers were\nChaboras, (Al Kabour,) which commenced at Charr\u00e6, (Harran,) east of the\nmountains, and discharged itself into the Euphrates at Circesium\n(Kirkisieh;) the Mygdonius, (Hanali,) the source of which was near\nNisibis, and its termination in the Chaboras. The principal towns in the\neastern part along the Tigris and near it, are Nisibis, (Nisibin,)\nBezabde, (Zabda,) Singora, (Sindja,) Labbana on the Tigris, (Mosul,)\nHatru, (Harder,) and Apamea-Mesenes. At some distance to the south, upon\nthe Tigris and on the borders of Mesopotamia, was the town of Antiochia,\nnear which commenced the wall that passed from the Tigris to the\nEuphrates, under the name of _Murus Medi\u00e6_, or Semiramidis. In the\nwestern part were Edessa, called also Callin-Rh\u00e6, (Orfa,) Charr\u00e6,\n(Harran,) Nicephorium, (Racca,) Circesium at the mouth of the Chaboras,\nAnatho, (Anah,) Neharda, (Hadith Unnour,) upon the right of the\nEuphrates. There are several other towns of less importance. According\nto Strabo, this country was fertile in vines, and afforded abundance of\ngood wine. According to Ptolemy, Mesopotamia had on the north a part of\nArmenia, on the west the Euphrates on the side of Syria, on the east the\nTigris on the borders of Assyria, and on the south the Euphrates which\njoined the Tigris. Mesopotamia was a satrapy under the kings of Syria.\n\nIn the earliest accounts we have of this country, subsequent to the time\nof Abraham, it was subject to a king, called Cushan-Rishathaim, then\nperhaps the most powerful potentate of the east, and the first by whom\nthe Israelites were made captive, which happened soon after the death of\nJoshua, and about B. C. 1400, Judges iii, 8. The name of this king\nbespeaks him a descendant of Nimrod; and it was probably of the Lower\nMesopotamia only, or Babylonia, of which he was sovereign; the northern\nparts being in the possession of the Arameans. This is implied in the\nhistory of Abraham; who, when ordered to depart from his country,\nnamely, Chaldea, in the southern part of Mesopotamia, removed to\nCharran, still in Mesopotamia, but beyond the boundary of the Chaldees,\nand in the territory of Aram. About four hundred years after\nCushan-Rishathaim, we find the northern parts of Mesopotamia in the\nhands of the Syrians of Zobah; as we are told, in 2 Sam. x, that\nHadarezer, king of Zobah, after his defeat by Joab, sent and brought out\nthe Syrians that were beyond the river\u201d Euphrates. The whole country was\nafterward seized by the Assyrians; to whom it pertained till the\ndissolution of their empire, when it was divided between the Medes and\nthe Babylonians. It subsequently formed a part of the Medo-Persian,\nsecond Syrian or Macedonian, and Parthian empires, as it does at the\npresent day of the modern Persian. The southern part of Mesopotamia\nanswers nearly to the country anciently called the land of Shinar; to\nwhich the Prophet Daniel, i, 2, refers, and Zechariah v, 11.\n\nOn the fifth or sixth day after leaving Aleppo,\u201d says Campbell in his\n_Overland Journey to India_, \u201cwe arrived at the city of Diarbeker, the\ncapital of the province of that name; having passed over an extent of\ncountry of between three and four hundred miles, most of it blessed with\nthe greatest fertility, and abounding with as rich pastures as I ever\nbeheld, covered with numerous herds and flocks. The air was charmingly\ntemperate in the day time, but, to my feeling, extremely cold at night.\nYet notwithstanding the extreme fertility of this country, the bad\nadministration of government, conspiring with the indolence of the\ninhabitants, leaves it unpeopled and uncultivated. Diarbeker Proper,\ncalled also Mesopotamia from its lying between two famous rivers, and by\nMoses called PADANARAM, that is, \u2018_the fruitful Syria_,\u2019 abounds with\ncorn, wine, oil, fruits, and all the necessaries of life. It is supposed\nto have been the seat of the earthly paradise; and all geographers agree\nthat here the descendants of Noah settled immediately after the flood.\nTo be treading that ground which Abraham trod, where Nahor the father of\nRebecca lived, where holy Job breathed the pure air of piety and\nsimplicity, and where Laban the father-in-law of Jacob resided, was to\nme a circumstance productive of delightful sensations. As I rode along,\nI have often mused upon the contemptible stratagems to which I was\nreduced, in order to get through this country, for no other reason than\nbecause I was a Christian; and I could not avoid reflecting with sorrow\non the melancholy effects of superstition, and regretting that this fine\ntract of country, which ought to be considered above all others as the\nuniversal inheritance of mankind, should now be cut off from all except\na horde of senseless bigots, barbarous fanatics, and inflexible\ntyrants.\u201d\n\nMESSIAH. The Greek word \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u1f78\u03c2, from whence comes _Christ_ and\n_Christian_, exactly answers to the Hebrew _Messiah_, which signifies\nhim that hath received unction, a prophet, a king, or a priest. See\nJESUS CHRIST.\n\nOur Lord warned his disciples that false messiahs should arise, Matt.\nxxiv, 24; and the event has verified the prediction. No less than\ntwenty-four false Christs have arisen in different places and at\ndifferent times: Caziba was the first of any note who made a noise in\nthe world. Being dissatisfied with the state of things under Adrian, he\nset himself up as the head of the Jewish nation, and proclaimed himself\ntheir long expected messiah. He was one of those banditti that infested\nJudea, and committed all kinds of violence against the Romans; and had\nbecome so powerful that he was chosen king of the Jews, and by them\nacknowledged their messiah. However, to facilitate the success of this\nbold enterprise, he changed his name from Caziba, which it was at first,\nto that of Barchocheba, alluding to the star foretold by Balaam; for he\npretended to be the star sent from heaven to restore his nation to its\nancient liberty and glory. He chose a forerunner, raised an army, was\nanointed king, coined money inscribed with his own name, and proclaimed\nhimself messiah and prince of the Jewish nation. Adrian raised an army,\nand sent it against him; he retired into a town called Bither, where he\nwas besieged. Barchocheba was killed in the siege, the city was taken,\nand a dreadful havoc succeeded. The Jews themselves allow, that, during\nthis short war against the Romans in defence of this false messiah, they\nlost five or six hundred thousand souls. This was in the former part of\nthe second century. In the reign of Theodosius the younger, A. D. 434,\nanother impostor arose, called Moses Cretensis. He pretended to be a\nsecond Moses, sent to deliver the Jews who dwelt in Crete, and promised\nto divide the sea, and give them a safe passage through it. Their\ndelusion proved so strong and universal, that they neglected their\nlands, houses, and other concerns, and took only so much with them as\nthey could conveniently carry. And on the day appointed, this false\nMoses, having led them to the top of a rock, men, women, and children\nthrew themselves headlong down into the sea, without the least\nhesitation or reluctance, till so great a number of them were drowned as\nopened the eyes of the rest, and made them sensible of the cheat. They\nthen began to look for their pretended leader; but he had disappeared,\nand escaped out of their hands. In the reign of Justin, about A. D. 520,\nanother impostor appeared, who called himself the son of Moses. His name\nwas Dunaan. He entered into a city of Arabia Felix, and there he greatly\noppressed the Christians; but he was taken prisoner, and put to death by\nElesban, an Ethiopian general. The Jews and Samaritans rebelled against\nthe Emperor Justinian, A. D. 529, and set up one Julian for their king,\nand accounted him the messiah. The emperor sent an army against them,\nkilled great numbers of them, took their pretended messiah prisoner, and\nimmediately put him to death. In the time of Leo Isaurus, about A. D.\n721, arose another false messiah in Spain; his name was Serenus. He drew\ngreat numbers after him, to their no small loss and disappointment; but\nall his pretensions came to nothing. The twelfth century was fruitful in\nmessiahs. About A. D. 1137, there appeared one in France, who was put to\ndeath, and numbers of those who followed him. In A. D. 1138, the\nPersians were disturbed with a Jew, who called himself the messiah. He\ncollected a vast army; but he too was put to death, and his followers\ntreated with great inhumanity. A false messiah stirred up the Jews at\nCorduba in Spain, A. D. 1157. The wiser and better sort looked upon him\nas a madman, but the great body of the Jews in the nation believed in\nhim. On this occasion nearly all the Jews in Spain were destroyed.\nAnother false messiah arose in the kingdom of Fez, A. D. 1167, which\nbrought great troubles and persecutions upon the Jews that were\nscattered throughout that country. In the same year, an Arabian\nprofessed to be the messiah, and pretended to work miracles. When search\nwas made for him, his followers fled, and he was brought before the\nArabian king. Being questioned by him, he replied, that he was a prophet\nsent from God. The king then asked him what sign he could show to\nconfirm his mission. Cut off my head,\u201d said he, and I will return to\nlife again.\u201d The king took him at his word, promising to believe him if\nhis prediction was accomplished. The poor wretch, however, never came to\nlife again, and the cheat was sufficiently discovered. Those who had\nbeen deluded by him were grievously punished, and the nation condemned\nto a very heavy fine. Not long after this, a Jew who dwelt beyond the\nEuphrates, called himself the messiah, and drew vast multitudes of\npeople after him. He gave this for a sign of it, that he had been\nleprous, and had been cured in the course of one night. He, like the\nrest, perished, and brought great persecution on his countrymen. A\nmagician and false christ arose in Persia, A. D. 1174, who seduced many\nof the common people, and brought the Jews into great tribulation.\nAnother of these impostors arose, A. D. 1176, in Moravia, who was called\nDavid Almusser. He pretended he could make himself invisible; but he was\nsoon taken and put to death, and a heavy fine laid upon the Jews. A\nfamous cheat and rebel exerted himself in Persia, A. D. 1199, called\nDavid el David. He was a man of learning, a great magician, and\npretended to be the messiah. He raised an army against the king, but was\ntaken and imprisoned; and, having made his escape, was afterward retaken\nand beheaded. Vast numbers of the Jews were butchered for taking part\nwith this impostor. Rabbi Lemlem, a German Jew of Austria, declared\nhimself a forerunner of the messiah, A. D. 1500, and pulled down his own\noven, promising his brethren that they should bake their bread in the\nholy land next year. A false christ arose in the East Indies, A. D.\n1615, and was greatly followed by the Portuguese Jews who are scattered\nover that country. Another in the Low Countries declared himself to be\nthe messiah of the family of David, and of the line of Nathan, A. D.\n1624. He promised to destroy Rome, and to overthrow the kingdom of\nantichrist, and the Turkish empire. In A. D. 1666, appeared the false\nmessiah Sabatai Tzevi, who made a great noise, and gained a great number\nof proselytes. He was born at Aleppo, and imposed on the Jews for a\nconsiderable time; but afterward, with a view of saving his life, he\nturned Mohammedan, and was at last beheaded. The last false christ that\nmade any considerable number of converts was one rabbi Mordecai, a Jew\nof Germany: he appeared, A. D. 1682. It was not long before he was found\nout to be an impostor, and was obliged to flee from Italy to Poland to\nsave his life: what became of him afterward does not seem to be\nrecorded.\n\nMETEMPSYCHOSIS, the doctrine of the transmigration of souls into other\nbodies. This tenet has been attributed to the sect of the Pharisees.\nJosephus, who was himself a Pharisee, gives this account of their\ndoctrine in these points: Every soul is immortal; those of the good only\nenter into another body, but those of the bad are tormented with\neverlasting punishment.\u201d From whence it has been pretty generally\nconcluded, that the resurrection they held was only a Pythagorean one,\nnamely, the transmigration of the soul into another body; from which\nthey excluded all that were notoriously wicked, who were doomed at once\nto eternal punishment; but their opinion was, that those who were guilty\nonly of lesser crimes were punished for them in the bodies into which\ntheir souls were next sent. It is also supposed, that it was upon this\nnotion the disciples asked our Lord, Did this man sin, or his parents,\nthat he was born blind?\u201d John ix, 2; and that some said, Christ was John\nthe Baptist, some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets,\u201d Matt.\nxvi, 14. The transmigration of souls into other bodies was undoubtedly\nthe opinion of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, and was embraced by some\namong the Jews; as by the author of the Book of Wisdom, who says, that\nbeing good, he came into a body undefiled,\u201d viii, 20. Nevertheless, it\nis questioned by some persons, whether the words of Josephus, before\nquoted, are a sufficient evidence of this doctrine of the metempsychosis\nbeing received by the whole sect of the Pharisees; for passing into\nanother or different body,\u201d may only denote its receiving a body at the\nresurrection; which will be another, not in substance, but in quality;\nas it is said of Christ at his transfiguration, \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, the fashion of his countenance was\u201d another, or, as we\nrender it, was altered,\u201d Luke ix, 29. As to the opinion which some\nentertained concerning our Saviour, that he was either John the Baptist,\nor Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Matt. xvi, 14, it is not\nascribed to the Pharisees in particular, and if it were, one cannot see\nhow it could be founded on the doctrine of the metempsychosis; since the\nsoul of Elias, now inhabiting the body of Jesus, would no more make him\nto be Elias, than several others had been, in whose bodies the soul of\nElias, according to this doctrine, is supposed to have dwelt since the\ndeath of that ancient prophet, near a thousand years before. Beside, how\nwas it possible any person that saw Christ, who did not appear to be\nless than thirty years old, should, according to the notion of the\nmetempsychosis, conceive him to be John the Baptist, who had been so\nlately beheaded? Surely this apprehension must be grounded on the\nsupposition of a proper resurrection. It was probably, therefore, upon\nthe same account, that others took him to be Elias, and others Jeremias.\nAccordingly, St. Luke expresses it thus: Others say, that one of the old\nprophets is risen from the dead,\u201d Luke ix, 19. It may farther be\nobserved, that the doctrine of the resurrection, which St. Paul\npreached, was not a present metempsychosis, but a real future\nresurrection, which he calls the hope and resurrection of the dead,\u201d\nActs xxiii, 6. This he professed as a Pharisee, and for this profession\nthe partisans of that sect vindicated him against the Sadducees, Acts\nxxiii, 7\u20139. Upon the whole, therefore, it appears most reasonable to\nadopt the opinion of Reland, though in opposition to the sentiments of\nmany other learned men, that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the\nresurrection in a proper sense.\n\nMETHODISTS, a name given in derision at different times to religious\npersons and parties which have appeared in this country; but which now\nprincipally designates the followers of the Rev. John Wesley. The\nsocieties raised up by the instrumentality of the Rev. George Whitefield\nwere also called Methodists, and in Wales especially are still known by\nthat appellation. For distinction\u2019s sake, therefore, and also because a\nnumber of smaller sects have broken off from the Methodist societies\nsince Mr. Wesley\u2019s death, the religious body which he raised up and left\norganized under his rules, have of late been generally denominated the\nWESLEYAN METHODISTS. In the year 1729, Mr. John Wesley, being then\nfellow of Lincoln College, began to spend some evenings in reading the\nGreek Testament with Charles Wesley, student, and Mr. Morgan, commoner\nof Christ Church, and Mr. Kirkham, of Merton College. Not long after,\ntwo or three of the pupils of Mr. John Wesley, and one pupil of Mr.\nCharles Wesley, obtained leave to attend these meetings. They then began\nto visit the sick in different parts of the town, and the prisoners\nalso, who were confined in the castle. Two years after, they were joined\nby Mr. Ingham, of Queen\u2019s College, Mr. Broughton, and Mr. Hervey; and in\n1735, by the celebrated Mr. George Whitefield, then in his eighteenth\nyear. At this time their number in Oxford amounted to about fourteen.\nThey obtained the name of Methodists, from the exact regularity of their\nlives, and the manner of spending their time. In October, 1735, John and\nCharles Wesley, Mr. Ingham, and Mr. Delamotte, son of a merchant in\nLondon, embarked for Georgia, having been engaged by the trustees of\nthat colony as chaplains; but their ultimate design was to preach the\nGospel to the Indians. No favourable opportunity offering itself for\nthis pious work, and the strict and faithful preaching of the Wesleys\nhaving involved them in much persecution, and many disputes with the\ncolonists, they returned to England, Mr. Charles Wesley in 1737, Mr.\nJohn Wesley in 1738. On the passage to America, and while in Georgia,\nMr. John had met with several pious Moravians; whose doctrines of\njustification by faith alone, conscious pardon of sin, and peace with\nGod, confirmed by their own calmness in danger and freedom from the fear\nof death, greatly impressed him. On his return to England, he was more\nfully instructed in these views by Bohler, a Moravian minister; and\nhaving proved their truth in his own experience, he began to preach in\nthe churches of the metropolis, and other places, and then in rooms,\nfields, and streets, the doctrine of salvation by faith. In this his\nbrother Charles was his zealous coadjutor; and the effect was the\nawakening of great multitudes to a religious concern, and the\ncommencement of a great revival of religion throughout the land, which\nhas in its effects extended itself to the most distant parts of the\nworld. At the time of Mr. Wesley\u2019s death, the societies in connection\nwith him in Europe, America, and the West Indies, amounted to eighty\nthousand members; they are now [1831] upward of three hundred thousand,\nbeside about half a million in the United States of America, who since\nthe acquisition of independence by that country have formed a separate\nchurch. The rules of this religious society were drawn up by Messrs.\nJohn and Charles Wesley in 1743, and continue to be in force. They state\nthe nature and design of a Methodist society in the following words:\n\u201cSuch a society is no other than a company of men, having the form and\nseeking the power of godliness: united, in order to pray together, to\nreceive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love,\nthat they may help each other to work out their own salvation. That it\nmay the more easily be discerned whether they are indeed working out\ntheir own salvation, each society is divided into smaller companies,\ncalled classes, according to their respective places of abode. There are\nabout twelve persons, sometimes fifteen, twenty, or even more, in each\nclass; one of whom is styled the leader. It is his business, 1. To see\neach person in his class once a week, at least, in order to inquire how\ntheir souls prosper; to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort, as occasion\nmay require; to receive what they are willing to give to the poor, or\ntoward the support of the Gospel. 2. To meet the minister and the\nstewards of the society once a week, to inform the minister of any that\nare sick, or of any that walk disorderly and will not be reproved; to\npay to the stewards what they have received of their several classes in\nthe week preceding; and to show their account of what each person has\ncontributed. There is only one condition previously required of those\nwho desire admission into these societies, namely, a desire to flee from\nthe wrath to come; to be saved from their sins: but wherever this is\nreally fixed in the soul, it will be shown by its fruits. It is\ntherefore expected of all who continue therein, that they should\ncontinue to evidence their desire of salvation, 1. By doing no harm; by\navoiding evil in every kind, especially that which is most generally\npractised, such as taking the name of God in vain; profaning the day of\nthe Lord, either by doing ordinary work thereon, or by buying or\nselling; drunkenness; buying and selling spirituous liquors, or drinking\nthem, unless in cases of extreme necessity; fighting, quarrelling,\nbrawling; brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or\nrailing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling; the\nbuying or selling uncustomed goods; the giving or taking things on\nusury, that is, unlawful interest; uncharitable or unprofitable\nconversation, particularly speaking evil of magistrates or of ministers;\ndoing to others as we would not they should do unto us; doing what we\nknow is not for the glory of God, as the putting on of gold or costly\napparel; the taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the\nLord Jesus; singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not\ntend to the knowledge or love of God; softness, or needless\nself-indulgence; laying up treasure upon earth; borrowing without a\nprobability of paying; or taking up goods, without a probability of\npaying for them. It is expected of all who continue in these societies,\nthat they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, 2. By\ndoing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power, as they\nhave opportunity; doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as\npossible, to all men; to their bodies, of the ability which God giveth,\nby giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting or\nhelping them that are sick or in prison; to their souls, by instructing,\nreproving, or exhorting all we have any intercourse with; trampling\nunder foot that enthusiastic doctrine of devils,--that we are not to do\ngood unless our hearts be free to it: by doing good, especially to them\nthat are of the household of faith, or groaning so to be; employing them\npreferably to others; buying one of another; helping each other in\nbusiness, and so much the more as the world will love its own, and them\nonly; by all possible diligence and frugality, that the Gospel be not\nblamed; by running with patience the race set before them, denying\nthemselves, and taking up their cross daily; submitting to bear the\nreproach of Christ; to be as the filth and off-scouring of the world,\nand looking that men should say all manner of evil of them falsely for\nthe Lord\u2019s sake. It is expected of all who continue in these societies,\nthat they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, 3. By\nattending on all the ordinances of God: such are, the public worship of\nGod; the ministry of the word either read or expounded; the supper of\nthe Lord; family and private prayer; searching the Scriptures, and\nfasting and abstinence. These are the general rules of our societies,\nall which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written word, the\nonly rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice; and\nall these we know his Spirit writes on every truly awakened heart. If\nthere be any among us who observe them not, who habitually breaks any of\nthem, let it be made known to them who watch over that soul, as they\nthat must give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his\nways; we will bear with him for a season; but then, if he repent not, he\nhath no more place among us: we have delivered our own souls.\u201d\n\nThe effect produced by the preaching of the two brothers in various\nparts of the kingdom, and those frequently the most populous and rude,\nrendered it necessary to call out preachers to their assistance, and\nespecially since the clergy generally remained negligent, and rather\nopposed and persecuted, than encouraged, the Wesleys in their endeavours\nto effect a national reformation. The association of preachers with\nthemselves in the work led to an annual meeting of the ministers, then\nand since called the conference. The first conference was held in June\n1744, at which Mr. Wesley met his brother, two or three other clergymen,\nand a few of the preachers, whom he had appointed to come from various\nparts, to confer with them on the affairs of the societies. Monday, June\n25,\u201d observes Mr. Wesley, and the five following days, we spent in\nconference with our preachers, seriously considering by what means we\nmight the most effectually save our own souls, and them that heard us;\nand the result of our consultations we set down to be the rule of our\nfuture practice.\u201d Since that time a conference has been annually held;\nMr. Wesley himself having presided at forty-seven. The subjects of their\ndeliberations were proposed in the form of questions, which were amply\ndiscussed; and the questions, with the answers agreed upon, were\nafterward printed under the title of Minutes of several Conversations\nbetween the Rev. Mr. Wesley and others,\u201d commonly called Minutes of\nConference.\n\nAs the kingdom had been divided into circuits, to each of which several\npreachers were appointed for one or two years, a part of the work of\nevery conference was to arrange these appointments and changes. In the\nearly conferences various points of doctrine were discussed with\nreference to the agreement of all in a common standard; and when this\nwas settled, and the doctrinal discussions discontinued, new regulations\ncontinued to be adopted, as the state of the societies, and the\nenlarging opportunities of doing good, required. The character of all\nthose who were engaged in the ministry was also annually examined; and\nthose who had passed the appointed term of probation, were solemnly\nreceived into the ministry. All the preachers were itinerants, and,\nanimated by the example of Mr. Wesley, went through great labours, and\nendured many privations and persecutions, but with such success that\nsocieties and congregations were in a few years raised up in almost\nevery part of England, and in a very considerable number of places in\nIreland, Wales, and Scotland. The doctrines held by the Methodists, Mr.\nWesley declared repeatedly in his writings to be those contained in the\nArticles of the church of England; for he understood the article on\npredestination, as many others have done, in a sense not contrary to the\ndoctrine of the redemption and the possible salvation of the whole human\nrace. It will, therefore, be merely necessary to state those views of\ncertain doctrines which it has been thought the Wesleyan Methodists hold\nin a somewhat peculiar way, or on which they have been most liable to\nmisrepresentation.\n\nThey maintain the total fall of man in Adam, and his utter inability to\nrecover himself, or take one step toward his recovery, without the grace\nof God preventing him, that he may have a good will, and working with\nhim when he has that good will.\u201d They assert that Christ, by the grace\nof God, tasted death for every man.\u201d This grace they call free, as\nextending itself freely to all. They say that Christ is the Saviour of\nall men, especially of them that believe;\u201d and that, consequently, they\nare authorized to offer salvation to all, and to preach the Gospel to\nevery creature.\u201d They hold justification by faith. Justification,\u201d says\nMr. Wesley, \u201csometimes means our acquittal at the last day, Matt. xii,\n37: but this is altogether out of the present question; for that\njustification whereof our Articles and Homilies speak, signifies present\nforgiveness, pardon of sins, and consequently acceptance with God, who\ntherein declares his righteousness, or justice, and mercy, by or for the\nremission of sins that are past, Romans iii, 25, saying, \u2018I will be\nmerciful to thy unrighteousness, and thine iniquities I will remember no\nmore.\u2019 I believe the condition of this is faith, Rom. iv, 5, &c; I mean,\nnot only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also that as\nsoon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified. Faith,\nin general, is a divine supernatural evidence, or conviction, of things\nnot seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past,\nfuture, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine\nevidence, or conviction, that \u2018God was in Christ, reconciling the world\nunto himself,\u2019 but a full reliance on the merits of his death, a sure\nconfidence that Christ died for my sins; that he loved me, and gave\nhimself for me: and the moment a penitent sinner believes this, God\npardons and absolves him.\u201d This faith, Mr. Wesley affirms, \u201cis the gift\nof God. No man is able to work it in himself. It is a work of\nOmnipotence. It requires no less power thus to quicken a dead soul, than\nto raise a body that lies in the grave. It is a new creation; and none\ncan create a soul anew but He who at first created the heavens and the\nearth. It is the free gift of God, which he bestows not on those who are\n_worthy_ of his favour, not on such as are _previously holy_, and so\n_fit_ to be crowned with all the blessings of his goodness; but on the\nungodly and unholy, on those who till that hour were fit only for\neverlasting destruction; those in whom is no good thing, and whose only\nplea was, \u2018God be merciful to me, a sinner!\u2019 No merit, no goodness, in\nman, precedes the forgiving love of God. His pardoning mercy supposes\nnothing in us but a sense of mere sin and misery; and to all who see and\nfeel and own their wants, and their utter inability to remove them, God\nfreely gives faith, for the sake of Him in whom he is always well\npleased. Good works follow this faith, Luke vi, 43, but cannot go before\nit; much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of\ngood works springing from holiness of heart.\u201d As to repentance he\ninsisted that it is conviction of sin, and that repentance, and works\nmeet for repentance, go before justifying faith; but he held, with the\nchurch of England, that all works, before justification, had the nature\nof sin;\u201d and that, as they had no root in the love of God, which can\nonly arise from a persuasion of his being reconciled to us, they could\nnot constitute a moral worthiness preparatory to pardon. That true\nrepentance springs from the grace of God, is most certain; but, whatever\nfruits it may bring forth, it changes not man\u2019s _relation_ to God. He is\na sinner, and is justified _as such_; for it is not a saint, but a\nsinner, that is forgiven, and under the notion of a sinner.\u201d God\njustifieth the ungodly, not the godly. Repentance, according to his\nstatement, is necessary to true faith; but faith alone is the direct and\nimmediate instrument of pardon. They hold also the direct internal\ntestimony of the Holy Spirit to the believer\u2019s adoption; for an\nexposition of which see HOLY SPIRIT.\n\nThey maintain also that, by virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ, and the\noperations of the Holy Spirit, it is their privilege to arrive at that\nmaturity in grace, and participation of the divine nature, which\nexcludes sin from the heart, and fills it with perfect love to God and\nman. This they denominate Christian perfection. On this doctrine Mr.\nWesley observes, \u201cChristian perfection does not imply an exemption from\nignorance or mistake, infirmities or temptations; but it implies the\nbeing so crucified with Christ, as to be able to testify, \u2018I live not,\nbut Christ liveth in me,\u2019 Gal. ii, 23, and \u2018hath purified their hearts\nby faith,\u2019 Acts xv, 9.\u201d Again: To explain myself a little farther on\nthis head: 1. Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary\ntransgression of a known law; but sin, improperly so called, that is, an\ninvoluntary transgression of a divine law known or unknown, needs the\natoning blood. 2. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as\nexcludes these involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be\nnaturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from\nmortality. 3. Therefore, sinless perfection is a phrase I never use,\nlest I should seem to contradict myself. 4. I believe a person filled\nwith the love of God is still liable to these involuntary\ntransgressions. 5. Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please;\nI do not, for the reasons above mentioned.\u201d\n\nThe rules of the Methodist societies have been already given; but, in\norder to have a general view of their ecclesiastical economy, it must be\nremarked, that a number of these societies united together form what is\ncalled a circuit. A circuit generally includes a large market town, and\nthe circumjacent villages to the extent of ten or fifteen miles. To one\ncircuit two or three, and sometimes four, preachers are appointed, one\nof whom is styled the superintendent; and this is the sphere of their\nlabour for at least one year, or not more than three years. Once a\nquarter the preachers meet all the classes, and speak personally to each\nmember. Those who have walked orderly the preceding quarter then receive\na ticket. These tickets are in some respects analogous to the _tesser\u00e6_\nof the ancients, and answer all the purposes of the commendatory letters\nspoken of by the Apostle. Their chief use is to prevent imposture. After\nthe visitation of the classes a meeting is held, consisting of all the\npreachers, leaders, and stewards in the circuit. At this meeting the\nstewards deliver their collections to a circuit steward, and every thing\nrelating to temporal matters is publicly settled. At this meeting the\ncandidates for the ministry are proposed, and the stewards, after\nofficiating a definite period, are changed. A number of circuits, from\nfive to ten, more or fewer, according to their extent, form a district,\nthe preachers of which meet annually. Every district has a chairman, who\nfixes the time of meeting. These assemblies have authority, 1. To\nexamine candidates for the ministry, and probationers, and to try and\nsuspend preachers who are found immoral, erroneous in doctrine, or\ndeficient in abilities. 2. To decide concerning the building of chapels.\n3. To examine the demands from the poorer circuits respecting the\nsupport of the preachers and of their families, from the public funds.\n4. To elect a representative to attend and form a committee to sit\npreviously to the meeting of the conference, in order to prepare a\ndraught of the stations of all the preachers for the ensuing year. The\njudgment of this meeting is conclusive until conference, to which an\nappeal is allowed in all cases.\n\nThe conference, strictly speaking, consists only of a hundred of the\nsenior preachers, according to the arrangements prescribed in a deed of\ndeclaration, executed by Mr. Wesley, and enrolled in chancery. But the\npreachers elected at the preceding district meetings as representatives,\nthe superintendents of the circuits, and such preachers as the districts\nallow to attend, sit and vote usually as one body. At the conference,\nevery preacher\u2019s character undergoes the strictest scrutiny; and if any\ncharge be proved against him, he is dealt with accordingly. The\npreachers are also stationed, the proceedings of the subordinate\nmeetings reviewed, and the state of the connection at large is\nconsidered. The conference is commonly held in London, Leeds, Bristol,\nManchester, Liverpool, and Sheffield, in rotation, at the latter end of\nJuly.\n\nBy the minutes of the last conference, 1831, it appears that this\nreligious body had three hundred and sixty-three circuits in England,\nWales, and Scotland; forty-five in Ireland; and a hundred and fifty-six\nmission stations, most of them being also circuits, in Sweden, France,\nthe Mediterranean, Continental India, Ceylon, the South Seas, Africa,\nthe West Indies, and British America. The number of members in the\nsocieties were, in Great Britain, two hundred and forty-nine thousand\none hundred and nineteen; in Ireland, twenty-two thousand four hundred\nand seventy; in the foreign stations, forty-two thousand seven hundred\nand forty-three. Their regular preachers were eight hundred and\nforty-six in Great Britain; in Ireland, a hundred and forty-six; in\nforeign stations, exclusive of catechists, a hundred and eighty-seven.\n\n[The preceding account, so far as it respects the original history, the\ndoctrines, and the moral discipline of Wesleyan Methodists, is equally\napplicable to those in America and in Europe. The Methodist Episcopal\nChurch in the United States, however, which became a distinct and\nindependent church in the year 1784, differs considerably in its\norganization, and in the details of its ecclesiastical economy, from the\nBritish Wesleyan connection. The circuits, into which the whole field of\nlabour occupied by the itinerant ministry is divided, are in general\nmuch larger, nor is any preacher allowed to remain on them more than two\nyears successively. Of these circuits, from five or six to fifteen or\nmore, according to circumstances, constitute a district. Of the\ndistricts, from four or five to six or eight, usually, comprise the\ntract of country embraced within the boundaries of an annual conference;\nand of annual conferences, the whole of the United States and\nTerritories, agreeably to the minutes of the last year, (1831,) were\ndivided into nineteen. From all these annual conferences, delegates, in\na certain prescribed ratio, are sent once in four years to constitute a\ngeneral conference, the highest ecclesiastical assemblage among American\nWesleyan Methodists. The minister or preacher first named of those\nappointed to each circuit or station, is thereby invested with the\npastoral charge thereof, and is usually denominated the preacher in\ncharge. Each district is committed to the care of an elder, denominated\nthe presiding elder, who is appointed annually, and may remain four\nyears successively on a district, but not longer; and all the districts\ncomprising the whole extent of the church, are under the general\nsuperintendence of the bishops. These at present, (April, 1832,) are\nfour in number, and like all others of our stated ministry, are required\nto be itinerant. If they cease to travel at large, without the consent\nof the general conference, they forfeit the exercise of their episcopal\nfunctions. Their visitations are annual and alternate, on a preconcerted\nplan, through the bounds of the entire work. They preside in the annual\nand general conferences, station the preachers, with (by established\nusage) the counsel of the presiding elders, and are jointly and\nseverally responsible to the general conference for their administration\nand conduct. (See also the articles EPISCOPALIANS,\u201d and IMPOSITION OF\nHANDS.\u201d)\n\nFor a more minute detail of the ecclesiastical economy, spiritual and\ntemporal, of American Wesleyan Methodists, (which would lead us too far\nfor a work of this sort,) reference may be had to the small volume\npublished at the Conference Office, entitled \u2018_The Doctrines and\nDiscipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church_.\u2019\n\nBy the minutes of the annual conferences for the last year, (1831,)\nthere were in the communion of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the\nUnited States, five hundred and thirteen thousand one hundred and\ntwenty-four members; of whom four hundred and thirty-seven thousand and\ntwenty-four were whites, seventy-one thousand five hundred and\neighty-nine coloured, and four thousand five hundred and one Indians.\nThe number of itinerant ministers was two thousand and ten, of whom one\nhundred and thirty four were superannuated, or worn out. In addition to\nthese, there are also several thousand local ministers and preachers,\nmany of whom were once itinerant; and who, though not statedly devoted\nto the work of the ministerial office, as the itinerant ministers are,\nyet, by their valuable services on the Sabbath, or at other times\noccasionally in their respective vicinities, constitute an important\nauxiliary branch of the system, and contribute much to its compactness\nand efficiency.\n\nBeside the above, there are in the United States several smaller\nassociations of persons bearing the name of Methodists, who hold and\nteach, in general, the doctrines of Wesleyan Methodists, but are not in\nconnection with the Methodist Episcopal Church, and differ from it in\nvarious points of ecclesiastical economy and discipline.\n\nThe Wesleyan Methodists in Upper Canada, who were formerly in connection\nwith the church in the United States, have recently, with the consent of\nthe general conference of the latter body, been constituted a distinct\nchurch, under an episcopal form. Its organization, however, has not yet\nbeen completed by the consecration of a bishop, though we understand\nthat a reverend individual has been selected, who will probably shortly\nbe set apart for that holy office. This branch of the American Wesleyan\nMethodists, agreeably to their minutes for the year 1831, consisted of\nsixty-five itinerant ministers, and twelve thousand five hundred and\nsixty-three members; of whom one thousand two hundred and thirty-three\nwere Indians.]\n\nMETHUSELAH, the son of Enoch, and father of Lamech, Gen. v, 21. He was\nborn A. M. 687, and died A. M. 1656, being the very year of the deluge,\nat the age of nine hundred and sixty-nine, the greatest age to which any\nmortal man ever attained.\n\nMICAH, the seventh in order of the twelve lesser prophets, is supposed\nto have prophesied about B. C. 750. He was commissioned to denounce the\njudgments of God against both the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, for\ntheir idolatry and wickedness. The principal predictions contained in\nthis book are, the invasions of Shalmanezer and Sennecharib; the\ndestruction of Samaria and of Jerusalem, mixed with consolatory promises\nof the deliverance of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, and of the\ndownfall of the power of their Assyrian and Babylonian oppressors; the\ncessation of prophecy in consequence of their continued deceitfulness\nand hypocrisy; and a desolation in a then distant period, still greater\nthan that which was declared to be impending. The birth of the Messiah\nat Bethlehem is also expressly foretold; and the Jews are directed to\nlook to the establishment and extent of his kingdom, as an unfailing\nsource of comfort amidst general distress. The style of Micah is\nnervous, concise, and elegant, often elevated, and poetical, but\nsometimes obscure from sudden transitions of subject; and the contrast\nof the neglected duties of justice, mercy, humility, and piety, with the\npunctilious observance of the ceremonial sacrifices, affords a beautiful\nexample of the harmony which subsists between the Mosaic and Christian\ndispensations, and shows that the law partook of that spiritual nature\nwhich more immediately characterizes the religion of Jesus.\n\nThe prophecy of Micah, contained in the fifth chapter, is, perhaps the\nmost important single prophecy in all the Old Testament, and the most\ncomprehensive respecting the personal character of the Messiah, and his\nsuccessive manifestations to the world. It crowns the whole chain of\npredictions respecting the several limitations of the promised seed: to\nthe line of Shem; to the family of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; to\nthe tribe of Judah; and to the royal house of David, terminating in his\nbirth at Bethlehem, the city of David.\u201d It carefully distinguishes his\nhuman nativity from his divine nature and eternal existence; foretels\nthe casting off of the Israelites and Jews for a season; their ultimate\nrestoration; and the universal peace which should prevail in the kingdom\nand under the government of the Messiah. This prophecy, therefore, forms\nthe basis of the New Testament revelation which commences with the birth\nof the Messiah at Bethlehem, the miraculous circumstances of which are\nrecorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke in the introduction to their\nrespective histories; the eternal subsistence of Christ as the Word,\u201d in\nthe sublime introduction to St. John\u2019s Gospel; his prophetic character\nand second coming, illustrated in the four Gospels and in the apostolic\nepistles.\n\nMICHAEL. See ARCHANGEL.\n\nMIDIAN, LAND OF, a country of the Midianites, derived its name and its\ninhabitants from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah. This country\nextended from the east of the land of Moab, on the east of the Dead Sea,\nsouthward, along the Elanitic gulf of the Red Sea, stretching some way\ninto Arabia. It farther passed to the south of the land of Edom, into\nthe peninsula of Mount Sinai, where Moses met with the daughter of\nJethro, the priest of Midian, whom he married. The Midianites, together\nwith their neighbours, the Ishmaelites, were early engaged in the trade\nbetween the east and the west, as we find the party to whom Joseph was\nsold, carrying spices, the produce of the east, into Egypt; and, taking\nGilead in their way, to add the celebrated and highly prized balm of\nthat country to their merchandise. It appears that, at the time of the\npassage of the Israelites through the country of the Amorites, the\nMidianites had been subdued by that people, as the chiefs or kings of\ntheir five principal tribes are called dukes of Sihon, and dwelt in his\ncountry, Joshua xiii, 21. It was at this time that the Midianites,\nalarmed at the numbers and the progress of the Israelites, united with\nthe Moabites in sending into Syria for Balaam, the soothsayer; thinking\nto do that by incantation which they despaired of effecting by force.\nThe result of this measure, the constraint imposed on Balaam to bless\ninstead of to curse, and the subsequent defeat and slaughter of the\nMidianites, forms one of the most interesting narratives in the early\nhistory of the Jews, Num. xxii-xxv, xxxi. About two hundred years after\nthis, the Midianites, having recovered their numbers and their strength,\nwere permitted by God to distress the Israelites for the space of seven\nyears, as a punishment for their relapse into idolatry. But at length\ntheir armies, like grasshoppers for multitude, with camels out of number\nas sand by the sea side for multitude,\u201d which had encamped in the valley\nof Jezreel, were miraculously defeated by Gideon, Judges vi-viii. The\nMidianites appear not to have survived this second discomfiture as a\nnation; but their remains became gradually incorporated with the\nMoabites and Arabians.\n\nMIGDOL. Moses writes, that when the Israelites came out of Egypt, the\nLord commanded them to encamp over against Pihahiroth, between Migdol\nand the sea, over against Baal-Zephon, Exod. xiv, 2. It is not known\nwhether this Migdol was a city, or only a fortress: probably the latter,\nin which a garrison was stationed.\n\nMILE, a measure of length, containing a thousand paces. Eight _stadia_\nor furlongs make a mile. The Romans commonly measured by miles, and the\nGreeks by furlongs. The furlong was a hundred and twenty-five paces; the\npace was five feet. The ancient Hebrews had neither miles, furlongs, nor\nfeet, but only the cubit, the reed, and the line. The rabbins make a\nmile to consist of two thousand cubits, and four miles make a parasang.\n\nMILETUS, a city on the continent of Asia Minor, and in the province of\nCaria, memorable for being the birthplace of Thales, one of the seven\nwise men of Greece, of Anaximander and Anaximines, the philosophers, and\nof Timotheus, the musician. It was about thirty-six miles south of\nEphesus, and the capital of both Caria and Ionia. The Milesians were\nsubdued by the Persians, and the country passed successively into the\npower of the Greeks and Romans. At present the Turks call it Molas, and\nit is not far distant from the true Meander, which encircles all the\nplain with many mazes, and innumerable windings. It was to this place\nthat St. Paul called the elders of the church of Ephesus, to deliver his\nlast charge to them, Acts xx, 15, &c. There was another Miletus in\nCrete, mentioned 2 Tim. iv, 20.\n\nMILL. In the first ages they parched or roasted their grain; a practice\nwhich the people of Israel, as we learn from the Scriptures, long\ncontinued: afterward they pounded it in a mortar, to which Solomon thus\nalludes: Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with\na pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him,\u201d Prov. xxvii,\n22. This was succeeded by mills, similar to the hand mills formerly used\nin this country, of which there were two sorts: the first were large,\nand turned by the strength of horses or asses; the second were smaller,\nand wrought by men, commonly by slaves condemned to this hard labour, as\na punishment for their crimes. Chardin remarks, in his manuscript, that\nthe persons employed are generally female slaves, who are least\nregarded, or are least fitted for any thing else; for the work is\nextremely laborious, and esteemed the lowest employment about the house.\nMost of their corn is ground by these little mills, although they\nsometimes make use of large mills, wrought by oxen or camels. Near\nIspahan, and some of the other great cities of Persia, he saw water\nmills; but he did not meet with a single wind mill in the east. Almost\nevery family grind their wheat and barley at home, having two portable\nmill stones for that purpose; of which the uppermost is turned round by\na small handle of wood or iron that is placed in the rim. When this\nstone is large, or expedition is required, a second person is called in\nto assist; and as it is usual for the women only to be concerned in this\nemployment, who seat themselves over against each other, with the mill\nstone between them, we may see the propriety of the expression in the\ndeclaration of Moses: And all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall\ndie, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne even\nunto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill,\u201d Exod.\nxi, 5. The manner in which the hand mills are worked is well described\nby Dr. E. D. Clarke, in his Travels: \u201cScarcely had we reached the\napartment prepared for our reception, when, looking from the window into\nthe court yard belonging to the house, we beheld two women grinding at\nthe mill, in a manner most forcibly illustrating the saying of our\nSaviour: \u2018Two women shall be grinding at the mill, the one shall be\ntaken and the other left.\u2019 They were preparing flour to make our bread,\nas it is always customary in the country when strangers arrive. The two\nwomen, seated upon the ground opposite to each other, held between them\ntwo round flat stones, such as are seen in Lapland, and such as in\nScotland are called querns. In the centre of the upper stone was a\ncavity for pouring in the corn, and by the side of this an upright\nwooden handle for moving the stone. As this operation began, one of the\nwomen opposite received it from her companion, who pushed it toward her,\nwho again sent it to her companion; thus communicating a rotatory motion\nto the upper stone, their left hands being all the while employed in\nsupplying fresh corn, as fast as the bran and flour escaped from the\nsides of the machine.\u201d When they are not impelled, as in this instance,\nto premature exertions by the arrival of strangers, they grind their\ncorn in the morning at break of day: the noise of the mill is then to be\nheard every where, and is often so great as to rouse the inhabitants of\nthe cities from their slumbers; for it is well known they bake their\nbread every day, and commonly grind their corn as it is wanted. The\nnoise of the mill stone is therefore, with great propriety, selected by\nthe prophet as one of the tokens of a populous and thriving country:\nMoreover, I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of\ngladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the\nsound of mill stones and the light of a candle, and their whole land\nshall be a desolation,\u201d Jer. xxv, 10. The morning shall no more be\ncheered with the joyful sound of the mill, nor the shadows of evening by\nthe light of a candle; the morning shall be silent, and the evening dark\nand melancholy, where desolation reigns. At the earliest dawn of the\nmorning,\u201d says Mr. Forbes, in all the Hindoo towns and villages, the\nhand mills are at work, when the menials and widows grind meal for the\ndaily consumption of the family: this work is always performed by women,\nwho resume their task every morning, especially the forlorn Hindoo\nwidows, divested of every ornament, and with their heads shaved,\ndegraded to almost a state of servitude.\u201d How affecting, then, is the\ncall to the daughter of Babylon!--\u201cCome down, and sit in the dust, O\ndaughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter\nof the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.\nTake the mill stones, and grind meal; uncover thy locks, make bare the\nleg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers,\u201d Isaiah xlvii, 1, 2.\n\nThe custom of daily grinding their corn for the family, shows the\npropriety of the law: \u201cNo man shall take the nether or the upper mill\nstone to pledge, for he taketh a man\u2019s life to pledge;\u201d because if he\ntake either the upper or the nether mill stone, he deprives him of his\ndaily provision, which cannot be prepared without them. That complete\nand perpetual desolation which, by the just allotment of Heaven, is ere\nlong to overtake the mystical Babylon, is clearly signified by the same\nprecept: The sound of the mill stone shall be heard no more at all in\nthee,\u201d Rev. xviii, 22. The means of subsistence being entirely\ndestroyed, no human creature shall ever occupy the ruined habitations\nmore. In the book of Judges, the sacred historian alludes, with\ncharacteristic accuracy, to several circumstances implied in that\ncustom, where he describes the fall of Abimelech. A woman of Thebez,\ndriven to desperation by his furious attack on the tower, started up\nfrom the mill at which she was grinding, seized the upper mill stone,\n\u05e4\u05dc\u05d7 \u05e8\u05db\u05d1, and, rushing to the top of the gate, cast it on his head, and\nfractured his skull. This was the feat of a woman, for the mill is\nworked only by females; it was not a piece of a mill stone, but the\nrider, the distinguishing name of the upper mill stone, which literally\nrides upon the other, and is a piece or division of the mill: it was a\nstone of two feet broad, and therefore fully sufficient, when thrown\nfrom such a height, to produce the effect mentioned in the narrative. It\ndisplays, also, the vindictive contempt which suggested the punishment\nof Samson, the captive ruler of Israel, that the Philistines, with\nbarbarous contumely, compelled him to perform the meanest service of a\nfemale slave; they sent him to grind in the prison, Judges xvi, 21, but\nnot for himself alone; this, although extremely mortifying to the hero,\nhad been more tolerable; they made him grinder for the prison, perhaps\nwhile the vilest malefactor was permitted to look on, and join in the\nmockery. Samson, the ruler and avenger of Israel, labours, as Isaiah\nforetold the virgin daughter of Babylon should labour: Come down, and\nsit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon: there is no throne,\u201d no\nseat for thee, O daughter of the Chaldeans. Take the mill stones and\ngrind meal,\u201d but not with the wonted song; Sit thou silent, and get thee\ninto darkness,\u201d there to conceal thy vexation and disgrace, Isaiah\nxlvii, 1, 2, 5. The females engaged in this operation, endeavoured to\nbeguile the lingering hours of toilsome exertion with a song. We learn\nfrom an expression of Aristophanes, preserved by Athen\u00e6us, that the\nGrecian maidens accompanied the sound of the mill stones with their\nvoices. This circumstance imparts force to the description of the\nprophet, the light of a candle was no more to be seen in the evening;\nthe sound of the mill stones, the indication of plenty, and the song of\nthe grinders, the natural expression of joy and happiness, were no more\nto be heard at the dawn. The grinding of corn at so early an hour throws\nlight on a passage of considerable obscurity: And the sons of Rimmon the\nBeerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day\nto the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon; and they came\nthither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched\nwheat, and they smote him under the fifth rib; and Rechab and Baanah his\nbrother escaped,\u201d 2 Sam. iv, 5\u20137. It is still a custom in the east,\naccording to Dr. Perry, to allow their soldiers a certain quantity of\ncorn, with other articles of provisions, together with some pay; and as\nit was the custom, also, to carry their corn to the mill at break of\nday, these two captains very naturally went to the palace the day before\nto fetch wheat, in order to distribute it to the soldiers, that it might\nbe sent to the mill at the accustomed hour in the morning. The princes\nof the east in those days, as the history of David shows, lounged in\ntheir divan, or reposed on their couch, till the cool of the evening\nbegan to advance. Rechab and Baanah, therefore, came in the heat of the\nday, when they knew that Ishbosheth, their master, would be resting on\nhis bed; and as it was necessary, for the reason just given, to have the\ncorn the day before it was needed, their coming at that time, though it\nmight be a little earlier than usual, created no suspicion, and\nattracted no notice.\n\nMILLENARIANS are those who believe, according to an ancient tradition in\nthe church, grounded on some doubtful texts in the book of Revelation\nand other scriptures, that our Saviour shall reign a thousand years with\nthe faithful upon earth after the first resurrection, before the full\ncompletion of final happiness; and their name, taken from the Latin word\n_mille_, a thousand,\u201d has a direct allusion to the duration of this\nspiritual empire, which is styled the millennium. A millennium, or a\nfuture paradisaical state of the earth, is viewed by some as a doctrine\nnot of Christian, but of Jewish, origin. The tradition which fixes the\nduration of the world, in its present imperfect state, to six thousand\nyears, and announces the approach of a Sabbath of one thousand years of\nuniversal peace and plenty, to be ushered in by the glorious advent of\nthe Messiah, has been traced up to Elias, a rabbinical writer, who\nflourished about two centuries before the birth of Christ. It certainly\nobtained among the Chaldeans from the earliest times; and it is\ncountenanced by Barnabas, Iren\u00e6us, and other primitive writers, and also\nby the Jews at the present day. But though the theory may not be very\nimprobable, yet, as it has not the sanction of Scripture to support it,\nwe are not bound to respect it any farther than as a doubtful tradition.\nThe Jews understood several passages of the prophets, as Zechariah xiv,\n16, &c, of the millennium; in which, according to their carnal\napprehensions, the Messiah is to reign on earth, and to bring all\nnations within the pale, and under subjection to the ordinances, of the\nJewish church.\n\nJustin Martyr, the most ancient of the fathers, was a great supporter of\nthe doctrine of the millennium, or that our Saviour shall reign with the\nfaithful upon earth, after the resurrection, for a thousand years; which\nhe declares was the belief of all orthodox Christians. But this opinion\nis not generally followed; for, though there has been, perhaps, no age\nof the church in which this doctrine was not admitted by one or more\ndivines of the first eminence, it yet appears, from the writings of\nEusebius, Iren\u00e6us, and others among the ancients, as well as from the\nhistories of Dupin, Mosheim, and other moderns, that it was never\nadopted by the whole church, nor formed an article of the established\ncreed in any nation. Origen, the most learned of the fathers, and\nDionysius, bishop of Alexandria, usually, for his immense erudition,\nsurnamed the Great, both opposed the doctrine that prevailed on the\nsubject in their day; and Dr. Whitby, in his learned treatise on the\nsubject, proves, first, that the millennium was never generally received\nin the church of Christ; and, secondly, that there is no just ground to\nthink it was derived from the Apostles.\n\nOn the other hand, Dr. T. Burnet and others maintain that it was very\ngenerally admitted till the Nicene council, in 325, or till the fourth\ncentury. The doctor supposes Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote against\nNepos, an Egyptian bishop, before the middle of the third century, to\nhave been the first that attacked this doctrine; but Origen had\npreviously assailed it in many of his fictitious additions. The truth\nseems to be, as one well remarks, that a spiritual reign of Christ was\nbelieved by all who carefully examined the Scriptures, though the\npopular notions of the millennium were often rejected; and ancient as\nwell as modern writers assailed the extravagant superstructure, not the\nScriptural foundation of the doctrine.\u201d During the interregnum in\nEngland, in the time of Cromwell, there arose a set of enthusiasts\nsometimes called Millenarians, but more frequently Fifth Monarchy Men,\nwho expected the sudden appearance of Christ, to establish on earth a\nnew monarchy or kingdom. In consequence of this, some of them aimed at\nthe subversion of all human government. In ancient history we read of\nfour great monarchies; the Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, and the Roman;\nand these men, believing that this new spiritual kingdom of Christ was\nto be the fifth, obtained the name by which they were called. They\nclaimed to be the saints of God, and to have the dominion of saints,\nDan. vii, 27; expecting that, when Christ was come into this kingdom, to\nbegin his reign on earth, they, as his deputies, were to govern all\nthings under him. They went so far as to give up their own Christian\nnames, and assume others from Scripture, like the Manicheans of old.\n\nThe opinions of the moderns on this subject may be reduced to two: 1.\nSome believe that Christ will reign personally on the earth, and that\nthe prophecies of the millennium point to a resurrection of martyrs and\nother just men, to reign with him a thousand years in a visible kingdom.\n2. Others are inclined to believe that, by the reign of Christ and the\nsaints for a thousand years on earth, nothing more is meant than that,\nbefore the general judgment, the Jews shall be converted, genuine\nChristianity be diffused through all nations, and mankind enjoy that\npeace and happiness which the faith and precepts of the Gospel are\ncalculated to confer on all by whom they are sincerely embraced.\u201d The\nstate of the Christian church, say they, will be, for a thousand years\nbefore the general judgment, so pure and so widely extended, that, when\ncompared with the state of the world in the ages preceding, it may, in\nthe language of Scripture, be called a resurrection from the dead. In\nsupport of this interpretation, they quote two passages from St. Paul,\nin which a conversion from Paganism to Christianity, and a reformation\nof life is called a resurrection from the dead,\u201d Rom. vi, 13; Ephesians\nv, 14. There is, indeed, an order in the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 24;\nbut we no where observe mention made of a first and second resurrection\nat the distance of a thousand years from each other: yet, were the\nmillenarian hypothesis well founded, the words should rather have run\nthus: Christ, the first-fruits, then the martyrs at his coming, and a\nthousand years afterward the residue of mankind,--then cometh the end,\u201d\n&c.\n\nMr. Joseph Mede, Dr. Gill, Bishop Newton, Mr. Winchester, Mr. Eyre, Mr.\nKett, and a host of writers recently, are advocates for the first of\nthese opinions, and contend for the personal reign of Christ on earth.\nWhen these great events shall come to pass,\u201d says Bishop Newton, \u201cof\nwhich we collect from the prophecies this to be the proper order,--the\nProtestant witnesses shall be greatly exalted, and the twelve hundred\nand sixty years of their prophesying in sackcloth, and of the tyranny of\nthe beast, shall end together; the conversion and restoration of the\nJews succeed; then follows the ruin of the Ottoman empire; and then the\ntotal destruction of Rome and of antichrist. When these great events, I\nsay, shall come to pass, then shall the kingdom of Christ commence, or\nthe reign of saints upon earth. So Daniel expressly informs us that the\nkingdom of Christ and the saints will be raised upon the ruins of the\nkingdom of antichrist, Daniel vii, 26, 27. So likewise St. John saith,\nthat, upon the final destruction of the beast and of the false prophet,\n\u2018Satan is bound,\u2019 &c, Rev. xx, 2\u20136. It is, I conceive, to these great\nevents, the fall of antichrist, the re\u00ebstablishment of the Jews, and the\nbeginning of the glorious millennium, that the three different dates in\nDaniel, of twelve hundred and sixty years, twelve hundred and ninety\nyears, and thirteen hundred and thirty-five years, are to be referred.\nAnd, as Daniel saith, \u2018Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the\nthirteen hundred and thirty-five years,\u2019 Daniel xii, 12: so St. John\nsaith, \u2018Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first\nresurrection,\u2019 Rev. xx, 6. Blessed and happy, indeed, will be this\nperiod; and it is very observable, that the martyrs and confessors of\nJesus, in papist as well as Pagan times, will be raised to partake of\nthis felicity. Then shall all those gracious promises in the Old\nTestament be fulfilled, of the amplitude and extent of the peace and\nprosperity, of the glory and happiness, of the church in the latter\ndays. Then, in the full sense of the words, \u2018shall the kingdoms of this\nworld become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall\nreign for ever and ever,\u2019 Rev. xi, 15. According to tradition, these\nthousand years of the reign of Christ and the saints will be the seventh\nmillenary of the world; for, as God created the world in six days, and\nrested on the seventh, so the world, it is argued, will continue six\nthousand years, and the seventh thousand will be the great sabbatism, or\nholy rest of the people of God; \u2018one day being with the Lord as a\nthousand years, and a thousand years as one day,\u2019 2 Pet. iii, 8.\nAccording to tradition, too, these thousand years of the reign of Christ\nand the saints are the great day of judgment, in the morning or\nbeginning whereof shall be the coming of Christ in flaming fire, and the\nparticular judgment of antichrist, and the first resurrection; and in\nthe evening or conclusion whereof shall be the general resurrection of\nthe dead, small and great; \u2018and they shall be judged every man according\nto his works.\u2019\u201d\n\nSuch is the representation of the millennium, as given by those who\nembrace the opinion of Christ\u2019s reigning personally on earth during the\nperiod of one thousand years. But Dr. Whitby, Mr. Lowman, &c, contend\nagainst the literal interpretation of the millennium, both as to its\nnature and duration. Mr. Faber observes that, \u201crespecting the yet future\nand mysterious millennium, the less that is said upon the subject the\nbetter. Unable myself to form the slightest conception of its specific\nnature, I shall weary neither my own nor my reader\u2019s patience with\npremature remarks upon it. That it will be a season of great\nblessedness, is certain; farther than this we know nothing definitely.\u201d\nThe millenarians do not form a sect distinct from others; but their\ndistinguishing tenet, in one view or other, prevails, in a greater or\nless degree, among most denominations into which the Christian world is\ndivided.\n\nThe following observations from Jones\u2019s Biblical Cyclop\u00e6dia are worthy\ngreat attention for their sobriety:--Some have supposed that the\npassage, Rev. xx, 4, is to be taken literally, as importing that at that\ntime Jesus Christ will come, in his human nature, from heaven to earth,\nand set his kingdom up here, reigning visibly and personally, with\ndistinguished glory on earth; that the bodies of the martyrs, and of\nother eminent Christians will then be raised from the dead, in which\nthey shall live and reign with Christ here on earth a thousand years.\nAnd some suppose, that all the saints, the true friends to God and\nChrist, who have lived before that time, will then be raised from the\ndead, and live on earth perfectly holy, during this thousand years. And\nthis they suppose is meant by the first resurrection. Those who agree in\ngeneral in this notion of the millennium differ with respect to many\ncircumstances, which it is needless to mention here. Others have\nunderstood this paragraph of Scripture in a figurative sense: that by\nthis reign of Christ on earth, is not meant his coming from heaven to\nearth in his human visible nature; but his taking to himself his power,\nand utterly overthrowing the kingdom of Satan, and setting up his own\nkingdom throughout the world which, before this, had been confined to\nvery narrow bounds; subduing all hearts to a willing subjection, and\nthus reigning generally over the men who shall then be in the world, and\nlive in that thousand years. And by the souls of them which were\nbeheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which\nhad not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received\nhis mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands,\u201d living again and\nreigning with Christ a thousand years; they suppose, is not meant a\nliteral resurrection, or the resurrection of their bodies, which is not\nasserted here, as there is nothing said of their bodies, or of their\nbeing raised to life; but that they shall live again, and reign with\nChrist, in the revival, prosperity, reign, and triumph of that cause and\ninterest in which they lived, and for the promotion of which they died;\nand in whose death the cause seemed to languish and become extinct. Thus\nthey shall live again in their successors, who shall arise and stand up\nwith the same spirit, and in the same cause, in which they lived and\ndied, agreeable to ancient prophecies. The meek shall inherit the\nearth.\u201d And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom\nunder the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of\nthe Most High; whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all\ndominions shall serve him.\u201d And they suppose that this revival of the\ncause of Christ, by the numerous inhabitants of the earth rising up to a\nnew and holy life, is that which is here called the first resurrection,\nin distinction from the second, which will consist in the resurrection\nof the body; whereas this is a spiritual resurrection; a resurrection of\nthe cause of Christ, which had been, in a great degree, dead and lost; a\nresurrection of the souls of men, by the renovation of the Holy Spirit.\nThat this important passage of Scripture is to be understood in the\nfigurative sense, last mentioned, is probable, and the following\nconsiderations are thought sufficient to support it:--\n\n1. Most if not all the prophecies in this book are delivered in\nfigurative language, referring to types and events recorded in the Old\nTestament; and in imitation of the language of the ancient prophets. And\nthis was proper, and even necessary, in the best manner to answer the\nends of prophecy, as might easily be shown were it necessary. The first\npart of this passage, all must allow, is figurative. Satan cannot be\nbound with a literal, material chain. The key, the great chain, and the\nseal, cannot be understood literally. The whole is a figure, and can\nmean no more than, that, when the time of the millennium arrives, or\nrather previous to it, Jesus Christ will lay effectual restraints on\nSatan, so that his powerful and prevailing influence, by which he had\nbefore deceived and destroyed a great part of mankind, shall be wholly\ntaken from him for a thousand years. And it is most natural to\nunderstand the other part of the description of this remarkable event to\nbe represented in the same figurative language, as the whole is a\nrepresentation of one scene; especially, since no reason can be given\nwhy it should not be so understood.\n\n2. To suppose that Christ shall come in his human nature to this earth,\nand live here in his whole person visible a thousand years before the\nday of judgment, appears to be contrary to several passages of\nScripture. The coming of Christ, and his appearing at the day of\njudgment in his human nature, is said to be his second appearance,\nanswering to his first appearance, in his human nature on earth, from\nhis birth to his ascension into heaven, which was past. And as it is\nappointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ\nwas once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them who look for\nhim shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation,\u201d Heb.\nix, 27, 28. The appearance here spoken of is the appearance of Christ at\nthe day of judgment, to complete the salvation of his church. This could\nnot be his appearing the second time, were he thus to appear, and to be\nbodily present in his human nature on earth, in the time of the\nmillennium, which is to take place before the day of judgment. The\ncoming of Christ does not always intend his coming visibly in his human\nnature; but he is said to come, when he destroyed the temple and nation\nof the Jews, and appeared in favour of his church. So his destruction of\nHeathen Rome, and delivering his church from that persecuting power, was\nan instance of his coming. And he will, in the same way, come to destroy\nantichrist, and the kingdom of Satan in the world, and introduce the\nmillennium; and in these instances, and others, he may be said to\nappear. But his coming to judgment, and appearing to complete the final\ndestruction of all his enemies, and to perfect the salvation of his\nchurch, is his last coming and appearance. But if he were here on earth,\nvisible in his human nature, and reigning in his glorified body, during\nthe millennium, he would be already here to attend the last judgment,\nand he could not be properly said to come from heaven, and to be\nrevealed from heaven, because this was done a thousand years before.\nBeside, that Christ should come from heaven, and appear and reign in his\nhuman nature and presence before the day of judgment, seems to be\ncontrary to the following scriptures: For the Lord himself shall descend\nfrom heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the\ntrump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.\u201d When the Lord\nJesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming\nfire, taking vengeance on them that know not God,\u201d &c. When he shall\ncome to be glorified in his saints,\u201d 1 Thess. iv, 16; 2 Thess. i, 7, 8,\n10. This is evidently his appearing the second time, for the salvation\nof all them that look for him; but were he on earth before this, in the\nhuman nature, during the time of the millennium, how could he be said to\nbe revealed, to descend and come from heaven to judge the world?\n\n3. There is nothing expressly said of the resurrection of the body in\nthis passage. The Apostle John saw the souls of them which were beheaded\nfor the witness of Jesus, &c, and they lived and reigned with Christ.\nThe resurrection of the body is no where expressed in Scripture by the\nsoul\u2019s living. And as there is nothing said of the body, and he only saw\ntheir souls to live: this does not appear to be a proper expression to\ndenote the resurrection of the body, and their living in that. As this,\ntherefore, does not seem to be the natural meaning of the words, and\ncertainly is not the necessary meaning, we are warranted to look for\nanother meaning, and to acquiesce in it, if one can be found which is\nmore easy and natural, and more agreeable to the whole passage and to\nthe Scripture in general. Therefore,\n\n4. The most easy and probable meaning is, that the souls of the martyrs,\nand all the faithful followers of Christ, who have lived in the world,\nand have died before the millennium shall commence, shall revive and\nlive again in their successors, who shall rise up in the same spirit,\nand in the same character, in which they lived and died; and in the\nrevival and flourishing of that cause which they espoused, and spent\ntheir lives in promoting. This is therefore a spiritual resurrection,\ndenoting that all Christ\u2019s people shall appear in the spirit and power\nof those martyrs and holy men, who had before lived in the world, and\nwho shall live again in these their successors, and in the revival of\ntheir cause, or in the resurrection of the church, from the very low\nstate in which it had been before the millennium, to a state of great\nprosperity and glory. This is agreeable to the way of representing\nthings in Scripture in other instances. John the Baptist was Elijah,\nbecause he rose in the spirit of Elijah, and promoted the same cause in\nwhich Elijah lived and died; and Elijah revived and lived in John the\nBaptist, because he went before Christ, in the spirit and power of\nElijah, Luke i, 17. Therefore Christ says of John, This is Elijah who\nwas to come,\u201d Matt. xi, 14.\n\nWith regard to the nature of the millennial state, or the blessings\nwhich shall be more particularly enjoyed during that period, the\nfollowing things seem to be marked out in prophecy:--\n\n1. It is expressly said of those who shall partake of this first\nresurrection, that they shall be blessed and holy;\u201d by which the\ninspired writer seems to denote that it will be a time of eminent\nholiness. This will constitute the peculiar glory and the source of the\nhappiness of the millennium state, Zech. xiv, 20, 21. And that such will\nbe the case, we may infer, also, from the consideration, that,\n\n2. There is reason to expect a remarkable effusion of the Spirit, about\nthe commencement of this happy period, even as there was at the first\nsetting up of Christ\u2019s kingdom in the world. Beside the promises of the\nSpirit which were accomplished in the apostolic age, there are others\nwhich from the connection appear to refer to the time we are now\nspeaking of. Thus Isaiah, after having described Christ\u2019s kingdom which\nwas set up at his first coming, and then the succeeding desolate state\nof the Jews, represents this as continuing until the Spirit be poured\nupon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the\nfruitful field be counted for a forest,\u201d Isa. xxxii, 15\u201319. The Apostle\nPaul, speaking of the conversion of the Jews at this period, refers to a\npassage in Isaiah where a promise of the Spirit is made to them: \u201cAs for\nme, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My Spirit which is\nupon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart\nout of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth\nof thy seed\u2019s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,\u201d Isa.\nlix, 20, 21; Rom. xi, 26, 27. The Lord having mentioned the forlorn\ndispersed state of Israel throughout the nations, among whom they had\nprofaned his name, promises to gather them, cleanse them, and give them\na new heart and spirit, and adds, And I will put my Spirit within you,\nand cause you to walk in my statutes; and ye shall keep my judgments and\ndo them,\u201d Ezek. xxxvi, 27; xxxix, 28, 29. The promise of pouring upon\nthem the spirit of grace and supplication has also a view to this\nperiod, Zech. xii, 10. Though we are not to expect the miraculous gifts\nof the apostolic age, yet the work of the Spirit will abundantly appear\nin qualifying men for propagating the Gospel throughout the world,\nfilling them with light, zeal, courage, and activity, in that work; in\ngiving success and effect to the Gospel by converting multitudes to the\nfaith, quickening the dead in trespasses and sins, and translating them\ninto the kingdom of Christ; and in enlightening, quickening, purifying,\nand comforting the children of God, stirring them up to greater\nliveliness, love, zeal, activity, and fruitfulness in his service.\n\n3. A universal spread of the Gospel, diffusing the knowledge of the Lord\nthroughout the world in a more extensive and effectual manner than ever\nit was before. This is repeatedly promised: The earth shall be full of\nthe knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;\u201d and this shall\ntake place in that day when the Gentiles shall seek to the branch of the\nroot of Jesse, whose rest shall be glorious, and when the Lord shall set\nhis hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, and\nshall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts\nof Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from the four\ncorners of the earth,\u201d Isaiah xi, 9\u201312. The same promise of the\nuniversal knowledge of the glory of the Lord is repeated in the prophecy\nof Habakkuk, ii, 14. This will be attended with corresponding effects:\nAll the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord; and all\nthe kindreds of the nations shall worship before him,\u201d Psalm xxii, 27;\nyea, all kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him,\u201d\nPsalm lxxii, 11. And though we may not imagine that all the inhabitants\nof the globe will have the true and saving knowledge of the Lord; yet we\nmay expect such a universal spread of light and religious knowledge as\nshall root up Pagan, Mohammedan, and antichristian delusions, and\nproduce many good effects upon those who are not really regenerated, by\nawing their minds, taming their ferocity, improving their morals, and\nmaking them peaceable and humane.\n\n4. The Jews will then be converted to the faith of the Messiah, and\npartake with the Gentiles of the blessings of his kingdom. The Apostle\nPaul, in the eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, treats of\nthis at large, and confirms it from the prophecies of the Old Testament.\nHe is speaking of Israel in a literal sense, the natural posterity of\nAbraham; for he distinguishes them both from the believing Gentiles and\nthe Jewish converts of his time, and describes them as the rest who were\nblinded, had stumbled and fallen, and so had not obtained, but were\nbroken off and cast away, Rom. xi, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17. Yet he denies that\nthey have stumbled that they should fall, that is, irrecoverably, so as\nin no future period to be restored; but shows that God\u2019s design in\npermitting this was, that through their fall salvation might come unto\nthe Gentiles, and that this again might provoke them to jealousy or\nemulation, verse 11. He argues that if their fall and diminishing was\nthe riches of the Gentiles, and the casting away of them was the\nreconciling of the world, their fulness will be much more so, and the\nreceiving of them be life from the dead, verses 12, 15. He farther\nargues, that if the Gentiles were grafted contrary to nature into a good\nolive tree, how much more shall these which be the natural branches be\ngrafted into their own olive tree?\u201d verse 24. Nor did he consider this\nevent as merely probable, but as absolutely certain; for he shows that\nthe present blindness and future conversion of that people is the\nmystery or hidden sense of prophecies concerning them; and he cites two\nof these prophecies where the context foretels both their rejection and\nrecovery, Isaiah lix, 20, 21; xxvii, 9.\n\n5. The purity of visible church communion, worship, and discipline, will\nthen be restored according to the primitive apostolic pattern. During\nthe reign of antichrist a corrupted form of Christianity was drawn over\nthe nations, and established in the political constitutions of the\nkingdoms which were subject to that monstrous power. By this means the\nchildren of God were either mixed in visible religious communion with\nthe profane world, in direct opposition to the word of God, or\npersecuted for their nonconformity. In reference to this state of\nthings, the angel commands St. John to leave out the court which is\nwithout the temple, and not to measure it, for this reason, because it\nis given to the Gentiles; and the holy city shall they tread under foot\nforty and two months,\u201d Rev. xi, 2; that is, they shall pollute and\nprofane the worship and communion of the church during the one thousand\ntwo hundred and sixty years of antichrist\u2019s reign, so that it cannot be\nmeasured by the rule of God\u2019s word. But when the period we are speaking\nof shall arrive, the sanctuary shall be cleansed, Dan. viii, 14; the\nvisible communion, worship, order, and discipline of the house of God\nwill then be restored to their primitive purity, and accord with the\nrule of the New Testament. So it is promised to Zion, Henceforth there\nshall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean,\u201d Isaiah\nlii, 1. Thy people shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land\nfor ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be\nglorified,\u201d Isaiah lx, 21. And in that day there shall be no more the\nCanaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts,\u201d Zech. xiv, 21.\n\n6. The Lord\u2019s special presence and residence will then be in the midst\nof his people. Christ hath promised to be with his people in every\nperiod of the church, even unto the end of the world, Matt. xxviii, 20,\nand that he will be in the midst even of two or three of them when\ngathered together in his name, Matt. xviii, 20. He also calls them to\npurity of communion and personal holiness, and promiseth to dwell in\nthem and walk in them, 2 Cor. vi, 16, 17; but this will be fulfilled in\nan eminent and remarkable manner during the millennial period. The Lord,\nhaving promised to raise Israel out of their graves, to gather them from\namong the Heathen, and bring them into the church and kingdom of Christ,\nas one fold having one shepherd, adds, And I will set my sanctuary in\nthe midst of them for evermore; my tabernacle also shall be with them;\nyea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people,\u201d Ezek. xxxvii,\n11\u201327. This alludes to his dwelling among Israel in the tabernacle and\nsanctuary of old, Lev. xxvi, 11, 12; and imports his manifesting himself\nunto them, admitting them into the most intimate correspondence and\ncommunion with himself in his ordinances, communicating light, life, and\nconsolation to them by his Spirit; and also his protection and care of\nthem as his peculiar people. It is intimated that there will be such\nvisible tokens of the divine presence and residence among them as will\nfall under the notice of the world, and produce conviction and awe, as\nwas in some measure the case in the first churches, Acts ii, 47; v, 11,\n13; 1 Cor. xiv, 24, 25; for it is added, And the Heathen shall know that\nI the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst\nof them for evermore,\u201d Ezek. xxxvii, 28. Indeed, this is that very\npromise which is represented to St. John as accomplished: And I heard a\ngreat voice out of heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with\nmen, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God\nhimself shall be with them, and be their God,\u201d Rev. xxi, 3.\n\n7. This will be a time of universal peace, tranquillity and safety.\nPersons naturally of the most savage, ferocious, and cruel disposition,\nwill then be tame and harmless; so it is promised, Isaiah xi, 6\u201310.\nWhether we consider the persons represented by these hurtful animals to\nbe converted or not, it is certain they will then be effectually\nrestrained from doing harm, or persecuting the saints. There shall be no\nwar nor bloodshed among the nations during this happy period; for we are\ntold, that, in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord\u2019s house\nshall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted\nabove the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it; the Lord shall\njudge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall\nbeat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning\nhooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they\nlearn war any more,\u201d Isaiah ii, 4. The same promise is repeated word for\nword in the prophecies of Micah, iv, 3. Much to the same purpose is that\npromise in Hosea ii, 18. Though war has hitherto deluged the world with\nhuman blood, and been a source of complicated calamities to mankind,\nyet, when Satan is bound, his influence upon wicked men restrained, and\nthe saints bear rule, it must necessarily cease.\n\n8. The civil rulers and judges shall then be all maintainers of peace\nand righteousness. Though Christ will put down all that rule, power, and\nauthority which opposeth the peace and prosperity of his kingdom; yet as\nrulers are the ordinance of God, and his ministers for good; as some\nform of government seems absolutely necessary to the order and happiness\nof society in this world; it is thought that when the kingdoms of this\nworld are become our Lord\u2019s and his Christ\u2019s, the promise will be\naccomplished, I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors\nrighteousness;\u201d and in consequence of this, violence shall no more be\nheard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou\nshalt call thy walls salvation, and thy gates praise,\u201d Isaiah lx, 17,\n18. Peace and righteousness are the two great ends of government: Christ\nhimself is king of righteousness, and king of peace, and the civil\nrulers during that happy period will resemble him in their character and\nadministration; for then shall that promise be fulfilled: In\nrighteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from\noppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, for it shall not\ncome near thee,\u201d Isaiah liv, 14.\n\n9. The saints shall then have the dominion, and the wicked shall be in\nsubjection. This is clear from the united voice of prophecy: The kingdom\nand dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven,\nshall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High,\u201d Dan. vii,\n27. The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the\nkingdom for ever,\u201d Dan. vii, 18. The meek shall inherit the earth,\u201d\nMatt. v, 5; shall reign on the earth,\u201d Rev. v, 10; shall reign with\nChrist a thousand years,\u201d Rev. xx, 4; they shall be priests of God, and\nof Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years,\u201d Rev. xx, 6. The\nsaints are at present made kings and priests unto God, a kingly\npriesthood, 1 Peter ii, 9; but then they shall be more eminently so,\nwhen, by the holiness of their lives, the purity of their faith and\nworship, and their diligence in promoting pure and undefiled religion,\nthe earth shall he filled with the knowledge of the Lord. Then shall\nthat promise be fully accomplished, Ye shall be named the priests of the\nLord; men shall call you the ministers of our God,\u201d Isaiah lxi, 6. With\nregard to the nature of their reign, it will undoubtedly correspond in\nall respects with the spiritual and heavenly nature of Christ\u2019s kingdom,\nto the promotion of which all their power will be subservient. Those who\ncannot conceive of any reign upon earth, but such as consists in lordly\nand oppressive dominion, maintained by policy and force, and made\nsubservient to the purposes of pride, ambition, avarice, and other\nworldly lusts, can have no idea at all of this reign of the saints with\nChrist, which is a reign of peace on earth and good will to men; a reign\nof truth and righteousness, of true godliness and universal humanity. In\nshort, it is the prevalence and triumph of the cause of Christ in this\nworld over that of Satan and all his instruments. How delightful then\nthe prospects which open upon the eye of faith in the prophetic vision!\nChristianity prevails universally, and the consequences are most\nblissful. Our race assumes the appearance of one vast virtuous and\npeaceful family. Our world becomes the seat of one grand triumphant\nadoring assembly. At length the scene mingles with the heavens, and,\nrising in brightness, is blended with the glories on high. The mysteries\nof God on earth are finished, the times of the regeneration are\nfulfilled. The Son of God descends. The scene closes with divine\ngrandeur: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as\nthe voice of many waters, and as the voice of many thunderings, saying,\nAlleluia; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. The kingdoms of this\nworld are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ. And I saw a\nnew heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth\nwere passed away; and there was no more sea. And I saw the holy city,\nNew Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven. And I heard a great\nvoice out of heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,\nand he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God\nhimself shall be with them, and be their God.\u201d\n\nMILLET, \u05d3\u05d7\u05df, Ezek. iv, 9, a kind of plant so called from its thrusting\nforth such a quantity of grains. Thus in Latin it is called _millium_,\nas if one stalk bore a thousand seeds. It has been supposed that the\n_dochan_ means what is now called in the east _durra_; which, according\nto Niebuhr, is a sort of millet, and when made into bad bread with\ncamel\u2019s milk, oil, butter, or grease, is almost the only food which is\neaten by the common people in Arabia Felix. I found it so disagreeable,\u201d\nsays he, that I should willingly have preferred plain barley bread to\nit.\u201d This illustrates the appointment of it to the Prophet Ezekiel as a\npart of his hard fare. _Durra_ is also used in Palestine and Syria, and\nit is generally agreed that it yields much more than any other kind of\ngrain. Hiller and Celsius insist that the _dochan_ is the _panic_; but\nForskal has expressly mentioned the _dokn_, _holcus dochna_, as a kind\nof maize, of considerable use in food; and Brown, in his Travels,\ndescribes the mode of cultivating it.\n\nMILLO, a part or suburb of Jerusalem. David built round about from Millo\nand inward,\u201d 2 Sam. v, 9; that is, he built round about from the place\nwhere Millo was afterward erected by Solomon, or where more probably the\nsenate house, or Millo of the Jebusites, had stood, which was pulled\ndown to make room for the more sumptuous edifice of Solomon, to his own\nhouse; so that David built from Mount Zion, quite round to the opposite\npoint. Hence, the residence of David, even in the reign of that renowned\nmonarch, began to assume the size and splendour of a city.\n\nMINISTER, one who attends or waits on another; so we find Elisha was the\nminister of Elijah, and did him services of various kinds, 2 Kings iii,\n11. So Joshua was the servant of Moses, Exod. xxiv, 13; xxxiii, 11. And\nthese persons did not by any means feel themselves degraded by their\nstations, but in due time they succeeded to the offices of their\nmasters. In like manner John Mark was minister to Paul and Barnabas,\nActs xiii, 5. Christ is called a minister of the true, that is, the\nheavenly, sanctuary. The minister of the synagogue was appointed to keep\nthe book of the law, to observe that those who read it, read it\ncorrectly, &c, Luke iv, 20. The rabbins say he was the same as the angel\nof the church, or overseer. Lightfoot says, Baal Aruch expounds the\n_chazan_, or minister of the congregation, by _sheliach hatzibbor_, or\nangel of the congregation; and from this common platform and\nconstitution of the synagogue, we may observe the Apostle\u2019s expression\nof some elders ruling and labouring in word and doctrine, others in the\ngeneral affairs of the synagogue. Ministers were servants, yet servants\nnot menial, but honourable; those who explain the word, and conduct the\nservice of God; those who dispense the laws and promote the welfare of\nthe community; the holy angels who in obedience to the divine commands\nprotect, preserve, succour, and benefit the godly, are all ministers,\nbeneficial ministers, to those who are under their charge, Heb. viii, 2;\nExod. xxx, 10; Lev. xvi, 15; 1 Cor. iv, 1; Romans xiii, 6; Psalm civ, 4.\n\nMINT, Matt. xxiii, 23; Luke xi, 42; a garden herb well known. The law\ndid not oblige the Jews to give the tithe of this sort of herbs; it only\nrequired it of those things which could be comprehended under the name\nof income or revenue. But the Pharisees, desirous of distinguishing\nthemselves by a more scrupulous and literal observance of the law than\nothers, gave the tithes of mint, anise, and cummin,\u201d Matt. xxiii, 23.\nChrist reproved them because that, while they were so precise in these\nlesser matters, they neglected the more essential commandments of the\nlaw, and substituted observances, frivolous and insignificant, in the\nplace of justice, mercy, and truth.\n\nMIRACLES. A miracle, in the popular sense, is a prodigy, or an\nextraordinary event, which surprises us by its novelty. In a more\naccurate and philosophic sense, a miracle is an effect which does not\nfollow from any of the regular laws of nature, or which is inconsistent\nwith some known law of it, or contrary to the settled constitution and\ncourse of things. Accordingly, all miracles presuppose an established\nsystem of nature, within the limits of which they operate, and with the\norder of which they disagree. Of a miracle in the theological sense many\ndefinitions have been given. That of Dr. Samuel Clarke is: A miracle is\na work effected in a manner unusual, or different from the common and\nregular method of providence, by the interposition of God himself, or of\nsome intelligent agent superior to man, for the proof or evidence of\nsome particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority of some\nparticular person.\u201d Mr. Hume has insidiously or erroneously maintained\nthat a miracle is contrary to experience; but in reality it is only\ndifferent from experience. Experience informs us that one event has\nhappened often; testimony informs us that another event has happened\nonce or more. That diseases should be generally cured by the application\nof external causes, and sometimes at the mere word of a prophet, and\nwithout the visible application of causes, are facts not inconsistent\nwith each other in the nature of things themselves, nor irreconcilable\naccording to our ideas. Each fact may arise from its own proper cause;\neach may exist independently of the other; and each is known by its own\nproper proof, whether of sense or testimony. As secret causes often\nproduce events contrary to those we do expect from experience, it is\nequally conceivable that events should sometimes be produced which we do\nnot expect. To pronounce, therefore, a miracle to be false, because it\nis different from experience is only to conclude against its general\nexistence from the very circumstance which constitutes its particular\nnature; for if it were not different from experience, where would be its\nsingularity? or what particular proof could be drawn from it, if it\nhappened according to the ordinary train of human events, or was\nincluded in the operation of the general laws of nature? We grant that\nit does differ from experience; but we do not presume to make our\nexperience the standard of the divine conduct. He that acknowledges a\nGod must, at least, admit the possibility of a miracle. The atheist,\nthat makes him inseparable from what is called nature, and binds him to\nits laws by an insurmountable necessity; that deprives him of will, and\nwisdom, and power, as a distinct and independent Being; may deny even\nthe very possibility of a miraculous interposition, which can in any\ninstance suspend or counteract those general laws by which the world is\ngoverned. But he who allows of a First Cause in itself perfect and\nintelligent, abstractedly from those effects which his wisdom and power\nhave produced, must at the same time allow that this cause can be under\nno such restraints as to be debarred the liberty of controlling its laws\nas often as it sees fit. Surely, the Being that made the world can\ngovern it, or any part of it, in such a manner as he pleases; and he\nthat constituted the very laws by which it is in general conducted, may\nsuspend the operation of those laws in any given instance, or impress\nnew powers on matter, in order to produce new and extraordinary effects.\n\nIn judging of miracles there are certain criteria, peculiar to the\nsubject, sufficient to conduct our inquiries, and warrant our\ndetermination. Assuredly they do not appeal to our ignorance, for they\npresuppose not only the existence of a general order of things, but our\nactual knowledge of the appearance which that order exhibits, and of the\nsecondary material causes from which it, in most cases, proceeds. If a\nmiraculous event were effected by the immediate hand of God, and yet\nbore no mark of distinction from the ordinary effects of his agency, it\nwould impress no conviction, and probably awaken no attention. Our\nknowledge of the ordinary course of things, though limited, is real; and\ntherefore it is essential to a miracle, both that it differ from that\ncourse, and be accompanied with peculiar and unequivocal signs of such\ndifference. We have been told that the course of nature is fixed and\nunalterable, and therefore it is not consistent with the immutability of\nGod to perform miracles. But, surely, they who reason in this manner beg\nthe point in question. We have no right to assume that the Deity has\nordained such general laws as will exclude his interposition; and we\ncannot suppose that he would forbear to interfere where any important\nend could be answered. This interposition, though it controls, in\nparticular cases, the energy, does not diminish the utility, of those\nlaws. It leaves them to fulfil their own proper purposes, and effects\nonly a distinct purpose, for which they were not calculated. If the\ncourse of nature implies the general laws of matter and motion, into\nwhich the most opposite phenomena may be resolved, it is certain that we\ndo not yet know them in their full extent; and, therefore, that events,\nwhich are related by judicious and disinterested persons, and at the\nsame time imply no gross contradiction, are possible in themselves, and\ncapable of a certain degree of proof. If the course of nature implies\nthe whole order of events which God has ordained for the government of\nthe world, it includes both his ordinary and extraordinary\ndispensations, and among them miracles may have their place, as a part\nof the universal plan. It is, indeed, consistent with sound philosophy,\nand not inconsistent with pure religion, to acknowledge that they might\nbe disposed by the supreme Being at the same time with the more ordinary\neffects of his power; that their causes and occasions might be arranged\nwith the same regularity; and that, in reference chiefly to their\nconcomitant circumstances of persons and times, to the specific ends for\nwhich they were employed, and to our idea of the immediate necessity\nthere is for a divine agent, miracles would differ from common events,\nin which the hand of God acts as efficaciously, though less visibly. On\nthis consideration of the subject, miracles, instead of contradicting\nnature, might form a part of it. But what our limited reason and scanty\nexperience may comprehend should never be represented as a full and\nexact view of the possible or actual varieties which exist in the works\nof God.\n\n2. If we be asked whether miracles are credible, we reply, that,\nabstractedly considered, they are not incredible; that they are capable\nof indirect proof from analogy, and of direct, from testimony; that in\nthe common and daily course of worldly affairs, events, the\nimprobability of which, antecedently to all testimony, was very great,\nare proved to have happened, by the authority of competent and honest\nwitnesses; that the Christian miracles were objects of real and proper\nexperience to those who saw them; and that whatsoever the senses of\nmankind can perceive, their report may substantiate. Should it be asked\nwhether miracles were necessary, and whether the end proposed to be\neffected by them could warrant so immediate and extraordinary an\ninterference of the Almighty, as such extraordinary operations suppose;\nto this we might answer, that, if the fact be established, all\nreasonings _\u00e0 priori_ concerning their necessity must be frivolous, and\nmay be false. We are not capable of deciding on a question which,\nhowever simple in appearance, is yet too complex in its parts, and too\nextensive in its object, to be fully comprehended by the human\nunderstanding. Whether God could or could not have effected all the ends\ndesigned to be promoted by the Gospel, without deviating from the common\ncourse of his providence, and interfering with its general laws, is a\nspeculation that a modest inquirer would carefully avoid; for it carries\non the very face of it a degree of presumption totally unbecoming the\nstate of a mortal being. Infinitely safer is it for us to acquiesce in\nwhat the Almighty has done, than to embarrass our minds with\nspeculations about what he might have done. Inquiries of this kind are\ngenerally inconclusive, and always useless. They rest on no solid\nprinciples, are conducted by no fixed rules, and lead to no clear\nconviction. They begin from curiosity or vanity, they are prosecuted\namidst ignorance and error, and they frequently terminate in impious\npresumption or universal skepticism. God is the best and indeed the only\njudge how far miracles are proper to promote any particular design of\nhis providence, and how far that design would have been left\nunaccomplished, if common and ordinary methods only had been pursued.\nSo, from the absence of miracles, we may conclude, in any supposed case,\nthat they were not necessary; from their existence, supported by fair\ntestimony, in any given case, we may infer with confidence that they are\nproper. A view of the state of the world in general, and of the Jewish\nnation in particular, and an examination of the nature and tendency of\nthe Christian religion, will point out very clearly the great expediency\nof a miraculous interposition; and when we reflect on the gracious and\nimportant ends that were to be effected by it, we shall be convinced\nthat it was not an idle and useless display of divine power; but that\nwhile the means effected and confirmed the end, the end fully justified\nand illustrated the means. If we reflect on the almost irresistible\nforce of prejudice, and the strong opposition it universally made to the\nestablishment of a new religion on the demolition of rites and\nceremonies, which authority had made sacred, and custom had\nfamiliarized; if we reflect on the extent and importance, as well as the\nsingularity, of the Christian plan; what was its avowed purpose to\neffect, and what difficulties it was necessarily called to struggle with\nbefore that purpose could be effected; how much it was opposed by the\nopinions and the practice of the generality of mankind, by philosophy,\nby superstition, by corrupt passions and inveterate habits, by pride and\nsensuality, in short, by every engine of human influence, whether formed\nby craft, or aided by power;--if we seriously reflect on these things,\nand give them their due force, (and experience shows us that we can\nscarcely give them too much,) we shall be induced to admit even the\nnecessity of a miraculous interposition, at a time when common means\nmust inevitably, in our apprehensions, have failed of success.\n\nThe revelation of the divine will by inspired persons is, as such,\nmiraculous; and therefore, before the adversaries of the Gospel can\nemploy with propriety their objections to the particular miracles on\nwhich its credibility is based, they should show the impossibility of\nany revelation. In whatever age the revelation is given, succeeding ages\ncan know it only from testimony; and, if they admit, on the report of\ntheir fellow creatures, that God had inspired any being with the\npreternatural knowledge of his will, why should they deny that he had\nenabled the same being to heal the sick, or to cleanse the leprous? How,\nmay it be asked, should the divine Teacher give a more direct and\nconsistent proof of his preternatural commission, than by displaying\nthose signs and wonders which mark the finger of God? That the Apostles\ncould not be deceived, and that they had no temptation to deceive, has\nbeen repeatedly demonstrated. So powerful, indeed, is the proof adduced\nin support of their testimony, that the infidels of these later days\nhave been obliged to abandon the ground on which their predecessors\nstood; to disclaim all moral evidences arising from the character and\nrelation of eye-witnesses; and to maintain, upon metaphysical, rather\nthan historical, principles, that miracles are utterly incapable, in\ntheir own nature, of existing in any circumstances, or of being\nsupported by any evidence.\n\nMiracles may be classed under two heads: those which consist in a train\nor combination of events, which distinguish themselves from the ordinary\narrangements of Providence; and those particular operations which are\nperformed by instruments and agents incompetent to effect them without a\npreternatural power. In the conduct of Providence respecting the Jewish\npeople, from the earliest periods of their existence, as a distinct\nclass of society, to the present time, we behold a singularity of\ncircumstance and procedure which we cannot account for on common\nprinciples. Comparing their condition and situation with that of other\nnations, we can meet with nothing similar to it in the history of\nmankind. So remarkable a difference, conspicuous in every revolution of\ntheir history, could not have subsisted through mere accident. There\nmust have been a cause adequate to so extraordinary an effect. Now, what\nshould this cause be, but an interposition of Providence in a manner\ndifferent from the course of its general government? For the phenomenon\ncannot be explained by an application of those general causes and\neffects that operate in other cases. The original propagation of\nChristianity was likewise an event which clearly discovered a miraculous\ninterposition. The circumstances which attended it were such as cannot\nrationally be accounted for on any other postulatum. (See the article\n_Christianity_.) It may now be observed, that the institutions of the\nlaw and the Gospel may not only appeal for their confirmation to a train\nof events which, taken in a general and combined view, point out an\nextraordinary designation, and vindicate their claim to a divine\nauthority; but also to a number of particular operations which,\nconsidered distinctly, or in a separate and detached light, evidently\ndisplay a supernatural power, immediately exerted on the occasion.\n\nSince Christ himself constantly appealed to these works as the evidences\nof his divine mission and character, we may briefly examine how far they\njustified and confirmed his pretensions. That our Lord laid the greatest\nstress on the evidence they afforded; nay, that he considered that\nevidence as sufficient to authenticate his claims to the office of the\nMessiah with all reasonable and well disposed inquirers, is manifest not\nonly from his own words, John x, 25, but also from a great variety of\nother passages in the evangelists. Thus, when the disciples of John were\nsent to Christ, to receive from his own lips the most satisfactory\nproofs of his divine mission, he referred them to his miracles. Go,\u201d\nsaid he, and show to John again those things which ye hear and see: the\nblind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the\ndeaf hear, and the dead are raised up,\u201d Matt. xi, 4, 5. Again: If I do\nnot the works of my Father, believe me not: but if I do, though ye\nbelieve not me, believe the works,\u201d John x, 37. This appeal to miracles\nwas founded on the following just and obvious grounds:--\n\nFirst: That they are visible proofs of divine approbation, as well as of\ndivine power: for it would have been quite inconclusive to rest an\nappeal on the testimony of the latter, if it had not at the same time\nincluded an evidence of the former; and it was, indeed a natural\ninference, that working of miracles, in defence of a particular cause,\nwas the seal of Heaven to the truth of that cause. To suppose the\ncontrary, would be to suppose that God not only permitted his creatures\nto be deceived, but that he deviated from the ordinary course of his\nprovidence, purposely with a view to deceive them. The conclusion which\nthe man whom our Saviour restored to sight drew from this miracle was\nexceedingly just, and founded on the common sentiments and impressions\nof the human heart. We know,\u201d says he, that God heareth not sinners: but\nif any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.\nSince the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of\none that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do\nnothing,\u201d John ix, 31\u201333. If the cause which our Saviour was engaged in\nhad not been approved of by God, it would not have been honoured with\nthe seal of miracles: for the divine power can never be supposed to\ncounteract the divine will. This would be to set his nature at variance\nwith itself; and, by destroying his simplicity, would destroy his\nhappiness, and terminate in confusion and misery. Hence we may justly\nreject, as incredible, those miracles which have been ascribed to the\ninterposition of wicked spirits. The possibility of their interference\nis a mere hypothesis, depending upon gratuitous assumption, and leading\nto very dangerous consequences; and the particular instances in which\ncredulous superstition, or perverted philosophy, has supposed them to\ninterfere, are, as facts, destitute of any clear and solid evidence; or,\nas effects, often resolvable into natural causes.\n\nSecondly: When our Lord appealed to his miracles, as proofs of his\ndivine mission, it presupposed that those miracles were of such a nature\nas would bear the strictest examination; that they had all those\ncriteria which could possibly distinguish them from the delusions of\nenthusiasm, and the artifices of imposture; else the appeal would have\nbeen fallacious and equivocal. He appealed to them with all the\nconfidence of an upright mind, totally possessed with a consciousness of\ntheir truth and reality. This appeal was not drawn out into any laboured\nargument, nor adorned by any of the embellishments of language. It was\nshort, simple, and decisive. He neither reasoned nor declaimed on their\nnature or their design: he barely pointed to them as plain and\nindubitable facts, such as spoke their own meaning, and carried with\nthem their own authority. The miracles which our Lord performed were too\npublic to be suspected of imposture; and, being objects of sense, they\nwere secured against the charge of enthusiasm. An impostor would not\nhave acted so absurdly as to have risked his credit on the performance\nof what, he must have known, it was not in his power to effect; and\nthough an enthusiast, from the warmth of imagination, might have\nflattered himself with a full persuasion of his being able to perform\nsome miraculous work; yet, when the trial was referred to an object of\nsense, the event must soon have exposed the delusion. The impostor would\nnot have dared to say to the blind, Receive thy sight; to the deaf,\nHear; to the dumb, Speak; to the dead, Arise; to the raging of the sea,\nBe still; lest he should injure the credit of his cause, by undertaking\nmore than he could perform; and though the enthusiast, under the\ndelusion of his passions, might have confidently commanded disease to\nfly, and the powers of nature to be subject to his control; yet their\nobedience would not have followed his command.\n\nThe miracles of Christ then were such as an impostor would not have\nattempted, and such as an enthusiast could not have effected. They had\nno disguise; and were in a variety of instances of such a nature as to\npreclude the very possibility of collusion. They were performed in the\nmidst of his bitterest enemies; and were so palpable and certain, as to\nextort the following acknowledgment even from persons who were most\neager to oppose his doctrines, and to discredit his pretensions: This\nman doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe\non him,\u201d John xi, 47, 48. The miracles Christ performed were indeed\nsufficient to alarm the fears of those whose downfall was involved in\nhis success. And it was impossible for them to deny the facts, which so\nmany thousands were ready to attest on evidence too certain to admit\neven the possibility of mistake, delusion, or imposture. But his\nenemies, who admitted their reality and yet resisted their design, by\nnot acknowledging the person who wrought them to be the Messiah, had\nrecourse to the most impious and most absurd suppositions, in order to\nevade their evidence. The Heathen imputed them to some occult power of\nmagic: and thus applied what has no existence in nature, in order to\naccount for a phenomenon that existed out of its common course. The\nstories of the Jews, who confessed the miracles, but denied what they\nwere intended to establish, are too ridiculous to be mentioned. We must\nnot, however, omit to take notice of the wicked and blasphemous cavil of\nthe Pharisees, and the noble reply which our Lord made to it. They could\nnot deny the fact, but they imputed it to the agency of an infernal\nspirit: This fellow,\u201d said they, doth not cast out devils, but by\nBeelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and\nsaid unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to\ndesolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not\nstand: and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how\nshall then his kingdom stand?\u201d Matt. xii, 24\u201326. The purity of the\ndoctrine which was taught by our blessed Lord was totally adverse to the\nkingdom of darkness. It tended to overthrow it, by the introduction of\nprinciples far different from those which Satan would inspire, and by\nprosecuting objects totally opposite to those which that wicked and\nmalignant spirit would tempt us to pursue: so that in proportion to the\nprevalence of the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of Satan would of\ncourse be diminished. Now, supposing miracles to be in the power of an\ninfernal spirit, can it be imagined that he would communicate an ability\nof performing them to persons who were counteracting his designs? Would\nhe by them give credit to a cause that tended to bring his own into\ndisgrace? Thus, as our Saviour appealed to miracles as proofs of his\npower; so he appealed to the inherent worth and purity of the doctrines\nthey were intended to bear witness to, as a proof that the power was of\nGod. In this manner do the external and internal evidences give and\nreceive mutual confirmation and mutual lustre.\n\nThe truth of the Christian religion does not, however, wholly depend on\nthe miracles wrought by its divine Founder, though sufficient in\nthemselves to establish his claims: but, in order to give the evidence\nof miracles the strongest force they could possibly acquire, that\nevidence was extended still farther; and the same power that our Lord\npossessed was communicated to his disciples, and their more immediate\nsuccessors. While yet on earth he imparted to them this extraordinary\ngift, as the seal of their commission, when he sent them to preach the\nGospel: and after his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven,\nthey were endowed with powers yet more stupendous. Sensible of the\nvalidity of this kind of evidence, the Apostles of our Lord, with the\nsame artless simplicity, and the same boldness of conscious integrity,\nwhich distinguished their great Master, constantly insisted upon the\nmiracles they wrought, as strong and undeniable proofs of the truth of\ntheir doctrines. Thus the miracles of our blessed Lord may be justly\nconsidered as the evidence of his divine mission and character. If we\nconsider their nature, their greatness, and their number; and if to this\nconsideration we add that which respects their end and design, we must\nacknowledge that no one could have performed them, unless God was with\nhim. They were too public to be the artifices of imposture; too\nsubstantial and too numerous to afford the slightest suspicion of\nundesigned and fortuitous coincidence. In a word, supposing that the\nMost High should in any instance so far counteract the common laws of\nnature, as to produce a miracle; and should design that miracle as a\nmonument to future times of the truth of any peculiar doctrine, we\ncannot conceive any mode of communicating it more effectual than that\nwhich he has chosen. Stronger proofs could not be afforded, consistently\nwith the design of the Gospel, which is not to overpower our\nunderstandings by an irresistible and compulsory light, but to afford us\nsuch rational evidence as is sufficient to satisfy moral inquirers, who\nare endowed with faculties to perceive the truth; but at the same time\nwho also have power totally to resist it, and finally to forfeit all its\nblessings. These miracles were of a nature too palpable to be mistaken.\nThey were the objects of sense, and not the precarious speculations of\nreason concerning what God might do; or the chimerical suggestions of\nfancy concerning what he did. The facts were recorded by those who must\nhave known whether they were true or false. The persons who recorded\nthem were under no possible temptations to deceive the world. We can\nonly account for their conduct on the supposition of their most perfect\nconviction and disinterested zeal. That they should assert what they\nknew to be false; that they should publish it with so much ardour; that\nthey should risk every thing dear to humanity, in order to maintain it;\nand at last submit to death, in order to attest their persuasion of its\ntruth in those moments when imposture usually drops its mask, and\nenthusiasm loses its confidence; that they should act thus in opposition\nto every dictate of common sense, and every principle of common honesty,\nevery restraint of shame, and every impulse of selfishness, is a\nphenomenon not less irreconcilable to the moral state of things than\nmiracles are to the natural constitution of the world. Falsehood\nnaturally entangles men in contradiction, and confounds them with\ndismay: but the love of truth invigorates the mind; the consciousness of\nintegrity anticipates the approbation of God; and conscience creates a\nfortitude, to which mere unsupported nature is often a stranger.\n\n3. How long miracles were continued in the church, has been a matter of\nkeen dispute, and has been investigated with as much anxiety as if the\ntruth of the Gospel depended upon the manner in which it was decided.\nAssuming, as we are here warranted to do, that real miraculous power was\nconveyed in the way detailed by the inspired writers, it is plain, that\nit may have been exercised in different countries, and may have\nremained, without any new communication of it, throughout the first, and\na considerable part of the second century. The Apostles, wherever they\nwent to execute their commission, would avail themselves of the\nstupendous gift which had been imparted to them; and it is clear, not\nonly that they were permitted and enabled to convey it to others, but\nthat spiritual gifts, including the power of working miracles, were\nactually conferred on many of the primitive disciples. Allusions to this\nwe find in the epistles of St. Paul; such allusions, too, as it is\nutterly inconceivable that any man of a sound judgment could have made,\nhad he not known that he was referring to an obvious fact, about which\nthere could be no hesitation. Of the time at which several of the\nApostles died, we have no certain knowledge. St. Peter and St. Paul\nsuffered at Rome about A. D. 66, or 67; and it is fully established,\nthat the life of John was much longer protracted, he having died a\nnatural death, A. D. 100, or 101. Supposing that the two former of these\nApostles imparted spiritual gifts till the time of their suffering\nmartyrdom, the persons to whom they were imparted might, in the course\nof nature, have lived through the earlier part of the second century;\nand if John did the same till the end of his life, such gifts as were\nderived from him might have remained till more than the half of that\ncentury had elapsed. That such was the fact, is asserted by ancient\necclesiastical writers. Whether, after the generation immediately\nsucceeding the Apostles had passed away, the power of working miracles\nwas anew communicated, is a question, the solution of which cannot be\nnearly so satisfactory. The probability is, that there was no such\nrenewal; and this opinion rests upon the ground that natural causes were\nnow sufficient to accomplish the end for which miracles were originally\ndesigned; and it does not appear to have been any part of the scheme of\nthe blessed Author of our religion, that, solely for the purpose of\nhastening that conversion of the nations which might gradually be\naccomplished, miracles should be wrought, when these could be of no use\nin establishing after ages in the faith.\n\nMIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. By this is meant, that the human nature of Jesus\nChrist was formed, not in the ordinary method of generation, but out of\nthe substance of the Virgin Mary, by the immediate operation of the Holy\nGhost. The evidence upon which this article of the Christian faith rests\nis found in Matt. i, 18\u201323, and in the more particular narration which\nSt. Luke has given in the first chapter of his Gospel. If we admit this\nevidence of the fact, we can discern the emphatical meaning of the\nappellation given to our Saviour when he is called the seed of the\nwoman,\u201d Gen. iii, 15; we can perceive the meaning of a phrase which St.\nLuke has introduced into the genealogy of Jesus, Luke iii, 23, and of\nwhich, otherwise, it is not possible to give a good account, \u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f51\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0399\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6; [being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph;] and\nwe can discover a peculiar significancy in an expression of the Apostle\nPaul, Gal. iv, 4, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.\u201d The\nconception of Jesus is the point from which we date the union between\nhis divine and human nature; and, this conception being miraculous, the\nexistence of the person in whom they are united, was not physically\nderived from Adam. But, as Dr. Horsley speaks in his sermon on the\nincarnation, the union with the uncreated Word is the very principle of\npersonality and individual existence in the son of Mary. According to\nthis view of the matter, the miraculous conception gives a completeness\nand consistency to the revelation concerning Jesus Christ. Not only is\nhe the Son of God, but, as the Son of man, he is exalted above his\nbrethren, while he is made like them. He is preserved from the\ncontamination adhering to the race whose nature he assumed; and when the\nonly begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, was made flesh,\nthe intercourse which, as man, he had with God, is distinguished, not in\ndegree only, but in kind, from that which any prophet ever enjoyed, and\nit is infinitely more intimate, because it did not consist in\ncommunications occasionally made to him, but arose from the manner in\nwhich his human nature had its existence.\n\nMIRIAM, sister of Moses and Aaron, and daughter of Amram and Jochebed,\nwas born about A. M. 2424. She might be ten or twelve years old when her\nbrother Moses was exposed on the banks of the Nile, since Miriam was\nwatching there, and offered herself to Pharaoh\u2019s daughter to fetch her a\nnurse. The princess accepting the offer, Miriam fetched her own mother,\nto whom the young Moses was given to nurse, Exod. ii, 4, 5, &c. It is\nthought that Miriam married Hur, of the tribe of Judah; but it does not\nappear that she had any children by him, Exod. xvii, 10, 11. Miriam had\nthe gift of prophecy, as she intimates, Num. xii, 2: Hath the Lord\nindeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?\u201d After the\npassage of the Red Sea, Miriam led the choirs and dances of the women,\nand sung with them the canticle, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath\ntriumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the\nsea:\u201d while Moses led the choir of men, Exod. xv, 21. When Zipporah, the\nwife of Moses, arrived in the camp of Israel, Miriam and Aaron disputed\nwith her, speaking against Moses on her account, Num. xii. This conduct\nthe Lord punished by visiting Miriam with a leprosy. Aaron interceded\nwith Moses for her recovery, and besought the Lord, who ordered her to\nbe shut out of the camp seven days. We are acquainted with no subsequent\nparticulars of the life of Miriam. Her death happened in the first month\nof the fortieth year after the exodus, at the encampment of Kadesh in\nthe wilderness of Zin, Num. xx, 1. The people mourned for her, and she\nwas there buried.\n\nMIRRORS, usually, but improperly, rendered _looking glasses_. The\neastern mirrors were made of polished metal, and for the most part\nconvex. So Callimachus describes Venus as taking the shining brass,\u201d\nthat is, to adjust her hair. If they were thus made in the country of\nElihu, the image made use of by him will appear very lively: Hast thou\nwith him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking\nglass?\u201d Job xxxvii, 18. Shaw informs us that \u201cin the Levant, looking\nglasses are a part of female dress. The Moorish women in Barbary are so\nfond of their ornaments, and particularly of their looking glasses,\nwhich they bang upon their breasts, that they will not lay them aside,\neven when, after the drudgery of the day, they are obliged to go two or\nthree miles with a pitcher or a goat\u2019s skin, to fetch water.\u201d The\nIsraelitish women used to carry their mirrors with them, even to their\nmost solemn place of worship. The word _mirror_ should be used in the\npassages here referred to. To speak of looking glasses made of steel,\u201d\nand glasses molten,\u201d is palpably absurd; whereas the term _mirror_\nobviates every difficulty, and expresses the true meaning of the\noriginal.\n\nMISHNA, or MISNA, \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4, signifies _repetition_, and is properly the code\nof the Jewish civil law. The Mishna contains the text; and the Gemara,\nwhich is the second part of the Talmud, contains the commentaries: so\nthat the Gemara is, as it were, a glossary on the Mishna. The Mishna\nconsists of various traditions of the Jews, and of explanations of\nseveral passages of Scripture. These traditions, serving as an\nexplication of the written law, and supplementary to it, are said to\nhave been delivered to Moses during the time of his abode upon the\nmount; which he afterward communicated to Aaron, Eleazar, and his\nservant Joshua. By these they were transmitted to the seventy elders; by\nthem to the prophets, who communicated them to the men of the great\nsanhedrim, from whom the wise men of Jerusalem and Babylon received\nthem. According to Dr. Prideaux, they passed from Jeremiah to Baruch,\nfrom him to Ezra, and from Ezra to the men of the great synagogue, the\nlast of whom was Simon the Just, who delivered them to Antigonus of\nSocho. From him they came down in regular succession to Simeon, who took\nour Saviour in his arms; to Gamaliel, at whose feet St. Paul was brought\nup; and last of all to rabbi Judah the holy, who committed them to\nwriting in the Mishna. Dr. Prideaux, rejecting this Jewish fiction,\nobserves, that after the death of Simon the Just, about B. C. 299, arose\nthe Tannaim or Mishnical doctors, who by their comments and conclusions,\nadded to the number of those traditions which had been received and\nallowed by Ezra and the men of the great synagogue. Hence toward the\nmiddle of the second century after Christ, under the reign of the Roman\nEmperor Antoninus Pius, it was found necessary to commit these\ntraditions to writing. This was requisite, because the traditions had\nbeen so much increased that they could no longer be preserved by the\nmemory of man; and also because their country had suffered considerably\nin the reign of the Emperor Adrian, and many of their schools being\ndissolved, and their learned men cut off, the usual method of preserving\ntheir traditions had failed. Lest, therefore, the traditions should be\nforgotten and lost, it was resolved that they should be collected and\ncommitted to writing. Rabbi Judah, who was at that time rector of the\nschool at Tiberias in Galilee, and president of the sanhedrim at that\nplace, undertook the work. He compiled it in six books, each consisting\nof several tracts, which altogether form the number of sixty-three. Dr.\nPrideaux computes, that the Mishna was composed about A. D. 150. Dr.\nLightfoot, however, says, that rabbi Judah compiled the Mishna about A.\nD. 190, in the latter end of the reign of Commodus; or, as some compute,\nA. D. 220. Dr. Lardner is of opinion, that this work could not have been\nfinished before A. D. 190, or later. Thus the book called the Mishna was\nformed; a book which was received by the Jews with great veneration, and\nwhich has been always held in high esteem among them. Their opinion of\nit is, that all the particulars which it contains were dictated by God\nhimself to Moses upon Mount Sinai, as well as the written word itself;\nand, consequently, that it must be of the same divine authority, and\nought to be as religiously observed. See CABBALA, GEMARA, JEWS.\n\nMITE. See MONEY.\n\nMITYLENE, the capital of the island of Lesbos, through which St. Paul\npassed as he went from Corinth to Jerusalem, Acts xx, 14.\n\nMIZPAH, or MIZPEH, a city of the tribe of Benjamin, situated in a plain,\nabout eighteen miles west of Jerusalem. Here Samuel dwelt; and here he\ncalled Israel together, to observe a solemn fast for their sins, and to\nsupplicate God for his assistance against the Philistines; after which\nthey sallied out on their enemies, already discomfited by the thunders\nof heaven, and gave them a total defeat, 1 Sam. vii. Here, also, Saul\nwas anointed king, 1 Sam. x, 17\u201325. It appears that between this and the\ntime of Asa, king of Judah, Mizpah had suffered probably in some of the\nintervening wars, as we are told that Asa built it with the stones and\ntimber of Ramah, 1 Kings xv, 22. There was another Mizpeh in Gilead; on\nthe spot where Jacob set up the pillar or heap of stones, to commemorate\nthe covenant there made between him and Laban, Gen. xxxi, 49. (See\n_Gilead_.) There was also a third Mizpeh, in the land of Moab, where\nDavid placed his father and mother, while he remained in his retreat at\nAdullam, 1 Sam. xxii, 3. It is to be observed, that Mizpeh implies a\nbeacon or watch tower, a pillar or heap of commemoration; and at all the\nplaces bearing this name, it is probable that a single pillar, or a rude\npile, was erected as the witness and the record of some particular\nevent. These, subsequently, became altars and places of convocation on\npublic occasions, religious and civil.\n\nMIZRAIM, or MESRAIM, son of Ham, and father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim,\nNaphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim, Gen. x, 6. Meser or Misor was father\nof the Mizraim, the Egyptians; and he himself is commonly called\nMizraim, although there is very strong probability that Mizraim, being\nof the plural number, signifies rather the Egyptians themselves, than\nthe father of that people. Mizraim is also put for the country of Egypt:\nthus it has three significations, which are perpetually confounded and\nused promiscuously, sometimes denoting the land of Egypt, sometimes him\nwho first peopled Egypt, and sometimes the inhabitants themselves.\nCairo, the capital of Egypt, and even Egypt itself, are to this day\ncalled Mezer by the Arabians. But the natives call Egypt Chemi, that is,\nthe land of Cham, or Ham, as it is also sometimes called in Scripture,\nPsalm lxxviii, 12; cv, 23; cvi, 22. The Prophet Micah, vii, 15, gives to\nEgypt the name of Mezor, or Matzor; and rabbi Kimchi, followed in this\nby several learned commentators, explains by Egypt what is said of the\nrivers of Mezor, 2 Kings xix, 24; Isaiah xix, 6; xxxvii, 25.\n\nMOAB was the son of Lot, and of his eldest daughter, Gen. xix, 31, &c.\nHe was born about the same time as Isaac, A. M. 2108, and was father of\nthe Moabites, whose habitation lay beyond Jordan and the Dead Sea, on\nboth sides of the river Arnon. Their capital city was situated on that\nriver, and was called Ar or Areopolis, or Ariol of Moab, or Rabbah Moab,\nthat is, the capital of Moab, or Kir-haresh, that is, a city with brick\nwalls. This country was originally possessed by a race of giants called\nEmim, Deut. ii, 11, 12. The Moabites conquered them, and afterward the\nAmorites took a part from the Moabites, Judges xi, 13. Moses conquered\nthat part which belonged to the Amorites, and gave it to the tribe of\nReuben. The Moabites were spared by Moses, for God had restricted him,\nDeut. ii, 9. But there always was a great antipathy between the Moabites\nand the Israelites, which occasioned many wars between them. Balaam\nseduced the Hebrews to idolatry and uncleanness, by means of the\ndaughters of Moab, Num. xxv, 1, 2; and Balak, king of this people,\nendeavoured to prevail on Balaam to curse Israel. God ordained that the\nMoabites should not enter into the congregation of his people, because\nthey had the inhumanity to refuse the Israelites a passage through their\ncountry, nor would they supply them with bread and water in their\nnecessity. Eglon, king of the Moabites, was one of the first that\noppressed Israel after the death of Joshua. Ehud killed Eglon, and\nIsrael expelled the Moabites, Judges iii, 12, &c. Hanun king of the\nAmmonites having insulted David\u2019s ambassadors, David made war against\nhim, and subdued Moab and Ammon; under which subjection they continued\ntill the separation of the ten tribes. The Ammonites and the Moabites\ncontinued in subjection to the kings of Israel to the death of Ahab.\nPresently after the death of Ahab the Moabites began to revolt, 2 Kings\niii, 4, 5. Mesha, king of Moab, refused the tribute of a hundred\nthousand lambs, and as many rams, which till then had been customarily\npaid, either yearly, or at the beginning of every reign; which of these\ntwo is not clearly expressed in Scripture. The reign of Ahaziah was too\nshort to make war with them; but Jehoram, son of Ahab, and brother to\nAhaziah, having ascended the throne, thought of reducing them to\nobedience. He invited Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, who, with the king of\nEdom, then his vassal, entered Moab, where they were near perishing with\nthirst, but were miraculously relieved, 2 Kings iii, 16, &c.\n\nIt is not easy to ascertain what were the circumstances of the Moabites\nfrom this time; but Isaiah, at the beginning of the reign of King\nHezekiah, threatens them with a calamity, which was to happen three\nyears after his prediction, and which probably referred to the war that\nShalmaneser, king of Assyria, made with the ten tribes and the other\npeople beyond Jordan. Amos, i, 13, &c, also foretold great miseries to\nthem, which, probably, they suffered under Uzziah and Jothan, kings of\nJudah, or under Shalmaneser, 2 Chron. xxvi, 7, 8; xxvii, 5; or, lastly,\nin the war of Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the destruction of\nJerusalem. This prince carried them captive beyond the Euphrates, as the\nprophets had threatened, Jer. ix, 26; xii, 14, 15; xxv, 11, 12; xlviii,\n47, &c; xlix, 3, 6, 39; l, 16; and Cyrus sent them home again, as he did\nthe rest of the captives. After their return from captivity they\nmultiplied, and fortified themselves, as the Jews did, and other\nneighbouring people, still in subjection to the kings of Persia. They\nwere afterward conquered by Alexander the Great, and were in obedience\nto the kings of Syria and Egypt successively, and finally to the Romans.\nThere is a probability, also, that in the later times of the Jewish\nrepublic they obeyed the Asmonean kings, and afterward Herod the Great.\nThe principal deities of the Moabites were Chemosh and Baal-peor.\n\nThe prophecies concerning Moab are numerous and remarkable. There are,\nsays Keith, abundant predictions which refer so clearly to its modern\nstate, that there is scarcely a single feature peculiar to the land of\nMoab, as it now exists, which was not marked by the prophets in their\ndelineation of the low condition to which, from the height of its\nwickedness and haughtiness, it was finally to be brought down.\n\nThe land of Moab lay to the east and south-east of Judea, and bordered\non the east, north-east, and partly on the south of the Dead Sea. Its\nearly history is nearly analogous to that of Ammon; and the soil, though\nperhaps more diversified, is, in many places where the desert and plains\nof salt have not encroached on its borders, of equal fertility. There\nare manifest and abundant vestiges of its ancient greatness: the whole\nof the plains are covered with the sites of towns, on every eminence or\nspot convenient for the construction of one; and as the land is capable\nof rich cultivation, there can be no doubt that the country now so\ndeserted once presented a continued picture of plenty and fertility. The\nform of fields is still visible; and there are the remains of Roman\nhighways, which in some places are completely paved, and on which there\nare mile stones of the times of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Severus,\nwith the number of the miles legible upon them. Wherever any spot is\ncultivated the corn is luxuriant; and the riches of the soil cannot\nperhaps be more clearly illustrated than by the fact, that one grain of\nHeshbon wheat exceeds in dimensions two of the ordinary sort, and more\nthan double the number of grains grow on the stalk. The frequency, and\nalmost, in many instances, the close vicinity of the sites of the\nancient towns, prove that the population of the country was formerly\nproportioned to its natural fertility. Such evidence may surely suffice\nto prove that the country was well cultivated and peopled at a period so\nlong posterior to the date of the predictions, that no cause less than\nsupernatural could have existed at the time when they were delivered,\nwhich could have authorized the assertion with the least probability or\napparent possibility of its truth, that Moab would ever have been\nreduced to that state of great and permanent desolation in which it has\ncontinued for so many ages, and which vindicates and ratifies to this\nhour the truth of the Scriptural prophecies. The cities of Moab were to\nbe desolate without any to dwell therein;\u201d no city was to escape: Moab\nwas to flee away.\u201d And the cities of Moab have all disappeared. Their\nplace, together with the adjoining part of Idumea, is characterized, in\nthe map of Volney\u2019s Travels, by the ruins of towns. His information\nrespecting these ruins was derived from some of the wandering Arabs; and\nits accuracy has been fully corroborated by the testimony of different\nEuropean travellers of high respectability and undoubted veracity, who\nhave since visited this devastated region. The whole country abounds\nwith ruins; and Burckhardt, who encountered many difficulties in so\ndesolate and dangerous a land, thus records the brief history of a few\nof them: The ruins of Eleale, Heshbon, Meon, Medaba, Dibon, Aroer, still\nsubsist to illustrate the history of the Beni Israel.\u201d And it might with\nequal truth have been added, that they still subsist to confirm the\ninspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, or to prove that the seers of\nIsrael were the prophets of God; for the desolation of each of these\nvery cities was a theme of a prediction. Every thing worthy of\nobservation respecting them has been detailed, not only in Burckhardt\u2019s\nTravels in Syria,\u201d but also by Seetzen, and, more recently, by Captains\nIrby and Mangles, who, along with Mr. Bankes and Mr. Leigh, visited this\ndeserted district. The predicted judgment has fallen with such truth\nupon these cities, and upon all the cities of the land of Moab far and\nnear, and they are so utterly broken down,\u201d that even the prying\ncuriosity of such indefatigable travellers could discover among a\nmultiplicity of ruins only a few remains so entire as to be worthy of\nparticular notice. The subjoined description is drawn from their united\ntestimony: Among the ruins of El Aal (Eleale) are a number of large\ncisterns, fragments of buildings, and foundations of houses. At Heshban,\n(Heshbon,) are the ruins of a large ancient town, together with the\nremains of a temple, and some edifices. A few broken shafts of columns\nare still standing; and there are a number of deep wells cut in the\nrock. The ruins of Medeba are about two miles in circumference. There\nare many remains of the walls of private houses constructed with blocks\nof silex, but not a single edifice is standing. The chief object of\ninterest is an immense tank or cistern of hewn stones, which, as there\nis no stream at Medeba,\u201d Burckhardt remarks, might still be of use to\nthe Bedouins, were the surrounding ground cleared of the rubbish to\nallow the water to flow into it; but such an undertaking is far beyond\nthe views of the wandering Arabs.\u201d There is also the foundation of a\ntemple built with large stones, and apparently of great antiquity, with\ntwo columns near it. The ruins of Diban, (Dibon,) situated in the midst\nof a fine plain, are of considerable extent, but present nothing of\ninterest. The neighbouring hot wells, and the similarity of the name,\nidentify the ruins of Myoun with Meon, or Beth Meon of Scripture. Of\nthis ancient city, as well as of Araayr, (Areor,) nothing is now\nremarkable but what is common to them with all the cities of Moab, their\nentire desolation. The extent of the ruins of Rabba, (Rabbath Moab,)\nformerly the residence of the kings of Moab, sufficiently proves its\nancient importance; though no other object can be particularized among\nthe ruins, than the remains of a palace or temple, some of the walls of\nwhich are still standing, a gate belonging to another building, and an\ninsulated altar. There are many remains of private buildings, but none\nof them is entire. There being no springs on the spot, the town had two\nbirkets, the largest of which is cut entirely out of the rocky ground,\ntogether with many cisterns. Mount Nebo was completely barren when\nBurckhardt passed over it, and the site of the ancient city had not been\nascertained. Nebo is spoiled.\u201d\n\nWhile the ruins of all these cities still retain their ancient names,\nand are the most conspicuous amidst the wide scene of general\ndesolation, and while each of them was in like manner particularized in\nthe visions of the prophet, they yet formed but a small number of the\ncities of Moab; and the rest are also, in similar verification of the\nprophecies, desolate, without any to dwell therein.\u201d None of the ancient\ncities of Moab now remain as tenanted by men. Kerek, which neither bears\nany resemblance in name to any of the cities of Moab which are mentioned\nas existing in the time of the Israelites, nor possesses any monuments\nwhich denote a very remote antiquity, is the only nominal town in the\nwhole country, and, in the words of Seetzen, who visited it, in its\npresent ruined state it can only be called a hamlet; and the houses have\nonly one floor.\u201d But the most populous and fertile province in Europe,\nespecially any situated in the interior of a country like Moab, is not\ncovered so thickly with towns as Moab is plentiful in ruins, deserted\nand desolate though now it be. Burckhardt enumerates about fifty ruined\nsites within its boundaries, many of them extensive. In general they are\na broken down and undistinguishable mass of ruins; and many of them have\nnot been closely inspected. But, in some instances, there are the\nremains of temples, sepulchral monuments; the ruins of edifices\nconstructed of very large stones, in one of which buildings some of the\nstones are twenty feet in length, and so broad that one constitutes the\nthickness of the wall; traces of hanging gardens; entire columns lying\non the ground, three feet in diameter, and fragments of smaller columns;\nand many cisterns out of the rock. When the towns of Moab existed in\ntheir prime, and were at ease; when arrogance, and haughtiness, and\npride prevailed among them; the desolation, and total desertion and\nabandonment of them all, must have utterly surpassed all human\nconception. And that such numerous cities which subsisted for many ages,\nsome of them being built on eminences, and naturally strong; others on\nplains, and surrounded by the richest soil; some situated in valleys by\nthe side of a plentiful stream; and others where art supplied the\ndeficiencies of nature, and where immense cisterns were excavated out of\nthe rock, and which exhibit in their ruins many monuments of ancient\nprosperity, and many remains easily convertible into present utility;\nshould have all fled away, all met the same indiscriminate fate, and be\nall desolate, without any to dwell therein,\u201d notwithstanding all these\nancient indications of permanent durability, and their existing\nfacilities and inducements for becoming the habitations of men, is a\nmatter of just wonder in the present day. They shall cry of Moab, How is\nit broken down!\u201d\n\nThe strong contrast between the ancient and the actual state of Moab is\nexemplified in the condition of the inhabitants as well as of the land;\nand the coincidence between the prediction and the fact is as striking\nin the one case as in the other. The days come, saith the Lord, that I\nwill send unto him (Moab) wanderers that shall cause him to wander, and\nshall empty his vessels.\u201d The Bedouin (wandering) Arabs are now the\nchief and almost the only inhabitants of a country once studded with\ncities. Traversing the country, and fixing their tents for a short time\nin one place, and then decamping to another, depasturing every part\nsuccessively, and despoiling the whole land of its natural produce, they\nare wanderers who have come up against it, and who keep it in a state of\nperpetual desolation. They lead a wandering life; and the only\nregularity they know or practise, is to act upon a systematic scheme of\nspoliation. They prevent any from forming a fixed settlement who are\ninclined to attempt it; for although the fruitfulness of the soil would\nabundantly repay the labour of settlers, and render migration wholly\nunnecessary, even if the population were increased more than tenfold;\nyet the Bedouins forcibly deprive them of the means of subsistence,\ncompel them to search for it elsewhere, and, in the words of the\nprediction, literally cause them to wander.\u201d It may be remarked\ngenerally of the Bedouins,\u201d says Burckhardt, in describing their\nextortions in this very country, that wherever they are the masters of\nthe cultivators, the latter are soon reduced to beggary by their\nunceasing demands.\u201d \u201cO ye that dwell in Moab, leave the cities and dwell\nin the rock, and be like the dove that maketh her nest in the sides of\nthe hole\u2019s mouth.\u201d In a general description of the condition of the\ninhabitants of that extensive desert which now occupies the place of\nthese ancient flourishing states, Volney in plain but unmeant\nillustration of this prediction, remarks, that the wretched peasants\nlive in perpetual dread of losing the fruit of their labours; and no\nsooner have they gathered in their harvest, than they hasten to secrete\nit in private places, and retire among the rocks which border on the\nDead Sea.\u201d Toward the opposite extremity of the land of Moab, and at a\nlittle distance from its borders, Seetzen relates, that there are many\nfamilies living in caverns;\u201d and he actually designates them the\ninhabitants of the rocks.\u201d And at the distance of a few miles from the\nruined site of Heshbon, according to Captains Irby and Mangles, there\nare many artificial caves in a large range of perpendicular cliffs, in\nsome of which are chambers and small sleeping apartments.\u201d While the\ncities are desolate, without any to dwell therein, the rocks are\ntenanted. But whether flocks lie down in the city without any to make\nthem afraid, or whether men are to be found dwelling in the rocks, and\nare \u201clike the dove that maketh her nest in the sides of the hole\u2019s\nmouth,\u201d the wonderful transition, in either case, and the close\naccordance, in both, of the fact to the prediction, assuredly mark it in\ncharacters that may be visible to the purblind mind, as the word of that\nGod before whom the darkness of futurity is as light, and without whom a\nsparrow cannot fall unto the ground.\n\nMOLE. This word, in our version of Lev. xi, 30, answers to the word\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea, which Bochart has shown to be the cameleon; but he conjectures,\nwith great propriety, that \u05d7\u05dc\u05d3, translated weasel,\u201d in the preceding\nverse, is the true word for the mole. The present name of the mole in\nthe east is _khuld_, which is undeniably the same word as the Hebrew\n_choled_. The import of the Hebrew word is, to creep into,\u201d and the same\nSyriac word implies, to creep underneath,\u201d to creep into by burrowing;\nwhich are well known characteristics of the mole.\n\nMOLOCH, \u05de\u05dc\u05da, signifies _king_. Moloch, Molech, Milcom, or Melchom, was a\ngod of the Ammonites. The word _Moloch_ signifies king,\u201d and _Melchom_\nsignifies their king.\u201d Moses in several places forbids the Israelites,\nunder the penalty of death, to dedicate their children to Moloch, by\nmaking them pass through the fire in honour of that god, Lev. xviii, 21;\nxx, 2\u20135. God himself threatens to pour out his wrath against such\noffenders. There is great probability that the Hebrews were addicted to\nthe worship of this deity, even before their coming out of Egypt; since\nthe Prophet Amos, v, 26, and after him St. Stephen, reproach them with\nhaving carried in the wilderness the tabernacle of their god Moloch,\nActs vii, 43. Solomon built a temple to Moloch upon the Mount of Olives,\n1 Kings xi, 7; and Manasseh a long time after imitated his impiety,\nmaking his son pass through the fire in honour of Moloch, 2 Kings xxi,\n3\u20136. It was chiefly in the valley of Tophet and Hinnom, east of\nJerusalem, that this idolatrous worship was paid, Jer. xix, 5, 6, &c.\nSome are of opinion that they contented themselves with making their\nchildren leap over a fire sacred to Moloch, by which they consecrated\nthem to some false deity: and by this lustration purified them; this\nbeing a usual ceremony among the Heathens on other occasions. Some\nbelieve that they made them pass through two fires opposite to each\nother, for the same purpose. But the word \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8, to cause to pass\nthrough,\u201d and the phrase to cause to pass through the fire,\u201d are used in\nrespect to human sacrifices in Deut. xii, 31; xviii, 10; 2 Kings xvi, 3;\nxxi, 6; 2 Chron. xxviii, 3; xxxiii, 6. These words are not to be\nconsidered as meaning in these instances literally to pass through, and\nthat alone. They are rather synonymous with \u05e9\u05e8\u05e3, _to burn_, and \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7, _to\nimmolate_, with which they are interchanged, as may be seen by an\nexamination of Jer. vii, 31; xix, 5; Ezek. xvi, 20, 21; Psalm cvi, 38.\nIn the later periods of the Jewish kingdom, this idol was erected in the\nvalley south of Jerusalem, namely, in the valley of Hinnom, and in the\npart of that valley called _Tophet_, \u05ea\u05e4\u05ea, so named from the _drums_,\n\u05ea\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e3, which were beaten to prevent the groans and cries of children\nsacrificed from being heard, Jer. vii, 31, 32; xix, 6\u201314; Isaiah xxx,\n33; 2 Kings xxiii, 10. The place was so abhorrent to the minds of the\nmore recent Jews, that they applied the name _ge hinnom_ or _gehenna_ to\nthe place of torments in a future life. The word _gehenna_ is used in\nthis way, namely, for the place of punishment beyond the grave, very\nfrequently in oriental writers, as far as India. There are various\nsentiments about the relation that Moloch had to the other Pagan\ndivinities. Some believe that Moloch was the same as Saturn, to whom it\nis well known that human sacrifices were offered; others think it was\nthe same with Mercury; others, Venus; others, Mars, or Mithra. Calmet\nhas endeavoured to prove that Moloch signified the sun, or the king of\nheaven.\n\nMONEY. Scripture often speaks of gold, silver, brass, of certain sums of\nmoney, of purchases made with money, of current money, of money of a\ncertain weight; but we do not observe coined or stamped money till a\nlate period; which makes it probable that the ancient Hebrews took gold\nand silver only by weight; that they only considered the purity of the\nmetal, and not the stamp. The most ancient commerce was conducted by\nbarter, or exchanging one sort of merchandise for another. One man gave\nwhat he could spare to another, who gave him in return part of his\nsuperabundance. Afterward, the more precious metals were used in\ntraffic, as a value more generally known and fixed. Lastly, they gave\nthis metal, by public authority, a certain mark, a certain weight, and a\ncertain degree of alloy, to fix its value, and to save buyers and\nsellers the trouble of weighing and examining the coins. At the siege of\nTroy in Homer, no reference is made to gold or silver coined; but the\nvalue of things is estimated by the number of oxen they were worth. For\ninstance: they bought wine, by exchanging oxen, slaves, skins, iron, &c,\nfor it. When the Greeks first used money, it was only little pieces of\niron or copper, called _oboli_ or spits, of which a handful was a\ndrachma, says Plutarch. Herodotus thinks that the Lydians were the first\nthat stamped money of gold or silver, and introduced it into commerce.\nOthers say it was Ishon, king of Thessaly, a son of Deucalion. Others\nascribe this honour to Erichthonius; who had been educated by the\ndaughters of Cecrops, king of Athens: others, again, to Phidon, king of\nArgos. Among the Persians it is said Darius, son of Hystaspes, first\ncoined golden money. Lycurgus banished gold and silver from his\ncommonwealth of Laced\u00e6mon, and only allowed a rude sort of money, made\nof iron. Janus, or rather the kings of Rome, made a kind of gross money\nof copper, having on one side the double face of Janus, on the other the\nprow of a ship. We find nothing concerning the money of the Egyptians,\nPhenicians, Arabians, or Syrians, before Alexander the Great. In China,\nto this day, they stamp no money of gold or silver, but only of copper.\nGold and silver pass as merchandise. If gold or silver be offered, they\ntake it and pay it by weight, as other goods: so that they are obliged\nto cut it into pieces with shears for that purpose, and they carry a\nsteel yard at their girdles to weigh it.\n\nBut to return to the Hebrews. Abraham weighed out four hundred shekels\nof silver, to purchase Sarah\u2019s tomb, Genesis xxiii, 15, 16; and\nScripture observes that he paid this in current money with the\nmerchant.\u201d Joseph was sold by his brethren to the Midianites for twenty\npieces (in Hebrew twenty shekels) of silver, Gen. xxxvii, 28. The\nbrethren of Joseph bring back with them into Egypt the money they found\nin their sacks, in the same weight as before, Gen. xliii, 21. The\nbracelets that Eliezer gave Rebekah weighed ten shekels, and the ear\nrings two shekels, Gen. xxiv, 22. Moses ordered that the weight of five\nhundred shekels of myrrh, and two hundred and fifty shekels of cinnamon,\nof the weight of the sanctuary, should be taken, to make the perfume\nwhich was to be burnt to the Lord on the golden altar, Exod. xxx, 24. He\nacquaints us that the Israelites offered for the works of the tabernacle\nseventy-two thousand talents of brass, Exod. xxxviii, 29. We read, in\nthe books of Samuel, that the weight of Absalom\u2019s hair was two hundred\nshekels of the ordinary weight, or of the king\u2019s weight, 2 Sam. xiv, 26.\nIsaiah, xlvi, 6, describes the wicked as weighing silver in a balance,\nto make an idol of it; and Jeremiah, xxxii, 10, weighs seventeen pieces\nof silver in a pair of scales, to pay for a field he had bought. Isaiah\nsays, Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore\ndo ye weigh money for that which is not bread?\u201d Amos, viii, 5,\nrepresents the merchants as encouraging one another to make the ephah\nsmall, wherewith to sell, and the shekel great, wherewith to buy, and to\nfalsify the balances by deceit.\n\nIn all these passages three things only are mentioned: 1. The metal,\nthat is, gold or silver, and never copper, that not being used in\ntraffic as money. 2. The weight, a talent, a shekel, a gerah or\n_obolus_, the weight of the sanctuary, and the king\u2019s weight. 3. The\nalloy (standard) of pure or fine gold and silver, and of good quality,\nas received by the merchant. The impression of the coinage is not\nreferred to; but it is said they weighed the silver, or other\ncommodities, by the shekel and by the talent. This shekel, therefore,\nand this talent, were not fixed and determined pieces of money, but\nweights applied to things used in commerce. Hence those deceitful\nbalances of the merchants, who would increase the shekel, that is, would\naugment the weight by which they weighed the gold and silver they were\nto receive, that they might have a greater quantity than was their due;\nhence the weight of the sanctuary, the standard of which was preserved\nin the temple to prevent fraud; hence those prohibitions in the law,\nThou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights,\u201d in Hebrew, stones, a\ngreat and a small,\u201d Deut. xxv, 13; hence those scales that the Hebrews\nwore at their girdles, Hosea xii, 7, and the Canaanites carried in their\nhands, to weigh the gold and silver which they received in payment. It\nis true that in the Hebrew we find Jacob bought a field for a hundred\n_kesitahs_, Gen. xxxiii, 19; and that the friends of Job, after his\nrecovery, gave to that model of patience each a _kesitah_, and a golden\npendant for the ears, Job xlii, 11. We also find there _darics_, (in\nHebrew, _darcmonim_ or _adarcmonim_,) and _min\u00e6_, _stater\u00e6_, _oboli_;\nbut this last kind of money was foreign, and is put for other terms,\nwhich in the Hebrew only signifies the weight of the metal. The\n_kesitah_ is not well known to us: some take it for a sheep or a lamb;\nothers, for a kind of money, having the impression of a lamb or a sheep:\nbut it was more probably a purse of money. The _darcmonim_ or _darics_\nare money of the kings of Persia; and it is agreed that Darius, son of\nHystaspes, first coined golden money. Ezekiel, xlv, 12, tells us that\nthe _mina_ makes fifty shekels: he reduces this foreign money to the\nweight of the Hebrews. The _mina_ might probably be a Persian money\noriginally, and adopted by the Greeks and by the Hebrews. But under the\ndominion of the Persians, the Hebrews were hardly at liberty to coin\nmoney of their own, being in subjection to those princes, and very low\nin their own country. They were still less able under the Chaldeans,\nduring the Babylonish captivity; or afterward under the Grecians, to\nwhom they were subject till the time of Simon Maccab\u00e6us, to whom\nAntiochus Sidetes, king of Syria, granted the privilege of coining money\nin Judea, 1 Mac. xv, 6. And this is the first Hebrew money, properly so\ncalled, that we know of. There were shekels and demi-shekels, also the\nthird part of a shekel, and a quarter of a shekel, of silver.\n\nThe shekel of silver, or the silverling, Isa. vii, 23, originally\nweighed three hundred and twenty barleycorns; but it was afterward\nincreased to three hundred and eighty-four barleycorns, its value, being\nconsidered equal to four Roman denarii, was two shillings and seven\npence, or, according to Bishop Cumberland, two shillings and four pence\nfarthing. It is said to have had Aaron\u2019s rod on the one side, and the\npot of manna on the other. The bekah was equal to half a shekel, Exod.\nxxxviii, 26. The denarius was one-fourth of a shekel, seven pence three\nfarthings of our money. The gerah, or meah, Exod. xxx, 13, was the sixth\npart of the denarius, or diner, and the twenty-fourth part of the\nshekel. The assar, or assarion, Matt. x, 29, was the ninety-sixth part\nof a shekel: its value was rather more than a farthing. The farthing,\nMatt. v, 26, was in value the thirteenth part of a penny sterling. The\nmite was the half of a farthing, or the twenty-sixth part of a penny\nsterling. The mina, or maneh, Ezek. xlv, 12, was equal to sixty shekels,\nwhich, taken at two shillings and seven pence, was seven pounds fifteen\nshillings. The talent was fifty minas; and its value, therefore, three\nhundred and eighty-seven pounds ten shillings. The gold coins were as\nfollows: a shekel of gold was about fourteen and a half times the value\nof silver, that is, one pound seventeen shillings and five pence\nhalfpenny. A talent of gold consisted of three thousand shekels. The\ndrachma was equal to a Roman denarius, or seven pence three farthings of\nour money. The didrachma, or tribute money, Matt. xvii, 24, was equal to\nfifteen pence halfpenny. It is said to have been stamped with a harp on\none side, and a vine on the other. The stater, or piece of money which\nPeter found in the fish\u2019s mouth, Matt. xvii, 27, was two half shekels. A\ndaric, dram, 1 Chron. xxix, 7; Ezra viii, 27, was a gold coin struck by\nDarius the Mede. According to Parkhurst its value was one pound five\nshillings. A gold penny is stated by Lightfoot to have been equal to\ntwenty-five silver pence.\n\nHug derives a satisfactory argument for the veracity of the Gospels from\nthe different kinds of money mentioned in them:--The admixture of\nforeign manners and constitutions proceeded through numberless\ncircumstances of life. Take, for example, the circulation of coin; at\none time it is Greek coin; at another, Roman; at another time ancient\nJewish. But how accurately is even this stated according to history, and\nthe arrangement of things! The ancient imposts which were introduced\nbefore the Roman dominion were valued according to the Greek coinage;\nfor example, the taxes of the temple, the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, Matt. xvii, 24. The\nofferings were paid in these, Mark xii, 42; Luke xxi, 2. A payment which\nproceeded from the temple treasury was made according to the ancient\nnational payment by weight, Matt. xxvi, 15; but in common business,\ntrade, wages, sale, &c, the assis and denarius and Roman coin were\nusual, Matt. x, 29; xx, 3; Luke xii, 6; Mark xiv, 5; John xii, 5; vi, 7.\nThe more modern state taxes are likewise paid in the coin of the nation\nwhich exercises at the time the greatest authority, Matthew xxii, 19;\nMark xii, 15; Luke xx, 24. Writers, who, in each little circumstance,\nwhich otherwise would pass by unnoticed, so accurately describe the\nperiod of time, must certainly have had a personal knowledge of it.\n\nMONEY-CHANGERS, in the Gospels, were persons who exchanged native for\nforeign coin, to enable those who came to Jerusalem from distant\ncountries to purchase the necessary sacrifices. In our Lord\u2019s time they\nhad established themselves in the court of the temple; a profanation\nwhich had probably grown up with the influence of Roman manners, which\nallowed the _argentarii_ [money-dealers] to establish their usurious\n_mensas_, tables, by the statues of the gods, even at the feet of Janus,\nin the most holy places, _in porticibus Basilicarum_, or in the temples,\n_pone \u00e6dem Castoris_. The following extract from Buckingham\u2019s Travels\namong the Arabs, is illustrative:--\u201cThe mosque at the time of our\npassing through it was full of people, though these were not\nworshippers, nor was it at either of the usual hours of public prayers.\nSome of the parties were assembled to smoke, others to play at chess,\nand some apparently to drive bargains of trade, but certainly none to\npray. It was, indeed, a living picture of what we might believe the\ntemple at Jerusalem to have been, when those who sold oxen, and sheep,\nand doves, and the changers of money sitting there, were driven out by\nJesus, with a scourge of cords, and their tables overturned. It was, in\nshort, a place of public resort and thoroughfare, a house of\nmerchandise, as the temple of the Jews had become in the days of the\nMessiah.\u201d\n\nMONK anciently denoted a person who retired from the world to give\nhimself up wholly to God, and to live in solitude and abstinence. The\nword is derived from the Latin _monachus_, and that from the Greek\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2, _solitary_. The original of monks seems to have been this: The\npersecutions which attended the first ages of the Gospel forced some\nChristians to retire from the world, and live in deserts and places more\nprivate and unfrequented, in hopes of finding that peace and comfort\namong beasts which were denied them among men; and this being the case\nof some very extraordinary persons, their example gave such reputation\nto retirement, that the practice was continued when the reason of its\ncommencement ceased. After the empire became Christian, instances of\nthis kind were numerous; and those whose security had obliged them to\nlive separately and apart became afterward united into societies. We may\nalso add, that the mystic theology, which gained ground toward the close\nof the third century, contributed to produce the same effect, and to\ndrive men into solitude, for the purposes of devotion. The monks, at\nleast the ancient ones, were distinguished into _solitaries_,\n_c\u0153nobites_, and _sarabaites_. The first were those who lived in\nplaces remote from all towns and habitations of men, as do still some of\nthe hermits. The _c\u0153nobites_ were those who lived in community with\nseveral others in the same house, and under the same superiors. The\n_sarabaites_ were strolling monks, having no fixed rule of residence.\nThose who are now called monks are _c\u0153nobites_, who live together in\na convent or monastery, who make vows of living according to a certain\nrule established by the founder, and wear a habit which distinguishes\ntheir order. Those that are endowed, or have a fixed revenue, are most\nproperly called monks, _monachi_; as the Chartereux, Benedictines,\nBernardines, &c. The Mendicants, or those that beg, as the Capuchins and\nFranciscans, are more properly called religious, and friars, though the\nnames are frequently confounded.\n\nThe first monks were those of St. Anthony, who, toward the close of the\nfourth century, formed them into a regular body, engaged them to live in\nsociety with each other, and prescribed to them fixed rules for the\ndirection of their conduct. These regulations, which Anthony had made in\nEgypt, were soon introduced into Palestine and Syria by his disciple\nHilarion. Almost about the same time, Aones, or Eugenius, with their\ncompanions, Gaddanus and Azyzas, instituted the monastic order in\nMesopotomia, and the adjacent countries; and their example was followed\nwith such rapid success, that in a short time the whole east was filled\nwith a lazy set of mortals, who, abandoning all human connections,\nadvantages, pleasures, and concerns, wore out a languishing and\nmiserable existence amidst hardships of want, and various kinds of\nsuffering, in order to arrive at a more close and rapturous\ncommunication with God and angels. From the east this gloomy institution\npassed into the west, and first into Italy and its neighbouring islands,\nthough it is uncertain who transplanted it thither. St. Martin, the\ncelebrated bishop of Tours, erected the first monasteries in Gaul, and\nrecommended this religious solitude with such power and efficacy, both\nby his instruction and example, that his funeral is said to have been\nattended by no less than two thousand monks. From hence the monastic\ndiscipline extended its progress gradually through the other provinces\nand countries of Europe. There were beside, the monks of St. Basil,\ncalled in the east _calogeri_, from \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, _a good old man_, and\nthose of St. Jerom, the hermits of St. Augustine, and afterward those of\nSt. Benedict and St. Bernard: at length came those of St. Francis and\nSt. Dominic, with a legion of others.\n\nToward the close of the fifth century, the monks who had formerly lived\nonly for themselves in solitary retreats, and had never thought of\nassuming any rank among the sacerdotal order, were gradually\ndistinguished from the populace, and endowed with such opulence and\nhonourable privileges that they found themselves in a condition to claim\nan eminent station among the pillars and supporters of the Christian\ncommunity. The fame of their piety and sanctity was so great, that\nbishops and presbyters were often chosen out of their order; and the\npassion of erecting edifices and convents, in which the monks and holy\nvirgins might serve God in the most commodious manner, was at this time\ncarried beyond all bounds. However, their licentiousness, even in this\ncentury, was become a proverb; and they are said to have excited the\nmost dreadful tumults and seditions in various places. The monastic\norders were at first under the immediate jurisdiction of the bishops,\nfrom which they were exempted by the Roman pontiff about the end of the\nseventh century; and the monks in return devoted themselves wholly to\nadvance the interest and to maintain the dignity of the bishop of Rome.\nThis immunity which they obtained was a fruitful source of\nlicentiousness and disorder, and occasioned the greatest part of the\nvices with which they were afterward so justly charged.\n\nIn the eighth century the monastic discipline was extremely relaxed,\nboth in the eastern and western provinces, and all efforts to restore it\nwere ineffectual. Nevertheless, this kind of institution was in the\nhighest esteem; and nothing could equal the veneration that was paid\nabout the close of the ninth century to such as devoted themselves to\nthe sacred gloom and indolence of a convent. This veneration caused\nseveral kings and emperors to call them to their courts, and to employ\nthem in civil affairs of the greatest moment. Their reformation was\nattempted by Louis the meek, but the effect was of short duration. In\nthe eleventh century, they were exempted by the popes from the authority\nof their sovereigns, and new orders of monks were continually\nestablished, insomuch that in the council of Lateran, that was held A.\nD. 1215, a decree was passed, by the advice of Innocent III., to prevent\nany new monastic institutions; and several were entirely suppressed. In\nthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it appears, from the testimony of\nthe best writers, that the monks were generally lazy, illiterate,\nprofligate, and licentious epicures, whose views in life were confined\nto opulence, idleness, and pleasure. However, the reformation had a\nmanifest influence in restraining their excesses, and rendering them\nmore circumspect and cautious in their external conduct.\n\nMonks are distinguished by the colour of their habits, into black,\nwhite, gray, &c. Among the monks, some are called monks of the choir,\nothers, professed monks, and others, lay monks; which last are destined\nfor the service of the convent, and have neither clericate nor\nliterature. Cloistered monks are those who actually reside in the house,\nin opposition to extra monks, who have benefices depending on the\nmonastery. Monks are also distinguished into reformed, whom the civil\nand ecclesiastical authority have made masters of ancient convents, and\nempowered to retrieve the ancient discipline, which had been relaxed;\nand ancient, who remain in the convent, to live in it according to its\nestablishment at the time when they made their vows, without obliging\nthemselves to any new reform. Anciently the monks were all laymen, and\nwere only distinguished from the rest of the people by a peculiar habit\nand an extraordinary piety or devotion. Not only the monks were\nprohibited the priesthood, but even priests were expressly prohibited\nfrom becoming monks, as appears from the letters of St. Gregory. Pope\nSyricius was the first who called them to the clericate, on account of\nsome great scarcity of priests that the church was supposed to labour\nunder; and since that time the priesthood has been usually united to the\nmonastical profession.\n\nMONOPHYSITES. See HYPOSTATIC UNION.\n\nMONOTHELITES, a denomination in the seventh century. See HYPOSTATIC\nUNION.\n\nMONTHS, \u05d9\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd, sometimes also called \u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd, _new moons_, from the\ncircumstance of their commencing with the new moon, anciently had no\nseparate names, with the exception of the first, which was called\n_Abib_, that is, the month of the young ears of corn,\u201d Exod. xiii, 4;\nxxiii, 15; xxxiv, 18; Deut. xvi, 1. During the captivity, the Hebrews\nadopted the Babylonian names for their months; which were as follows,\nand they were reckoned thus:--\n\n     1. \u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05df, _Nisan_, from the new of April, Neh. ii, 1.\n     moon\n\n     2. \u05d6\u05d9\u05d5, _Zif_ or _Ziv_, also   of May, 1 Kings vi, 1.\n     called \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8,\n\n     3. \u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u05b8\u05df, _Sivan_,              of June, Esther viii, 9.\n\n     4. \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d6, _Tammuz_,             of July.\n\n     5. \u05d0\u05d1, _Ab_,                   of August.\n\n     6. \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc, _Elul_,               of September, Neh. vi, 15.\n\n     7. \u05ea\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9, _Tishri_, also \u05d9\u05e8\u05d7    of October, 1 Kings viii, 2.\n     \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd,\n\n     8. \u05d1\u05d5\u05dc, _Bul_, also \u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05df,    of November, 1 Kings vi, 38.\n\n     9. \u05db\u05e1\u05dc\u05d5, _Kislev_,             of December, Neh. i, 1.\n\n     10. \u05d8\u05d1\u05ea, _Tebeth_,             of January, Esther ii, 16.\n\n     11. \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8, _Shebat_,             of February, Zech. i, 7.\n\n     12. \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8, _Adar_,               of March, Esther iii, 7.\n\n        The first month here mentioned, _Nisan_, was originally\n     called _Abib_. The intercalary month is denominated in Hebrew\n                                 \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8.\n\nMOON. Particular sacrifices were enjoined by Moses at every new moon,\nwhich day was also celebrated as a feast. It is promised in Psalm cxxi,\n6, The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.\u201d The\neffect of a _coup de soleil_, or stroke of the sun, is well known; and\nin some climates the beams of the moon are reputed hurtful. Anderson, in\nhis Description of the East,\u201d says, One must here (in Batavia) take\ngreat care not to sleep in the beams of the moon uncovered. I have seen\nmany people whose neck has become crooked, so that they look more to the\nside than forward. I will not decide whether it is to be ascribed to the\nmoon, as people imagine here.\u201d In some of the southern parts of Europe\nthe same opinions are entertained of the pernicious influence of the\nmoon beams. An English gentleman walking in the evening in the garden of\na Portuguese nobleman at Lisbon, was most seriously admonished by the\nowner to put on his hat, to protect him from the moon beams. The\nfishermen in Sicily are said to cover, during the night, the fish which\nthey expose to dry on the sea shore, alleging that the beams of the moon\ncause them to putrefy.\n\nMORAL OBLIGATION. Different opinions have been held as to the ground of\nmoral obligation. Grotius, Balguy, and Dr. Samuel Clarke, place it in\nthe eternal and necessary fitness of things. To this there are two\nobjections. The first is, that it leaves the distinction between virtue\nand vice, in a great measure, arbitrary and indefinite, dependent upon\nour perception of fitness and unfitness, which, in different individuals\nwill greatly differ. The second is, that when a fitness or unfitness is\nproved, it is no more than the discovery of a natural essential\ndifference or congruity, which alone cannot constitute a moral\nobligation to choose what is fit, and to reject what is unfit. When we\nhave proved a fitness in a certain course of action, we have not proved\nthat it is obligatory. A second step is necessary before we can reach\nthis conclusion. Cudworth, Butler, Price, and others, maintain, that\nvirtue carries its own obligation in itself; that the understanding at\nonce perceives a certain action to be right, and therefore it ought to\nbe performed. Several objections lie to this notion: 1. It supposes the\nunderstandings of men to determine precisely in the same manner\nconcerning all virtuous and vicious actions; which is contrary to fact.\n2. It supposes a previous rule, by which the action is determined to be\nright; but if the revealed will of God is not to be taken into\nconsideration, what common rule exists among men? There is evidently no\nsuch rule, and therefore no means of certainly determining what is\nright. 3. If a common standard were known among men, and if the\nunderstandings of men determined in the same manner as to the\nconformity, or otherwise, of an action to that standard; what renders it\na matter of obligation that any one should perform it? The rule must be\nproved to be binding, or no ground of obligation is established.\n\nAn action is obligatory, say others, because it is agreeable to the\nmoral sense. This is the theory of Lord Shaftesbury and Dr. Hutcheson.\nBy moral sense appears to be meant an instinctive approbation of right,\nand abhorrence of wrong, prior to all reflection on their nature, or\ntheir consequences. If any thing else were understood by it, then the\nmoral sense must be the same with conscience, which we know to vary with\nthe judgment, and cannot therefore be the basis of moral obligation. If\nconscience be not meant, then the moral sense must be considered as\ninstinctive: a notion, certainly, which is disproved by the whole moral\nhistory of man. It may, indeed, be conceded, that such is the\nconstitution of the human soul, that when those distinctions between\nactions, which have been taught by religious tradition or direct\nrevelation, are known in their nature, relations, and consequences, the\ncalm and sober judgments of men will approve of them; and that\nespecially when they are considered abstractedly, that is, as not\naffecting and controlling their own interests and passions immediately,\nvirtue may command complacency, and vice provoke abhorrence: but that,\nindependent of reflection on their nature or their consequences, there\nis an instinctive principle in man which abhors evil, and loves good, is\ncontradicted by that variety of opinion and feeling on the vices and\nvirtues, which obtains among all uninstructed nations. We applaud the\nforgiveness of an injury as magnanimous; a savage despises it as mean.\nWe think it a duty to support and cherish aged parents; many nations, on\nthe contrary, abandon them as useless, and throw them to the beasts of\nthe field. Innumerable instances of this contrariety might be adduced,\nwhich are all contrary to the notion of instinctive sentiment. Instincts\noperate uniformly, but this assumed moral sense does not. Beside, if it\nbe mere matter of feeling, independent of judgment, to love virtue, and\nabhor vice, the morality of the exercise of this principle is\nquestionable; for it would be difficult to show, that there is any more\nmorality, properly speaking, in the affections and disgusts of instinct\nthan in those of the palate. If judgment, the knowledge and comparison\nof things, be included, then this principle supposes a uniform and\nuniversal individual revelation as to the nature of things to every man,\nor an intuitive faculty of determining their moral quality; both of\nwhich are too absurd to be maintained.\n\nThe only satisfactory conclusion on this subject, is that which refers\nmoral obligation to the will of God. Obligation,\u201d says Warburton,\nnecessarily implies an obliger, and the obliger must be different from,\nand not one and the same with, the obliged. Moral obligation, that is,\nthe obligation of a free agent, farther implies a law, which enjoins and\nforbids; but a law is the imposition of an intelligent superior, who\nhath power to exact conformity thereto.\u201d This lawgiver is God; and\nwhatever may be the reasons which have led him to enjoin this, and to\nprohibit that, it is plain that the obligation to obey lies not merely\nin the fitness and propriety of a creature obeying an infinitely wise\nand good Creator, (though such a fitness exists,) but in that obedience\nbeing enjoined. For, since the question respects the duty of a created\nbeing with reference to his Creator, nothing can be more conclusive than\nthat the Creator has an absolute right to the obedience of his\ncreatures; and that the creature is in duty obliged to obey him from\nwhom it not only has received being, but by whom that being is\nconstantly sustained. It has, indeed, been said, that even if it be\nadmitted, that I am obliged to obey the will of God, the question is\nstill open, Why am I obliged to obey his will?\u201d and that this brings us\nround to the former answer; because he can only will what is upon the\nwhole best for his creatures. But this is confounding that which may be,\nand doubtless is, a rule to God in the commands which he issues, with\nthat which really obliges the creature. Now, that which in truth obliges\nthe creature is not the nature of the commands issued by God; but the\nrelation in which the creature itself stands to God. If a creature can\nhave no existence, nor any power or faculty independently of God, it can\nhave no right to employ its faculties independently of him; and if it\nhave no right to employ its faculties in an independent manner, the\nright to rule its conduct must rest with the Creater alone; and from\nthis results the obligation of absolute and universal obedience.\n\nMORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. The name of Moravians, or Moravian\nBrethren, was in England given to the members of a foreign Protestant\nchurch, calling itself the _Unitas Fratrum_, or United Brethren. This\nchurch formerly consisted of three branches, the Bohemian, Moravian, and\nPolish. After its renovation in the year 1722, some of its members came\nto England in 1728, who being of the Moravian branch, became known by\nthat appellation; and all those who joined them, and adopted their\ndoctrines and discipline, have ever since been called Moravians.\nStrictly speaking, however, that name is not applicable to them, nor\ngenerally admitted, either by themselves, or in any public documents, in\nwhich they are called by their proper names, the _Unitas Fratrum_, or\nUnited Brethren.\n\nThe few remaining members of the ancient church of the United Brethren\nin Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland, being much persecuted by the popish\nclergy, many of them left all their possessions, and fled with their\nfamilies into Silesia and Saxony. In Saxony they found protection from a\nSaxon nobleman, Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorff, who gave them some\nwaste land on one of his estates, on which, in 1722, they built a\nvillage at the foot of a hill, called the Hut-Berg, or Watch-Hill. This\noccasioned them to call their settlement _Herrnhut_, the watch of the\nLord.\u201d Hence their enemies designated them in derision by the name of\nHerrnhuters, which is altogether improper, but by it they are known in\nsome countries abroad. By their own account, the community derive their\norigin from the ancient Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, who existed as a\ndistinct people ever since the year 1457, when, separating from those\nwho took up arms in defence of their protestations against popish\nerrors, they formed a plan for church fellowship and discipline,\nagreeable to their insight into the Scriptures, and called themselves at\nfirst, _Fratres Legis Christi_, or Brethren after the Law of Christ; and\nafterward, on being joined by others of the same persuasion in other\nplaces, _Unitas Fratrum_, or _Fratres Unitatis_. By degrees, they\nestablished congregations in various places, and spread themselves into\nMoravia and other neighbouring states. Being anxious to preserve among\nthemselves regular episcopal ordination, and, at a synod held at Lhota\nin 1467, taking into consideration the scarcity of ministers regularly\nordained among them, they chose three of their priests ordained by\nCalixtine bishops, and sent them to Stephen, bishop of the Waldenses,\nthen residing in Austria, by whom they were consecrated bishops;\nco-bishops and conseniores being appointed from the rest of their\npresbyters. In 1468 a great persecution arose against them, and many\nwere put to death. In 1481 they were banished from Moravia, when many of\nthem fled as far as Mount Caucasus, and established themselves there,\ntill driven away by subsequent troubles.\n\nIn the mean time, disputes respecting points of doctrine, the enmity of\nthe papists, and other causes, raised continual disturbances and great\npersecutions at various periods, till the Reformation by Luther, when\nthey opened a correspondence with that eminent reformer and his\nassociates, and entered into several negotiations, both with him and\nCalvin, concerning the extension of the Protestant cause. But their\nstrict adherence to the discipline of their own church, founded, in\ntheir view, on that of the primitive churches, and the acknowledged\nimpossibility of its application among the mixed multitude, of which the\nLutheran and Calvinist churches consisted, occasioned a cessation of\nco\u00f6peration, and, in the sequel, the Brethren were again left to the\nmercy of their persecutors, by whom their churches were destroyed, and\ntheir ministers banished, till the year 1575, when they obtained an\nedict from the emperor of Germany, for the public exercise of their\nreligion. This toleration was renewed in 1609, and liberty granted them\nto erect new churches. But a civil war, which broke out in Bohemia in\n1612, and a violent persecution which followed it in 1621, again\noccasioned the dispersion of their ministers, and brought great distress\nupon the Brethren in general. Some fled into England, others to Saxony\nand Brandenburg; while many, overcome by the severity of the\npersecution, conformed to the rites of the church of Rome.\n\nAbout the year 1640, by incessant persecution, and the most oppressive\nmeasures, this ancient church was brought to so low an ebb, that it\nappeared nearly extinct. The persecutions which took place at the\nbeginning of the eighteenth century, were the occasion that many of the\nscattered descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren at length\nresolved to quit their native land, and seek liberty of conscience in\nforeign countries. Some emigrated into Silesia, and others into Upper\nLusatia, a province of Saxony, adjoining to Bohemia. The latter, as\nbefore observed, found a protector in Nicholas Count Zinzendorff, a\npious, zealous man, and a Lutheran by education. He hoped that the\nreligious state of the Lutherans in his neighbourhood would be greatly\nimproved by the conversation and example of these devout emigrants; and\nhe therefore sought to prevail upon the latter to join the Lutheran\nchurch altogether. To this the Brethren objected, being unwilling to\ngive up their ancient discipline, and would rather proceed to seek an\nasylum in another place; when the count, struck with their steadfast\nadherence to the tenets of their forefathers, began more maturely to\nexamine their pretensions; and being convinced of the justness of them,\nhe procured for the Brethren the renovation of their ancient\nconstitution, and ever after proved a most zealous promoter of their\ncause. He is, therefore, very justly esteemed by them as the chief\ninstrument, in the hand of God, in restoring the sinking church, and, in\ngeneral, gratefully remembered for his disinterested and indefatigable\nlabours in promoting the interests of religion, both at home and abroad.\nIn 1735, having been examined and received into the clerical order, by\nthe theological faculty at Tuebingen, in the duchy of Wurtemburg, he was\nconsecrated a bishop of the Brethren\u2019s church.\n\nAfter the establishment of a regular congregation of the United Brethren\nat Herrnhut, multitudes of pious persons from various parts flocked to\nit, many of whom had private opinions in religious matters, to which\nthey were strongly attached. This occasioned great disputes, which even\nthreatened the destruction of the society; but, by the indefatigable\nexertions of Count Zinzendorff, these disputes were allayed, and the\nstatutes being drawn up, and agreed to in 1727, for better regulation,\nbrotherly love and union were re\u00ebstablished, and no schism whatever, in\npoint of doctrine, has since that period disturbed the peace of the\nchurch.\n\nThough the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the\nsacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg\nConfession of Faith. Their church is episcopal; but though they consider\nepiscopal ordination as necessary to qualify the servants of the church\nfor their respective functions, they allow to their bishops no elevation\nof rank or pre\u00ebminent authority. The Moravian church, from its first\nestablishment, has been governed by synods, consisting of deputies from\nall the congregations, and by other subordinate bodies, which they call\nconferences. According to their regulations, episcopal ordination, of\nitself, does not confer any power to preside over one or more\ncongregations; and a bishop can discharge no office except by the\nappointment of a synod, or of its delegate, the elders\u2019 conference of\nthe unity. Presbyters among them can perform every function of the\nbishop, except ordination. Deacons are assistants to presbyters, much in\nthe same way as in the church of England. Deaconesses are retained for\nthe purpose of privately admonishing their own sex, and visiting them in\ntheir sickness; but they are not permitted to teach in public, and, far\nless, to administer the sacraments. They have also _seniores civiles_,\nor lay elders, in contradistinction to spiritual elders or bishops, who\nare appointed to watch over the constitution and discipline of the unity\nof the Brethren, &c. The synods are generally held once in seven years;\nand beside all the bishops, and the deputies sent by each congregation,\nthose women who have appointments as above described, if on the spot,\nare also admitted as hearers, and may be called upon to give their\nadvice in what relates to the ministerial labour among their own sex;\nbut they have no decisive vote in the synod. The votes of all the other\nmembers are equal. In questions of importance, or of which the\nconsequence cannot be foreseen, neither the majority of votes, nor the\nunanimous consent of all present, can decide: but recourse is had to the\nlot, which, however, is never made use of except after mature\ndeliberation and prayer; nor is any thing submitted to its decision\nwhich does not, after being thoroughly weighed, appear to the assembly\neligible in itself.\n\nMORDECAI was the son of Jair, of the race of Saul, and a chief of the\ntribe of Benjamin. He was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar,\nwith Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah, king of Judah, A. M. 3405, Esther ii, 5,\n6. He settled at Shushan, and there lived to the first year of Cyrus,\nwhen it is thought he returned to Jerusalem, with several other\ncaptives; but he afterward returned to Shushan. There is great\nprobability that Mordecai was very young when taken into captivity. The\nbook of Esther gives the whole history of Mordecai\u2019s elevation, the\npunishment of Haman, and the wonderful deliverance of the Jews, in clear\nand regular narrative. But it may be asked, For what reason did Mordecai\nrefuse to pay that respect to Haman, the neglect of which incensed him\nagainst the Jews? Esther iii, 1\u20136. Some think the reason was, because\nHaman was an Amalekite; a people whom the Israelites had been\ncommissioned from God to destroy, because of the injuries they had\nformerly done them, Deut. xxv, 17\u201319. But this scarcely seems to be a\nsufficient account of Mordecai\u2019s refusing civil respect to Haman, who\nwas first minister of state; especially when by so doing he exposed his\nwhole nation to imminent danger. Beside, if nothing but civil respect\nhad been intended to Haman, the king need not have enjoined it on his\nservants after he had made him his first minister and chief favourite,\nEsther iii, 1, 2; they would have been ready enough to show it on all\noccasions. Probably, therefore, the reverence ordered to be done to this\ngreat man was a kind of divine honour, such as was sometimes addressed\nto the Persian monarchs themselves; which, being a species of idolatry,\nMordecai refused for the sake of a good conscience. And perhaps it was\nbecause Haman knew that his refusal was the result of his Jewish\nprinciples, that he determined to attempt the destruction of the Jews in\ngeneral, knowing they were all of the same mind. As to another question,\nwhy Haman cast lots, in order to fix the day for the massacre of the\nJews, Esther iii, 7; from whence the feast of purim, which is a Persic\nword, and signifies _lots_, took its name, Esther ix, 26; it was no\ndoubt owing to the superstitious conceit which anciently prevailed, of\nsome days being more fortunate than others for any undertaking; in\nshort, he endeavoured to find out, by this way of divining, what month,\nand what day of the month, was most unfortunate to the Jews, and most\nfortunate for the success of his bloody design against them. It is very\nremarkable, that while Haman sought for direction in this affair from\nthe Persian idols, the God of Israel so over-ruled the lot as to fix the\nintended massacre to almost a year\u2019s distance, from Nisan the first\nmonth to Adar the last of the year, in order to give time and\nopportunity to Mordecai and Esther to defeat the conspiracy.\n\nMORIAH, MOUNT. A hill on the north-east side of Jerusalem, once\nseparated from that of Acra by a broad valley, which, according to\nJosephus, was filled up by the Asmoneans, and the two hills converted\ninto one. In the time of David it stood apart from the city, and was\nunder cultivation; for here was the threshing floor of Araunah, the\nJebusite, which David bought, on which to erect an altar to God, 2 Sam.\nxxiv, 15\u201325. On the same spot Solomon afterward built the temple, 2\nChron. iii, 1; when it was included within the walls of the city. Here,\nalso, Abraham is supposed to have been directed to offer his son Isaac,\nGen. xxii, 1, 2. _Moriah_ implies vision;\u201d and the land of Moriah,\u201d\nmentioned in the above passage in the history of Abraham, was probably\nso called from being seen afar off.\u201d It included the whole group of\nhills on which Jerusalem was afterward built.\n\nMOSES. This illustrious legislator of the Israelites was of the tribe of\nLevi, in the line of Koath and of Amram, whose son he was, and therefore\nin the fourth generation after the settlement of the Israelites in\nEgypt. The time of his birth is ascertained by the exode of the\nIsraelites, when Moses was eighty years old, Exod. vii, 7. By a singular\nprovidence, the infant Moses, when exposed on the river Nile, through\nfear of the royal decree, after his mother had hid him three months,\nbecause he was a goodly child, was taken up and adopted by Pharaoh\u2019s\ndaughter, and nursed by his own mother, whom she hired at the suggestion\nof his sister Miriam. Thus did he find an asylum in the very palace of\nhis intended destroyer; while his intercourse with his own family and\nnation was still most naturally, though unexpectedly, maintained: so\nmysterious are the ways of Heaven. And while he was instructed in all\nthe wisdom of the Egyptians,\u201d and bred up in the midst of a luxurious\ncourt, he acquired at home the knowledge of the promised redemption of\nIsrael; and, by faith\u201d in the Redeemer Christ, \u201crefused to be called the\nson of Pharaoh\u2019s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the\npeople of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;\nesteeming the reproach of Christ,\u201d or persecution for Christ\u2019s sake,\ngreater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect to the\nrecompense of reward,\u201d Exodus ii, 1\u201310; Acts vii, 20\u201322; Heb. xi, 23\u201326;\nor looked forward to a future state.\n\nWhen Moses was grown to manhood, and was full forty years old, he was\nmoved by a divine intimation, as it seems, to undertake the deliverance\nof his countrymen; for he supposed that his brethren would have\nunderstood how that God, by his hand, would give them deliverance; but\nthey understood not.\u201d For when, in the excess of his zeal to redress\ntheir grievances, he had slain an Egyptian, who injured one of them, in\nwhich he probably went beyond his commission, and afterward endeavoured\nto reconcile two of them that were at variance, they rejected his\nmediation; and the man who had done wrong said, Who made thee a judge\nand a ruler over us? Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the\nEgyptian yesterday?\u201d So Moses, finding it was known, and that Pharaoh\nsought to slay him, fled for his life to the land of Midian, in Arabia\nPetr\u00e6a, where he married Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, or Reuel,\nprince and priest of Midian; and, as a shepherd, kept his flocks in the\nvicinity of Mount Horeb, or Sinai, for forty years, Exodus ii, 11\u201321;\niii, 1; xviii, 5; Num. x, 29; Acts vii, 23\u201330. During this long exile\nMoses was trained in the school of humble circumstances for that arduous\nmission which he had prematurely anticipated; and, instead of the\nunthinking zeal which at first actuated him, learned to distrust\nhimself. His backwardness, afterward, to undertake that mission for\nwhich he was destined from the womb, was no less remarkable than his\nforwardness before, Exod. iv, 10\u201313.\n\nAt length, when the oppression of the Israelites was come to the full,\nand they cried to God for succour, and the king was dead, and all the\nmen in Egypt that sought his life, the God of glory\u201d appeared to Moses\nin a flame of fire, from the midst of a bush, and announced himself as\nthe God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,\u201d under the titles of _Jahoh_\nand _\u00c6hjeh_, expressive of his unity and sameness; and commissioned him\nfirst to make known to the Israelites the divine will for their\ndeliverance; and next to go with the elders of Israel to Pharaoh,\nrequiring him, in the name of \u201cthe Lord, the God of the Hebrews, to\nsuffer the people to go three days\u2019 journey into the wilderness, to\nsacrifice unto the Lord their God,\u201d after such sacrifices had been long\nintermitted during their bondage; for the Egyptians had sunk into\nbestial polytheism, and would have stoned them, had they attempted to\nsacrifice to their principal divinities, the apis, or bull, &c, in the\nland itself: foretelling, also, the opposition they would meet with from\nthe king, the mighty signs and wonders that would finally compel his\nassent, and their spoiling of the Egyptians, by asking or demanding of\nthem (not borrowing) jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment,\n(by way of wages or compensation for their services,) as originally\ndeclared to Abraham, that they should go out from thence with great\nsubstance,\u201d Gen. xv, 14; Exod. ii, 23\u201325; iii, 2\u201322; viii, 25, 26.\n\nTo vouch his divine commission to the Israelites, God enabled Moses to\nwork three signal miracles: 1. Turning his rod into a serpent, and\nrestoring it again: 2. Making his hand leprous as snow, when he first\ndrew it out of his bosom, and restoring it sound as before when he next\ndrew it out: and, 3. Turning the water of the river into blood. And the\npeople believed the signs, and the promised deliverance, and worshipped.\nTo assist him, also, in his arduous mission, when Moses had represented\nthat he was not eloquent, but slow of speech,\u201d and of a slow or\nstammering tongue, God inspired Aaron, his elder brother, to go and meet\nMoses in the wilderness, to be his spokesman to the people, Exod. iv,\n1\u201331, and his prophet to Pharaoh; while Moses was to be a god to both,\nas speaking to them in the name, or by the authority, of God himself,\nExod. vii, 1, 2. At their first, interview with Pharaoh, they declared,\nThus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may\nhold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the\nLord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not,\u201d or\nregard not, the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.\u201d In answer to this\nhaughty tyrant, they styled the Lord by a more ancient title, which the\nEgyptians ought to have known and respected, from Abraham\u2019s days, when\nhe plagued them in the matter of Sarah: \u201cThe God of the Hebrews hath met\nwith us: Let us go, we pray thee, three days\u2019 journey into the desert,\nand sacrifice unto the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with\npestilence or with the sword:\u201d plainly intimating to Pharaoh, also, not\nto incur his indignation, by refusing to comply with his desire. But the\nking not only refused, but increased the burdens of the people, Exod. v,\n1\u201319; and the people murmured, and hearkened not unto Moses, when he\nrepeated from the Lord his assurances of deliverance and protection, for\nanguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage, Exod. v, 20\u201323; vi, 1\u20139.\n\nAt their second interview with Pharaoh, in obedience to the divine\ncommand, again requiring him to let the children of Israel go out of his\nland; Pharaoh, as foretold, demanded of them to show a miracle for\nthemselves, in proof of their commission, when Aaron cast down his rod,\nand it became a serpent before Pharaoh and before his servants, or\nofficers of his court. The king then called upon his wise men and\nmagicians, to know if they could do as much by the power of their gods,\n\u201cand they did so with their enchantments; for they cast down every man\nhis rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron\u2019s rod swallowed up their\nserpents.\u201d Here the original phrase, \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05db\u05df, and they did so,\u201d or in\nlike manner,\u201d may only indicate the attempt, and not the deed; as\nafterward, in the plague of lice, when they did so with their\nenchantments, but could not,\u201d Exod. viii, 18. And, indeed, the original\nterm, \u05dc\u05d4\u05d8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd, rendered their enchantments,\u201d as derived from the root\n\u05dc\u05d0\u05d8, or \u05dc\u05d5\u05d8, to _hide_ or _cover_, fitly expresses the secret deceptions\nof legerdemain, or sleight-of-hand, to impose on spectators: and the\nremark of the magicians, when unable to imitate the production of lice,\nwhich was beyond their skill and dexterity, on account of their\nminuteness,--\u201cThis is the finger of a God!\u201d--seems to strengthen the\nsupposition; especially as the Egyptians were famous for legerdemain and\nfor charming serpents: and the magicians, having had notice of the\nmiracle they were expected to imitate, might make provision accordingly,\nand bring live serpents, which they might have substituted for their\nrods. And though Aaron\u2019s serpent swallowed up their serpents, showing\nthe superiority of the true miracle over the false, 2 Thess. ii, 9, it\nmight only lead the king to conclude, that Moses and Aaron were more\nexpert jugglers than Jannes and Jambres, who opposed them, 2 Timothy\niii, 8. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, so that he hearkened not\nunto them, as the Lord had said,\u201d or foretold, Exod. vi, 10, 11; vii,\n8\u201313. For the conduct of Moses as the deliverer and lawgiver of the\nIsraelites, see PLAGUES OF EGYPT, RED SEA, and LAW.\n\nAt Mount Sinai the Lord was pleased to make Moses, the redeemer of\nIsrael, an eminent type of the Redeemer of the world. I will raise them\nup a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my\nwords in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall\ncommand him: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken\nunto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of\nhim:\u201d which Moses communicated to the people. The Lord thy God will\nraise up unto thee a prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren,\nlike unto me: unto him shall ye hearken,\u201d Deut. xviii, 15\u201319. This\nprophet like unto Moses was our Lord Jesus Christ, who was by birth a\nJew, of the middle class of the people, and resembled his predecessor,\nin personal intercourse with God, miracles, and legislation, which no\nother prophet did, Deut. xxxiv, 10\u201312; and to whom God, at his\ntransfiguration, required the world to hearken, Matt. xvii, 5. Whence\nour Lord\u2019s frequent admonition to the Jewish church, He that hath ears\nto hear, let him hear,\u201d Matthew xiii, 9, &c; which is addressed, also,\nby the Spirit to the Christian churches of Asia Minor, Rev. iii, 22.\n\nIn the affair of the _Golden Calf_, (see CALF,) the conduct of Moses\nshowed the greatest zeal for God\u2019s honour, and a holy indignation\nagainst the sin of Aaron and the people. And when Moses drew nigh, and\nsaw their proceedings, his anger waxed hot, and he cast away the tables\nof the covenant, or stone tablets on which were engraven the ten\ncommandments by the finger of God himself, and brake them beneath the\nmount, in the presence of the people; in token that the covenant between\nGod and them was now rescinded on his part, in consequence of their\ntransgression. He then took the golden calf, and burned it in the fire,\nand ground it to powder, and mixed it with water, and made the children\nof Israel drink of it. After thus destroying their idol, he inflicted\npunishment on the idolaters themselves; for he summoned all that were on\nthe Lord\u2019s side to attend him; and all the Levites having obeyed the\ncall, he sent them, in the name of the Lord, to slay all the idolaters,\nfrom one end of the camp to the other, without favour or affection\neither to their neighbour or to their brother; and they slew about three\nthousand men. The Lord also sent a grievous plague among them for their\nidolatry, Exodus xxxii, 2\u201335, on which occasion Moses gave a signal\nproof of his love for his people, by interceding for them with the Lord;\nand of his own disinterestedness, in refusing the offer of the Almighty\nto adopt his family in their room, and make of them a great nation.\u201d He\nprayed that God would blot him out of his book, that is, take away his\nlife, if he would not forgive the great sin of his people;\u201d and\nprevailed with God to alter his determination of withdrawing his\npresence from them, and sending an inferior angel to conduct them to the\nland of promise. So wonderful was the condescension of God to the voice\nof a man, and so mighty the power of prayer.\n\nWhen the Lord had pardoned the people, and taken them again into favour,\nhe commanded Moses to hew two tablets of stone, like the former which\nwere broken, and to present them to him on the top of the mount; and on\nthese the Lord wrote again the ten commandments, for a renewal of the\ncovenant between him and his people. To reward and strengthen the faith\nof Moses, God was pleased, at his request, to grant him a fuller view of\nthe divine glory, or presence, than he had hitherto done. And, to\nconfirm his authority with the people on his return, after the second\nconference of forty days, he imparted to him a portion of that glory or\nlight by which his immediate presence was manifested: for the face of\nMoses shone so that Aaron and all the people were afraid to come nigh\nhim, until he had put a veil on his face, to hide its brightness. This\nwas an honour never vouchsafed to mortal before nor afterward till\nChrist, the Prophet like Moses, in his transfiguration also, appeared\narrayed in a larger measure of the same lustre. Then Moses again beheld\nthe glory of the Word made flesh, and ministered thereto in a glorified\nform himself, Exod. xxxiv, 1\u201335; Matt. xvii, 1\u20138.\n\nAt Kibroth Hataavah, when the people loathed the manna, and longed for\nflesh, Moses betrayed great impatience, and wished for death. He was\nalso reproved for unbelief. At Kadesh-barnea, Moses having encouraged\nthe people to proceed, saying, Behold, the Lord thy God hath set the\nland before thee, go up and possess it, as the Lord God of thy fathers\nhath said unto you: fear not,\u201d Deut. i, 19\u201321; they betrayed great\ndiffidence, and proposed to Moses to send spies to search out the land,\nand point out to them the way they should enter, and the course they\nshould take. And the proposal pleased him well,\u201d and with the consent of\nthe Lord he sent twelve men, one out of each tribe, to spy out the land,\nDeut. i, 22, 23; Num. xiii, 1\u201320. All these, except Caleb and Joshua,\nhaving brought an evil report,\u201d so discouraged the people, that they\nmurmured against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Would God\nthat we had died in the land of Egypt; or would God that we had died in\nthe wilderness! And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land to\nfall by the sword, that our wives and our children shall be a prey? Were\nit not better for us to return into Egypt? And they said one to another,\nLet us make a captain, and return into Egypt.\u201d They even went so far as\nto propose to stone Joshua and Caleb, because they exhorted the people\nnot to rebel against the Lord, nor to fear the people of the land, Num.\nxiv, 1\u201310; Deut. i, 26\u201328. Here again the noble patriotism of Moses was\nsignally displayed. He again refused the divine offer to disinherit the\nIsraelites, and make of him and his family a greater and mightier nation\nthan they.\u201d He urged the most persuasive motives with their offended\nGod, not to destroy them with the threatened pestilence, lest the\nHeathen might say, that the Lord was not able to bring them into the\nland which he sware unto them.\u201d He powerfully appealed to the long-tried\nmercies and forgivenesses they had experienced ever since their\ndeparture from Egypt; and his energetic supplication prevailed; for the\nLord graciously said, I have pardoned, according to thy word: but\nverily, as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the\nLord;\u201d or shall adore him for his righteous judgments; for all these men\nwhich have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt, and in\nthe wilderness, and have tempted me these ten times, and have not\nhearkened to my voice, surely shall not see the land which I sware unto\ntheir fathers: neither shall any of them that provoked me see it. As ye\nhave spoken in my ears, so will I do unto you,\u201d by a righteous\nretaliation: your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. But your\nlittle ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in; and\nthey shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your\nwhoredoms, after the number of the days in which ye searched the land,\neach day for a year, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness.\u201d\nAnd immediately after this sentence, as the earnest of its full\naccomplishment, all the spies, except Caleb and Joshua, were cut off,\nand died by the plague before the Lord, Num. xiv, 11\u201337; Deut. i, 34\u201339.\n\nThe people now, to repair their fault, contrary to the advice of Moses,\npresumptuously went to invade the Amalekites and Canaanites of Mount\nSeir, or Hor; who defeated them, and chased them as bees to Hormah, Num.\nxiv, 39\u201345; Deut. i, 41\u201344. On the morrow they were ordered to turn away\nfrom the promised land, and to take their journey south-westward, toward\nthe way of the Red Sea: and they abode in the wilderness of Kadesh many\ndays, or years, Num. xiv, 25; Deut. i, 40\u201346. The ill success of the\nexpedition against the Amalekites, according to Josephus, occasioned the\nrebellion of Korah, which broke out shortly after, against Moses and\nAaron, with greater violence than any of the foregoing, under Korah, the\nringleader, who drew into it Dathan and Abiram, the heads of the senior\ntribe of Reuben, and two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly,\namong whom were even several of the Levites. (See _Korah_.) But although\nall Israel round about had fled at the cry of the devoted families of\nDathan and Abiram, for fear that the earth should swallow them up also;\u201d\nyet, on the morrow, they returned to their rebellious spirit, and\nmurmured against Moses and Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of\nthe Lord.\u201d On this occasion also, the Lord threatened to consume them as\nin a moment; but, on the intercession of Moses, only smote them with a\nplague, which was stayed by an atonement made by Aaron, after the\ndestruction of fourteen thousand seven hundred souls, Num. xvi, 41\u201350.\n\nOn the return of the Israelites, after many years\u2019 wandering, to the\nsame disastrous station of Kadesh-barnea, even Moses himself was guilty\nof an offence, in which his brother Aaron was involved, and for which\nboth were excluded, as a punishment, from entering the promised land. At\nMeribah Kadesh the congregation murmured against Moses, for bringing\nthem into a barren wilderness without water; when the Lord commanded\nMoses to take his rod, which had been laid up before the Lord, and with\nAaron to assemble the congregation together, and to speak to the rock\nbefore their eyes; which should supply water for the congregation and\ntheir cattle. But Moses said unto the congregation, when they were\nassembled, Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this\nrock? And he smote the rock twice with his rod, and the water came out\nabundantly; and the congregation drank, and their cattle also. And the\nLord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify\nme in the eyes of the children of Israel; therefore ye shall not bring\nthis congregation into the land which I have given them,\u201d Num. xx, 1\u201313;\nand afterward in stronger terms: Because ye rebelled against my\ncommandment,\u201d &c, Numbers xxvii, 14.\n\nThe offence of Moses, as far as may be collected from so concise an\naccount, seems to have been, 1. He distrusted or disbelieved that water\ncould be produced from the rock only by speaking to it; which was a\nhigher miracle than he had performed before at Rephidim, Exod. xvii, 6.\n2. He unnecessarily smote the rock twice; thereby betraying an\nunwarrantable impatience. 3. He did not, at least in the phrase he used,\nascribe the glory of the miracle wholly to God, but rather to himself\nand his brother: Must _we_ fetch you water out of this rock?\u201d And he\ndenominated them rebels\u201d against his and his brother\u2019s authority, which,\nalthough an implied act of rebellion against God, ought to have been\nstated, as on a former occasion, Ye have been rebels against the Lord,\nfrom the day that I knew you,\u201d Deut. ix, 24, which he spake without\nblame. For want of more caution on this occasion, he spake unadvisedly\nwith his lips, because they provoked his spirit,\u201d Psalm cvi, 33. Thus\nwas God sanctified at the waters of Meribah,\u201d by his impartial justice,\nin punishing his greatest favourites when they did amiss, Num. xx, 13.\nHow severely Moses felt his deprivation, appears from his humble, and it\nshould seem repeated, supplications to the Lord to reverse the sentence:\nO Lord of gods, thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness, and\nthy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or in earth that can do\naccording to thy works, and according to thy might? I pray thee let me\ngo over and see the good land beyond Jordan, even that goodly mountain\nLebanon,\u201d or the whole breadth of the land. But the Lord was wroth with\nme for your sakes, and would not hear me: and he said unto me, Let it\nsuffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter. Get thee up unto the\ntop of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and\nsouthward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt\nnot go over this Jordan,\u201d Deut. iii, 23\u201327.\n\nThe faculties of this illustrious legislator, both of mind and body,\nwere not impaired at the age of a hundred and twenty years, when he\ndied. His eye was not dim, nor his natural strength abated,\u201d Deut.\nxxxiv, 7: and the noblest of all his compositions was his Song, or the\nDivine Ode, which Bishop Lowth elegantly styles, _Cycnea Oratio_, \u201cthe\nDying Swan\u2019s Oration.\u201d His death took place after the Lord had shown\nhim, from the top of Pisgah, a distant view of the promised land,\nthroughout its whole extent. He then buried his body in a valley\nopposite Beth-peor, in the land of Moab; but no man knoweth his\nsepulchre unto this day,\u201d observes the sacred historian, who annexed the\ncircumstances of his death to the book of Deuteronomy, xxxiv, 6. From an\nobscure passage in the New Testament, in which Michael the archangel is\nsaid to have contended with the devil about the body of Moses, Jude 9,\nsome have thought that he was buried by the ministry of angels, near the\nscene of the idolatry of the Israelites; but that the spot was purposely\nconcealed, lest his tomb might also be converted into an object of\nidolatrous worship among the Israelites, like the brazen serpent.\nBeth-peor lay in the lot of the Reubenites, Joshua xiii, 20. But on so\nobscure a passage nothing can be built. The body of Moses,\u201d may\nfiguratively mean the Jewish church; or the whole may be an allusion to\na received tradition which, without affirming or denying its truth,\nmight be made the basis of a moral lesson.\n\nJosephus, who frequently attempts to embellish the simple narrative of\nHoly Writ, represents Moses as attended to the top of Pisgah by Joshua,\nhis successor, Eleazar, the high priest, and the whole senate; and that,\nafter he had dismissed the senate, while he was conversing with Joshua\nand Eleazar, and embracing them, a cloud suddenly came over and\nenveloped him; and he vanished from their sight, and he was taken away\nto a certain valley. In the sacred books,\u201d says he, it is written, that\nhe died; fearing to say that on account of his transcendent virtue, he\nhad departed to the Deity.\u201d The Jewish historian has here, perhaps,\nimitated the account of our Lord\u2019s ascension, furnished by the\nevangelist, Luke xxiv, 50; Acts i, 9; wishing to raise Moses to a level\nwith Christ. The pre\u00ebminence of Moses\u2019s character is briefly described\nby the sacred historian, Samuel or Ezra: And there arose not a prophet\nsince, in Israel, like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; in\nall the signs and the wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land\nof Egypt, to Pharaoh, and all his servants, and all his land; and in all\nthat mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the\nsight of all Israel,\u201d Deut. xxxiv, 10\u201312.\n\nSo marked and hallowed is the character of this, the most eminent of\nmere men, that it has often been successfully made the basis of an\nirresistible argument for the truth of his divine mission. Thus\nCell\u00e9rier observes, Every imposture has an object in view, and an aim\nmore or less selfish. Men practise deceit for money, for pleasure, or\nfor glory. If, by a strange combination, the love of mankind ever\nentered into the mind of an impostor, doubtless, even then, he has\ncontrived to reconcile, at least, his own selfish interests with those\nof the human race. If men deceive others, for the sake of causing their\nown opinions or their own party to triumph, they may sometimes, perhaps,\nforget their own interests during the struggle, but they again remember\nthem when the victory is achieved. It is a general rule, that no\nimpostor forgets himself long. But Moses forgot himself, and forgot\nhimself to the last. Yet there is no middle supposition. If Moses was\nnot a divinely inspired messenger, he was an impostor in the strongest\nsense of the term. It is not, as in the case of Numa, a slight and\nsingle fraud, designed to secure some good end, that we have to charge\nhim with, but a series of deceits, many of which were gross; a profound,\ndishonest, perfidious, sanguinary dissimulation, continued for the space\nof forty years. If Moses was not a divinely commissioned prophet, he was\nnot the saviour of the people, but their tyrant and their murderer.\nStill, we repeat, this barbarous impostor always forgot himself; and his\ndisinterestedness, as regarded himself personally, his family, and his\ntribe, is one of the most extraordinary features in his administration.\nAs to himself personally: He is destined to die in the wilderness; he is\nnever to taste the tranquillity, the plenty, and the delight, the\npossession of which he promises to his countrymen; he shares with them\nonly their fatigues and privations; he has more anxieties than they, on\ntheir account, in their acts of disobedience, and in their perpetual\nmurmurings. As to his family: He does not nominate his sons as his\nsuccessors; he places them, without any privileges or distinctions,\namong the obscure sons of Levi; they are not even admitted into the\nsacerdotal authority. Unlike all other fathers, Moses withdraws them\nfrom public view, and deprives them of the means of obtaining glory and\nfavour. Samuel and Eli assign a part of their paternal authority to\ntheir sons, and permit them even to abuse it; but the sons of Moses, in\nthe wilderness, are only the simple servants of the tabernacle; like all\nthe other sons of Kohath, if they even dare to raise the veil which\ncovers the sacred furniture, the burden of which they carry, death is\ndenounced against them. Where can we find more complete\ndisinterestedness than in Moses? Is not his the character of an upright\nman, who has the general good, not his own interests, at heart; of a man\nwho submissively acquiesces in the commands of God, without resistance\nand without demur? When we consider these several things; when we\nreflect on all the ministry of Moses, on his life, on his death, on his\ncharacter, on his abilities, and his success; we are powerfully\nconvinced that he was the messenger of God. If we consider him only as\nan able legislator, as a Lycurgus, as a Numa, his actions are\ninexplicable: we find not in him the affections, the interests, the\nviews which usually belong to the human heart. The simplicity, the\nharmony, the verity of his natural character are gone; they give place\nto an incoherent union of ardour and imposture; of daring and of\ntimidity, of incapacity and genius, of cruelty and sensibility. No!\nMoses was inspired by God: he received from God the law which he left\nhis countrymen.\n\nTo Moses we owe that important portion of Holy Scripture, the\nPentateuch, which brings us acquainted with the creation of the world,\nthe entrance of sin and death, the first promises of redemption, the\nflood, the peopling of the postdiluvian earth, and the origin of\nnations, the call of Abraham, and the giving of the law. We have,\nindeed, in it the early history of religion, and a key to all the\nsubsequent dispensations of God to man. The genuineness and authenticity\nof these most venerable and important books have been established by\nvarious writers; but the following remarks upon the veracity of the\nwritings of Moses have the merit of compressing much argument into few\nwords:--1. There is a _minuteness_ in the details of the Mosaic\nwritings, which bespeaks their truth; for it often bespeaks the\neye-witness, as in the adventures of the wilderness; and often seems\nintended to supply directions to the artificer, as in the construction\nof the tabernacle. 2. There are _touches of nature_ in the narrative\nwhich bespeak its truth, for it is not easy to regard them otherwise\nthan as strokes from the life; as where the mixed multitude,\u201d whether\nhalf-castes or Egyptians, are the first to sigh for the cucumbers and\nmelons of Egypt, and to spread discontent through the camp, Num. xi, 4;\nas the miserable exculpation of himself, which Aaron attempts, with all\nthe cowardice of conscious guilt, I cast into the fire, and there came\nout this calf:\u201d the fire, to be sure, being in the fault, Exod. xxxii,\n24. 3. There are certain little _inconveniences_ represented as turning\nup unexpectedly, that bespeak truth in the story; for they are just such\naccidents as are characteristic of the working of a new system and\nuntried machinery. What is to be done with the man who is found\ngathering sticks on the Sabbath day? Num. xv, 32. (Could an impostor\nhave devised such a trifle?) How is the inheritance of the daughters of\nZelophehad to be disposed of, there being no heir male? Num. xxxvi, 2.\nEither of them inconsiderable matters in themselves, but both giving\noccasion to very important laws; the one touching life, and the other\nproperty. 4. There is a _simplicity_ in the manner of Moses, when\ntelling his tale, which bespeaks its truth: no parade of language, no\npomp of circumstance even in his miracles, a modesty and dignity\nthroughout all. Let us but compare him in any trying scene with\nJosephus; his description, for instance, of the passage through the Red\nSea, Exod. xiv, of the murmuring of the Israelites and the supply of\nquails and manna, with the same as given by the Jewish historian, or\nrhetorician we might rather say, and the force of the observation will\nbe felt. 5. There is a _candour_ in the treatment of his subject by\nMoses, which bespeaks his truth; as when he tells of his own want of\neloquence, which unfitted him for a leader, Exod. iv, 10; his own want\nof faith, which prevented him from entering the promised land, Num. xx,\n12; the idolatry of Aaron his brother, Exod. xxxii, 21; the profaneness\nof Nadab and Abihu, his nephews, Lev. x; the disaffection and punishment\nof Miriam, his sister, Num. xii, 1. 6. There is a _disinterestedness_ in\nhis conduct, which bespeaks him to be a man of truth; for though he had\nsons, he apparently takes no measures during his life to give them\noffices of trust or profit; and at his death he appoints as his\nsuccessor one who had no claims upon him, either of alliance, of\nclanship, or of blood. 7. There are certain _prophetical_ passages in\nthe writings of Moses, which bespeak their truth; as, several respecting\nthe future Messiah, and the very sublime and literal one respecting the\nfinal fall of Jerusalem, Deut. xxviii. 8. There is a _simple key_\nsupplied by these writings, to the meaning of many ancient traditions\ncurrent among the Heathens, though greatly disguised, which is another\ncircumstance that bespeaks their truth: as, the golden age; the garden\nof the Hesperides; the fruit tree in the midst, of the garden which the\ndragon guarded; the destruction of mankind by a flood, all except two\npersons, and those righteous persons,\n\n              _Innocuos ambos, cultores numinis ambos_;\n              [Both innocent, both worshippers of Deity;]\n\nthe rainbow, which Jupiter set in the cloud, a sign to men;\u201d the seventh\nday a sacred day; with many others, all conspiring to establish the\nreality of the facts which Moses relates, because tending to show that\nvestiges of the like present themselves in the traditional history of\nthe world at large. 9. The concurrence which is found between the\nwritings of Moses and those of the New Testament bespeaks their truth:\nthe latter constantly appealing to them, being indeed but the completion\nof the system which the others are the first to put forth. Nor is this\nan illogical argument; for, though the credibility of the New Testament\nitself may certainly be reasoned out from the truth of the Pentateuch\nonce established, it is still very far from depending on that\ncircumstance exclusively, or even principally. The New Testament demands\nacceptance on its own merits, on merits distinct from those on which the\nbooks of Moses rest, therefore (so far as it does so) it may fairly give\nits suffrage for their veracity, _valeat quantum valet_: [it may avail\nas far as it goes;] and surely it is a very improbable thing, that two\ndispensations, separated by an interval of some fifteen hundred years,\neach exhibiting prophecies of its own, since fulfilled; each asserting\nmiracles of its own, on strong evidence of its own; that two\ndispensations, with such individual claims to be believed, should also\nbe found to stand in the closest relation to one another, and yet both\nturn out impostures after all. 10. Above all, there is a comparative\n_purity_ in the theology and morality of the Pentateuch, which argues\nnot only its truth, but its high original; for how else are we to\naccount for a system like that of Moses, in such an age and among such a\npeople; that the doctrine of the unity, the self-existence, the\nprovidence, the perfections of the great God of heaven and earth, should\nthus have blazed forth (how far more brightly than even in the vaunted\nschools of Athens at its most refined era!) from the midst of a nation,\nof themselves ever plunging into gross and grovelling idolatry; and that\nprinciples of social duty, of benevolence, and of self-restraint,\nextending even to the thoughts of the heart, should have been the\nproduce of an age which the very provisions of the Levitical law itself\nshow to have been full of savage and licentious abominations? Exod. iii,\n14; xx, 3\u201317; Lev. xix, 2, 18; Deut. vi, 4; xxx, 6. Such are some of the\ninternal evidences for the veracity of the books of Moses. 11. Then the\nsituation in which the Jews actually found themselves placed, as a\nmatter of fact, is no slight argument for the truth of the Mosaic\naccounts; reminded, as they were, by certain memorials observed from\nyear to year, of the great events of their early history, just as they\nare recorded in the writings of Moses, memorials universally recognised\nboth in their object and in their authority. The passover, for instance,\ncelebrated by all, no man doubting its meaning, no man in all Israel\nassigning to it any other origin than one, viz. that of being a\ncontemporary monument of a miracle displayed in favour of the people of\nIsrael; by right of which credentials, and no other, it summoned from\nall quarters of the world, at great cost, and inconvenience, and danger,\nthe dispersed Jews, none disputing the obligation to obey the summons.\n12. Then the heroic _devotion_ with which the Israelites continued to\nregard the law, even long after they had ceased to cultivate the better\npart of it, even when that very law only served to condemn its\nworshippers, so that they would offer themselves up by thousands, with\ntheir children and wives, as martyrs to the honour of their temple, in\nwhich no image, even of an emperor, who could scourge them with\nscorpions for their disobedience, should be suffered to stand, and they\nlive: so that rather than violate the sanctity of the Sabbath day, the\nbravest men in arms would lay down their lives as tamely as sheep, and\nallow themselves to be burned in the holes where they had taken refuge\nfrom their cruel and cowardly pursuers. All this points to their law, as\nhaving been at first promulgated under circumstances too awful to be\nforgotten even after the lapse of ages. 13. Then again, the\nextraordinary degree of _national pride_ with which the Jews boasted\nthemselves to be God\u2019s peculiar people, as if no nation ever was or ever\ncould be so nigh to him; a feeling which the early teachers of\nChristianity found an insuperable obstacle to the progress of the Gospel\namong them, and which actually did effect its ultimate rejection, this\nmay well seem to be founded upon a strong traditional sense of uncommon\ntokens of the Almighty\u2019s regard for them above all other nations of the\nearth, which they had heard with their ears, or their fathers had\ndeclared unto them, even the noble works that he had done in the old\ntime before them. 14. Then again, the constant craving after a sign,\u201d\nwhich beset them in the latter days of their history, as a lively\ncertificate of the prophet; and not after a sign only, but after such a\none as they would themselves prescribe: What sign showest thou, that we\nmay see, and believe? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert,\u201d John vi,\n31. This desire, so frequently expressed, and with which they are so\nfrequently reproached, looks like the relic of an appetite engendered in\nother times, when they had enjoyed the privilege of more intimate\ncommunion with God; it seems the wake, as it were, of miracles departed.\n15. Lastly, the very _onerous_ nature of the law; so studiously meddling\nwith all the occupations of life, great and small;--this yoke would\nscarcely have been endured, without the strongest assurance, on the part\nof those who were galled by it, of the authority by which it was\nimposed. For it met them with some restraint or other at every turn.\nWould they plough? then it must not be with an ox and an ass. Would they\nsow? then must not the seed be mixed. Would they reap? then must they\nnot reap clean. Would they make bread? then must they set apart dough\nenough for the consecrated loaf. Did they find a bird\u2019s nest? then must\nthey let the old bird fly away. Did they hunt? then they must shed the\nblood of their game, and cover it with dust. Did they plant a fruit\ntree? for three years was the fruit to be uncircumcised. Did they shave\ntheir beards? they were not to cut the corners. Did they weave a\ngarment? then must it be only with threads prescribed. Did they build a\nhouse? they must put rails and battlements on the roof. Did they buy an\nestate? at the year of jubilee, back it must go to its owner. All these\n(and how many more of the same kind might be named!) are enactments\nwhich it must have required extraordinary influence in the lawgiver to\nenjoin, and extraordinary reverence for his powers to perpetuate.\n\nStill, after all, says Mr. Blunt, unbelievers may start\ndifficulties,--this I dispute not; difficulties, too, which we may not\nalways be able to answer, though I think we may be always able to\nneutralize them. It may be a part of our trial, that such difficulties\nshould exist and be encountered; for there can be no reason why\ntemptations should not be provided for the natural pride of our\nunderstanding, as well as for the natural lusts of our flesh. To many,\nindeed, they would be the more formidable of the two, perhaps to the\nangels who kept not their first estate they proved so. With such facts,\nhowever, before me, as these which I have submitted to my readers, I can\ncome to no conclusion but one,--that when we read the writings of Moses,\nwe read no cunningly devised fables, but solemn and safe records of\ngreat and marvellous events, which court examination, and sustain it;\nrecords of such apparent veracity and faithfulness, that I can\nunderstand our Lord to have spoken almost without a figure, when he\nsaid, that he who believed not Moses, neither would he be persuaded\nthough one rose from the dead.\n\nMOTH, \u05e2\u05d9\u05e9, Job iv, 19; and \u05e2\u05e9\u05e9, Job xiii, 28; xxvii, 18; Psalm vi, 7;\nxxxi, 9, 10; xxxix, 11; Isaiah l, 9; Hosea v, 12. The clothes moth is\nthe _tinea argentea_; of a white, shining silver, or pearl colour. It is\nclothed with shells, fourteen in number, and these are scaly. Albin\nasserts this to be the insect that eats woollen stuffs; and says that it\nis produced from a gray speckled moth, that flies by night, creeps among\nwoollens, and there lays her eggs, which, after a little time, are\nhatched as worms, and in this state they feed on their habitation, till\nthey change into a chrysalis, and thence emerge into moths. The young\nmoth, or moth worm,\u201d says the Abb\u00e9 Pluche, upon leaving the egg which a\n_papilio_ had lodged upon a piece of stuff commodious for her purpose,\nfinds a proper place of residence, grows and feeds upon the nap, and\nlikewise builds with it an apartment, which is fixed to the groundwork\nof the stuff with several cords and a little glue. From an aperture in\nthis habitation, the moth worm devours and demolishes all about him;\nand, when he has cleared the place, he draws out all the fastenings of\nhis tent; after which he carries it to some little distance, and then\nfixes it with the slender cords in a new situation. In this manner he\ncontinues to live at our expense, till he is satisfied with his food, at\nwhich period he is first transformed into the _nympha_, and then changed\ninto the _papilio_.\u201d\n\nThe allusions to this insect in the sacred writings are very striking:\nFear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their\nrevilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm\nshall eat them like wool.\u201d They shall perish with as little noise as a\ngarment under the tooth of a moth, Isaiah li, 7, 8. In the prophecies of\nHosea, God himself says, I will be as a moth unto Ephraim, and as a\nlion;\u201d that is, I will send silent and secret judgments upon him, which\nshall imperceptibly waste his beauty, corrode his power, and diminish\nhis strength, and will finish his destruction with open and irresistible\ncalamities. Or the meaning may be, As the moth crumbles into dust under\nthe slightest pressure, or the gentlest touch, so man dissolves with\nequal ease, and vanishes into darkness, under the finger of the\nAlmighty. Deeply sensible of this affecting truth, the royal Psalmist\nearnestly deprecates the judgments of God, humbly confessing his own\nweakness, and the inability of every man to endure his frown: Remove thy\nstroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thy hand. When thou\nwith rebukes doth correct man for iniquity, thou makest his beauty to\nconsume away like a moth: surely every man is vanity. Selah,\u201d Psalm\nxxxix, 10, 11. Such, in the estimation of Job, is the fading prosperity\nof a wicked man: He buildeth his house as a moth, and as a booth that\nthe keeper maketh,\u201d Job xxvii, 18. His unrighteous acquisitions shall be\nof short continuance; they shall moulder insensibly away, returning to\nthe lawful owner, or pass into the possession of others. It is in this\nsense that the Lord threatens: I will be unto Ephraim as a moth,\u201d Hosea\nv, 12. By the secret curse of God he shall fade away, and whatever is\nmost precious in his estimation shall be gradually dissolved and\nconsumed, as a garment eaten by the moth. The same allusion is involved\nin the direction of our Lord to his disciples: Lay not up for yourselves\ntreasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where\nthieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in\nheaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do\nnot break through nor steal,\u201d Matthew vi, 19, 20. The word _treasure_\ncommonly suggests to our minds the idea of some durable substance, as\nprecious stones, gold, and silver, upon which the persevering industry\nof a moth can make no impression; but, in the language of inspiration,\nit denotes every thing collected together which men reckon valuable. The\nJews had treasures of raiment as well as of corn, of wine, of oil, of\nhoney, Jer. xli, 8; and of gold, silver, and brass, Ezek. xxxiii, 4;\nDan. xi, 43. The robes of princes were a part of their treasure, upon\nwhich they often set a particular value. Rich vestments made a\nconspicuous figure in the treasury of Ulysses. These were, from their\nnature, exposed to the depredations of the moth; fabricated of perishing\nmaterials, they were liable to be prematurely consumed, or taken away by\nfraud or violence; but the favour of God, and the graces of his Spirit,\nand the enjoyment of eternal happiness, are neither liable to internal\ndecay nor external violence, and by consequence, are the proper objects\nof our highest regard, chief solicitude, and constant pursuit. It is\nalso likely, that by moth\u201d our Lord meant all the kinds of small insects\nwhich devour or spoil the different kinds of property, such as corn,\nhoney, fruits, &c, which were treasured up for the future. These, in\nwarm countries, are very numerous and destructive.\n\nMOURNING. See BURIAL and DEAD.\n\nMOUSE, \u05e2\u05d1\u05d1\u05e8, in Chaldee _acalbar_, probably the same with the _aliarbui_\nof the Arabians or the _jerboa_, Leviticus xi, 29; 1 Samuel vi, 4, 5,\n11, 18; Isaiah xlvi, 17. All interpreters acknowledge that the Hebrew\nword _achbar_ signifies a mouse,\u201d and more especially a field mouse.\u201d\nMoses declares it to be unclean, which insinuates that it was sometimes\neaten; and, indeed, it is affirmed that the Jews were so oppressed with\nfamine during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, that,\nnotwithstanding this prohibition, they were compelled to eat dogs, mice,\nand rats. Isaiah, lxvi, 17, justly reproaches the Jews with eating the\nflesh of mice and other things that were impure and abominable. It is\nknown what spoil was made by mice in the fields of the Philistines, 1\nSam. vi, 5, 6, &c, after this people had brought into the country the\nark of the Lord; so that they were obliged to take the resolution to\nsend it back, accompanied with mice and emerods of gold, as an atonement\nfor the irreverence they had committed, and to avert from their land the\nvengeance that pursued them. Judea has suffered by these animals in\nother times. William, archbishop of Tyre, records, that in the beginning\nof the twelfth century a penitential council was held at Naplouse, where\nfive and twenty canons were framed for the correction of the manners of\nthe inhabitants of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem, who, they\napprehended, had provoked God to bring upon them the calamities of\nearthquakes, war, and famine. This last the archbishop ascribes to\nlocusts and devouring mice, which had for four years together so\ndestroyed the fruits of the earth, as seemed to cause almost a total\nfailure in their crops. Bochart has collected many curious accounts\nrelative to the terrible devastation made by these animals.\n\nMULBERRY TREE, \u05d1\u05db\u05d0, 2 Sam. v, 23, 24; 1 Chronicles xiv, 14, 15; Psalm\nlxxxiv, 7. The LXX, in Chronicles, render the word by \u1f00\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, pear\ntrees;\u201d so Aquila and the Vulgate, both in Samuel and Chronicles,\n_pyrorum_.\u201d Others translate it the mulberry tree.\u201d More probably it is\nthe large shrub which the Arabs still call baca;\u201d and which gave name to\nthe valley where it abounded. Of this valley Celsius remarks, that it\nwas rugged and embarrassed with bushes and stones, which could not be\npassed through without labour and tears;\u201d referring to Psalm lxxxiv, 7;\nand the rough valley,\u201d Deut. xxi, 4; and he quotes from a manuscript of\nAbu'l Fideli a description of the tree which grew there, and mentions it\nas bearing a fruit of an acrid taste.\n\nMULE, \u05e4\u05e8\u05d3, 2 Sam. xiii, 29; 1 Kings i, 33; x, 25, &c. A mongrel kind of\nquadruped, between the horse and the ass. Its form bears a considerable\nresemblance to the last mentioned animal; but in its disposition it is\nrather vicious and intractable; so that its obstinacy has become a\nproverb. With this creature the early ages were probably unacquainted.\nIt is very certain the Jews did not breed mules, because it was\nforbidden them to couple together two creatures of different species,\nLev. xix, 19. But they were not prohibited the making use of them: thus\nwe find in David\u2019s time that they had become very common, and made up a\nconsiderable part of the equipage of princes, 2 Sam. xiii, 29; xviii, 9;\n1 Kings i, 33, 38, 44; x, 25; 2 Chron. ix, 24.\n\nMURDER. Among the Hebrews murder was always punished with death; but\ninvoluntary homicide, only by banishment. Cities of refuge were\nappointed for involuntary manslaughter, whither the slayer might retire\nand continue in safety till the death of the high priest, Num. xxxv, 28.\nThen the offender was at liberty to return to his own house, if he\npleased. A murderer was put to death without remission, and the kinsman\nof the murdered person might kill him with impunity. Money could not\nredeem his life: he was dragged away from the altar, if he had there\ntaken refuge. When a dead body was found in the fields of a person slain\nby a murderer unknown, Moses commanded that the elders and judges of the\nneighbouring places should resort to the spot, Deut. xxi, 1\u20138. The\nelders of the city nearest to it were to take a heifer which had never\nyet borne the yoke, and were to lead it into some rude and uncultivated\nplace, which had not been ploughed or sowed, where they were to cut its\nthroat. The priests of the Lord, with the elders and magistrates of the\ncity, were to come near the dead body, and, washing their hands over the\nheifer that had been slain, were to say, Our hands have not shed this\nblood, nor have our eyes seen it shed. Lord, be favourable to thy people\nIsrael, and impute not to us this blood, which has been shed in the\nmidst of our country.\u201d This ceremony may inform us how much horror they\nconceived at the crime of murder; and it shows their fear that God might\navenge it on the whole country; which was supposed to contract pollution\nby the blood spilt in it, unless it were expiated, and avenged on him\nwho had occasioned it, if he could be discovered.\n\nMUSIC is probably nearly coeval with our race, or, at least, with the\nfirst attempts to preserve the memory of transactions. Before the\ninvention of writing, the history of remarkable events was committed to\nmemory, and handed down by oral tradition. The knowledge of laws and of\nuseful arts was preserved in the same way. Rhythm and song were probably\nsoon found important helps to the memory; and thus the muses became the\nearly instructers of mankind. Nor was it long, we may conjecture, before\ndancing and song united contributed to festivity, or to the solemnities\nof religion. The first instruments of music were probably of the\npulsatile kind; and rhythm, it is likely, preceded the observation of\nthose intervals of sound which are so pleasing to the ear. The first\nmention of stringed instruments, however, precedes the deluge. Tubal,\nthe sixth descendant from Cain, was the father of all such as handle the\nharp and the organ.\u201d About five hundred and fifty years after the\ndeluge, or B. C. 1800, according to the common chronology, both vocal\nand instrumental music are spoken of as things in general use: And Laban\nsaid, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me,\nand carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?\nWherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and\ndidst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth and with\nsongs, with tabret and with harp?\u201d Gen. xxxi, 26, 27.\n\nEgypt has been called the cradle of the arts and sciences, and there can\nbe no doubt of the very early civilization of that country. To the\nEgyptian Mercury, or _Thoth_, who is called _Trismegistos_, or thrice\nillustrious,\u201d is ascribed the invention of the lyre, which had at first\nonly three strings. It would be idle to mention the various conjectures\nhow these strings were tuned, or to try to settle the chronology of this\ninvention. The single flute, which they called _photinx_, is also\nascribed to the Egyptians. Its shape was that of a horn, of which, no\ndoubt, it was originally made. Before the invention of these\ninstruments, as Dr. Burney justly observes, music could have been little\nmore than metrical, as no other instruments except those of percussion\nwere known. When the art was first discovered of refining and sustaining\ntones, the power of music over mankind was probably irresistible, from\nthe agreeable surprise which soft and lengthened sounds must have\noccasioned.\u201d The same learned writer has given a drawing, made under his\nown eye, of an Egyptian musical instrument, represented on a very\nancient obelisk at Rome, brought from Egypt by Augustus. This obelisk is\nsupposed to have been erected at Heliopolis, by Sesostris, near four\nhundred years before the Trojan war. The most remarkable thing in this\ninstrument is, that it is supplied with a neck, so that its two strings\nwere capable of furnishing a great number of sounds. This is a\ncontrivance which the Greeks, with all their ingenuity, never hit upon.\nI have never been able,\u201d says the doctor, to discover in any remains of\nGreek sculpture, an instrument furnished with a neck; and Father\nMontfaucon says that in examining the representations of near five\nhundred ancient lyres, harps, and citharas, he never met with one in\nwhich there was any contrivance for shortening the strings during the\ntime of performance, as by a neck and finger board.\u201d From the long\nresidence of the Hebrews in Egypt, it is no improbable conjecture that\ntheir music was derived from that source. However that may be, music,\nvocal and instrumental, made one important part of their religious\nservice. If the excellence of the music was conformable to the sublimity\nof the poetry which it accompanied, there would be no injustice in\nsupposing it unspeakably superior to that of every other people; and the\npains that were taken to render the tabernacle and temple music worthy\nof the subjects of their lofty odes, leaves little doubt that it was so.\nThat the instruments were loud and sonorous, will appear from what\nfollows; but as the public singing was performed in alternate responses,\nor the chorus of all succeeded to those parts of the psalm which were\nsung only by the appointed leaders, instruments of this kind were\nnecessary to command and control the voices of so great a number as was\nusually assembled on high occasions.\n\nThe Hebrews insisted on having music at marriages, on anniversary birth\ndays, on the days which reminded them of victories over their enemies,\nat the inauguration of their kings, in their public worship, and when\nthey were coming from afar to attend the great festivals of their\nnation, Isaiah xxx, 29. In the tabernacle and the temple, the Levites\nwere the lawful musicians; but on other occasions any one might use\nmusical instruments who chose. There was this exception, however: the\nholy silver trumpets were to be blown only by the priests, who, by the\nsounding of them, proclaimed the festival days, assembled the leaders of\nthe people, and gave the signal for the battle and for the retreat, Num.\nx, 1\u201310. David, in order to give the best effect to the music of the\ntabernacle, divided the four thousand Levites into twenty-four classes,\nwho sung psalms, and accompanied them with music. Each of these classes\nwas superintended by a leader, placed over it; and they performed the\nduties which devolved upon them, each class a week at a time in\nsuccession, 1 Chron. xvi, 5; xxiii, 4, 5; xxv, 1\u201331; 2 Chron. v, 12, 13.\nThe classes collectively, as a united body, were superintended by three\ndirectors. This arrangement was subsequently continued by Solomon after\nthe erection of the temple, and was transmitted till the time of the\noverthrow of Jerusalem. It was indeed sometimes interrupted, during the\nreign of the idolatrous kings, but was restored by their successors, 2\nChron. v, 12\u201314; xxix, 27; xxxv, 15. It was even continued after the\ncaptivity, Ezra iii, 10; Neh. xii, 45\u201347; 1 Mac. iv, 54; xiii, 51. It\nshould be remarked, however, that neither music nor poetry attained to\nthe same excellence after the captivity as before that period.\n\nThere were women singers as well as men in the temple choir; for in the\nbook of Ezra, among those who returned from the Babylonish captivity,\nthere are said to have been two hundred, Ezra ii, 65; and in Nehemiah\nvii, 67, we read of two hundred and forty-five singing men and women.\nThe Jewish doctors will, indeed, by no means admit there were any female\nvoices in the temple choir; and as for those \u05de\u05e9\u05e8\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea, _meshoreroth_, as\nthey are called in the Hebrew, they suppose them to be the wives of\nthose who sung. Nevertheless, the following passage makes it evident\nthat women, likewise, were thus employed: God gave to Heman fourteen\nsons and three daughters; and all these were under the hands of their\nfather for song in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, psalteries, and\nharps, for the service of the house of God,\u201d 1 Chron. xxv, 5, 6.\nInstrumental music was first introduced into the Jewish service by\nMoses; and afterward, by the express command of God, was very much\nimproved with the addition of several instruments in the reign of David.\nWhen Hezekiah restored the temple service, which had been neglected in\nhis predecessor\u2019s reign, \u201che set the Levites in the house of the Lord,\nwith cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the\ncommandment of David, and of Gad the king\u2019s seer, and Nathan the\nprophet; for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets,\u201d 2\nChron. xxix, 25.\n\nThe _harp_, \u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8, kinnor, was the most ancient of the class of stringed\ninstruments, Gen. iv, 21. It was sometimes called \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea, or eight\nstringed,\u201d 1 Chron. xv, 21; Psalm vi, 1; xii, 1; although, as we may\ngather from the coins or medals of the Maccabean age, there were some\nharps which were furnished with only three strings. The _nablum_ or\n_psaltery_, \u03bd\u03b1\u03d0\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1, \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc, is first mentioned in the Psalms of\nDavid. In Psalms xxxiii, 2, and cxliv, 9, it is called \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8, a\nten-stringed instrument;\u201d but in Psalm xcii, 3, it is distinguished from\nit. Josephus assigns to it twelve strings, which, taken in connection\nwith the fact above stated, leaves us to conclude that it sometimes had\nten and sometimes twelve strings. It was not played with a bow or fret,\nbut with the fingers: the act of playing it is expressed in Hebrew by\nthe word \u05de\u05d6\u05e8. It resembled in form a right-angled triangle, or the Greek\ndelta, \u25bd, inverted. The body of it was of wood and hollow, and was\nenclosed with a piece of leather tensely drawn. The chords were extended\non the outside of the leather, and were fixed at one end into the\ntransverse part of the triangular body of the instrument. Such is its\nform at the present day in the east; but it has only five strings in its\nmodern shape, 2 Sam. vi, 5; 1 Kings x, 12. There was another instrument\nof this kind used in Babylonia: it was triangular in form. In Greek it\nis called \u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03d0\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7; in Hebrew, \u05e1\u05d1\u05db\u05d0 and \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05d0. It had originally only\nfour, but subsequently twenty, strings, Dan. iii, 5, 7, 10, 15. Among\ntheir wind instruments was the _organ_, so called in the English\nversion, in Hebrew, \u05e2\u05d5\u05d2\u05d1, Gen. iv, 21. It may be styled the ancient\nshepherd\u2019s pipe, corresponding most nearly to the \u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03be, or the pipe of\nPan among the Greeks. It consisted at first of only one or two, but\nafterward of about seven, pipes made of reeds, and differing from each\nother in length. The instrument called \u05de\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0, used in Babylon, Dan.\niii, 5, was of a similar construction. \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc, \u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, and \u05e0\u05e7\u05d1, _chalil_,\n_nechiloth_, and _nekeb_, are wind instruments made of various\nmaterials, such as wood, reeds, horns, and bones. As far as we may be\npermitted to judge from the three kinds of pipes now used in the east,\nthe Hebrew instrument called _nechiloth_ is the one that is double in\nits structure; _chalil_ is perhaps the one of simpler form, having a\nsingle stem with an orifice through it; while _nekeb_ answers to the one\nwithout an orifice, Isaiah v, 12; xxx, 29; Jer. xlviii, 36; Psalm v, 1;\nEzek. xxviii, 13. \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05e4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4, or, according to the marginal reading,\n\u05e1\u05d9\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0, Dan. iii, 5, 10, was a wind instrument made of reeds, by the\nSyrians called _sambonja_, by the Greeks _samponja_, and by the Italians\n_zampogna_. According to Servius, it was of a crooked shape. \u05e7\u05e8\u05df, the\n_horn_ or _crooked trumpet_, was a very ancient instrument. It was made\nof the horns of oxen, which were cut off at the smaller extremity, and\nthus presented an orifice which extended through. In progress of time,\nrams\u2019 horns were hollowed and employed for the same purpose. It is\nprobable that in some instances it was made of brass, fashioned so as to\nresemble a horn. It was greatly used in war, and its sound resembled\nthunder. \u05ea\u05e5\u05d5\u05e5\u05e8\u05d4, _chatsoteroth_, the _silver trumpet_, was straight, a\ncubit in length, hollow throughout, and at the larger extremity shaped\nso as to resemble the mouth of a small bell. In times of peace, when the\npeople or the rulers were to be assembled together, this trumpet was\nblown softly. When the camps were to move forward, or the people to\nmarch to war, it was sounded with a deeper note.\n\nThere were several sorts of drums. The \u05ea\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e3, _toph_, rendered in the\nEnglish version _tabret_ and _timbrel_, Gen. xxxi, 27, consisted of a\ncircular hoop, either of wood or brass, three inches and six-tenths\nwide, was covered with a skin tensely drawn, and hung round with small\nbells. It was held in the left hand, and beaten to notes of music with\nthe right. The ladies through all the east, even to this day, dance to\nthe sound of this instrument, Exod. xv, 20; Job xvii, 6; xxi, 12; 2 Sam.\nvi, 5. The _cymbals_, \u05e6\u05dc\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, _tseltselim_, \u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, were of two kinds\nformerly, as there are to this day, in the east. The first consisted of\ntwo flat pieces of metal or plates: the musician held one of them in his\nright hand, the other in his left, and smote them together, as an\naccompaniment to other instruments. This cymbal and the mode of using it\nmay be often seen in modern armies. The second kind of cymbals,\nconsisted of four small plates attached, two to each hand, which the\nladies, as they danced, smote together. But \u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, Zech. xiv, 20,\nrendered in the English version _bells_, are not musical instruments, as\nsome suppose, nor indeed bells, but concave pieces or plates of brass,\nwhich were sometimes attached to horses for the sake of ornament.\n\nMUSTARD, \u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9, Matt. xiii, 32; xvii, 20; Mark iv, 31; Luke xiii, 19;\nxvii, 6; a well known garden herb. Christ compares the kingdom of heaven\nto a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in the earth,\nwhich indeed,\u201d said he, is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown\nis the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of\nthe air come and lodge in the branches thereof,\u201d Matt. xiii, 31, 32.\nThis expression will not appear strange,\u201d says Sir Thomas Browne, if we\nrecollect that the mustard seed, though it be not simply and in itself\nthe smallest of seeds, yet may be very well believed to be the smallest\nof such as are apt to grow unto a ligneous substance, and become a kind\nof tree.\u201d The expression, also, that it might grow into such dimensions\nthat birds might lodge on its branches, may be literally conceived, if\nwe allow the luxuriancy of plants in India above our northern regions.\nAnd he quotes upon this occasion what is recorded in the Jewish story,\nof a mustard tree that was to be climbed like a fig tree. The Talmud\nalso mentions one whose branches were so extensive as to cover a tent.\nWithout insisting on the accuracy of this, we may gather from it that we\nshould not judge of eastern vegetables by those which are familiar to\nourselves. Scheuchzer describes a species of mustard which grows several\nfeet high, with a tapering stalk, and spreads into many branches. Of\nthis arborescent or treelike vegetable, he gives a print; and Linn\u00e6us\nmentions a species whose branches were real wood, which he names _sinapi\nerucoides_. But whatever kind of tree our Lord meant, it is clear, from\nthe fact that he never takes his illustrations from any objects but such\nas were familiar, and often present in the scene around him, that he\nspoke of one which the Jews well knew to have minute seeds, and yet to\nbe of so large growth as to afford shelter for the birds of the air.\n\nMYRRH, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8, Exod. xxx, 23; Esther ii, 12; Psalm xiv, 8; Prov. vii, 17;\nCant. i, 13; iii, 6; iv, 6, 14; v, 1, 5, 13; \u03c3\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1, Ecclus. xxiv, 15;\nMatt. ii, Mark xv, 23; John xix, 39; a precious kind of gum issuing by\nincision, and sometimes spontaneously, from the trunk and larger\nbranches of a tree growing in Egypt, Arabia, and Abyssinia. Its taste is\nextremely bitter, but its smell, though strong, is not disagreeable; and\namong the ancients it entered into the composition of the most costly\nointments. As a perfume, it appears to have been used to give a pleasant\nfragrance to vestments, and to be carried by females in little caskets\nin the bosoms. The magi, who came from the east to worship our Saviour\nat Bethlehem, made him a present of myrrh among other things, Matt. ii,\n11.\n\nMYRTLE, \u05d4\u05d3\u05e1, Neh. viii, 15; Isaiah xli, 19; lv, 13; Zech. i, 8\u201310; a\nshrub, sometimes growing to a small tree, very common in Judea. It has a\nhard woody root that sends forth a great number of small flexible\nbranches, furnished with leaves like those of box, but much less, and\nmore pointed: they are soft to the touch, shining, smooth, of a\nbeautiful green, and have a sweet smell. The flowers grow among the\nleaves, and consist of five white petals disposed in the form of a rose:\nthey have an agreeable perfume, and ornamental appearance. Savary,\ndescribing a scene at the end of the forest of Platanea, says, Myrtles,\nintermixed with laurel roses, grow in the valleys to the height of ten\nfeet. Their snow-white flowers, bordered with a purple edging, appear to\npeculiar advantage under the verdant foliage. Each myrtle is loaded with\nthem, and they emit perfumes more exquisite than those of the rose\nitself. They enchant every one, and the soul is filled with the softest\nsensations.\u201d The myrtle is mentioned in Scripture among lofty trees, not\nas comparing with them in size, but as contributing with them to the\nbeauty and richness of the scenery. Thus Isaiah, xii, 19, intending to\ndescribe a scene of varied excellence: I will plant in the wilderness\nthe cedar, and the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree;\u201d that\nis, I will adorn the dreary and barren waste with trees famed for their\nstature and the grandeur of their appearance, the beauty of their form,\nand also the fragrance of their odour. The apocryphal Baruch, v, 8,\nspeaking of the return from Babylon, expresses the protection afforded\nby God to the people by the same image: Even the woods and every\nsweet-smelling tree shall overshadow Israel by the commandment of God.\u201d\n\nMYSIA, a country of Asia Minor, having the Propontis on the north,\nBithynia on the north-east and east, Phrygia on the south-east, Lydia\n(from which it was separated by the river Hermus) on the south, the\n\u00c6gean Sea on the west, and the narrow strait, called the Hellespont, on\nthe north-west. Mysia was visited by St. Paul in his circuit through\nAsia Minor; but he was not suffered by the Spirit to remain there, being\ndirected to pass over into Macedonia, Acts xvi, 7\u201310. In this country\nstood the ancient city Troy; as also that of Pergamus, one of the seven\nchurches of Asia. Under the Romans it was made a province of the empire,\nand called Hellespontus; and its inhabitants are represented by Cicero\nas base and contemptible to a proverb.\n\nMYSTERY. The Greek word \u03bc\u03c5\u03db\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd denotes, 1. Something hidden, or not\nfully manifest. Thus, 2 Thess. ii, 7, we read of the mystery of\niniquity,\u201d which began to work in secret, but was not then completely\ndisclosed or manifested. 2. Some sacred thing hidden or secret, which is\nnaturally unknown to human reason, and is only known by the revelation\nof God. Thus, Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the\nflesh, justified by the Spirit,\u201d &c, 1 Tim. iii, 16. The mystery of\ngodliness, or of true religion, consisted in the several particulars\nhere mentioned by the Apostle; particulars, indeed, which it would never\nhave entered into the heart of man to conceive,\u201d 1 Cor. ii, 9, had not\nGod accomplished them in fact, and published them by the preaching of\nhis Gospel; but which, being thus manifested, are intelligible, as\nfacts, to the meanest understanding. In like manner, the term mystery,\nRom. xi, 25; 1 Cor. xv, 51, denotes what was hidden or unknown, till\nrevealed; and thus the Apostle speaks of a man\u2019s understanding all\nmysteries,\u201d 1 Cor. xiii, 2; that is, all the revealed truths of the\nChristian religion, which is elsewhere called the mystery of faith,\u201d 1\nTim. iii, 9. And when he who spake in an unknown tongue is said to speak\nmysteries,\u201d 1 Cor. xiv, 2, it is plain, that these mysteries, however\nunintelligible to others on account of the language in which they were\nspoken, were yet understood by the person himself, because he hereby\nedified himself,\u201d 1 Cor. xiv, 4; Acts ii, 11; x, 46. And though in 1\nCor. ii, 7, 8, we read of the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the\nhidden wisdom, which none of the princes of this world knew;\u201d yet, says\nthe Apostle, we speak or declare this wisdom; and he observes, verse 10,\nthat God had revealed the particulars of which it consisted to them by\nhis Spirit. So when the Apostles are called stewards of the mysteries of\nGod,\u201d 1 Cor. iv, 1, these mysteries could not mean what were, as facts,\nunknown to them; (because to them it was given to know the mysteries of\nthe kingdom of God,\u201d Matt. xiii, 11;) yea, the character here ascribed\nto them implies not only that they knew these mysteries themselves, but\nthat as faithful stewards they were to dispense or make them known to\nothers, Luke xii, 42; 1 Pet. iv, 10. In Col. ii, 2, St. Paul mentions\nhis praying for his converts, that their hearts might be comforted to\nthe knowledge of the mystery of God, even of the Father, and of Christ;\u201d\nfor thus the passage should be translated. But if, with our translators,\nwe render \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _acknowledgment_, still the word \u03bc\u03c5\u03db\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd can by no\nmeans exclude knowledge; for this is life eternal,\u201d saith our Lord, John\nxvii, 3, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,\nwhom thou hast sent.\u201d And, lastly, whatever be the particular meaning of\nthe mystery of God,\u201d mentioned Rev. x, 7, yet it was something he had\ndeclared to (or rather _by_) his servants the prophets.\u201d 3. The word\n_mystery_ is sometimes in the writings of St. Paul applied in a peculiar\nsense to the calling of the Gentiles, which he styles the mystery,\u201d Eph.\niii, 3\u20136; and the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not\nmade known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy\nApostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow\nheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of Christ by the Gospel,\u201d\nRom. xvi, 25; Eph. i, 9; iii, 9; vi, 19; Col. i, 26, 27; iv, 3. 4. It\ndenotes a spiritual truth couched under an external representation or\nsimilitude, and concealed or hidden thereby, unless some explanation of\nit be otherwise given. Thus, Rev. i, 20, The mystery,\u201d that is, the\nspiritual meaning, of the seven stars: The seven stars are the angels of\nthe seven churches.\u201d So Rev. xvii, 5, And upon her forehead a name\nwritten, Mystery, Babylon the Great,\u201d that is, Babylon in a spiritual\nsense, the mother of idolatry and abominations;\u201d and, verse 7, I will\ntell thee the mystery\u201d or spiritual signification of the woman.\u201d Compare\nMatt. xiii, 11; Mark iv, 11; Luke viii, 10; Eph. v, 32; and their\nrespective contexts.\n\nMYSTICS, who have also been sometimes called Quietists, are those who\nprofess a pure and sublime devotion, accompanied with a disinterested\nlove of God, free from all selfish considerations; and who believe that\nthe Scriptures have a mystic and hidden sense, which must be sought\nafter, in order to understand their true import. Under this name some\ncomprehend all those who profess to know that they are inwardly taught\nof God. The system of the Mystics proceeded upon the known doctrine of\nthe Platonic school, which was also adopted by Origen and his disciples,\nthat the divine nature was diffused through all human souls; or that the\nfaculty of reason, from which proceed the health and vigour of the mind,\nwas an emanation from God into the human soul, and comprehended in it\nthe principles and elements of all truth, human and divine. They denied\nthat men could, by labour or study, excite this celestial flame in their\nbreasts; and, therefore, they disapproved highly of the attempts of\nthose who, by definitions, abstract theorems, and profound speculations,\nendeavoured to form distinct notions of truth, and discover its hidden\nnature. On the contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity,\nrepose, and solitude, accompanied with such acts as might tend to\nattenuate and exhaust the body, were the means by which the hidden and\ninternal word was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct\nmen in the knowledge of divine things. They reasoned as follows: Those\nwho behold, with a noble contempt, all human affairs, who turn away\ntheir eyes from terrestrial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the\noutward senses against the contagious influence of a material world,\nmust necessarily return to God, when the spirit is thus disengaged from\nthe impediments which prevented that happy union. And, in this blessed\nframe, they not only enjoy inexpressible raptures from that communion\nwith the supreme Being, but also are invested with the inestimable\nprivilege of contemplating truth undisguised and uncorrupted in its\nnative purity, while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form.\u201d\nThe number of the Mystics increased in the fourth century, under the\ninfluence of the Grecian fanatic, who gave himself out for Dionysius the\nAreopagite, a disciple of St. Paul, and who probably lived about this\nperiod; and, by pretending to higher degrees of perfection than other\nChristians, and practising great austerities, their cause gained ground,\nespecially in the eastern provinces, in the fifth century. A copy of the\npretended works of Dionysius was sent by Balbus to Lewis the meek, A. D.\n824, which kindled the holy flame of Mysticism in the western provinces,\nand filled the Latins with the most enthusiastic admiration of this new\nsystem. In the twelfth century, these Mystics took the lead in their\nmethod of expounding the Scriptures. In the thirteenth, they were the\nmost formidable antagonists of the schoolmen; and, toward the close of\nthe fourteenth, many of them resided and propagated their tenets in\nalmost every part of Europe. They had, in the fifteenth century, many\npersons of distinguished merit in their number. In the sixteenth,\npreviously to the reformation, if any sparks of real piety subsisted\nunder the despotic empire of superstition, they were chiefly to be found\namong the Mystics; and in the seventeenth, the radical principle of\nMysticism was adopted by the Behmists, Bourignonists, and Quietists.\n\nThe Mystics propose a disinterestedness of love, without other motives,\nand profess to feel, in the enjoyment of the temper itself, an abundant\nreward; and passive contemplation in the state of perfection to which\nthey aspire. They lay little or no stress upon the outward ceremonies\nand ordinances of religion, but dwell chiefly upon the inward operations\nof the mind. It is not uncommon for them to allegorize certain passages\nof Scripture; at the same time they do not deny the literal sense, as\nhaving an allusion to the inward experience of believers. Thus,\naccording to them, the word Jerusalem, which is the name of the capital\nof Judea, signifies, allegorically, the church militant; morally, a\nbeliever; and mysteriously, heaven. That sublime passage also in\nGenesis, Let there be light, and there was light,\u201d which is, according\nto the letter, corporeal light, signifies, allegorically, the Messiah;\nmorally, grace; and mysteriously, beatitude, or the light of glory. All\nthis appears to be harmless; yet we must be careful not to give way to\nthe sallies of a lively imagination in interpreting Scripture. Woolston\nis said to have been led to reject the Old Testament by spiritualizing\nand allegorizing the New.\n\nThe Mystics are not confined to any particular denomination of\nChristians, but may be found in most countries, and among many\ndescriptions of religionists. Among the number of Mystics may be\nreckoned many singular characters, especially Behmen, a shoemaker at\nGorlitz, in Germany; Molinos, a Spanish priest, in the seventeenth\ncentury; Madam Guion, a French lady who made a great noise in the\nreligious world; and the celebrated Madame Bourignon, who wrote a work\nentitled, The Light of the World,\u201d which is full of Mystic\nextravagancies. Fenelon, also, the learned and amiable archbishop of\nCambray, favoured the same sentiments, for which he was reprimanded by\nthe pope. His work, entitled, An Explication of the Maxims of the\nSaints,\u201d which abounds with Mystical sentiments was condemned; and to\nthe pope\u2019s sentence against him, the good archbishop quietly submitted,\nand even read it publicly himself in the cathedral of Cambray. In this\nwhole affair, his chief opponent is said to have been the famous\nBossuet, bishop of Meaux. Mr. William Law, author of the Serious Call,\u201d\n&c, degenerated in the latter part of his life, into all the\nsingularities of Mysticism. In the best sense, Mysticism is to be\nregarded as an error arising out of partial views of the truth, or truth\nmade erroneous, as being put out of its proper relation to, and\nconnection with, other truths. As it respects the inward life of\nreligion, its tendency is to a species of fanaticism, and to induce a\ncontempt for divinely appointed ordinances. In many, however, it has\nbeen happily tempered by good principles; and too frequently has all\nScriptural Christianity, in its inward influence, been branded with the\nname of Mysticism.\n\n\nNAAMAN, general of the army of Benhadad, king of Syria, mentioned 2\nKings v. He appears to have been a Gentile idolater; but being\nmiraculously cured of his leprosy by the power of the God of Israel, and\nthe direction of his Prophet Elisha, he renounced his idolatry, and\nacknowledged this God to be the only true God: Behold, now I know that\nthere is no God in all the earth, but in Israel,\u201d 2 Kings v, 15, and\npromised, for the time to come, that he would worship none other but\nJehovah, verse 17. He also requested the prophet, that he might have two\nmules\u2019 load of earth to carry home with him from the land of Israel,\nmost probably intending to build an altar with it in his own country;\nwhich seems, indeed, to be implied in the reason with which he enforces\nhis request: \u201cShall there not, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two\nmules\u2019 burden of earth; for thy servant will henceforth offer neither\nburnt-offering nor sacrifice to other gods but unto Jehovah.\u201d He farther\nsays, In this the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goes into\nthe house of Rimmon, to worship there, and he leaneth upon my hand, and\nI bow myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bow down in the house of\nRimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing,\u201d verse 18; which some\nunderstand to be a reserve, denoting that he would renounce idolatry no\nfarther than was consistent with his worldly interest, with his prince\u2019s\nfavour, and his place at court. But, if so, the prophet would hardly\nhave dismissed him with a blessing, saying, Go in peace,\u201d verse 19.\nOthers, therefore, suppose, that in these words he begs pardon for what\nhe had done in times past, not for what he should continue to do. They\nobserve, that \u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9, though rendered in the future tense by the\nTargum, and by all the ancient versions, is really the preterperfect;\nand they, therefore, understand it,--\u201cwhen I have bowed myself,\u201d or,\nbecause I have bowed myself\u201d in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy\nservant. With this sense Dr. Lightfoot agrees, and it is defended by the\nlearned Bochart in a large dissertation on the case of Naaman. Yet it\ndoes not seem very probable, that, if he meant this for a penitential\nacknowledgment of his former idolatry, he should only mention what he\nhad done as the king\u2019s servant, and omit his own voluntary worship of\nthe idol. The more probable opinion, therefore, is, that he consulted\nthe prophet, whether it was lawful for him, having renounced idolatry,\nand publicly professed the worship of the true God, still, in virtue of\nhis office, to attend his master in the temple of Rimmon, in order that\nhe might lean upon him, either out of state, or perhaps out of bodily\nweakness; because, if he attended him, as he had formerly done, he could\nnot avoid bowing down when he did. To this the prophet returns no direct\nanswer; making no other reply than, Go in peace;\u201d putting it, probably,\nupon his conscience to act as that should dictate, and not being willing\nto relieve him from this trial of his recent faith.\n\nAfter this we have no farther mention of Naaman. But in the following\naccount of the wars between Syria and Israel, Benhadad seems to have\ncommanded his army in person; from whence Mr. Bedford infers, that\nNaaman was dismissed from the command for refusing to worship Rimmon.\nBut the premises are not sufficient to support the conclusion; for it\nappears that Benhadad had commanded his army in person twice before;\nonce in the siege of Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 1, and once at Aphek, verse\n26. Yet, from the total silence concerning Naaman, it is probably enough\nconjectured, that he either died, or resigned, or was dismissed, soon\nafter his return.\n\nNABOTH, an Israelite of the city of Jezreel, who lived under Ahab, king\nof the ten tribes, and had a fine vineyard near the king\u2019s palace. Ahab\ncoveted his property; but Naboth, according to the law, Lev. xxv, 23,\n24, refused to sell it: and beside, it was a disgrace for a Hebrew to\nalienate the inheritance of his ancestors. Ahab, returning into his\nhouse, threw himself on his bed, and refused to eat, when Jezebel, his\nwife, took upon herself to procure the vineyard. She wrote letters in\nAhab\u2019s name, and sealed them with the king\u2019s seal, and sent them to the\nelders of Jezreel, directing them to publish a fast, to place Naboth\namong the chief of the people, suborn against him two sons of Belial, or\ntwo false witnesses, who might depose, that Naboth had blasphemed God\nand the king. Accordingly, Naboth was condemned and stoned for the\nsupposed crime, which brought upon Ahab and Jezebel the severest\nmaledictions, 1 Kings xxi. See AHAB.\n\nNADAB, son of Aaron, and brother to Abihu. He offered incense to the\nLord with strange fire, that is, with common fire, and not with that\nwhich had been miraculously lighted upon the altar of burnt-offerings.\nTherefore, he was slain by the Lord, together with his brother Abihu,\nLev. x, 1, &c.\n\nNAHOR, son of Terah, and brother of Abraham, Gen. xi, 26. Neither the\nyear of his birth nor of his death is exactly known. Nahor married\nMilcah, the daughter of Haran, by whom he had several sons, namely, Huz,\nBuz, Kemuel, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel. Nahor fixed\nhis habitation at Haran, which is therefore called the city of Nahor,\nGen. xi, 29; xxii, 20\u201322; xxiv, 10.\n\nNAHUM is supposed to have been a native of Elcosh or Elcosha, a village\nin Galilee, and to have been of the tribe of Simeon. There is great\nuncertainty about the exact period in which he lived; but it is\ngenerally allowed that he delivered his predictions between the Assyrian\nand Babylonian captivities, and probably about B. C. 715. They relate\nsolely to the destruction of Nineveh by the Babylonians and Medes, and\nare introduced by an animated display of the attributes of God. Of all\nthe minor prophets, says Bishop Lowth, none seems to equal Nahum in\nsublimity, ardour, and boldness. His prophecy forms an entire and\nregular poem. The exordium is magnificent and truly august. The\npreparation for the destruction of Nineveh, and the description of that\ndestruction, are expressed in the most glowing colours; and at the same\ntime the prophet writes with a perspicuity and elegance which have a\njust claim to our highest admiration.\n\nNAIL. The nail of Jael\u2019s tent with which she killed Sisera, is called\n\u05d9\u05ea\u05d3; it was formed for penetrating earth, or other hard substances, when\ndriven by sufficient force, as with a hammer, &c; it includes the idea\nof strength. The orientals, in fitting up their houses, were by no means\ninattentive to the comfort and satisfaction arising from order and\nmethod. Their furniture was scanty and plain; but they were careful to\narrange the few household utensils they needed, so as not to encumber\nthe apartments to which they belonged. Their devices for this purpose,\nwhich, like every part of the structure, bore the character of\nremarkable simplicity, may not correspond with our ideas of neatness and\npropriety; but they accorded with their taste, and sufficiently answered\ntheir design. One of these consisted in a set of spikes, nails, or large\npegs fixed in the walls of the house, upon which they hung up the\nmovables and utensils in common use that belonged to the room. These\nnails they do not drive into the walls with a hammer or mallet, but fix\nthem there when the house is building; for if the walls are of brick,\nthey are too hard, or if they consist of clay, too soft and mouldering,\nto admit the action of the hammer. The spikes, which are so contrived as\nto strengthen the walls, by binding the parts together, as well as to\nserve for convenience, are large, with square heads like dice, and bent\nat the ends so as to make them cramp irons. They commonly place them at\nthe windows and doors, in order to hang upon them, when they choose,\nveils and curtains, although they place them in other parts of the room,\nto hang up other things of various kinds. The care with which they fixed\nthese nails, may be inferred, as well from the important purposes they\nwere meant to serve, as from the promise of the Lord to Eliakim: And I\nwill fasten him as a nail in a sure place,\u201d Isa. xxii, 23. It is evident\nfrom the words of the prophet, that it was common in his time to suspend\nupon them the utensils belonging to the apartment: Will men take a pin\nof it to hang any vessel thereon?\u201d Ezek. xv, 3. The word used in Isaiah\nfor a nail of this sort, is the same which denotes the stake, or large\npin of iron, which fastened down to the ground the cords of their tents.\nThese nails, therefore, were of necessary and common use, and of no\nsmall importance in all their apartments; and if they seem to us mean\nand insignificant, it is because they are unknown to us, and\ninconsistent with our notions of propriety, and because we have no name\nfor them but what conveys to our ear a low and contemptible idea. It is\nevident from the frequent allusions in Scripture to these instruments,\nthat they were not regarded with contempt or indifference by the natives\nof Palestine. Grace has been shown from the Lord our God,\u201d said Ezra, to\nleave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place,\u201d\nEzra ix, 8; or, as explained in the margin, a constant and sure abode.\nThe dignity and propriety of the metaphor appear from the use which the\nProphet Zechariah makes of it: Out of him cometh forth the corner, out\nof him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor\ntogether,\u201d Zech. x, 4. The whole frame of government, both in church and\nstate, which the chosen people of God enjoyed, was the contrivance of\nhis wisdom and the gift of his bounty; the foundations upon which it\nrested, the bonds which kept the several parts together, its means of\ndefence, its officers and executors, were all the fruits of\ndistinguishing goodness: even the oppressors of his people were a rod of\ncorrection in the hand of Jehovah, to convince them of sin, and restore\nthem to his service.\n\nNAIN, a city of Palestine, in which Jesus Christ restored the widow\u2019s\nson to life, as they were carrying him out to be buried. Eusebius says,\nthat this was in the neighbourhood of Endor, and Scythopolis, two miles\nfrom Tabor, toward the south.\n\nNAKEDNESS, NUDITY. These terms, beside their ordinary and literal\nmeaning, sometimes signify void of succour, disarmed. So, after\nworshipping the golden calf, the Israelites found themselves naked in\nthe midst of their enemies. Nakedness of the feet\u201d was a token of\nrespect. Moses put off his shoes to approach the burning bush. Most\ncommentators are of opinion, that the priests served in the tabernacle\nwith their feet naked; and afterward in the temple. In the enumeration\nthat Moses makes of the habit and ornaments of the priests, he no where\nmentions any dress for the feet. Also the frequent ablutions appointed\nthem in the temple seem to imply that their feet were naked. To uncover\nthe nakedness of any one, is commonly put for a shameful and unlawful\nconjunction, or an incestuous marriage, Lev. xx, 19; Ezek. xvi, 37.\nNakedness is sometimes put for being partly undressed; _en d\u00e9shabill\u00e9_.\nSaul continued naked among the prophets; that is, having only his under\ngarments on. Isaiah received orders from the Lord to go naked; that is,\nclothed as a slave, half clad. Thus it is recommended to clothe the\nnaked; that is, such as are ill clothed. St. Paul says, that he was in\ncold, in nakedness; that is, in poverty and want of raiment. Naked is\nput for discovered, known, manifest. So Job xxvi, 6: Hell is naked\nbefore him.\u201d The sepulchre, the unseen state, is open to the eyes of\nGod. St. Paul says, in the same sense, Neither is there any creature\nthat is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and open\nunto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,\u201d Heb. iv, 13.\n\nNAME. A name was given to the male child at the time of its\ncircumcision, but it is probable, previous to the introduction of that\nrite, that the name was given immediately after its birth. Among the\norientals the appellations given as names are always significant. In the\nOld Testament, we find that the child was named in many instances from\nthe circumstances of its birth, or from some peculiarities in the\nhistory of the family to which it belonged, Gen. xvi, 11; xix, 37; xxv,\n25, 26; Exod. ii, 10; xviii, 3, 4. Frequently the name was a compound\none, one part being the name of the Deity, and among idolatrous nations\nthe name of an idol. The following instances may be mentioned among\nothers, and may stand as specimens of the whole, namely, \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc,\n_Samuel_, hear God;\u201d \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4, _Adonijah_, God is lord;\u201d \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7,\n_Josedech_, God is just;\u201d \u05d0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc, _Ethbaal_, a Canaanitish name, the\nlatter part of the compound being the name of the idol deity, Baal;\n\u05d1\u05dc\u05e9\u05d0\u05e6\u05e8, _Belshazzar_, Bel,\u201d a Babylonish deity, is ruler and king.\u201d\nSometimes the name had a prophetic meaning, Gen. xvii, 15; Isa. vii, 14;\nviii, 3; Hos. i, 4, 6, 9; Matt. i, 21; Luke i, 13, 60, 63. In the later\ntimes names were selected from those of the progenitors of a family;\nhence in the New Testament hardly any other than ancient names occur,\nMatt. i, 12; Luke i, 61; iii, 23, &c. The inhabitants of the east very\nfrequently change their names, and sometimes do it for very slight\nreasons. This accounts for the fact of so many persons having two names\nin Scripture, Ruth i, 20, 21; 1 Sam. xiv, 49; xxxi, 2; 1 Chron. x, 2;\nJudges vi, 32; vii, 1; 2 Sam. xxiii, 8. Kings and princes very often\nchanged the names of those who held offices under them, particularly\nwhen they first attracted their notice, and were taken into their\nemploy, and when subsequently they were elevated to some new station,\nand crowned with additional honours, Gen. xli, 45; xvii, 5; xxxii, 28;\nxxxv, 10; 2 Kings xxiii, 34, 35; xxiv, 17; Dan. i, 6; John i, 42; Mark\niii, 17. Hence a name, a new name, occurs tropically, as a token or\nproof of distinction and honour in the following among other passages,\nPhil. ii, 9; Heb. i, 4; Rev. ii, 17. Sometimes the names of the dead\nwere changed; for instance that of Abel, \u05d4\u05d1\u05dc, a word which signifies\nbreath, or something transitory as a breath, given to him after his\ndeath, in allusion to the shortness of his life, Gen. ii, 8. Sometimes\nproper names are translated into other languages, losing their original\nform, while they preserve their signification. This appears to have been\nthe case with the proper names, which occur in the first eleven chapters\nof Genesis, and which were translated into the Hebrew from a language\nstill more ancient. The orientals in some instances, in order to\ndistinguish themselves from others of the same name, added to their own\nname the name of their father, grandfather, and even great grandfather.\nThe name of God often signifies God himself; sometimes his attributes\ncollectively; sometimes his power and authority. Of the Messiah it is\nsaid, And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King\nof kings, and Lord of lords,\u201d Rev. xix, 16. In illustration of this it\nmay be remarked, that it appears to have been an ancient custom among\nseveral nations, to adorn the images of their deities, princes, victors\nat their public games, and other eminent persons, with inscriptions\nexpressive of their names, character, titles, or some circumstance which\nmight contribute to their honour. There are several such images yet\nextant, with an inscription written either on the garment, or one of the\nthighs. Herodotus mentions two figures of Sesostris, king of Egypt, cut\nupon rocks in Ionia, after his conquest of that country, with the\nfollowing inscription across the breast, extending from one shoulder to\nthe other: I conquered this country by the force of my arms.\u201d Gruter has\npublished a naked statue made of marble, and supposed to represent the\ngenius either of some Roman emperor, or of Antin\u00f6us, who was deified by\nHadrian, with an inscription on the inside of the right thigh, written\nperpendicularly in Roman letters, and containing the names of three\npersons. Near the statue, on the same side of it, stands an oval shield\nwith the names of two other persons written round the rim in letters of\nthe same form. In the appendix to Dempster\u2019s _Etruria Regalis_\u201d is a\nfemale image of brass, clothed in a loose tunic down to the feet, with a\nshorter garment over it, on the right side of which is a perpendicular\ninscription in Etrurian characters, extending partly on the lower\ngarment. This figure, from the diadem on the head, and other\ncircumstances which accompany it, Philip Bonarota, the editor of that\nwork, supposes to have been designed for some Etrurian deity. Montfaucon\nhas given us a male image of the same metal, dressed in a tunic, and\nover that another vestment something like a Roman toga, reaching to the\nmiddle of the legs, on the bottom of which is an Etrurian inscription\nwritten horizontally. There are likewise in both those writers two male\nfigures crowned with laurel, which Montfaucon calls combatants, as the\nlaurel was an emblem of victory. But Bonarota takes one of them for an\nimage of Apollo, which has a chain round the neck, a garment wrapped\nover the right arm, and a bracelet on the left, with half boots on the\nlegs; the rest of the body being naked has an Etrurian inscription\nwritten downward in two lines on the inside of the left thigh. The other\nfigure has the lower part of the body clothed in a loose vestment, with\nan inscription upon it over the right thigh, perpendicularly written in\nRoman letters, which Bonarota has thus expressed in a more distinct\nmanner than they appear in Montfaucon: POMPONIO VIRIO I. To these may be\nadded from Montfaucon, a marble statue of a naked combatant, with a\nfillet about his head in token of victory. It is drawn in two views, one\nexhibiting the back and the other the fore part of the body, the latter\nof which has in Greek letters, \u039a\u0391\u03a6\u0399\u03a3\u039f\u0394\u039f\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 for \u039a\u0391\u03a6\u0399\u03a3\u039f\u0394\u03a9\u03a1\u039f\u03a3,\nperpendicularly inscribed on the outside of the left thigh; and the\nformer the name \u0391\u0399\u03a3\u03a7\u039b\u0391\u039c\u0399\u039f\u03a5 in the like characters and situation on the\nright thigh; these together make one inscription signifying\n_Caphisodorus filius \u00c6schlamii_. [Caphisodorus the son of \u00c6schlamius.]\n\nNAOMI. See RUTH.\n\nNAPHTALI, the sixth son of Jacob by Bilhah, Rachel\u2019s handmaid. The word\nNaphtali signifies _wrestling_, or _struggling_. When Rachel gave him\nthis name, she said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my\nsister, and I have prevailed,\u201d Gen. xxx, 8. Naphtali had but four sons,\nand yet at the coming out of Egypt his tribe made up fifty-three\nthousand four hundred men, able to bear arms. Moses, in the blessing he\ngave to the same tribe, says, O Naphtali, satisfied with favour, and\nfull with the blessing of the Lord, possess thou the west and the\nsouth,\u201d Deut. xxxiii, 23. The Vulgate reads it, the sea and the south,\u201d\nand the Hebrew will admit of either interpretation, that is, the sea of\nGennesareth, which was to the south by the inheritance of this tribe.\nHis soil was very fruitful in corn and oil. His limits were extended\ninto upper and lower Galilee, having Jordan to the east, the tribes of\nAsher and Zebulun to the west, Libanus to the north, and the tribe of\nIssachar to the south. Under Barak, their general, they and the\nZebulunites fought with distinguished bravery against the army of Jabin\nthe younger; and at the desire of Gideon they pursued the Midianites,\nJudges iv, 10; v, 18; vii, 23. A thousand of their captains, with\nthirty-seven thousand of their troops, assisted at David\u2019s coronation,\nand brought great quantities of provision with them, 1 Chron. xii, 34,\n40. We find no person of distinguished note among them, save Barak, and\nHiram the artificer. Instigated by Asa, Benhadad the elder, king of\nSyria, terribly ravaged the land of Naphtali; and what it suffered in\nafter invasions by the Syrians we are partly told, 1 Kings xv, 20. The\nNaphtalites were, many, if not most of them, carried captive by\nTiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, 2 Kings xv, 29. Josiah purged their\ncountry from idols. Our Saviour and his disciples, during his public\nministry, resided much and preached frequently in the land of Naphtali,\nIsaiah ix, 1; Matt. iv, 13, 15.\n\nNAPHTUHIM, a son, or rather the descendants of a son, of Mizraim, whose\nproper name is Naphtuch. Naphtuch is supposed to have given his name to\nNaph, Noph, or Memphis, and to have been the first king of that division\nof Egypt. He is, however, placed by Bochart in Libya; and is conjectured\nto be the Aphtuchus, or Autuchus, who had a temple somewhere here. He is\nfarther conjectured, and not without reason, to be the original of the\nHeathen god Neptune; who is represented to have been a Libyan, and whose\ntemples were generally built near the sea coast. By others, he is\nsupposed to have peopled that part of Ethiopia between Syene and Meroe,\nthe capital of which was called Napata.\n\nNATHAN, a prophet of the Lord, who appeared in Israel in the time of\nKing David, and had a great share in the confidence of this prince. His\ncountry is unknown, as also the time in which he began to prophesy. The\nfirst time we find him mentioned, is when David designed to build the\ntemple, 2 Sam. vii, 3, &c. We find him mentioned again in the affair of\nDavid and Bathsheba, when he faithfully reproved the king for his wicked\nconduct, 2 Sam. xii, 1\u201314. And when Adonijah began to take upon him the\nstate, and to assume the dignity, of a sovereign, and to form a party in\nopposition to his brother Solomon, Nathan repaired to Bathsheba, and\nsent her immediately to the king with instructions what to say; and\nwhile she was yet discoursing with the king, Nathan came in, reminded\nDavid of his promise, that Solomon should be his successor, and procured\nSolomon to be immediately anointed king of Israel.\n\nNATHANAEL, a disciple of our Lord. He appears to have been a pious Jew\nwho waited for the Messiah: and upon Jesus saying to him, Before Philip\ncalled thee, I saw thee under the fig tree,\u201d Nathanael, convinced, by\nsome circumstance not explained, of his omniscience, exclaimed, Master,\nthou art the Son of God, and the King of Israel.\u201d Many have thought that\nNathanael was the same as Bartholomew. The evangelists, who mention\nBartholomew, say nothing of Nathanael; and St. John, who mentions\nNathanael, takes no notice of Bartholomew. We read at the end of St.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, that our Saviour, after his resurrection, manifested\nhimself to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee, as they\nwere fishing in the lake of Gennesareth. We know no other circumstances\nof the life of this holy man.\n\nNATURAL, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, is a term that frequently occurs in the apostolic\nwritings: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,\nneither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned,\u201d 1\nCor. ii, 14. Here it is plain that by the natural man,\u201d is not meant a\nperson devoid of natural judgment, reason, or conscience, in which sense\nthe expression is often used among men. Nor does it signify one who is\nentirely governed by his fleshly appetites, or what the world calls a\nvoluptuary, or sensualist. Neither does it signify merely a man in the\nrude state of nature, whose faculties have not been cultivated by\nlearning and study, and polished by an intercourse with society. The\nApostle manifestly takes his natural man\u201d from among such as the world\nhold in the highest repute for their natural parts, their learning, and\ntheir religion. He selects him from among the philosophers of Greece,\nwho sought after wisdom, and from among the Jewish scribes, who were\ninstructed in the revealed law of God, 1 Cor. i, 22, 23. These are the\npersons whom he terms the wise, the scribes, the disputers of this\nworld--men to whom the Gospel was a stumbling block and foolishness, 1\nCor. i, 20, 23. The natural man is here evidently opposed to, \u1f41\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, him that is spiritual,\u201d 1 Cor. ii, 15, even as the natural\nbody which we derive from Adam is opposed to the spiritual body which\nbelievers will receive from Christ at the resurrection, according to 1\nCor. xv, 44, 45. Now the spiritual man is one who has the Spirit of\nChrist dwelling in him, Rom. viii, 9, not merely in the way of\nmiraculous gifts, as some have imagined, (for these were peculiar to the\nfirst age of the Christian church, and even then not common to all the\nsaints, nor inseparably connected with salvation, 1 Cor. xiii, 1\u20134; Heb.\nvi, 4\u20137,) but in his saving influences of light, holiness, and\nconsolation, whereby the subject is made to discern the truth and\nexcellency of spiritual things, and so to believe, love, and delight in\nthem as his true happiness. If therefore a man is called spiritual\u201d\nbecause the Spirit of Christ dwells in him, giving him new views,\ndispositions, and enjoyments, then the natural man,\u201d being opposed to\nsuch, must be one who is destitute of the Spirit, and of all his saving\nand supernatural effects, whatever may be his attainments in human\nlearning and science. It is obviously upon this principle that our Lord\ninsists upon the necessity of the new birth in order to our entering\ninto the kingdom of heaven, John iii, 3, 5.\n\nNATURE. In Scripture the word nature expresses the orderly and usual\ncourse of things established in the world. St. Paul says, to ingraft a\ngood olive tree into a wild olive is contrary to nature, Rom. xi, 24;\nthe customary order of nature is thereby in some measure inverted.\nNature is also put for natural descent: We who are Jews by nature,\u201d by\nbirth, and not Gentiles,\u201d Gal. ii, 15. We were by nature the children of\nwrath,\u201d Eph. ii, 3. Nature also denotes common sense, natural instinct:\nDoth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it\nis a shame to him?\u201d 1 Cor. xi, 14.\n\nNAZARENES, or NAZAR\u00c6ANS, a name originally given to Christians in\ngeneral, on account of Jesus Christ\u2019s being of the city of Nazareth; but\nwas, in the second century, restrained to certain judaizing Christians,\nwho blended Christianity and Judaism together. They held that Christ was\nborn of a virgin, and was also in a certain manner united to the divine\nnature. They refused to abandon the ceremonies prescribed by the law of\nMoses; but were far from attempting to impose the observance of these\nceremonies upon Gentile Christians. They rejected those additions that\nwere made to the Mosaic institutions by the Pharisees and doctors of the\nlaw, and admitted the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament. The\nfathers frequently mention the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which differs\nnothing from that of St. Matthew, but was afterward corrupted by the\nEbionites. These Nazarenes preserved this first Gospel in its primitive\npurity. Some of them were still in being in the time of St. Jerome, who\ndoes not reproach them with any errors.\n\nNAZARETH, a little city in the tribe of Zebulun, in Lower Galilee, to\nthe west of Tabor, and to the east of Ptolemais. This city is much\ncelebrated in the Scriptures for having been the usual place of the\nresidence of Jesus Christ, during the first thirty years of his life,\nLuke ii, 51. It was here he lived in obedience to Joseph and Mary, and\nhence he took the name of Nazarene. After he had begun to execute his\nmission he preached here sometimes in the synagogue, Luke iv, 16. But\nbecause his countrymen had no faith in him, and were offended at the\nmeanness of his original, he did not many miracles here, Matt. xiii, 54,\n58, nor would he dwell in the city. So he fixed his habitation at\nCapernaum for the latter part of his life, Matt. iv, 13. The city of\nNazareth was situated upon an eminence, and on one side was a precipice,\nfrom whence the Nazarenes designed, at one time, to cast Christ down\nheadlong, because he upbraided them for their incredulity, Luke iv, 29.\n\nThe present state of this celebrated place is thus described by modern\ntravellers:--Nassara, or Naszera, is one of the principal towns in the\npashalic of Acre. Its inhabitants are industrious, because they are\ntreated with less severity than those of the country towns in general.\nThe population is estimated at three thousand, of whom five hundred are\nTurks; the remainder are Christians. There are about ninety Latin\nfamilies, according to Burckhardt; but Mr. Connor reports the Greeks to\nbe the most numerous: there is, beside, a congregation of Greek\nCatholics, and another of Maronites. The Latin convent is a very\nspacious and commodious building, which was thoroughly repaired and\nconsiderably enlarged in 1730. The remains of the more ancient edifice,\nascribed to the mother of Constantine, may be observed in the form of\nsubverted columns, with fragments of capitals and bases of pillars,\nlying near the modern building. Pococke noticed, over a door, an old\nalto-relief of Judith cutting off the head of Holofernes. Within the\nconvent is the church of the annunciation, containing the house of\nJoseph and Mary, the length of which is not quite the breadth of the\nchurch; but it forms the principal part of it. The columns and all the\ninterior of the church are hung round with damask silk, which gives it a\nwarm and rich appearance. Behind the great altar is a subterranean\ncavern, divided into small grottoes, where the virgin is said to have\nlived. Her kitchen, parlour, and bed room, are shown, and also a narrow\nhole in the rock, in which the child Jesus once hid himself from his\npersecutors. The pilgrims who visit these holy spots are in the habit of\nknocking off small pieces of stone from the walls, which are thus\nconsiderably enlarging. In the church a miracle is still exhibited to\nthe faithful. In front of the altar are two granite columns, each two\nfeet one inch in diameter, and about three feet apart. They are supposed\nto occupy the very places where the angel and the virgin stood at the\nprecise moment of the annunciation. The innermost of these, that of the\nvirgin, has been broken away, some say by the Turks, in expectation of\nfinding treasure under it; so that,\u201d as Maundrell states, \u201ceighteen\ninches\u2019 length of it is clean gone between the pillar and the pedestal.\u201d\nNevertheless, it remains erect, suspended from the roof, as if attracted\nby a loadstone. It has evidently no support below; and, though it\ntouches the roof, the hierophant protests that it has none above. All\nthe Christians of Nazareth,\u201d says Burckhardt, with the friars, of\ncourse, at their head, affect to believe in this miracle; though it is\nperfectly evident that the upper part of the column is connected with\nthe roof.\u201d The fact is,\u201d says Dr. E. D. Clarke, that the capital and a\npiece of the shaft of a pillar of gray granite have been fastened on to\nthe roof of the cave; and so clumsily is the rest of the _hocus pocus_\ncontrived, that what is shown for the lower fragment of the same pillar\nresting upon the earth, is not of the same substance, but of Cipolino\nmarble. About this pillar, a different story has been related by almost\nevery traveller since the trick was devised. Maundrell, and Egmont and\nHeyman, were told that it was broken, in search of hidden treasure, by a\npasha, who was struck with blindness for his impiety. We were assured\nthat it was separated in this manner when the angel announced to the\nvirgin the tidings of her conception. The monks had placed a rail, to\nprevent persons infected with the plague from coming to rub against\nthese pillars: this had been, for many years, their constant practice,\nwhenever afflicted with any sickness. The reputation of the broken\npillar, for healing every kind of disease, prevails all over Galilee.\u201d\n\nBurckhardt says that this church, next to that of the holy sepulchre, is\nthe finest in Syria, and contains two tolerably good organs. Within the\nwalls of the convent are two gardens, and a small burying ground: the\nwalls are very thick, and serve occasionally as a fortress to all the\nChristians in the town. There are, at present, eleven friars in the\nconvent: they are chiefly Spaniards. The yearly expenses of the\nestablishment are stated to amount to upward of nine hundred pounds; a\nsmall part of which is defrayed by the rent of a few houses in the town,\nand by the produce of some acres of corn land: the rest is remitted from\nJerusalem. The whole annual expenses of the _Terra Santa_ convents are\nabout fifteen thousand pounds; of which the pasha of Damascus receives\nabout twelve thousand pounds. The Greek convent of Jerusalem, according\nto Burckhardt\u2019s authority, pays much more, as well to maintain its own\nprivileges, as with a view to encroach upon those of the Latins. To the\nnorth-west of the convent is a small church, built over Joseph\u2019s work\nshop. Both Maundrell and Pococke describe it as in ruins; but Dr. E. D.\nClarke says, This is now a small chapel, perfectly modern, and neatly\nwhitewashed.\u201d To the west of this is a small arched building, which,\nthey say, is the synagogue where Christ exasperated the Jews, by\napplying the language of Isaiah to himself. It once belonged to the\nGreeks; but, Hasselquist says, was taken from them by the Arabs, who\nintended to convert it into a mosque, but afterward sold it to the\nLatins. This was then so late a transaction that they had not had time\nto embellish it. The Mountain of the Precipitation\u201d is at least two\nmiles off; so that, according to this authentic tradition, the Jews must\nhave led our Lord a marvellous way. But the said precipice is shown as\nthat which the Messiah leaped down to escape from the Jews; and as the\nmonks could not pitch upon any other place frightful enough for the\nmiracle, they contend that Nazareth formerly stood eastward of its\npresent situation, upon a more elevated spot. Dr. E. D. Clarke, however,\nremarks that the situation of the modern town answers exactly to the\ndescription of St. Luke. \u201cInduced, by the words of the Gospel, to\nexamine the place more attentively than we should otherwise have done,\nwe went, as it is written, out of the city, \u2018to the brow of the hill\nwhereon the city is built,\u2019 and came to a precipice corresponding to the\nwords of the evangelist. It is above the Maronite church, and, probably,\nthe precise spot alluded to by the text.\u201d\n\nNAZARITES, those under the ancient law who engaged by a vow to abstain\nfrom wine and all intoxicating liquors, to let their hair grow, not to\nenter any house polluted by having a dead corpse in it, nor to be\npresent at any funeral. If, by accident, any one should have died in\ntheir presence, they recommenced the whole of their consecration and\nNazariteship. This vow generally lasted eight days, sometimes a month,\nand sometimes their whole lives. When the time of their Nazariteship was\nexpired, the priest brought the person to the door of the temple, who\nthere offered to the Lord a he-lamb for a burnt-offering, a she-lamb for\nan expiatory sacrifice, and a ram for a peace-offering. They offered,\nlikewise, loaves and cakes, with wine, for libations. After all was\nsacrificed and offered, the priest, or some other, shaved the head of\nthe Nazarite at the door of the tabernacle, and burned his hair on the\nfire of the altar. Then the priest put into the hands of the Nazarite\nthe shoulder of the ram roasted, with a loaf and a cake, which the\nNazarite returning into the hands of the priest, he offered them to the\nLord, lifting them up in the presence of the Nazarite. And from this\ntime he might again drink wine, his Nazariteship being accomplished.\n\nPerpetual Nazarites, as Samson and John the Baptist, were consecrated to\ntheir Nazariteship by their parents, and continued all their lives in\nthis state, without drinking wine or cutting their hair. Those who made\na vow of Nazariteship out of Palestine, and could not come to the temple\nwhen their vow was expired, contented themselves with observing the\nabstinence required by the law, and cutting off their hair in the place\nwhere they were: the offerings and sacrifices prescribed by Moses, to be\noffered at the temple, by themselves or by others for them, they\ndeferred till a convenient opportunity. Hence it was that St. Paul,\nbeing at Corinth, and having made the vow of a Nazarite, had his hair\ncut off at Cenchrea, a port of Corinth, and deferred the rest of his vow\ntill he came to Jerusalem, Acts xviii, 18. When a person found he was\nnot in a condition to make a vow of Nazariteship, or had not leisure\nfully to perform it, he contented himself by contributing to the expense\nof sacrifices and offerings of those who had made and were fulfilling\nthis vow; and by this means he became a partaker in such Nazariteship.\nWhen St. Paul came to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, St. James, with other\nbrethren, said to him, that to quiet the minds of the converted Jews he\nshould join himself to four persons who had a vow of Nazariteship, and\ncontribute to their charges and ceremonies; by which the new converts\nwould perceive that he did not totally disregard the law, as they had\nbeen led to suppose, Acts xxi, 23, 24. The institution of Nazaritism is\ninvolved in much mystery; and no satisfactory reason has ever been given\nof it. This is certain, that it had the approbation of God, and may be\nconsidered as affording a good example of self-denial in order to be\ngiven up to the study of the law, and the practice of exact\nrighteousness.\n\nNEBO, the name of an idol of the Babylonians: Bel boweth down, Nebo\nstoopeth,\u201d Isaiah xlvi, 1. The word _Nebo_ comes from a root that\nsignifies to prophesy,\u201d and therefore may stand for an oracle. There is\nsome probability in the opinion of Calmet, that Bel and Nebo are but one\nand the same deity, and that Isaiah made use of these names as\nsynonymous. The god Bel was the oracle of the Babylonians. The name\nNebo, or Nabo, is found in the composition of the names of several\nprinces of Babylon; as Nabonassar, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar,\nNebuzar-adan, Nebushasban, &c.\n\nNEBUCHADNEZZAR THE GREAT, son and successor of Nabopolassar, succeeded\nto the kingdom of Chaldea, A. M. 3399. Some time previously to this,\nNabopolassar had associated him in the kingdom, and sent him to recover\nCarchemish, which had been conquered from him four years before by\nNecho, king of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar, having been successful, marched\nagainst the governor of Phenicia, and Jehoiakim, king of Judah, who was\ntributary to Necho, king of Egypt. He took Jehoiakim, and put him in\nchains in order to carry him captive to Babylon; but afterward left him\nin Judea, on condition of paying a large tribute. He took away several\npersons from Jerusalem; among others Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and\nAzariah, all of the royal family, whom the king of Babylon caused to be\ncarefully instructed in the language and in the learning of the\nChaldeans, that they might be employed at court, Dan. i. Nabopolassar\ndying about the end of A. M. 3399, Nebuchadnezzar, who was then either\nin Egypt or in Judea, hastened to Babylon, leaving to his generals the\ncare of bringing to Chaldea the captives whom he had taken in Syria,\nJudea, Phenicia, and Egypt; for, according to Berosus, he had subdued\nall those countries. He distributed these captives into several\ncolonies; and deposited the sacred vessels of the temple of Jerusalem,\nand other rich spoils in the temple of Belus. Jehoiakim, king of Judah,\ncontinued three years in fealty to King Nebuchadnezzar; but being then\nweary of paying tribute, he threw off the yoke. The king of Chaldea sent\ntroops of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, who harassed\nJudea during three or four years, and at last Jehoiakim was besieged and\ntaken in Jerusalem, put to death, and his body thrown to the birds of\nthe air, according to the predictions of Jeremiah. See JEHOIAKIM.\n\nIn the mean time, Nebuchadnezzar being at Babylon in the second year of\nhis reign, had a mysterious dream, in which he saw a statue composed of\nseveral metals, a head of gold, a breast of silver, belly and thighs of\nbrass, legs of iron, and feet half of iron and half clay; and a little\nstone rolling by its own impulse from the mountain struck the statue and\nbroke it. This dream gave him great uneasiness, yet it faded away from\nhis memory, and he could not recover more than the general impression of\nit. He ordered all his diviners and interpreters of dreams to be sent\nfor; but none could tell him the dream or the interpretation: and, in\nwrath, he sentenced them all to death, which was about to be put in\nexecution, when Daniel was informed of it. He went immediately to the\nking, and desired him to respite the sentence a little, and he would\nendeavour to satisfy his desire. God in the night revealed to him the\nking\u2019s dream, and also the interpretation: Thou,\u201d said Daniel, art\nrepresented by the golden head of the statue. After thee will arise a\nkingdom inferior to thine, represented by the breast of silver; and\nafter this, another, still inferior, denoted by the belly and thighs of\nbrass. After these three empires,\u201d which are the Chaldeans, Persians,\nand Greeks, will arise a fourth, denoted by the legs of iron,\u201d the\nRomans. Under this last empire God will raise a new one, of greater\nstrength, power, and extent, than all the others. This last is that of\nthe Messiah, represented by the little stone coming out from the\nmountain and overthrowing the statue.\u201d Then the king raised Daniel to\ngreat honour, set him over all the wise men of Babylon, and give him the\ngovernment of that province. At his request he granted to Shadrach,\nMeshach, and Abednego, the oversight of the works of the same province\nof Babylon.\n\nIn the same year, as Dr. Hales thinks, in which he had this dream, he\nerected a golden statue, whose height was sixty cubits, and breadth six\ncubits, in the plains of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Having\nappointed a day for the dedication of this statue, he assembled the\nprincipal officers of his kingdom, and published by a herald, that all\nshould adore this image, at the sound of music, on penalty of being cast\ninto a burning fiery furnace. The result, as to the three Jews,\ncompanions of Daniel, who would not bend the knee to the image, is\nstated in Dan. iii. Daniel probably was absent. The effect of the\nmiracle was so great that Nebuchadnezzar gave glory to the God of\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and he exalted the three Hebrews to\ngreat dignity in the province of Babylon, Dan. iv.\n\nJehoiachin, king of Judah, having revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, this\nprince besieged him in Jerusalem, and forced him to surrender.\nNebuchadnezzar took him, with his chief officers, captive to Babylon,\nwith his mother, his wives, and the best workmen of Jerusalem, to the\nnumber of ten thousand men. Among the captives were Mordecai, the uncle\nof Esther, and Ezekiel the prophet. He took, also, all the vessels of\ngold which Solomon made for the temple, and the king\u2019s treasury, and he\nset up Mattaniah, Jehoiachin\u2019s uncle by his father\u2019s side, whom he named\nZedekiah. This prince continued faithful to Nebuchadnezzar nine years:\nbeing then weary of subjection, he revolted, and confederated with the\nneighbouring princes. The king of Babylon came into Judea, reduced the\nchief places of the country, and besieged Jerusalem: but Pharaoh-Hophra\ncoming out of Egypt to assist Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar overcame him in\nbattle, and forced him to retire into his own country. After this he\nreturned to the siege of Jerusalem, and was three hundred and ninety\ndays before the place before he could take it. But in the eleventh year\nof Zedekiah, A. M. 3416, the city was taken. Zedekiah attempted to\nescape, but was taken and brought to Nebuchadnezzar, who was then at\nRiblah in Syria. The king of Babylon condemned him to die, caused his\nchildren to be put to death in his presence, and then bored out his\neyes, loaded him with chains, and sent him to Babylon.\n\nThree years after the Jewish war Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city of\nTyre, which siege held thirteen years. But during this interval, he made\nwar, also, on the Sidonians, Moabites, Ammonites, and Idumeans; and\nthese he treated in nearly the same manner as the Jews. Josephus says\nthese wars happened five years after the destruction of Jerusalem,\nconsequently in A. M. 3421. The city of Tyre was taken in A. M. 3432.\nIthobaal, who was then king, was put to death, and Baal succeeded him.\nThe Lord, as a reward to the army of Nebuchadnezzar, which had lain so\nlong before Tyre, gave up to them Egypt and its spoils. Nebuchadnezzar\nmade an easy conquest of it, because the Egyptians were divided by civil\nwars among themselves: he enriched himself with booty, and returned in\ntriumph to Babylon, with a great number of captives. Being now at peace,\nhe applied himself to the adorning, aggrandizing, and enriching of\nBabylon with magnificent buildings. To him some ascribe those famous\ngardens, supported by arches, reckoned among the wonders of the world;\nand also the walls of Babylon, though many give the honour of this work\nto Semiramis.\n\nAbout this time Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of a great tree, loaded with\nfruit. Suddenly, an angel descending from heaven, commanded that the\ntree should be cut down, but that the root should be preserved in the\nearth, Dan. iv. The king sent for all the diviners in the country, but\nnone could explain his dream, till Daniel, by divine revelation, showed\nthat it represented his present greatness, his signal approaching\nhumiliation, and his restoration to reason and dignity. A year after, as\nNebuchadnezzar was walking on his palace at Babylon, he began to say, Is\nnot this great Babylon, which I have built for the house of the kingdom,\nby the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?\u201d and\nscarcely had he pronounced these words, when he fell into a distemper or\ndistraction, which so altered his imagination that he fled into the\nfields and assumed the manners of an ox. After having been seven years\nin this state, God opened his eyes, his understanding was restored to\nhim, and he recovered his royal dignity.\n\nNebuchadnezzar died, A. M. 3442, after having reigned forty-three years.\nMegasthenes, quoted by Eusebius, says, that this prince having ascended\nto the top of his palace, was there seized with a fit of divine\nenthusiasm, and cried out, O Babylonians, I declare to you a misfortune,\nthat neither our father Belus, nor Queen Baltis has been able to\nprevent. A Persian mule shall one day come into this country, who,\nsupported by the power of your gods, shall bring you into slavery. He\nshall be assisted by the Mede, the glory of the Assyrians.\u201d This Persian\nmule is Cyrus, whose mother was a Mede, and whose father was a Persian.\nThe Mede who assisted Cyrus was Cyaxares, or Darius the Mede. This story\nat least shows that the Heathens had traditions of an extraordinary kind\nrespecting this monarch, and that the fate of Babylon had been the\nsubject of prophecy.\n\nNEBUZAR-ADAN, a general of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s army, and the chief officer\nof his household. He managed the siege of Jerusalem, and made himself\nmaster of the city, while his sovereign was at Riblah in Syria, 2 Kings\nxxv; Jer. xxxix; xl; lii.\n\nNECESSITARIANS. The doctrine of necessity regards the origin of human\nactions, and the specific mode of the divine government; and it seems to\nbe the immediate result of the materiality of man; for mechanism is the\nundoubted consequence of materialism. Hence all materialists are of\ncourse necessitarians; but it does not follow that all necessitarians\nare or must be materialists. Whatever is done by a cause or power that\nis irresistible, is by necessity; in which sense this term is opposed to\nfreedom. Man is, therefore, a necessary agent, if all his actions be so\ndetermined by the causes preceding each action, that not one past action\ncould possibly not have come to pass, or have been otherwise than it\nhath been; and not one future action can possibly not come to pass, or\nbe otherwise than it shall be. But man is a free agent, if he be able at\nany time, in the circumstances in which he is placed, to do different\nthings; or, in other words, if he be not unavoidably determined in every\npoint of time by the circumstances he is in, and the causes he is under,\nto do that one thing he does, and not possibly to do any other thing.\nThis abstruse subject has occasioned much controversy, and has been\ndebated by writers of the first eminence, from Hobbes and Clarke, to\nPriestley and Gregory. The anti-necessitarians allege, that the doctrine\nof necessity charges God as the author of sin; that it takes away the\nfreedom of the will; renders man unaccountable to his Maker; makes sin\nto be no evil, and morality or virtue to be no good; and that it\nprecludes the use of means, and is of the most gloomy tendency. The\nnecessitarians, on the other hand, deny these to be legitimate\nconsequences of their doctrine, which they declare to be the most\nconsistent mode of explaining the divine government; and they observe,\nthat the Deity acts no more immorally in decreeing vicious actions, than\nin permitting all those irregularities which he could so easily have\nprevented. All necessity, say they, doth not take away freedom. The\nactions of a man may be at one and the same time both free and\nnecessary. Thus, it was infallibly certain that Judas would betray\nChrist, yet he did it voluntarily; Jesus Christ necessarily became man,\nand died, yet he acted freely. A good man doth naturally and necessarily\nlove his children, yet voluntarily. They insist that necessity doth not\nrender actions less morally good; for, if necessary virtue be neither\nmoral nor praiseworthy, it will follow that God himself is not a moral\nbeing, because he is a necessary one; and the obedience of Christ cannot\nbe good, because it was necessary. Farther, say they, necessity does not\npreclude the use of means; for means are no less appointed than the end.\nIt was ordained that Christ should be delivered up to death; but he\ncould not have been betrayed without a betrayer, nor crucified without\ncrucifiers. That it is not a gloomy doctrine they allege, because\nnothing can be more consolatory than to believe, that all things are\nunder the direction of an all-wise Being, that his kingdom ruleth over\nall, and that he doeth all things well. They also urge, that to deny\nnecessity, is to deny the foreknowledge of God, and to wrest the sceptre\nfrom the hand of the Creator, and to place that capricious and\nundefinable principle, the self-determining power of man, upon the\nthrone of the universe. In these statements there is obviously a\nconfused use of terms in different meanings, so as to mislead the\nunwary. For instance: _necessity_ is confounded with _certainty_; but an\naction may be certain, though free; that is to say, certain to an\nomniscient Being, who knows how a free agent will finally resolve; but\nthis certainty is, in fact, a quality of the prescient Being, not that\nof the action, to which, however, men delusively transfer it. Again: God\nis called a necessary Being, which, if it mean any thing, signifies, as\nto his moral acts, that he can only act right. But then this is a wrong\napplication of the term necessity, which properly implies such a\nconstraint upon actions, exercised _ab extra_, as renders choice or will\nimpossible. But such necessity cannot exist as to the supreme Being.\nAgain: the obedience of Christ unto death was necessary, that is to say,\nunless he had died guilty man could not have been forgiven; but this\ncould not make the act of the Jews who put him to death a necessary act,\nthat is to say, a forced and constrained one; nor did this necessity\naffect the act of Christ himself, who acted voluntarily, and might have\nleft man without salvation. That the Jews acted _freely_, is evident\nfrom their being held liable to punishment, although unconsciously they\naccomplished the great designs of Heaven, which, however, was no excuse\nfor their crime. Finally: as to the allegation, that the doctrine of\nfree agency puts man\u2019s self-determining power upon the throne of the\nuniverse, that view proceeds upon notions unworthy of God, as though he\ncould not accomplish his plans without compelling and controlling all\nthings by a fixed fate; whereas it is both more glorious to him, and\ncertainly more in accordance with the Scriptures, to say that he has a\nperfect foresight of the manner in which all creatures will act, and\nthat he, by a profound and infinite wisdom, subordinates every thing\nwithout violence to the evolution and accomplishment of his own glorious\npurposes.\n\nThe doctrine of necessity is nearly connected with that of\npredestination, which, of late years, has assumed a form very different\nfrom that which it formerly possessed; for, instead of being considered\nas a point to be determined almost entirely by the sacred writings, it\nhas, in the hands of a number of able writers, in a great measure\nresolved itself into a question of natural religion, under the head of\nthe philosophical liberty or necessity of the will; or, whether all\nhuman actions are, or are not, necessarily determined by motives arising\nfrom the character which God has impressed on our minds, and the train\nof circumstances amidst which his providence has placed us? The\nCalvinistic doctrine of predestination is, that God for his own glory,\nhath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.\u201d The scheme of philosophical\nnecessity, as stated by the most celebrated necessitarian of the age,\nis, that every thing is predetermined by the divine Being; that whatever\nhas been, must have been; and that whatever will be, must be; that all\nevents are preordained by infinite wisdom and unlimited goodness; that\nthe will, in all its determinations, is governed by the state of mind;\nthat the state of mind is, in every instance, determined by the Deity;\nand that there is a continued chain of causes and effects, of motives\nand actions, inseparably connected, and originating from the condition\nin which we are brought into existence by the Author of our being.\u201d On\nthe other hand, it is justly remarked, that \u201cthose who believe the being\nand perfections of God, and a state of retribution, in which he will\nreward and punish mankind according to the diversity of their actions,\nwill find it difficult to reconcile the justice of punishment with the\nnecessity of crimes punished. And they that believe all that the\nScripture says on the one hand, of the eternity of future punishments,\nand on the other, of God\u2019s compassion to sinners, and his solemn\nassurance that he desires not their death, will find the difficulty\ngreatly increased.\u201d It is doubtless an article of the Christian faith,\nthat God will reward or punish every man hereafter according to his\nactions in this life. But we cannot maintain his justice in this\nparticular, if men\u2019s actions be necessary either in their own nature, or\nby the divine decrees. Activity and self-determining powers are the\nfoundation of all morality; and to prove that such powers belong to man,\nit is urged that we ourselves are conscious of possessing them. We blame\nand condemn ourselves when we do amiss; but guilt, and inward sense of\nshame, and remorse of conscience, are feelings which are inconsistent\nwith the scheme of necessity. It is also agreed that some actions\ndeserve praise, and afford an inward satisfaction; but for this, there\nwould be no foundation, if we were invincibly determined in every\nvolition: so that approbation and blame are consequent on free actions\nonly. Nor is the matter at all relieved by bringing in a chain of\ncircumstances as motives necessarily to determine the will. This comes\nto the same result in sound argument, as though there was an immediate\n_co\u00e4ction_ of omnipotent power compelling one kind of volitions only;\nwhich is utterly irreconcilable to all just notions of the nature and\noperations of will, and to all accountability. Necessity, in the sense\nof irresistible control, and the doctrine of Scripture, cannot co\u00ebxist.\n\nNECROMANCY, \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, is the art of raising up the ghosts of\ndeceased persons, to get information from them concerning future events.\nThis practice, no doubt, the Israelites brought with them from Egypt,\nwhich affected to be the mother of such occult sciences; and from thence\nit spread into the neighbouring countries, and soon infected all the\neast. The injunction of the law is very express against this vice; and\nthe punishment to be inflicted on the practisers of it was stoning to\ndeath, Lev. xx, 27. What forms of enchantment were used in the practice\nof necromancy we are at a loss to know, because we read of none that the\npythoness of Endor employed; however, that there were several rites,\nspells, and invocations used upon these occasions, we may learn from\nalmost every ancient author, but from none more particularly than from\nLucan in his _Pharsalia_. Whether the art of conversing with the dead\nwas mere imposture, or grounded upon diabolical agency, is a question\nwhich has been disputed in all ages.\n\nNEHEMIAH professes himself the author of the book which bears his name,\nin the very beginning of it, and he uniformly writes in the first\nperson. He was of the tribe of Judah, and was probably born at Babylon\nduring the captivity. He was so distinguished for his family and\nattainments, as to be selected for the office of cup bearer to the king\nof Persia, a situation of great honour and emolument. He was made\ngovernor of Judea, upon his own application, by Artaxerxes Longimanus;\nand his book, which in the Hebrew canon was joined to that of Ezra,\ngives an account of his appointment and administration through a space\nof about thirty-six years to A. M. 3595, at which time the Scripture\nhistory closes; and, consequently, the historical books, from Joshua to\nNehemiah inclusive, contain the history of the Jewish people from the\ndeath of Moses, A. M. 2553, to the reformation established by Nehemiah,\nafter the return from captivity, being a period of one thousand and\nforty-two years.\n\nNEOLOGY. This term, which signifies _new doctrine_, has been used to\ndesignate a species of theology and Biblical criticism which has of late\nyears much prevailed among the Protestant divines of Germany, and the\nprofessors of their universities. It is now, however, more frequently\ntermed rationalism, and is supposed to occupy a sort of middle place\nbetween the orthodox system and pure deism. The German divines\nthemselves speak of naturalism, rationalism, and supernaturalism. The\nterm _naturalism_ arose first in the sixteenth century, and was spread\nin the seventeenth. It was understood to be the system of those who\nallowed no other knowledge of religion than the natural, which man could\nshape out by his own strength, and, consequently, excluded all\nsupernatural revelation. As to the different forms of naturalism,\ntheologians say there are three: the first, which they call Pelagianism,\nand which considers human dispositions and notions as perfectly pure,\nand the religious knowledge derived from them as sufficiently explicit.\nA grosser kind denies all particular revelation; and the grossest of all\nconsiders the world as God. _Rationalism_ has been thus explained: Those\nwho are generally termed rationalists,\u201d says Dr. Bretschneider, admit\nuniversally in Christianity, a divine, benevolent, and positive\nappointment for the good of mankind, and Jesus as a messenger of Divine\nProvidence, believing that the true and everlasting word of God is\ncontained in the Holy Scripture, and that by the same the welfare of\nmankind will be obtained and extended. But they deny therein a\nsupernatural and miraculous working of God, and consider the object of\nChristianity to be that of introducing into the world such a religion as\nreason can comprehend; and they distinguish the essential from the\nunessential, and what is local and temporary from that which is\nuniversal and permanent in Christianity.\u201d There is, however, a third\nclass of divines who in fact differ very little from this, though very\nwidely in profession. They affect to allow a revealing operation of God,\nbut establish on internal proofs rather than on miracles the divine\nnature of Christianity. They allow that revelation _may_ contain much\nout of the power of reason to explain, but say that it should assert\nnothing contrary to reason, but rather what may be proved by it.\n_Supernaturalism_ consists in general in the conviction that God has\nrevealed himself supernaturally and immediately. The notion of a miracle\ncannot well be separated from such a revelation, whether it happens out\nof, on, or in men. What is revealed may belong to the order of nature,\nbut an order higher and unknown to us, which we could never have known\nwithout miracles, and cannot bring under the laws of nature.\n\nThe difference between the naturalists and the rationalists, as Mr. Rose\njustly remarks, is not quite so wide either as it would appear to be at\nfirst sight, or as one of them assuredly wishes it to appear. For if I\nreceive a system, be it of religion, of morals, or of politics, only so\nfar as it approves itself to my reason, whatever be the authority that\npresents it to me, it is idle to say that I receive the system out of\nany respect to that authority. I receive it _only_ because my reason\napproves it; and I should, of course, do so if an authority of far\ninferior value were to present the system to me. This is what that\ndivision of rationalists, which professes to receive Christianity, and\nat the same time to make reason the supreme arbiter in matters of faith,\nhas done. Their system, in a word, is this: They assume certain general\nprinciples, which they maintain to be the necessary deductions of reason\nfrom an extended and unprejudiced contemplation of the natural and moral\norder of things, and to be in themselves immutable and universal.\nConsequently, any thing which, on however good authority, may be\nadvanced in apparent opposition to them must either be rejected as\nunworthy of rational belief, or, at least, explained away till it is\nmade to accord with the assumed principles; and the truth or falsehood\nof all doctrines proposed is to be decided according to their agreement\nor disagreement with those principles.\n\nIt is easy, then, to anticipate how, with such principles, the Biblical\ncritics of Germany, distinguished as many of them have been for\nlearning, would proceed to interpret the Scriptures. Many of the sacred\nbooks and parts of others have, of course, been rejected by them as\nspurious, the strongest external evidence being thought by them\ninsufficient to prove the truth of what was determined to be\ncontradictory to their reason; and the inspiration of the rest was\nunderstood in no higher a sense, to use the language of one of their\nprofessors, than the expressions of Cicero as to the inspiration of the\npoets, or those of Quintilian respecting Plato. It would be disgusting,\nsays Rose, to go through all the strange fancies which were set afloat,\nand which tended only to set Scripture on the same footing as an\ningenious but improbable romance. They all proceeded from the\ndetermination that whatever was not intelligible was incredible, that\nonly what was of familiar and easy explanation deserved belief, and that\nall which was miraculous and mysterious in Scripture must be rejected;\nand they rested perpetually on notions and reasonings which were in\nthemselves miracles of incredibility. But there were many of the German\ndivines of this rationalist period who went much farther, and who\nimputed a deception to our Lord and his disciples, not for evil but for\ngood purposes. In reading or in hearing of these wretched productions,\nthe mind is divided between disgust at folly, and indignation at\nwickedness. What can be said for the heart which could suppose that the\nfounders of Christianity could have taught the sublime and holy\ndoctrines of the Gospel with a lie in their hearts and on their lips? or\nfor the intellect which could believe that ambitious and designing men\nwould encounter years of poverty, and shame, and danger, with no\nprospect but that of an ignominious death? But where the supernatural\nand miraculous accounts were not rejected, they were, by many of the\nmost eminent of these writers, explained away by a monstrous ingenuity,\nwhich, on any other subject, and applied to any ancient classic or other\nwriter, would provoke the most contemptuous ridicule. When Korah,\nDathan, and Abiram were swallowed up, Moses had previously _secretly\nundermined the earth_.\u201d Jacob wrestled with the angel in a _dream_;\u201d and\na rheumatic pain in his thigh during sleep suggested the incident in his\ndream of the angel touching the sinew of his thigh. Professor Paulus\ngravely explains the miracle of the tribute money thus: That Christ only\nmeant to give a moral lesson, that is, that we are not, if we can avoid\nit by trifling sacrifices, to give offence to our brethren; that he\nprobably reasoned thus with St. Peter: Though there is no real occasion\nfor us to pay the tribute, yet, as we may be reckoned as enemies of the\ntemple, and not attended to when we wish to teach what is good, why\nshould not you who are a fisherman,\u201d a remark which might very properly\nbe made at a place where St. Peter had been engaged in a fishery for two\nyears, \u201cand can easily do it, go and get enough to pay the demand? Go,\nthen, to the sea, cast your hook, and take up \u03d6\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd, the first\nand best fish.\u201d St. Peter was not to stay longer at his work this time\nthan to gain the required money: \u03d6\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 often refers not to number but\nto time; and \u1f34\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd may undoubtedly be taken as a collective. St. Peter\nmust either have caught so many fish as would be reckoned worth a\n_stater_ at Capernaum, (so near to a sea rich in fish,) or one so large\nand fine as would have been valued at that sum. As it was uncertain\nwhether one or more would be necessary, the expression is indefinite,\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03d0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03d6\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd; [the fish first coming up;] but it would not\nbe ambiguous to St. Peter, as the necessity and the event would give it\na fixed meaning. \u1f08\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03db\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1. [Opening the mouth.] This opening of\nthe mouth might have different objects, which must be fixed by the\ncontext. If the fisherman opens the mouth of a fish caught with a hook,\nhe does it first to release him from the hook; for if he hangs long he\nis less saleable: he soon decays. The circumstantiality in the account\nis _picturesque_. Take the hook out his mouth!\u201d \u1f19\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is\nused in Greek in a more extended sense than the German _finden_, as in\nXenophon, where it is to get by selling.\u201d When such a word is used of\nsaleable articles, like fish, and in a connection which requires the\ngetting a piece of money, it is clear that getting by sale and not by\nfinding is referred to. \u201cAnd this from a professor\u2019s chair!\u201d In like\nmanner the miracle of feeding the five thousand in the desert is\nresolved into the opportune passing by of a caravan with provisions, of\nwhich the hungry multitude were allowed to partake, according to eastern\nhospitality; and the Apostles were merely employed in conveying it out\nin baskets. Christ\u2019s walking _upon_ the sea is explained by his walking\nupon the sea shore, and St. Peter\u2019s walking on the sea is resolved into\nswimming. The miracles of healing were the effect of fancy operating\nfavourably upon the disorders; and Ananias and Sapphira died of a\nfright; with many other absurdities, half dreams and half blasphemies;\nand of which the above are given but as a specimen.\n\nThe first step in this sorrowful gradation down to a depth of falsehood\nand blasphemy, into which certainly no body of Christian ministers, so\nlarge, so learned, and influential, in any age or period of the church\never before fell, was, contempt for the authority of the divines of the\nReformation, and of the subsequent age. They were about to set out on a\nvoyage of discovery; and it was necessary to assume that truth still\ninhabited some _terra incognita_, [unknown region,] to which neither\nLuther, Melancthon, nor their early disciples, had ever found access.\nOne of this school is pleased, indeed, to denominate the whole even of\nthe seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century, the age of\ntheological barbarism; an age, notwithstanding, which produced in the\nLutheran church alone Calovius, Schmidt, Hackspan, Walther, Glass, and\nthe Carpzoffs, and others, as many and as great writers as any church\ncan boast in an equal space of time; writers whose works are, or ought\nto be, in the hands of the theological student. The general statements\nof the innovators amount to this, that the divines of the age of which\nwe speak had neither the inclination nor the power to do any thing but\nfortify their own systems, which were dogmatical, and not to search out\ntruth for themselves from Scripture; that theology, as a science, was\nleft from the epoch of the Reformation as it had been received from the\nschoolmen; that the interpretation of the Bible was made the slave, not\nthe mistress, of dogmatical theology, as it ought to be.\n\nThe vain conceit that the doctrines of religion were capable of\nphilosophic demonstration, which obtained among the followers of Wolf,\nis considered by Mr. Rose as having hastened onward the progress of\nerror. We find some of them not content with applying demonstration to\nthe truth of the system, but endeavouring to establish each separate\ndogma, the Trinity, the nature of the Redeemer, the incarnation, the\neternity of punishment, on philosophical and, strange as it may appear,\nsome of these truths on mathematical, grounds. We have had instances of\nthis in our own country; and the reason why they have done little injury\nis, that none of those who thus presumed, whether learned or half\nlearned, had success enough to form a school. So far as such a theory\ndoes obtain influence, it must necessarily be mischievous. The first\nauthors may hold the mysteries of Christianity sacred; they may fancy\nthat they can render faith in them more easy by affecting demonstrative\nevidence, which, indeed, were the subjects capable of it, would render\nfaith unnecessary; but they are equally guilty of a vain presumption in\ntheir own powers, and of a want of real reverence to God, and to his\nrevelation. With them, this boast of demonstration generally ends in the\nrejection of some truth, or the adoption of some positive error; while\ntheir followers fail not to bound over the limits at which they have\nstopped. The fallacy of the whole lies in assuming that divine things\nare on the same level with those which the human mind can grasp, and may\ntherefore be compared with them. One of these consequences must\ntherefore follow: either that the mind is exalted above its own sphere,\nor that divine things are brought down below theirs. In the former case,\na dogmatical pride is the result; in the latter, the scheme of\nrevelation is stripped of its divinity, and sinks gradually into a\nsystem of human philosophy, with the empty name of a revelation still\nappended to it to save appearances. What can bear the test of the\nphilosophical standard is retained, and what cannot be thus proved is,\nby degrees, rejected; so that the Scripture is no longer the ground of\nreligious truth; but a sort of witness to be compelled to assent to any\nconclusions at which this philosophy may arrive.\n\nThe effect in Germany was speedily developed, though Wolf, the founder\nof this school, and most of his followers, were pious and faithful\nChristians. By carrying demonstrative evidence beyond its own province,\nthey had nurtured in their followers a vain confidence in human reason;\nand the next and still more fatal step was, that it was the province of\nhuman reason in an enlightened and intellectual age to perfect\nChristianity, which, it was contended, had hitherto existed in a low and\ndegraded state, and to perfect that system of which the elements only\nwere contained in the Scripture. All restraint was broken by this\nprinciple. Philosophy, good and bad, was left to build up these\nelements\u201d according to its own views; and as, after all, many of these\nelements were found to be too untractable and too rudely shaped to\naccord with the plans of these manifold constructions, formed according\nto every pattern,\u201d except that in the mount;\u201d when the stone could not\nbe squared and framed by any art which these builders possessed, it was\nrejected,\u201d even to the head stone of the corner.\u201d Semler appears to have\nbeen the author of that famous theory of accommodation, which, in the\nhands of his followers, says Mr. Rose, became the most formidable weapon\never devised for the destruction of Christianity.\u201d As far as Germany is\nconcerned, this language is not too strong; and we may add, that it was\nthe most impudent theory ever advocated by men professing still to be\nChristians, and one, the avowal of which can scarcely be accounted for,\nexcept on the ground, that as, because of their interests, it was not\nconvenient for these teachers of theology and ministers of the German\nchurches to disavow Christianity altogether; it was devised and\nmaintained, in order to connect the profits of the Christian profession\nwith substantial and almost undisguised deism. This theory was, that we\nare not to take all the declarations of Scripture as addressed to us;\nbut to consider them as, in many points, purposely adapted to the\nfeelings and dispositions of the age when they originated; but by no\nmeans to be received by another and more enlightened period; that, in\nfact, Jesus himself and his Apostles had _accommodated_ themselves in\ntheir doctrines to the barbarism, ignorance, and prejudices of the Jews;\nand that it was therefore our duty to reject the whole of this temporary\npart of Christianity, and retain only what is substantial and eternal.\nIn plain words they assumed, as the very basis of their Scriptural\ninterpretations, the blasphemous principle, that our Lord and his\nApostles taught, or, at least, connived at doctrines absolutely false,\nrather than they would consent to shock the prejudices of their hearers!\nThis principle is shown at length by Mr. Rose, to run through the whole\nmaze of error into which this body of Protestant divines themselves\nwandered, and led their flocks. Thus the chairs of theology and the very\npulpits were turned into the seats of the scornful;\u201d and where doctrines\nwere at all preached, they were too frequently of this daring and\ninfidel character. It became even, at least, a negative good, that the\nsermons delivered were often discourses on the best modes of cultivating\ncorn and wine, and the preachers employed the Sabbath and the church in\ninstructing their flocks how to choose the best kinds of potatoes, or to\nenforce upon them the benefits of vaccination. Undisguised infidelity\nhas in no country treated the grand evidences of the truth of\nChristianity with greater contumely, or been more offensive in its\nattacks upon the prophets, or more ridiculous in its attempts to\naccount, on natural principles, for the miracles. Extremes of every kind\nwere produced, philosophic mysticism, pantheism, and atheism.\n\nWe have hitherto referred chiefly to Mr. Rose\u2019s work on this awful\ndeclension in the Lutheran and other continental churches. In a work on\nthe same subject by Mr. Pusey, the stages of the apostasy are more\ncarefully marked, and more copiously and deeply investigated. Our limits\nwill, however, but allow us to advert to two or three points. In Mr.\nPusey\u2019s account of the state of German theology in the seventeenth\ncentury, he opens to us the sources of the evil. Francke, he observes,\nassigns as a reason for attaching the more value to the opportunities\nprovided at Halle for the study of Scripture, that \u201cin former times, and\nin those which are scarcely past, one generally found at universities\nopportunities for every thing rather than a solid study of God\u2019s word.\u201d\nIn all my university years,\u201d says Knapp, I was not happy enough to hear\na lecture upon the whole of Scripture; we should have regarded it as a\ngreat blessing which came down from heaven.\u201d It is said to be one only\nof many instances, that at Leipzig, Carpzoff, having in his lectures for\none half year completed the first chapter of Isaiah, did not again\nlecture on the Bible for twenty years, while Olearius suspended his for\nten. Yet Olearius, as well as Alberti, Spener says, were diligent\ntheologians, but that most pains were employed on doctrinal theology and\ncontroversy.\u201d It is, moreover, a painful speaking fact, which is\nmentioned by Francke, (1709,) that in Leipzig, the great mart of\nliterature as well as of trade, \u201ctwenty years ago, in no bookseller\u2019s\nshop was either Bible or Testament to be found.\u201d Of the passages in\nFrancke, which prove the same state of things, I will select one or two\nonly: Youth are sent to the universities with a moderate knowledge of\nLatin; but of Greek, and especially of Hebrew next to none. And it would\neven then have been well, if what had been neglected before had been\nmade up in the universities. There, however, most are borne, as by a\ntorrent, with the multitude; they flock to logical, metaphysical,\nethical, polemical, physical, pneumatical lectures, and what not;\ntreating least of all those things whose benefit is most permanent in\ntheir future office, especially deferring, and at last neglecting, the\nstudy of the sacred languages.\u201d \u201cTo this is added, that, they comfort\nthemselves, that in examinations for orders these things are not\ngenerally much attended to. Hence most who are anxious about a\nmaintenance, hurry to those things which may hasten their promotion,\nattend above all things a lecture on the art of preaching, and if they\ncan remain so long at the university, one on doctrinal theology, (would\nthat all were anxious about a salutary knowledge of the sacred\ndoctrines,) and having committed these things to paper and memory,\nreturn home, as if excellently armed against Satan, are examined,\npreach, are promoted, provide for their families.\u201d And having spoken\nfarther on the superficial knowledge, pedantry, and other faults of\nthose few who acquired knowledge of these subjects, he sums up: As the\nvernacular Scriptures are ordinarily neglected or ill employed by the\nilliterate, so are the original by the lettered: whence there cannot but\narise either ignorance in matters of faith, or an unfruitful and vain\nknowledge; a pleasurable fancy is substituted for the substance of the\nfaith; impiety daily increases. In a word, from the neglect of Scripture\nall impiety is derived; and so again from the impiety or unbelief of\nmen, there is derived a contempt of Scripture, or at all events an\nabuse, and an absurd and perverted employment of it: and hence follows\neither a neglect of the original languages, or a senseless method, or an\nunfitting employment of them; which evils, since they are continued from\nthe teachers to the disciples, the corrupted state of the schools and\nuniversities continually increases: and these we cannot remedy, unless\nwe can prevail upon ourselves to make the word of God our first object,\nto look for Christ in it, and to embrace him, when found, with genuine\nfaith, and perseveringly to follow him.\u201d Pfaff thus describes the\nprevious state of doctrinal theology: All the compendia of holy\ndoctrines, which have hitherto appeared, are of such a character, that,\nthough their excellence has been hitherto extolled by the common praise\nof our countrymen, and they still enjoy considerable reputation, (_su\u00e2\nutique luce niteat_,) they can even on this ground not be satisfactory\nto our age,--that since one system was extracted and worked out of the\nother, with a very few variations, they dwell uniformly on the same\nstring; and that metaphysical clang of causes, which sounds somewhat\nharshly and unpleasantly to well cultivated ears, constantly\nreverberates in them, the same terms uniformly recurring in all. To this\nis added, that a certain coldness appears to prevail in the common mode\nof treating these subjects, especially in the practical topics of\ntheology; these being set forth as theoretical propositions, so that\nscarcely any life or any religious influence finds its way into the\nminds of readers; and the edification of mind, (though it should be the\nprincipal object in sacred theology,) derived from them is very slight.\nNor does it appear less a subject of blame, that various theological\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, and those the very chief, are here altogether omitted; that every\nthing is choked with the thorns of scholasticism; and that divine truths\nare often made secondary to the zeal for authority: nor is there\nsufficient reference to the language of the symbolical books, to the\npromotion of the peace of the church, to the exhibition of what is of\nreal importance in controverted points, and of the unreality of the mere\nlogomachies, with which all theology abounds; nor again, to destroy\ntheological pedantry and a sectarian spirit, or to treat the subjects\nthemselves in a style becoming to them: but most of all, sufficient\npains are not bestowed upon that which is of chief importance, the\nbuilding up the kingdom of God in the hearts of men, and the influencing\ntheir hearts more thoroughly with vivid conceptions of true\nChristianity.\u201d\n\nYet these were but effects of a still higher cause,--the rapid decay of\npiety in this century, of which the statements of Mr. Pusey, and the\nauthorities he quotes, present a melancholy picture. Speaking of J. V.\nAndrea, he says, the want of practical religious instruction in the\nearly schools, the perverted state of all education, the extravagance\nand dissoluteness of the universities, the total unfitness of the\nteachers whom they sent forth and authorized, the degraded state of\ngeneral as well as of theological science, the interested motives for\nentering into holy orders, the canvassing for benefices, the simony in\nobtaining them, the especial neglect of the poorer, the bad lives, the\ncarelessness and bitter controversies of the preachers, and the general\ncorruption of manners in all ranks, are again and again the subjects of\nhis deep regrets or of his censure. \u201cAfter the evangelic church,\u201d he\nsays, in an energetic comparison of the evils which reigned in the\nbeginning of this period with those which had occasioned the yoke of\nRome to be broken, \u201cafter the evangelic church had thrown off the yoke\nof human inventions, they should have bowed their neck under the easy\nyoke of the Lord. But now one set of human inventions are but exchanged\nfor another, equally, or indeed very little, human; and these are called\nthe word of God, though in reality things are nothing milder than\nbefore. Idols were cast out, but the idols of sins are worshipped. The\nprimacy of the pope is denied, but we constitute lesser popes. The\nbishops are abrogated, but ministers are still introduced or cast out at\nwill; simony came into ill repute, but who now rejects a hand laden with\ngold? the monks were reproached for indolence,--as if there were too\nmuch study at our universities; the monasteries were dissolved,--to\nstand empty, or to be stalls for cattle; the regularly recurring prayers\nare abolished, yet so that now most pray not at all; the public fasts\nwere laid aside, now the command of Christ is held to be but useless\nwords; not to say any thing of blasphemers, adulterers, extortioners,\u201d\n&c. After many testimonies of a similar and even stronger kind from\nother pious divines, who lifted up their voice strongly but almost\nineffectually against the growing corruption of the universities, the\nclergy, and the people, Mr. Pusey adds the following passages from\nFrancke: \u201cThe works of the flesh are done openly and unrestrainedly,\nwith so little shame, that one who does not approve of many things not\nconsistent with the truth which is in Jesus, would almost be enrolled\namong heretics. Ambition, pride, love of pleasure, luxury, impurity,\nwantonness, and all the crop of foulest wickednesses which spring from\nthese; injustice also, avarice, and a species of rivalry among all vices\nevery where sensibly increases, atheism joining itself with epicurism\nand libertinism. Thus while Christ is held to, while orthodoxy is\npresented as a shield, all imitation of Christ, all anxiety for true and\nspiritual holiness, \u201cwithout which no one shall see the Lord,\u201d nay, all\nthe decorum befitting a Christian, is banished, is exterminated, that it\nmay not disturb the societies of perverse men.\u201d Into the state of the\nclergy he enters more fully in another work. I remember,\u201d he says, \u201cthat\na theologian of no common learning, piety, and practical knowledge, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, told me, that a certain monarch, at his suggestion, applied\nto a university, where there was a large concourse of students of\ntheology, for two candidates for holy orders, who, by the excellence and\npurity of their doctrine, and by holiness of life, might serve as an\nexample to the congregation committed to their charge; the professors\ncandidly answered that there was no such student of theology among them.\nNor is this surprising. I remember that Kortholt used to say with pain,\nthat in the disgraceful strifes, disturbances, and tumults in the\nuniversities, which were, alas, but too frequent, it scarcely ever\nhappened that theological students were not found to be accomplices,\nnay, the chiefs. I remember that another theologian often lamented, that\nthere was such a dearth in the church of such persons as the Apostle\nwould alone think worthy of the ministerial functions, that it was to be\nregarded as a happiness if, of many applicants, some one of outwardly\ndecent life could at length be found.\u201d\n\nWith several happy exceptions, and the raising up of a few pious people\nin some places, and a partial revival of evangelical doctrines, which,\nhowever, often ran at length into mysticism and antinomianism, the evil,\nboth doctrinally and morally, continued to increase to our own day; for\nif any ask what has been the moral effect of the appalling apostasy of\nthe teachers of religion, above described, upon the people of Germany,\nthe answer may be given from one of these rationalizing divines\nthemselves, whose statement is not therefore likely to be too highly\ncoloured. It is from a pamphlet of Bretschneider, published in 1822, and\nthe substance is, Indifference to religion among all classes; that\nformerly the Bible used to be in every house, but now the people either\ndo not possess it, or, as formerly, read it; that few attend the\nchurches, which are now too large, though fifty years ago they were too\nsmall; that few honour the Sabbath; that there are now few students of\ntheology, compared with those in law and medicine; that if things go on\nso, there will shortly not be persons to supply the various\necclesiastical offices; that preaching had fallen into contempt; and\nthat distrust and suspicion of the doctrines of Christianity prevailed\namong all classes.\u201d Melancholy as this picture is, nothing in it can\nsurprise any one, except that the very persons who have created the evil\nshould themselves be astonished at its existence, or even affect to be\nso. But the mercy of God has begun to answer the prayers of the few\nfaithful who are left as the gleanings of grapes after the vintage; and\nto revive, in some active, learned, and influential men, the spirit of\nprimitive faith and zeal. The effect of the exertions of these excellent\nmen, both from the professor\u2019s chair, the pulpit, and the press, has\nbeen considerable; and it is remarked by Mr. Rose, that no small degree\nof disgust at the past follies of the rationalists prevails; that the\ncold and comfortless nature of their system has been perceived; that a\nparty of truly Christian views has arisen; and that there is a\ndisposition alike in the people, the better part of the divines, and the\nphilosophers, to return to that revealed religion which alone can give\nthem comfort and peace. It is equally clear that some at least of the\ngovernments perceive the dangerous tendency of the rationalist opinions,\nand that they are sincerely desirous of promoting a better state of\nreligious feeling.\n\nWe close this article with the excellent remarks of Dr. Tittman of\nDresden, on the neological interpreters: What is the interpretation of\nthe Scriptures, if it relies not on words, but things, not on the\nassistance of languages, but on the decrees of reason that is, of modern\nphilosophy? What is all religion, what the knowledge of divine things,\nwhat are faith and hope placed in Christ, what is all Christianity, if\nhuman reason and philosophy is the only fountain of divine wisdom, and\nthe supreme judge in the matter of religion? What is the doctrine of\nChrist and the Apostles more than some philosophical system? But what,\nthen, I pray you, is, to deny, to blaspheme Jesus the Lord, to render\nhis divine mission doubtful, nay vain and useless, to impugn his\ndoctrine, to disfigure it shamefully, to attack it, to expose it to\nridicule, and, if possible, to suppress it, to remove all Christianity\nout of religion, and to bound religion within the narrow limits of\nreason alone, to deride miracles, and hold them up to derision, to\naccuse them as vain, to bring them into disrepute, to torture sacred\nScripture into seeming agreement with the fancies of human wisdom, to\nalloy it with human conjectures, to bring it into contempt, and to break\ndown its divine authority, to undermine, to shake, to overthrow utterly\nthe foundations of Christian faith? What else can be the event than\nthis, as all history, a most weighty witness in this matter, informs us,\nnamely, that when sacred Scripture, its grammatical interpretation and a\nsound knowledge of languages are, as it were, despised and banished, all\nreligion should be contemned, shaken, corrupted, troubled, undermined,\nutterly overturned, and should be entirely removed and reduced to\nnatural religion; or that it should end in a mystical theology, than\nwhich nothing was ever more pernicious to the Christian doctrine, and be\nconverted into an empty \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, or even into a poetical system,\nhiding every thing in figures and fictions, to which latter system not a\nfew of the sacred orators and theologians of our time seem chiefly\ninclined.\u201d\n\nNEOMENIA, \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, _new moon_, Col. ii, 16, a Greek word, signifying\nthe first day of the moon or month. The Hebrews had a particular\nveneration for the first day of every month; and Moses appointed\npeculiar sacrifices for the day, Num. xxviii, 11, 12; but he gave no\norders that it should be kept as a holy day, nor can it be proved that\nthe ancients observed it so: it was a festival of merely voluntary\ndevotion. It appears that even from the time of Saul they made, on this\nday, a sort of family entertainment, since David ought then to have been\nat the king\u2019s table; and Saul took his absence amiss, 1 Sam. xx, 5, 18.\nMoses insinuates that, beside the national sacrifices then regularly\noffered, every private person had his particular sacrifices of devotion,\nNum. x, 10. The beginning of the month was proclaimed by sound of\ntrumpet, at the offering of the solemn sacrifices. But the most\ncelebrated neomenia was that at the beginning of the civil year, or\nfirst day of the month Tizri, Lev. xxiii, 24. This was a sacred day, on\nwhich no servile labour was performed; on this they offered public or\nnational burnt-sacrifices, and sounded the trumpets in the temple. In\nthe kingdom of the ten tribes, the serious among the people used to\nassemble at the houses of the prophets, to hear their instructions. The\nShunamite, who entertained Elisha, proposing to visit that prophet, her\nhusband said to her, Why do you go to-day, since it is neither Sabbath\nnor new moon?\u201d 2 Kings iv, 23. Isaiah declares that the Lord abhors the\nnew moons, the Sabbaths, and other days of festival and assembly of\nthose Jews who in other things neglected his laws, Isaiah i, 13, 14.\nEzekiel says that the burnt-offerings offered on the day of the new moon\nwere provided at the king\u2019s expense, and that on this day was to be\nopened the eastern gate of the court of the priests, Ezek. xiv, 17;\nxlvi, 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxiii, 31; 2 Chron. viii, 13. Judith kept no fast\non festival days, or on the new moon, Judith viii, 6. The modern Jews\nkeep the neomenia only as a feast of devotion, to be observed or not at\npleasure. They think it rather belongs to the women than to the men. The\nwomen forbear work, and indulge a little more on this day than on\nothers. In the prayers of the synagogue, they read from Psalm cxiii, to\ncxviii. They bring forth the roll of the law, and read therein to four\npersons. They call to remembrance the sacrifice that on this day used to\nbe offered in the temple. On the evening of the Sabbath which follows\nthe new moon, or some other evening following, when the new moon first\nappears, they assemble and pray to God, as the Creator of the planets,\nand the restorer of the new moon; raising themselves toward heaven, they\nentreat of God to be preserved from misfortune; then, after mentioning\nDavid, they salute each other, and separate. See MOON.\n\nNEONOMIANISM, so called from the Greek \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, _new_, and \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _law_.\nThis is not the appellation of a separate sect, but of those both among\nArminians and Calvinists who regard Christianity as a _new law_,\nmitigated in its requisitions for the sake of Christ. This opinion has\nmany modifications, and has been held by persons very greatly differing\nfrom each other in the consequences to which they carry it, and in the\nprinciples from which they deduce it. One opinion is, that the new\ncovenant of grace which, through the medium of Christ\u2019s death, the\nFather made with men, consists, according to this system, not in our\nbeing justified by faith, as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ;\nbut in this, that God, abrogating the exaction of perfect legal\nobedience, reputes or accepts of faith itself, and the imperfect\nobedience of faith, instead of the perfect obedience of the law, and\ngraciously accounts them worthy of the reward of eternal life. Toward\nthe close of the seventeenth century, a controversy was agitated among\nthe English Dissenters, in which the one side, who were partial to the\nwritings of Dr. Crisp, were charged with antinomianism, and the other,\nwho favoured those of Mr. Baxter, were accused of neonomianism. Dr.\nDaniel Williams was a principal writer on what was called the neonomian\nside.\n\nThe following objection, among others, was made by several ministers in\n1692, against Dr. Williams\u2019s Gospel Truth Stated,\u201d &c: \u201cTo supply the\nroom of the moral law, vacated by him, he turns the Gospel into a new\nlaw, in keeping of which we shall be justified for the sake of Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness, making qualifications and acts of ours a disposing\nsubordinate righteousness, whereby we become capable of being justified\nby Christ\u2019s righteousness.\u201d To this, among other things, he answers:\n\u201cThe difference is not, 1. Whether the Gospel be a new law in the\nSocinian, popish, or Arminian sense. This I deny. Nor, 2. Is faith, or\nany other grace or acts of ours, any atonement for sin, satisfaction to\njustice, meriting qualification, or any part of that righteousness for\nwhich we are justified at God our Creator\u2019s bar. This I deny in places\ninnumerable. Nor, 3. Whether the Gospel be a law more new than is\nimplied in the first promise to fallen Adam, proposed to Cain, and\nobeyed by Abel, to the differencing him from his unbelieving brother.\nThis I deny. 4. Nor whether the Gospel be a law that allows sin, when it\naccepts such graces as true, though short of perfection, to be the\nconditions of our personal interest in the benefits purchased by Christ.\nThis I deny. 5. Nor whether the Gospel be a law, the promises whereof\nentitle the performers of its conditions to the benefits as of debt.\nThis I deny. The difference is, 1. Is the Gospel a law in this sense;\nnamely, God in Christ thereby commandeth sinners to repent of sin, and\nreceive Christ by a true operative faith, promising that thereupon they\nshall be united to him, justified by his righteousness, pardoned, and\nadopted; and that, persevering in faith and true holiness, they shall be\nfinally saved; also threatening that if any shall die impenitent,\nunbelieving, ungodly, rejecters of his grace, they shall perish without\nrelief, and endure sorer punishments than if these offers had not been\nmade to them? 2. Hath the Gospel a sanction, that is, doth Christ\ntherein enforce his commands of faith, repentance, and perseverance, by\nthe foresaid promises and threatenings, as motives to our obedience?\nBoth these I affirm, and they deny; saying, the Gospel in the largest\nsense is an absolute promise without precepts and conditions, and a\nGospel threat is a bull. 3. Do the Gospel promises of benefits to\ncertain graces, and its threats that those benefits shall be withheld,\nand the contrary evils inflicted for the neglect of such graces, render\nthese graces the condition of our personal title to those benefits? This\nthey deny, and I affirm,\u201d &c.\n\nIt does not appear to have been a question in this controversy, whether\nGod in his word commands sinners to repent, and believe in Christ, nor\nwhether he promises life to believers, and threatens death to\nunbelievers; but whether it be the Gospel under the form of a new law\nthat thus commands or threatens, or the moral law on its behalf, and\nwhether its promises to believing render such believing a condition of\nthe things promised. In another controversy, however, which arose about\nforty years afterward among the same people, it became a question\nwhether God did by his word, call it law or Gospel, command unregenerate\nsinners to repent and believe in Christ, or do any thing also, which is\nspiritually good. Of those who took the affirmative side of this\nquestion, one party maintained it on the ground of the Gospel being a\nnew law, consisting of commands, promises, and threatenings, the terms\nor conditions of which were repentance, faith, and sincere obedience.\nBut those who first engaged in the controversy, though they allowed the\nencouragement to repent and believe to arise merely from the grace of\nthe Gospel, yet considered the formal obligation to do so as arising\nmerely from the moral law, which, requiring supreme love to God,\nrequires acquiescence in any revelation which he shall at any time make\nknown.\n\nNERO. The Emperor Nero is not named in Scripture; but he is indicated by\nhis title of emperor, and by his surname C\u00e6sar. To him St. Paul appealed\nafter his imprisonment by Felix, and his examination by Festus, who was\nswayed by the Jews. St. Paul was therefore carried to Rome, where he\narrived A. D. 61. Here he continued two years, preaching the Gospel with\nfreedom, till he became famous even in the emperor\u2019s court, in which\nwere many Christians; for he salutes the Philippians in the name of the\nbrethren who were of the household of C\u00e6sar, that is, of Nero\u2019s court,\nPhil. i, 12, 13; iv, 22. We have no particular information how he\ncleared himself from the accusations of the Jews, whether by answering\nbefore Nero, or whether his enemies dropped their prosecutions, which\nseems probable, Acts xxviii, 21. However, it appears that he was\nliberated in the year 63. Nero is reckoned the first persecutor of the\nChristian church: his persecution was A. D. 64. Nero, the most cruel and\nsavage of all men, and also the most wicked and depraved, began his\npersecution against the Christian church, A. D. 64, on pretence of the\nburning of Rome, of which some have thought himself to be the author. He\nendeavoured to throw all the odium on the Christians: those were seized\nfirst that were known publicly as such, and by their means many others\nwere discovered. They were condemned to death, and were even insulted in\ntheir sufferings. Some were sewed up in skins of beasts, and then\nexposed to dogs to be torn in pieces; some were nailed to crosses;\nothers perished by fire. The latter were sewed up in pitched coverings,\nwhich, being set on fire, served as torches to the people, and were\nlighted up in the night. Nero gave leave to use his own gardens, as the\nscene of all these cruelties. From this time edicts were published\nagainst the Christians, and many martyrs suffered, especially in Italy.\nSt. Peter and St. Paul are thought to have suffered martyrdom,\nconsequent on this persecution, A. D. 65. The revolt of the Jews from\nthe Romans happened about A. D. 65 and 66, in the twelfth and thirteenth\nof Nero. The city of Jerusalem making an insurrection, A. D. 66, Florus\nthere slew three thousand six hundred persons, and thus began the war. A\nlittle while afterward, those of Jerusalem killed the Roman garrison.\nCestius on this came to Jerusalem to suppress the sedition; but he was\nforced to retire, after having besieged it about six weeks, and was\nrouted in his retreat, A. D. 66. About the end of the same year, Nero\ngave Vespasian the command of his troops against the Jews. This general\ncarried on the war in Galilee and Judea during A. D. 67 and 68, the\nthirteenth and fourteenth of Nero. But Nero killing himself in the\nfourteenth year of his reign, Jerusalem was not besieged till after his\ndeath, A. D. 70, the first and second of Vespasian.\n\nNESTORIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, from\nNestorius, bishop of Constantinople; a man of considerable learning and\neloquence, and of an independent spirit. The Catholic clergy were fond\nof calling the Virgin Mary Mother of God,\u201d to which Nestorius objected,\nas implying that she was mother of the divine nature, which he very\nproperly denied; and this raised against him, from Cyril and others, the\ncry of heresy, and perhaps led him into some improper forms of\nexpression and explication. It is generally agreed, however, by the\nmoderns, that Nestorius showed a much better spirit in controversy than\nhis antagonist, St. Cyril. As to the doctrine of the trinity, it does\nnot appear that Nestorius differed from his antagonists, admitting the\nco\u00ebquality of the divine Persons; but he was charged with maintaining\ntwo distinct persons, as well as natures, in the mysterious character of\nChrist. This, however, he solemnly and constantly denied; and from this,\nas a foul reproach, he has been cleared by the moderns, and particularly\nby Martin Luther, who lays the whole blame of this controversy on the\nturbulent and angry Cyril. (See HYPOSTATIC UNION.) The discordancy not\nonly between the Nestorians and other Christians, but also among\nthemselves, arose, no doubt, in a great measure, from the ambiguity of\nthe Greek terms _hypostasis_ and _prosopon_. The councils assembled at\nSeleucia on this occasion decreed that in Christ there were two\n_hypostases_. But this word, unhappily, was used both for person and\nsubsistence, or existence; hence the difficulty and ambiguity: and of\nthese _hypostases_ it is said the one was divine, and the other\nhuman;--the divine Word, and the man Jesus. Now of these two\n_hypostases_ it is added, they had only one _barsopa_, the original term\nused by Nestorius, and usually translated by the Greeks, person;\u201d but to\navoid the appearance of an express contradiction, Dr. Mosheim translates\nthis barbarous word aspect,\u201d as meaning a union of will and affection,\nrather than of nature or of person. And thus the Nestorians are charged\nwith rejecting the union of two natures in one person, from their\npeculiar manner of expressing themselves, though they absolutely denied\nthe charge.\n\nIn the earliest ages of Nestorianism, the various branches of that\nnumerous and powerful sect were under the spiritual jurisdiction of the\nCatholic patriarch of Babylon,--a vague appellation which has been\nsuccessively applied to the sees of Seleucia, Ctesiphon, and\nBagdad,--but who now resides at Mousul. In the sixteenth century the\nNestorians were divided into two sects; for in 1551 a warm dispute arose\namong them about the creation of a new patriarch, Simeon Barmamas, or\nBarmana, being proposed by one party, and Sulaka, otherwise named Siud,\nearnestly desired by the other; when the latter, to support his\npretensions the more effectually, repaired to Rome, and was consecrated\npatriarch in 1553, by Pope Julius III., whose jurisdiction he had\nacknowledged, and to whose commands he had promised unlimited submission\nand obedience. Upon this new Chaldean patriarch\u2019s return to his own\ncountry, Julius sent with him several persons skilled in the Syriac\nlanguage, to assist him in establishing and extending the papal empire\namong the Nestorians; and from that time, that unhappy people have been\ndivided into two factions, and have often been involved in the greatest\ndangers and difficulties, by the jarring sentiments and perpetual\nquarrels of their patriarchs. In 1555, Simeon Denha, archbishop of Gelu,\nadopted the party of the fugitive patriarch, who had embraced the\ncommunion of the Latin church; and, being afterward chosen patriarch\nhimself, he fixed his residence in the city of Van, or Ormia, in the\nmountainous parts of Persia, where his successors still continue, and\nare all distinguished by the name of Simeon; but they seem of late to\nhave withdrawn themselves from their communion with the church of Rome.\nThe great Nestorian pontiffs who form the opposite party, and who have,\nsince 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and\nreside constantly at Mousul, look with a hostile eye on this little\npatriarch; but since 1617 the bishops of Ormus have been in so low and\ndeclining a state, both in opulence and credit, that they are no longer\nin a condition to excite the envy of their brethren at Mousul, whose\nspiritual dominion is very extensive, taking in great part of Asia, and\ncomprehending within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, as also the\nChristians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar.\n\nNETHINIMS. The Nethinims were servants who had been given up to the\nservice of the tabernacle and temple, to perform the meanest and most\nlaborious services therein, in supplying wood and water. At first the\nGibeonites were appointed to this service, Joshua ix, 27. Afterward the\nCanaanites who surrendered themselves, and whose lives were spared, were\nconsigned to the performance of the same duties. We read, Ezra viii, 20,\nthat the Nethinims were slaves devoted by David and the other princes to\nthe ministry of the temple; and elsewhere, that they were slaves given\nby Solomon; the children of Solomon\u2019s servants, Ezra ii, 58; and we see,\nin 1 Kings ix, 20, 21, that this prince had subdued the remains of the\nCanaanites, and had constrained them to several servitudes; and, it is\nvery probable, he gave a good number of them to the priests and Levites\nfor the service of the temple. The Nethinims were carried into captivity\nwith the tribe of Judah, and there were great numbers of them near the\ncoast of the Caspian Sea, from whence Ezra brought some of them back,\nEzra viii, 17. After the return from the captivity, they dwelt in the\ncities appointed them, Ezra ii, 17. There were some of them also at\nJerusalem, who inhabited that part of the city called Ophel, Neh. iii,\n26. Those who returned with Ezra were to the number of two hundred and\ntwenty, Ezra viii, 20; and those who followed Zerubbabel made up three\nhundred and ninety-two, Ezra ii, 58. This number was but small in regard\nto the offices that were imposed on them; so that we find them afterward\ninstituting a solemnity called _Xylophoria_, in which the people carried\nwood to the temple with great ceremony, to keep up the fire on the altar\nof burnt sacrifices.\n\nNETTLES. We find this name given to two different words in the original.\nThe first is \u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05dc, Job xxx, 7; Proverbs xxiv, 31; Zeph. ii, 9. It is not\neasy to determine what species of plant is here meant. From the passage\nin Job, the nettle could not be intended; for a plant is referred to\nlarge enough for people to take shelter under. The following extract\nfrom Denon\u2019s Travels may help to illustrate the text, and show to what\nan uncomfortable retreat those vagabonds must have resorted. One of the\ninconveniences of the vegetable thickets of Egypt is, that it is\ndifficult to remain in them; as nine-tenths of the trees and the plants\nare armed with inexorable thorns, which suffer only an unquiet enjoyment\nof the shadow which is so constantly desirable, from the precaution\nnecessary to guard against them.\u201d The \u05e7\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05e9, Prov. xxiv, 31; Isaiah\nxxxiv, 13; Hosea ix, 6; is by the Vulgate rendered _urtica_,\u201d which is\nwell defended by Celsius, and very probably means the nettle.\u201d\n\nNICE or NICENE CREED is so denominated, because the greater part of it,\nnamely, as far as the words, Holy Ghost,\u201d was drawn up and agreed to at\nthe council of Nice, or Nic\u00e6a, in Bithynia, A. D. 325. This council was\nassembled against Arius, who, though he brought down the Son to the\ncondition of a creature, inferior, for that reason, in nature to the\nFather, yet acknowledged his personal subsistence before the world, and\nhis superiority in nature to all the things that were created by him. So\nthat there was need of some higher expression in this case than the\nother, to import his equal dignity of nature with the Father and Creator\nof all; and nothing was found to answer the purpose so well as the term\n\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The rest of this creed was added at the council of\nConstantinople, A. D. 581, except the words, and the Son,\u201d which follow\nthe words, who proceedeth from the Father,\u201d and they were inserted A. D.\n447. The addition made at Constantinople was caused by the denial of the\ndivinity of the Holy Ghost by Macedonius and his followers; and the\ncreed, thus enlarged, was immediately received by all orthodox\nChristians. The insertion of the words, and the Son,\u201d was made by the\nSpanish bishops; and they were soon after adopted by the Christians in\nFrance. The bishops of Rome for some time refused to admit these words\ninto the creed; but at last, A. D. 883, when Nicholas the First was\npope, they were allowed, and from that time they have stood in the\nNicene creed, in all the western churches; but the Greek church has\nnever received them. See ARIUS.\n\nNICODEMUS, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a Jew by nation, and a Pharisee,\nJohn iii, 1, &c. At the time when the priests and Pharisees had sent\nofficers to seize Jesus, Nicodemus declared himself openly in his\nfavour, John vii, 45, &c; and still more so when he went with Joseph of\nArimathea to pay the last duties to his body, which they took down from\nthe cross, embalmed, and laid in a sepulchre.\n\nNICOLAITANS. St. John says in his Revelation, to the angel of the church\nof Ephesus, But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the\nNicolaitans, which I also hate,\u201d Rev. ii, 6; and again, to the angel of\nthe church of Pergamos: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of\nthe Nicolaitans, which thing I hate,\u201d Rev. ii, 15. These are the only\ntwo places where the Nicolaitans are mentioned in the New Testament: and\nit might appear at first, that little could be inferred from these\nconcerning either their doctrine or their practice. It is asserted,\nhowever, by all the fathers, that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the\nGnostics: and the epistles, which were addressed by St. John to the\nseven Asiatic churches, may perhaps lead us to the same conclusion. Thus\nto the church at Ephesus he writes: Thou hast tried them which say they\nare Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars,\u201d Rev. ii, 2. This\nmay be understood of the Gnostic teachers, who falsely called themselves\nChristians, and who would be not unlikely to assume also the title of\nApostles. It appears from this and other passages, that they had\ndistinguished themselves at Ephesus; and it is when writing to that\nchurch, that St. John mentions the Nicolaitans. Again, when writing to\nthe church at Smyrna, he says: I know the blasphemy of them which say\nthey are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,\u201d Rev. ii, 9.\nThe Gnostics borrowed many doctrines from the Jews, and thought by this\nmeans to attract both the Jews and Christians. We might therefore infer,\neven without the testimony of the fathers, that the Gnostic doctrines\nwere prevalent in these churches, where St. John speaks of the\nNicolaitans: and if so, we have a still more specific indication of\ntheir doctrine and practice, when we find St. John saying to the church\nin Pergamos, I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there\nthem that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a\nstumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed\nunto idols, and to commit fornication,\u201d Rev. ii, 14. Then follow the\nwords already quoted, So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of\nthe Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.\u201d There seems here to be some\ncomparison between the doctrine of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans:\nand I would also point out, that to the church in Thyatira the Apostle\nwrites, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that\nwoman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to\nseduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed\nunto idols,\u201d Rev. ii, 20. The two passages are very similar, and may\nenable us to throw some light upon the history of the Nicolaitans.\nTertullian has preserved a tradition, that the person here spoken of as\nJezebel was a female heretic, who taught what she had learned from the\nNicolaitans: and whether the tradition be true or not, it seems certain,\nthat to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication, was\npart of the practice of the Nicolaitans.\n\nThese two sins are compared to the doctrine of Balaam: and though the\nBible tells us little of Balaam\u2019s history, beyond his prophecies and his\ndeath, yet we can collect enough to enable us to explain this allusion\nof St. John. We read, that when Israel abode in Shittim, the people\nbegan to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab: and they,\u201d that is,\nthe women, called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the\npeople did eat, and bowed down to their gods,\u201d Num. xxv, 1, 2. But we\nread farther, that when the Midianites were spoiled and Balaam slain,\nMoses said of the women who were taken, Behold, these caused the\nchildren of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass\nagainst the Lord in the matter of Peor,\u201d Num. xxxi, 16. This, then, was\nthe insidious policy and advice of Balaam. When he found that he was\nprohibited by God from cursing Israel, he advised Balak to seduce the\nIsraelites by the women of Moab, and thus to entice them to the\nsacrifices of their gods. This is what St. John calls the doctrine of\nBalaam,\u201d or the wicked artifice which he taught the king of Moab: and so\nhe says, that in the church of Pergamos there were some who held the\ndoctrine of the Nicolaitans. We have therefore the testimony of St.\nJohn, as well as of the fathers, that the lives of the Nicolaitans were\nprofligate and vicious; to which we may add, that they ate things\nsacrificed to idols. This is expressly said of Basilides and Valentinus,\ntwo celebrated leaders of Gnostic sects: and we perhaps are not going\ntoo far, if we infer from St. John, that the Nicolaitans were the first\nwho enticed the Christians to this impious practice, and obtained from\nthence the distinction of their peculiar celebrity. Their motive for\nsuch conduct is very evident. They wished to gain proselytes to their\ndoctrines; and they therefore taught that it was lawful to indulge the\npassions, and that there was no harm in partaking of an idol sacrifice.\nThis had now become the test to which Christians must submit, if they\nwished to escape persecution: and the Nicolaitans sought to gain\nconverts by telling them that they might still believe in Jesus though\nthey ate of things sacrificed unto idols.\u201d The fear of death would shake\nthe faith of some; others would be gained over by sensual arguments: and\nthus many unhappy Christians of the Asiatic churches were found by St.\nJohn in the ranks of the Nicolaitans.\n\nWe might wish perhaps to know at what time the sect of the Nicolaitans\nbegan; but we cannot define it accurately. If Iren\u00e6us is correct in\nsaying that it preceded by a considerable time the heresy of Cerinthus,\nand that the Cerinthian heresy was a principal cause of St. John writing\nhis Gospel, it follows, that the Nicolaitans were in existence at least\nsome years before the time of their being mentioned in the Revelation;\nand the persecution under Domitian, which was the cause of St. John\nbeing sent to Patmos, may have been the time which enabled the\nNicolaitans to exhibit their principles. Iren\u00e6us indeed adds, that St.\nJohn directed his Gospel against the Nicolaitans as well as against\nCerinthus: and the comparison which is made between their doctrine and\nthat of Balaam, may perhaps authorize us to refer to this sect what is\nsaid in the second Epistle of St. Peter. The whole passage contains\nmarked allusions to Gnostic teachers. There is another question\nconcerning the Nicolaitans, which has excited much discussion. It is a\nquestion entirely of evidence and detail; and the two points to be\nconsidered are, 1. Whether the Nicolaitans derived their name from\nNicolas of Antioch, who was one of the seven deacons: 2. Supposing this\nto be the fact, whether Nicolas had disgraced himself by sensual\nindulgence. Those writers who have endeavoured to clear the character of\nNicolas have generally tried also to prove that he was not the man whom\nthe Nicolaitans claimed as their head. But the one point may be true\nwithout the other: and the evidence is so overwhelming, which states\nthat Nicolas the deacon was at least the person intended by the\nNicolaitans, that it is difficult to come to any other conclusion upon\nthe subject. We must not deny that some of the fathers have also charged\nhim with falling into vicious habits, and thus affording too true a\nsupport to the heretics who claimed him as their leader. These writers,\nhowever, are of a late date; and some, who are much more ancient, have\nentirely acquitted him, and furnished an explanation of the calumnies\nwhich attach to his name. We know that the Gnostics were not ashamed to\nclaim as their founders the Apostles, or friends of the Apostles. The\nsame may have been the case with Nicolas the deacon; and though we\nallow, that if the Nicolaitans were distinguished as a sect some time\nbefore the end of the century, the probability is lessened that his name\nwas thus abused; yet if his career was a short one, his history, like\nthat of the other deacons, would soon be forgotten: and the same fertile\ninvention, which gave rise in the two first centuries to so many\napocryphal Gospels, may also have led the Nicolaitans to give a false\ncharacter to him whose name they had assumed.\n\nNICOPOLIS, a city of Epirus, on the gulf of Ambracia, whither, as some\nthink, St. Paul wrote to Titus, then in Crete, to come to him, Titus\niii, 12; but others, with greater probability, are of opinion, that the\ncity of Nicopolis, where St. Paul was, was not that of Epirus, but that\nof Thrace, on the borders of Macedonia, near the river Nessus. Emmaus in\nPalestine was also called Nicopolis by the Romans.\n\nNIGHT. The ancient Hebrews began their artificial day in the evening,\nand ended it the next evening; so that the night preceded the day,\nwhence it is said, evening and morning one day,\u201d Gen. i, 5. They allowed\ntwelve hours to the night, and twelve to the day. Night is put for a\ntime of affliction and adversity: Thou hast proved mine heart, thou hast\nvisited me in the night, thou hast tried me,\u201d Psalm xvii, 3; that is, by\nadversity and tribulation. And the morning cometh, and also the night,\u201d\nIsaiah xxi, 12. Night is also put for the time of death: The night\ncometh, wherein no man can work,\u201d John ix, 4. Children of the day, and\nchildren of the night, in a moral and figurative sense, denote good men\nand wicked men, Christians and Gentiles. The disciples of the Son of God\nare children of light: they belong to the light, they walk in the light\nof truth; while the children of the night walk in the darkness of\nignorance and infidelity, and perform only works of darkness. Ye are all\nthe children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of\nthe night, nor of darkness,\u201d 1 Thess. v, 5.\n\nNIGHT-HAWK, \u05ea\u05d7\u05de\u05e1, Lev. xi, 16; Deut. xiv, 15. That this is a voracious\nbird seems clear from the import of its name; and interpreters are\ngenerally agreed to describe it as flying by night. On the whole, it\nshould seem to be the _strix orientalis_, which Hasselquist thus\ndescribes: It is of the size of the common owl, and lodges in the large\nbuildings or ruins of Egypt and Syria, and sometimes even in the\ndwelling houses. The Arabs settled in Egypt call it massasa,\u201d and the\nSyrians banu.\u201d It is extremely voracious in Syria; to such a degree,\nthat if care is not taken to shut the windows at the coming on of night,\nhe enters the houses and kills the children: the women, therefore, are\nvery much afraid of him.\n\nNILE, the river of Egypt, whose fountain is in the Upper Ethiopia. After\nhaving watered several kingdoms, the Nile continues its course far into\nthe kingdom of Goiam. Then it winds about again, from the east to the\nnorth. Having crossed several kingdoms and provinces, it falls into\nEgypt at the cataracts, which are waterfalls over steep rocks of the\nlength of two hundred feet. At the bottom of these rocks the Nile\nreturns to its usual pace, and thus flows through the valley of Egypt.\nIts channel, according to Villamont, is about a league broad. At eight\nmiles below Grand Cairo, it is divided into two arms, which make a\ntriangle, whose base is at the Mediterranean Sea, and which the Greeks\ncall the Delta, because of its figure \u0394. These two arms are divided into\nothers, which discharge themselves into the Mediterranean, the distance\nof which from the top of the Delta is about twenty leagues. These\nbranches of the Nile the ancients commonly reckoned to be seven. Ptolemy\nmakes them nine, some only four, some eleven, some fourteen. Homer,\nXenophon, and Diodorus Siculus testify, that the ancient name of this\nriver was Egyptus; and the latter of these writers says, that it took\nthe name Nilus only since the time of a king of Egypt called by that\nname. The Greeks gave it the name of Melas; and Diodorus Siculus\nobserves, that the most ancient name by which the Grecians have known\nthe Nile was Oceanus. The Egyptians paid divine honours to this river,\nand called it Jupiter Nilus.\n\nVery little rain ever falls in Egypt, never sufficient to fertilize the\nland; and but for the provision of this bountiful river, the country\nwould be condemned to perpetual sterility. As it is, from the joint\noperation of the regularity of the flood, the deposit of mud from the\nwater of the river and the warmth of the climate, it is the most fertile\ncountry in the world; the produce exceeding all calculation. It has in\nconsequence been, in all ages, the granary of the east; and has on more\nthan one occasion, an instance of which is recorded in the history of\nJoseph, saved the neighbouring countries from starvation. It is\nprobable, that, while in these countries, on the occasion referred to,\nthe seven years\u2019 famine was the result of the absence of rain, in Egypt\nit was brought about by the inundation being withheld: and the\nconsternation of the Egyptians, at witnessing this phenomenon for seven\nsuccessive years, may easily be conceived. The origin and course of the\nNile being unknown to the ancients, its stream was held, and is still\nheld by the natives, in the greatest veneration; and its periodical\noverflow was viewed with mysterious wonder. But both of these are now,\nfrom the discoveries of the moderns, better understood. It is now known,\nthat the sources, or permanent springs, of the Nile are situated in the\nmountains of Abyssinia, and the unexplored regions to the west and\nsouth-west of that country; and that the occasional supplies, or causes\nof the inundation, are the periodical rains which fall in those\ndistricts. For a correct knowledge of these facts, and of the true\nposition of the source of that branch of the river, which has generally\nbeen considered to be the continuation of the true Nile, we are indebted\nto our countryman, the intrepid and indefatigable Bruce. Although the\nNile, by way of eminence, has been called the river of Egypt,\u201d it must\nnot be confounded with another stream so denominated in Scripture, an\ninsignificant rivulet in comparison, which falls into the Mediterranean\nbelow Gaza.\n\nNIMROD. He is generally supposed to have been the immediate son of Cush,\nand the youngest, or sixth, from the Scriptural phrase, Cush begat\nNimrod,\u201d after the mention of his five sons, Gen. x, 8. But the phrase\nis used with considerable latitude, like father\u201d and son,\u201d in Scripture.\nAnd the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and\nCalneh, in the land of Shinar: out of that land he went forth to invade\nAssyria; and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resin,\nbetween Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city,\u201d Gen. x, 8\u201312.\nThough the main body of the Cushites was miraculously dispersed, and\nsent by Providence to their destinations along the sea coasts of Asia\nand Africa, yet Nimrod remained behind, and founded an empire in\nBabylonia, according to Berosus, by usurping the property of the\nArphaxadites in the land of Shinar; where the beginning of his kingdom\nwas Babel,\u201d or Babylon, and other towns: and, not satisfied with this,\nhe next invaded Assur, or Assyria, east of the Tigris, where he built\nNineveh, and several other towns. The marginal reading of our English\nBible, He went out into Assyria,\u201d or to invade Assyria, is here adopted\nin preference to that in the text: And out of that land went forth\nAshur, and builded Nineveh,\u201d &c. The meaning of the word Nineveh may\nlead us to his original name, Nin, signifying a son,\u201d the most\ncelebrated of the sons of Cush. That of Nimrod, or Rebel,\u201d was probably\na parody, or nickname, given him by the oppressed Shemites, of which we\nhave several instances in Scripture. Thus _nahash_, the brazen serpent\u201d\nin the wilderness, was called by Hezekiah, in contempt, _nehushtan_, a\npiece of brass,\u201d when he broke it in pieces, because it was perverted\ninto an object of idolatrous worship by the Jews, 2 Kings xviii, 4.\nNimrod, that arch rebel, who first subverted the patriarchal government,\nintroduced also the Zabian idolatry, or worship of the heavenly host;\nand, after his death, was deified by his subjects, and supposed to be\ntranslated into the constellations of Orion, attended by his hounds,\nSirius and Canicula, and still pursuing his favourite game, the great\nbear; supposed also to be translated into _ursa major_, near the north\npole; as admirably described by Homer,--\n\n           \u1f0c\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u2019, \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n           \u1f2c \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03db\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f68\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9.\n                                         _Iliad_ xviii, 485.\n\nAnd the bear, surnamed also the wain, by the Egyptians, who is turning\nherself about there, and watching Orion.\u201d Homer also introduces the\nshade of Orion, as hunting in the Elysian fields,--\n\n            \u03a4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u2019, \u1f68\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\n            \u0398\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u00b7\n            \u03a4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\n            \u03a7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c1\u1f45\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c2.\n                                              _Odyss._ xi, 571.\n\n       Next, I observed the mighty Orion\n       Chasing wild beasts through an asphodel mead,\n       Which himself had slain on the solitary mountains:\n       Holding in his hands a solid brazen mace, ever unbroken.\u201d\n\nThe Grecian name of this mighty hunter\u201d may furnish a satisfactory clue\nto the name given him by the impious adulation of the Babylonians and\nAssyrians. \u1f68\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd nearly resembles, \u1f48\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, the oblique case of \u1f48\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\nwhich is the Septuagint rendering of Uriah, a proper name in Scripture,\n2 Sam. xi, 6\u201321. But Uriah, signifying the light of the Lord,\u201d was an\nappropriate appellation of that most brilliant constellation. He was\nalso called Baal, Beel, Bel, or Belus, signifying lord,\u201d or master,\u201d by\nthe Phenicians, Assyrians, and Greeks; and Bala Rama, by the Hindus. At\na village called Bala-deva, or Baldeo in the vulgar dialect, thirteen\nmiles east by south from Muttra, in Hindustan, there is a very ancient\nstatue of Bala Rama, in which he is represented with a ploughshare in\nhis left hand, and a thick cudgel in his right, and his shoulders\ncovered with the skin of a tiger. Captain Wilford supposes that the\nploughshare was designed to hook his enemies; but may it not more\nnaturally denote the constellation of the great bear, which strikingly\nrepresents the figure of a plough in its seven bright stars; and was\nprobably so denominated by the earliest astronomers, before the\nintroduction of the Zabian idolatry, as a celestial symbol of\nagriculture? The thick cudgel corresponds to the brazen mace of Homer.\nAnd it is highly probable that the Assyrian Nimrod, or Hindu Bala, was\nalso the prototype of the Grecian Hercules, with his club and lion\u2019s\nskin.\n\nNimrod is said to have been a mighty hunter before the Lord;\u201d which the\nJerusalem paraphrast interprets of a sinful hunting after the sons of\nmen to turn them off from the true religion. But it may as well be taken\nin a more literal sense, for hunting of wild beasts; inasmuch as the\ncircumstance of his being a mighty hunter is mentioned with great\npropriety to introduce the account of his setting up his kingdom; the\nexercise of hunting being looked upon in ancient times as a means of\nacquiring the rudiments of war; for which reason, the principal heroes\nof Heathen antiquity, as Theseus, Nestor, &c, were, as Xenophon tells\nus, bred up to hunting. Beside, it may be supposed, that by this\npractice Nimrod drew together a great company of robust young men to\nattend him in his sport, and by that means increased his power. And by\ndestroying the wild beasts, which, in the comparatively defenceless\nstate of society in those early ages, were no doubt very dangerous\nenemies, he might, perhaps, render himself farther popular; thereby\nengaging numbers to join with him, and to promote his chief design of\nsubduing men, and making himself master of many nations.\n\nNINEVEH. This capital of the Assyrian empire could boast of the remotest\nantiquity. Tacitus styles it, _Vetustissima sedes Assyri\u00e6_;\u201d [the most\nancient seat of Assyria;] and Scripture informs us that Nimrod, after he\nhad built Babel, in the land of Shinar, invaded Assyria, where he built\nNineveh, and several other cities, Genesis x, 11. Its name denotes the\nhabitation of Nin,\u201d which seems to have been the proper name of that\nrebel,\u201d as Nimrod signifies. And it is uniformly styled by Herodotus,\nXenophon, Diodorus, Lucian, &c, \u1f29 \u039d\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the city of Ninus.\u201d And the\nvillage of Nunia, opposite Mosul, in its name, and the tradition of the\nnatives, ascertains the site of the ancient city, which was near the\ncastle of Arbela, according to Tacitus, so celebrated for the decisive\nvictory of Alexander the Great over the Persians there; the site of\nwhich is ascertained by the village of Arbil, about ten German miles to\nthe east of Nunia, according to Niebuhr\u2019s map. Nineveh at first seems\nonly to have been a small city, and less than Resen, in its\nneighbourhood; which is conjectured by Bochart, and not without reason,\nto have been the same as Larissa, which Xenophon describes as the ruins\nof a great city, formerly inhabited by the Medes,\u201d and which the natives\nmight have described as belonging _la Resen_, to Resen.\u201d Nineveh did not\nrise to greatness for many ages after, until its second founder, Ninus\nII., about B. C. 1230, enlarged and made it the greatest city in the\nworld. According to Diodorus, it was of an oblong form, a hundred and\nfifty stadia long, and ninety broad, and, consequently, four hundred and\neighty in circuit, or forty-eight miles, reckoning ten stadia to an\nEnglish mile, with Major Rennel. And its walls were a hundred feet high,\nand so broad that three chariots could drive on them abreast; and on the\nwalls were fifteen hundred towers, each two hundred feet high. We are\nnot, however, to imagine that all this vast enclosure was built upon: it\ncontained great parks and extensive fields, and detached houses and\nbuildings, like Babylon, and other great cities of the east even at the\npresent day, as Bussorah, &c. And this entirely corresponds with the\nrepresentations of Scripture. In the days of the Prophet Jonah, about B.\nC. 800, it seems to have been a \u201cgreat city, an exceeding great city, of\nthree days\u2019 journey,\u201d Jonah i, 2; iii, 3; perhaps in circuit. The\npopulation of Nineveh, also, at that time was very great. It contained\nmore than sixscore thousand persons that could not discern between their\nright hand and their left, beside much cattle,\u201d Jonah iv, 11. Reckoning\nthe persons to have been infants of two years old and under, and that\nthese were a fifth part of the whole, according to Bochart, the whole\npopulation would amount to six hundred thousand souls. The same number\nPliny assigns for the population of Seleucia, on the decline of Babylon.\nThis population shows that a great part of the city must have been left\nopen and unbuilt.\n\nThe threatened overthrow of Nineveh within three days, was, by the\ngeneral repentance and humiliation of the inhabitants, from the highest\nto the lowest, suspended for near two hundred years, until their\niniquity came to the full;\u201d and then the prophecy was literally\naccomplished, in the third year of the siege of the city, by the\ncombined Medes and Babylonians; the king, Sardanapalus, being encouraged\nto hold out in consequence of an ancient prophecy, that Nineveh should\nnever be taken by assault, till the river became its enemy; when a\nmighty inundation of the river, swollen by continual rains, came up\nagainst a part of the city, and threw down twenty stadia of the wall in\nlength; upon which, the king, conceiving that the oracle was\naccomplished, burned himself, his concubines, eunuchs, and treasures;\nand the enemy, entering by the breach, sacked and rased the city, about\nB. C. 606. Diodorus, also, relates that Belesis, the governor of\nBabylon, obtained from Arbaces, the king of Media, the ashes of the\npalace, to erect a mount with them near the temple of Belus at Babylon;\nand that he forthwith prepared shipping, and, together with the ashes,\ncarried away most of the gold and silver, of which he had private\ninformation given him by one of the eunuchs who escaped the fire. Dr.\nGillies thinks it incredible that these could be transported from\nNineveh to Babylon, three hundred miles distant; but likely enough, if\nNineveh was only fifty miles from Babylon, with a large canal of\ncommunication between them, the Nahar Malka, or Royal River. But we\nlearn from Niebuhr, that the conveyance of goods from Nosul to Bagdat by\nthe Tigris is very commodious, in the very large boats called _helleks_;\nin which, in spring, when the river is rapid, the voyage may be made in\nthree or four days, which would take fifteen by land. The complete\ndemolition of such immense piles as the walls and towers of Nineveh may\nseem matter of surprise to those who do not consider the nature of the\nmaterials of which they were constructed, that is, of bricks, dried or\nbaked in the sun, and cemented with bitumen, which were apt to be\ndissolved\u201d by water, or to moulder away by the injuries of the weather.\nBeside, in the east, the materials of ancient cities have been often\nemployed in the building of new ones in the neighbourhood. Thus Mosul\nwas built with the spoils of Nineveh. Tauk Kesra, or the Palace of\nChosroes, appears to have been built of bricks brought from the ruins of\nBabylon; and so was Hellah, as the dimensions are nearly the same, and\nthe proportions so singular. And when such materials could conveniently\nbe transported by inland navigations, they are to be found at very great\ndistances from their ancient place, much farther, indeed, than are\nBagdat and Seleucia, or Ctesiphon, from Babylon.\n\nThe book of Nahum was avowedly prophetic of the destruction of Nineveh;\nand it is there foretold that the gates of the river shall be opened,\nand the palace shall be dissolved. Nineveh of old, like a pool of water,\nwith an overflowing flood he will make an utter end of the place\nthereof,\u201d Nahum ii, 6; i, 8, 9. The historian describes the facts by\nwhich the other predictions of the prophet were as literally fulfilled.\nHe relates that the king of Assyria, elated with his former victories,\nand ignorant of the revolt of the Bactrians, had abandoned himself to\nscandalous inaction; had appointed a time of festivity, and supplied his\nsoldiers with abundance of wine; and that the general of the enemy,\napprised by deserters, of their negligence and drunkenness, attacked the\nAssyrian army while the whole of them were fearlessly giving way to\nindulgence, destroyed great part of them, and drove the rest into the\ncity. The words of the prophet were hereby verified: While they be\nfolden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they\nshall be devoured as stubble fully dry,\u201d Nahum i, 10. The prophet\npromised much spoil to the enemy: Take the spoil of silver, take the\nspoil of gold; for there is no end of the store and glory out of all the\npleasant furniture,\u201d Nahum ii, 9. And the historian affirms that many\ntalents of gold and silver, preserved from the fire, were carried to\nEcbatana. According to Nahum, iii, 15, the city was not only to be\ndestroyed by an overflowing flood, but the fire, also, was to devour it;\nand, as Diodorus relates, partly by water, partly by fire, it was\ndestroyed.\n\nThe utter and perpetual destruction and desolation of Nineveh were\nforetold: The Lord will make an utter end of the place thereof.\nAffliction shall not rise up the second time. She is empty, void, and\nwaste,\u201d Nahum i, 8, 9; ii, 10; iii, 17\u201319. The Lord will stretch out his\nhand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a\ndesolation, and dry like a wilderness. How is she become a desolation, a\nplace for beasts to lie down in,\u201d Zeph. ii, 13\u201315. In the second\ncentury, Lucian, a native of a city on the banks of the Euphrates,\ntestified that Nineveh was utterly perished, that there was no vestige\nof it remaining, and that none could tell where once it was situated.\nThis testimony of Lucian, and the lapse of many ages during which the\nplace was not known where it stood, render it at least somewhat doubtful\nwhether the remains of an ancient city, opposite to Mosul, which have\nbeen described as such by travellers, be indeed those of ancient\nNineveh. It is, perhaps, probable that they are the remains of the city\nwhich succeeded Nineveh, or of a Persian city of the same name, which\nwas built on the banks of the Tigris by the Persians subsequently to A.\nD. 230, and demolished by the Saracens, A. D. 632. In contrasting the\nthen existing great and increasing population, and the accumulating\nwealth of the proud inhabitants of the mighty Nineveh, with the utter\nruin that awaited it, the word of God by the Prophet Nahum, was, Make\nthyself many as the canker worm, make thyself many as the locusts. Thou\nhast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the canker worm\nspoileth and flieth away. Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy\ncaptains as the great grasshoppers which camp in the hedges in the cold\nday: but when the sun riseth, they flee away; and their place is not\nknown where they are,\u201d or were. Whether these words imply that even the\nsite of Nineveh would in future ages be uncertain or unknown; or, as\nthey rather seem to intimate, that every vestige of the palaces of its\nmonarchs, of the greatness of its nobles, and of the wealth of its\nnumerous merchants, would wholly disappear; the truth of the prediction\ncannot be invalidated under either interpretation. The avowed ignorance\nrespecting Nineveh, and the oblivion which passed over it, for many an\nage, conjoined with the meagreness of evidence to identify it, still\nprove that the place where it stood was long unknown, and that, even\nnow, it can scarcely with certainty be determined. And if the only spot\nthat bears its name, or that can be said to be the place where it was,\nbe indeed the site of one of the most extensive of cities on which the\nsun ever shone, and which continued for many centuries to be the capital\nof Assyria,--the principal mounds, few in number, which show neither\nbricks, stones, nor other materials of building,--but are in many places\novergrown with grass, and resemble the mounds left by intrenchments and\nfortifications of ancient Roman camps, and the appearances of other\nmounds and ruins less marked than even these, extending for ten miles,\nand widely spread, and seeming to be the wreck of former\nbuildings,--show that Nineveh is left without one monument of royalty,\nwithout any token whatever of its splendour or wealth; that their place\nis not known where they were; and that it is indeed a desolation, empty,\nvoid, and waste,\u201d its very ruins perished, and less than the wreck of\nwhat it was. Such an utter ruin, in every view, has been made of it; and\nsuch is the truth of the divine predictions!\n\nNISAN, a month of the Hebrews, answering to our March, and which\nsometimes takes from February or April, according to the course of the\nmoon. It was made the first month of the sacred year, at the coming out\nof Egypt, Exod. xii, 2; and it was the seventh month of the civil year.\nBy Moses it is called Abib. The name Nisan was introduced only since the\ntime of Ezra, and the return from the captivity of Babylon.\n\nNISROCH, a god of the Assyrians. Sennacherib was killed by two of his\nsons, while he was paying his adorations in the temple of this deity, 2\nKings xix, 37; Isaiah xxxvii, 38. It is uncertain who this god was.\n\nNITRE, \u05e0\u05ea\u05e8, Prov. xxv, 20; Jer. ii, 22. This is not the same that we\ncall nitre, or saltpetre, but a native salt of a different kind,\ndistinguished among naturalists by the name of natrum. The natrum of the\nancients was an earthy alkaline salt. It was found in abundance\nseparated from the water of the lake Natron in Egypt. It rises from the\nbottom of the lake to the top of the water, and is there condensed by\nthe heat of the sun into the hard and dry form in which it is sold. This\nsalt thus scummed off is the same in all respects with the Smyrna soap\nearth. Pliny, Matthiolus, and Agricola, have described it to us:\nHippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, and others, mention its uses. It is\nalso found in great plenty in Sindy, a province in the inner part of\nAsia, and in many other parts of the east; and might be had in any\nquantities. The learned Micha\u00eblis plainly demonstrates, from the nature\nof the thing and the context, that this fossil and natural alkali must\nbe that which the Hebrews called _nether_. Solomon must mean the same\nwhen he compares the effect which unseasonable mirth has upon a man in\naffliction to the action of vinegar upon nitre, Prov. xxv, 20; for\nvinegar has no effect upon what we call nitre, but upon the alkali in\nquestion has a great effect, making it rise up in bubbles with much\neffervescence. It is of a soapy nature, and was used to take spots from\nclothes, and even from the face. Jeremiah alludes to this use of it, ii,\n22.\n\nNO, or NO-AMMON, a city of Egypt, supposed to be Thebes.\n\nNOAH, the son of Lamech. Amidst the general corruption of the human\nrace, Noah only was found righteous, Gen. vi, 9. He therefore found\ngrace in the sight of the Lord,\u201d and was directed for his preservation\nto make an ark, the shape and dimensions of which were prescribed by the\nLord. In A. M. 1656, and in the six hundredth year of his age, Noah, by\ndivine appointment, entered the ark with his family, and all the animals\ncollected for the renewal of the world. (See _Deluge_.) After the ark\nhad stranded, and the earth was in a measure dried, Noah offered a\nburnt-sacrifice to the Lord, of the pure animals that were in the ark;\nand the Lord was pleased to accept of his offering, and to give him\nassurance that he would no more destroy the world by water, Genesis ix.\nHe gave Noah power over all the brute creation, and permitted him to\nkill and eat of them, as of the herbs and fruits of the earth, except\nthe blood, the use of which was prohibited. After the deluge Noah lived\nthree hundred and fifty years; and the whole time of his life having\nbeen nine hundred and fifty years, he died, A. M. 2006. According to\ncommon opinion, he divided the earth among his three sons, Shem, Ham,\nand Japheth. To Shem he gave Asia, to Ham Africa, and to Japheth Europe.\nSome will have it, that beside these three sons he had several others.\nSt. Peter calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, because before the\ndeluge he was incessantly preaching and declaring to men, not only by\nhis discourses, but by the building of the ark, in which he was employed\na hundred and twenty years, that the cloud of divine vengeance was about\nto burst upon them. But his faithful ministry produced no effect, since,\nwhen the deluge came, it found mankind practising their usual\nenormities, Matt. xxiv, 37. Several learned men have observed that the\nHeathens confounded Saturn, Deucalion, Ogyges, the god C\u0153lus or\nOuranus, Janus, Protheus, Prometheus, &c, with Noah. The fable of\nDeucalion and his wife Pyrrha is manifestly drawn from the history of\nNoah. The rabbins pretend that God gave Noah and his sons certain\ngeneral precepts, which contain, according to them, the natural duties\nwhich are common to all men indifferently, and the observation of which\nalone will be sufficient to save them. After the law of Moses was given,\nthe Hebrews would not suffer any stranger to dwell in their country,\nunless he would conform to the precepts of Noah. In war, they put to\ndeath without quarter all who were ignorant of them. These precepts are\nseven in number: the first was against the worship of idols; the second,\nagainst blasphemy, and required to bless the name of God; the third,\nagainst murder; the fourth, against incest and all uncleanness; the\nfifth, against theft and rapine; the sixth required the administration\nof justice; the seventh was against eating flesh with life. But the\nantiquity of these precepts is doubted, since no mention of them is made\nin the Scripture, or in the writings of Josephus, or in Philo; and none\nof the ancient fathers knew any thing of them.\n\nNOD, LAND OF, the country to which Cain withdrew after the murder of\nAbel. As the precise situation of this country cannot possibly be known,\nso it has given rise to much ingenious speculation. All that we are told\nof it is, that it was on the east of Eden,\u201d or, as it may be rendered,\nbefore Eden;\u201d which very country of Eden is no sure guide for us, as the\nsituation of that also is disputed. But, be it on the higher or lower\nEuphrates, (see _Eden_,) the land of Nod which stood before it with\nrespect to the place where Moses wrote, may still preserve the curse of\nbarrenness passed on it for Cain\u2019s sake, namely, in the deserts of Syria\nor Arabia. The Chaldee interpreters render the word Nod, not as the\nproper name of a country, but as an appellative applied to Cain himself,\nsignifying a vagabond or fugitive, and read, He dwelt a fugitive in the\nland.\u201d But the Hebrew reads expressly, He dwelt in the land of Nod.\u201d\n\nNONCONFORMISTS, dissenters from the church of England; but the term\napplies more particularly to those ministers who were ejected from their\nlivings by the Act of Uniformity in 1662; the number of whom, according\nto Dr. Calamy, was nearly two thousand; and to the laity who adhered to\nthem. The celebrated Mr. Locke says, Bartholomew-day (the day fixed by\nthe Act of Uniformity) was fatal to our church and religion, by throwing\nout a very great number of worthy, learned, pious, and orthodox divines,\nwho could not come up to this and other things in that act. And it is\nworth your knowledge, that so great was the zeal in carrying on this\nchurch affair, and so blind was the obedience required, that if you\ncompare the time of passing the act with the time allowed for the clergy\nto subscribe the book of Common Prayer thereby established, you shall\nplainly find, it could not be printed and distributed, so as one man in\nforty could have seen and read the book before they did so perfectly\nassent and consent thereto.\u201d\n\nBy this act, the clergy were required to subscribe, _ex animo_,\n[sincerely,] their assent and consent to all and every thing contained\nin the book of Common Prayer,\u201d which had never before been insisted on,\nso rigidly as to deprive them of their livings and livelihood. Several\nother acts were passed about this time, very oppressive both to the\nclergy and laity. In the preceding year 1661, the Corporation Act\nincapacitated all persons from offices of trust and honour in a\ncorporation, who did not receive the sacrament in the established\nchurch. The Conventicle Act, in 1663 and 1670, forbade the attendance at\nconventicles; that is, at places of worship other than the\nestablishment, where more than five adults were present beside the\nresident family; and that under penalties of fine and imprisonment by\nthe sentence of magistrates without a jury. The Oxford Act of 1665\nbanished nonconforming ministers five miles from any corporate town\nsending members to parliament, and prohibited them from keeping or\nteaching schools. The Test Act of the same year required all persons,\naccepting any office under government, to receive the sacrament in the\nestablished church.\n\nSuch were the dreadful consequences of this intolerant spirit, that it\nis supposed that near eight thousand died in prison in the reign of\nCharles II. It is said that Mr. Jeremiah White had carefully collected a\nlist of those who had suffered between Charles II. and the revolution,\nwhich amounted to sixty thousand. The same persecutions were carried on\nin Scotland; and there, as well as in England, numbers, to avoid the\npersecution, left their country. But, notwithstanding all these dreadful\nand furious attacks upon the dissenters, they were not extirpated. Their\nvery persecution was in their favour. The infamous character of their\ninformers and persecutors; their piety, zeal, and fortitude, no doubt,\nhad influence on considerate minds; and, indeed, they had additions from\nthe established church, which several clergymen in this reign deserted\nas a persecuting church, and took their lot among them. King William\ncoming to the throne, the famous Toleration Act passed, by which they\nwere exempted from suffering the penalties above mentioned, and\npermission was given them to worship God according to the dictates of\ntheir own consciences. In the reign of George III., the Act for the\nProtection of Religious Worship superseded the Act of Toleration, by\nstill more liberal provisions in favour of religious liberty; and in the\nlast reign the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed.\n\nNOPH, Memphis, a celebrated city of Egypt, and, till the time of the\nPtolemies, who removed to Alexandria, the residence of the ancient kings\nof Egypt. It stood above the dividing of the river Nile, where the Delta\nbegins. Toward the south of this city stood the famous pyramids, two of\nwhich were esteemed the wonders of the world; and in this city was fed\nthe ox Apis, which Cambyses slew, in contempt of the Egyptians who\nworshipped it as a deity. The kings of Egypt took much pleasure in\nadorning this city; and it continued in all its beauty till the Arabians\nmade a conquest of Egypt under the Caliph Omar. The general who took it\nbuilt another city near it, named Fustal, merely because his tent had\nbeen a long time set up in that place; and the Fatimite caliphs, when\nthey became masters of Egypt, added another to it, which is known to us\nat this day by the name of Grand Cairo. This occasioned the utter decay\nof Memphis, and led to the fulfilment of the prophecy, that it should be\nwaste and without inhabitant.\u201d The prophets often speak of this city,\nand foretel the miseries it was to suffer from the kings of Chaldea and\nPersia, Isaiah xix, 13; Jer. xliv, 1; xlvi, 14, 19; Hosea ix, 6; Ezek.\nxxx, 13, 16.\n\nNOVATIANS, the followers of Novatian, a priest of Rome, and of Novatus,\na priest of Carthage, in the third century. They were distinguished\nmerely by their discipline; for their religious and doctrinal tenets do\nnot appear to be at all different from those of the church. They\ncondemned second marriages, and for ever excluded from their communion\nall those who after baptism had fallen into sin. They affected very\nsuperior purity; and, though they conceived that the worst might\npossibly hope for eternal life, they absolutely refused to re\u00e4dmit into\ntheir communion any who had lapsed into sin. They separated from the\nchurch of Rome, because the members of it admitted into their communion\nmany who had, during a season of persecution, rejected the Christian\nfaith.\n\nNUMBERS, a canonical book of the Old Testament, being the fourth of the\nPentateuch, or five books of Moses; and receives its denomination from\nthe numbering of the families of Israel by Moses and Aaron, who mustered\nthe tribes, and marshalled the army, of the Hebrews in their passage\nthrough the wilderness. A great part of this book is historical,\nrelating several remarkable events which happened in that journey, and\nalso mentioning various of their journeyings in the wilderness. This\nbook comprehends the history of about thirty-eight years, though the\ngreater part of the things recorded fell out in the first and last of\nthose years; and it does not appear when those things were done which\nare recorded in the middle of the book. See PENTATEUCH.\n\nNURSE. The nurse in an eastern family is always an important personage.\nModern travellers inform us, that in Syria she is considered as a sort\nof second parent, whether she has been foster-mother or otherwise. She\nalways accompanies the bride to her husband\u2019s house, and ever remains\nthere an honoured character. Thus it was in ancient Greece. This will\nserve to explain Genesis xxiv, 59: And they sent away Rebekah their\nsister, and her nurse.\u201d In Hindostan the nurse is not looked upon as a\nstranger, but becomes one of the family, and passes the remainder of her\nlife in the midst of the children she has suckled, by whom she is\nhonoured and cherished as a second mother. In many parts of Hindostan\nare mosques and mausoleums, built by the Mohammedan princes, near the\nsepulchres of their nurses. They are excited by a grateful affection to\nerect these structures in memory of those who with maternal anxiety\nwatched over their helpless infancy: thus it has been from time\nimmemorial.\n\n\nOAK. The religious veneration paid to this tree, by the original natives\nof our island in the time of the Druids, is well known to every reader\nof British history. We have reason to think that this veneration was\nbrought from the east; and that the Druids did no more than transfer the\nsentiments their progenitors had received in oriental countries. It\nshould appear that the Patriarch Abraham resided under an oak, or a\ngrove of oaks, which our translators render the plain of Mamre; and that\nhe planted a grove of this tree, Gen. xiii, 18. In fact, since in hot\ncountries nothing is more desirable than shade, nothing more refreshing\nthan the shade of a tree, we may easily suppose the inhabitants would\nresort for such enjoyment to\n\n                Where\u2019er the oak\u2019s thick branches spread\n                  A deeper, darker shade.\n\nOaks, and groves of oaks, were esteemed proper places for religious\nservices; altars were set up under them, Joshua xxiv, 26; and, probably,\nin the east as well as in the west, appointments to meet at conspicuous\noaks were made, and many affairs were transacted or treated of under\ntheir shade, as we read in Homer, Theocritus and other poets. It was\ncommon among the Hebrews to sit under oaks, Judges vi, 11; 1 Kings xiii,\n14. Jacob buried idolatrous images under an oak, Gen. xxxv, 4; and\nDeborah, Rebekah\u2019s nurse, was buried under one of these trees, Genesis\nxxxv, 8. See 1 Chron. x, 12. Abimelech was made king under an oak,\nJudges ix, 6. Idolatry was practised under oaks, Isaiah i, 29; lvii, 5;\nHosea iv, 13. Idols were made of oaks, Isa. xliv, 14.\n\nOATH, a solemn invocation of a superior power, admitted to be acquainted\nwith all the secrets of our hearts, with our inward thoughts as well as\nour outward actions, to witness the truth of what we assert, and to\ninflict his vengeance upon us if we assert what is not true, or promise\nwhat we do not mean to perform. Almost all nations, whether savage or\ncivilized, whether enjoying the light of revelation or led only by the\nlight of reason, knowing the importance of truth, and willing to obtain\na barrier against falsehood, have had recourse to oaths, by which they\nhave endeavoured to make men fearful of uttering lies, under the dread\nof an avenging Deity. Among Christians, an oath is a solemn appeal for\nthe truth of our assertions, the sincerity of our promises, and the\nfidelity of our engagements, to the one only God, the Judge of the whole\nearth, who is every where present, and sees, and hears, and knows,\nwhatever is said, or done, or thought in any part of the world. Such is\nthat Being whom Christians, when they take an oath, invoke to bear\ntestimony to the truth of their words, and the integrity of their\nhearts. Surely, then, if oaths be a matter of so much moment, it well\nbehoves us not to treat them with levity, nor ever to take them without\ndue consideration. Hence we ought, with the utmost vigilance, to abstain\nfrom mingling oaths in our ordinary discourse, and from associating the\nname of God with low or disgusting images, or using it on trivial\noccasions, as not only a profane levity in itself, but tending to\ndestroy that reverence for the supreme Majesty which ought to prevail in\nsociety, and to dwell in our own hearts.\n\nThe forms of oaths,\u201d says Dr. Paley, like other religious ceremonies,\nhave in all ages been various; consisting, however, for the most part of\nsome bodily action, and of a prescribed form of words.\u201d Among the Jews,\nthe juror held up his right hand toward heaven, Psalm cxliv, 8; Rev. x,\n5. The same form is retained in Scotland still. Among the Jews, also, an\noath of fidelity was taken by the servant\u2019s putting his hand under the\nthigh of his lord, Genesis xxiv, 2. Among the Greeks and Romans, the\nform varied with the subject and occasion of the oath: in private\ncontracts, the parties took hold of each other\u2019s hands, while they swore\nto the performance; or they touched the altar of the god by whose\ndivinity they swore: upon more solemn occasions, it was the custom to\nslay a victim; and the beast being struck down with certain ceremonies\nand invocations, gave birth to the expression, _ferire pactum_; and to\nour English phrase, translated from this, of striking a bargain.\u201d The\nform of oaths in Christian countries is also very different; but in no\ncountry in the world worse contrived, either to convey the meaning or\nimpress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The juror with us,\nafter repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to\nconfirm, adds, So help me God;\u201d or, more frequently, the substance of\nthe oath is repeated to the juror by the magistrate, who adds in the\nconclusion, So help you God.\u201d The energy of this sentence resides in the\nparticle _so_: So, that is, _h\u00e2c lege_, upon condition of my speaking\nthe truth, or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help\nme! The juror, while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds\nhis right hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the Gospels, and\nat the conclusion kisses the book. This obscure and elliptical form,\ntogether with the levity and frequency of them, has brought about a\ngeneral inadvertency to the obligation of oaths, which, both in a\nreligious and political view, is much to be lamented; and it merits\npublic consideration, whether the requiring of oaths upon so many\nfrivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification\nfor petty offices, has any other effect than to make such sanctions\ncheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly\nfrom the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at\nleast; and the same security for the due discharge of their office,\nnamely, that of an oath, is required from a churchwarden and an\narchbishop; from a petty constable and the chief justice of England.\nOaths, however, are lawful; and, whatever be the form, the signification\nis the same. Historians have justly remarked, that when the reverence\nfor an oath began to diminish among the Romans, and the loose epicurean\nsystem, which discarded the belief of providence, was introduced, the\nRoman honour and prosperity from that period began to decline. The\nQuakers refuse to swear upon any occasion, founding their scruples\nconcerning the lawfulness of oaths upon our Saviour\u2019s prohibition, Swear\nnot at all,\u201d Matt. v, 34. But it seems our Lord there referred to the\nvicious, wanton, and unauthorized swearing in common discourse, and not\nto judicial oaths; for he himself answered, when interrogated, upon\noath, Matt. xxvi, 63, 64; Mark xiv, 61. The Apostle Paul also makes use\nof expressions which contain the nature of oaths, Romans i, 9; 1 Cor.\nxv, 31; 2 Cor. i, 18; Gal. i, 20; Heb. vi, 13\u201317. The administration of\noaths supposes that God will punish false swearing with more severity\nthan a simple lie, or breach of promise; for which belief there are the\nfollowing reasons: 1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation. 2. It\nviolates a superior confidence. 3. God directed the Israelites to swear\nby his name, Deut. vi, 13; x, 20; and was pleased to confirm his\ncovenant with that people by an oath; neither of which, it is probable,\nhe would have done, had he not intended to represent oaths as having\nsome meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise.\n\nOBADIAH the prophet is thought to have been the same as the governor of\nAhab\u2019s house, 1 Kings xviii, 3, &c; and some are of opinion, he was that\nObadiah whom Josiah made overseer of the works of the temple, 2 Chron.\nxxxiv, 12. Indeed, the age in which this prophet lived is very\nuncertain. Some think that he was contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and\nJoel; while others are of opinion that he lived in the time of Jeremiah\nand Ezekiel, and that he delivered his prophecy about B. C. 585, soon\nafter the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. His book, which\nconsists of a single chapter, is written with great beauty and elegance,\nand contains predictions of the utter destruction of the Edomites, and\nof the future restoration and prosperity of the Jews.\n\nOBED-EDOM, son of Jeduthun, a Levite, 1 Chron. xvi, 38, and the father\nof Shemaiah and others, 1 Chron. xvi, 5. We learn that the Lord blessed\nthis man exceedingly, on account of the ark resting under his roof, 2\nSam. vi, 10, 11. David having removed the ark to the place he had\npreviously prepared for its reception, Obed-Edom and his sons were\nappointed to be keepers of the doors of the temple, 1 Chron. xv, 18, 21.\nObed-Edom is called the Gittite, probably because he was of Gathrimmon,\na city of the Levites beyond Jordan, Joshua xxi, 24, 25.\n\nODED, a prophet of the Lord, who, being at Samaria when the Israelites\nof the ten tribes returned from the war with their King Pekah, together\nwith two hundred thousand of the people of Judah, whom they had taken\ncaptive, went out to meet them; and through his remonstrances the\ncaptives were liberated, 2 Chron. xxviii. This circumstance is all that\nis recorded concerning Oded.\n\nOFFERINGS. Among the Jews, under the Mosaic law, a variety of offerings\nof different kinds were appointed, which are accurately and fully\ndescribed in the beginning of the book of Leviticus.\n\nBurnt-offerings, or holocausts, sacrifices in which the victims were\nwholly consumed, were expiatory, and more ancient than any others, and\nwere, for that reason, held in special honour. It was in consideration\nof these circumstances that Moses gave precepts in regard to this kind\nof sacrifices first, Lev. i, 3. Holocausts might be offered by means of\nthe Hebrew priests, when brought by the Heathen, or those who had\noriginated from another nation; such persons being unable to offer sin\nor trespass-offerings, since this sort of sacrifices had particular\nreference to some neglect or violation of the Mosaic law, by whose\nauthority they did not acknowledge themselves bound. Holocausts were\nexpiatory, and we accordingly find that they were offered sometimes for\nthe whole people; for instance, the morning and the evening sacrifices;\nand sometimes by an individual for himself alone, either from the free\nimpulse of his feelings, or in fulfilment of a vow, Psalm li, 19; lxvi,\n13, 14. They were required to be offered under certain combinations of\ncircumstances pointed out in the Mosaic laws; namely, by a Nazarite, who\nhad been unexpectedly rendered unclean, or who had completed the days of\nhis separation, Num. vi, 11\u201316; by those who had been healed of leprosy;\nand by women after child-birth, Lev. xii, 6, 8. The victims immolated at\na holocaust were bullocks of three years old, goats and lambs of a year\nold, turtle doves, and young pigeons. Not only the parts which were\nexpressly destined for the altar, but also the other parts of the\nvictims, were burned. A libation of wine was poured out upon the altar.\nIt was the practice among the Gentile nations, (an allusion to which\noccurs in Phil. ii, 17, and 2 Tim. iv, 6,) to pour the wine out between\nthe horns of the victims which they immolated to their idols. The priest\npartially wrung or cut off the heads of the turtle doves and young\npigeons, sprinkled the blood on the side of the altar, plucked out the\nfeathers and the crop, and cast them to the east of the altar into the\nplace for the reception of ashes, and placed the remainder, after having\ncleft or broken the wings, upon the fire, Lev. i, 3\u201317.\n\nDrink-offerings. With a bullock, half a hin of wine, with three-tenth\ndeals of flour, and half a hin of oil. With a ram, one-third of a hin of\nwine, with two-tenth deals of flour, and one-third of a hin of oil. With\na lamb or a kid of the goats, one quarter of a hin of wine, one-tenth\ndeal of flour, and one quarter of a hin of oil. With a sheaf of the\nfirst-fruits, one quarter of a hin of wine, one-tenth deal of flour,\nwith oil.\n\nMeat-offerings. These, like the drink-offerings, were appendages to the\nsacrifices. They were of thin cakes or wafers. In some instances they\nwere offered alone.\n\nHeave-offerings. So called from the sacrifice being lifted up toward\nheaven, in token of its being devoted to Jehovah.\n\nPeace-offerings. Bullocks, heifers, goats, rams, and sheep, were the\nonly animals sacrificed on these occasions, Lev. iii, 1\u201317; vii, 23\u201327.\nThese sacrifices, which were offered as an indication of gratitude, were\naccompanied with unleavened cakes, covered with oil, by pouring it upon\nthem; with thin cakes or wafers, likewise unleavened, and besmeared with\noil; also with another kind of cakes, made of fine meal, and kneaded\nwith oil. The priest, who sprinkled the blood, presented one of each of\nthese kinds of cakes as an offering, Lev. vii, 11\u201314, 28\u201335. The\nremainder of the animal substance and of the cakes was converted by the\nperson who made the offering into an entertainment, to which widows,\norphans, the poor, slaves, and Levites were invited. What was not eaten\non the day of the offering might be reserved till the succeeding; but\nthat which remained till the third was to be burned: a regulation which\nwas made in order to prevent the omission or putting off of the season\nof this benevolence and joy, Lev. vii, 15\u201321; Deut. xii, 18. This feast\ncould be celebrated beyond the limits of the tabernacle, or temple, but\nnot beyond the city.\n\nSin-offerings were for expiation of particular sins, or legal\nimperfections, called therefore sin-offerings: the first sort were for\nsins of ignorance or surprise, either from the high priest, or body of\nthe community, from the rulers, or any one of the common people. The\nother sort of sin-offerings were for voluntary sins; but as to the more\ncapital violations of the moral law, as murder, adultery, or the worship\nof idols, no expiatory sacrifice was admitted.\n\nTrespass-offerings were not required of the people as a body. They were\nto be offered by individuals, who, through ignorance, mistake, or want\nof reflection, had neglected some of the ceremonial precepts of Moses,\nor some of those natural laws, which had been introduced into his code,\nand sanctioned with the penalty of death; and who were subsequently\nconscious of their error. The person who, being sworn as a witness,\nconcealed the truth by keeping silent; the man who, having become\ncontaminated without knowing it, had omitted purification, but had\nafterward become acquainted with the fact; the person who had rashly\nsworn to do a thing, and had not done it; all these delinquents offered\na lamb or kid, or, in case of poverty, two doves or young pigeons, the\none for a trespass, the other for a sin-offering. In case the person was\nunusually poor, he was required to offer merely the tenth part of an\nephah of fine meal, without oil or frankincense, Lev. iii, 1\u201316. Whoever\nappropriated to himself any thing consecrated, or any thing that was\npromised, or found, or stolen, or deposited in his possession for\nkeeping; whoever swore falsely, or omitted to restore the goods that\nbelonged to another, or injured him in any other way, presented for his\ntrespass a ram, which had been submitted to the estimation of the\npriest, and not only made restitution, but allowed an additional amount\nof a fifth part by way of indemnification. He who had committed\nfornication with a betrothed bondmaid, previously to her being redeemed\nfrom servitude, offered a ram for the trespass, Lev. xix, 20\u201322.\nNazarites, who had been unexpectedly rendered unclean, presented a lamb\nof a year old, Num. vi, 11. Finally, lepers, when restored to health,\nand purified, sacrificed a ram, Lev. xiv, 10\u201314. The ceremonies were the\nsame as in the sin-offerings.\n\nWave-offering. It was so called, because it was waved up and down, and\ntoward the east, west, north, and south, to signify, that he to whom it\nwas offered was Lord of the universe, the God who fills all space, and\nto whom all things of right belong. See SACRIFICES>.\n\nOG, a king of Bashan; being a giant of the race of the Rephaim. Moses\nrecords the conquest of Og, and his destruction. After which his country\nwas given to the tribe of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh,\nNum. xxi, 33. See GIANTS.\n\nOIL, \u05e9\u05de\u05df. The invention and use of oil is of the highest antiquity. It\nis said that Jacob poured oil upon the pillar which he erected at\nBethel, Gen. xxviii, 18. The earliest kind was that which is extracted\nfrom olives. Before the invention of mills, this was obtained by\npounding them in a mortar, Exod. xxvii, 20; and sometimes by treading\nthem with the feet in the same manner as were grapes, Deut. xxxiii, 24;\nMicah vi, 15. The Hebrews used common oil with their food, in their\nmeat-offerings, for burning in their lamps, &c. As vast quantities of\noil were made by the ancient Jews, it became an article of exportation.\nThe great demand for it in Egypt led the Jews to send it thither. The\nProphet Hosea thus upbraids his degenerate nation with the servility and\nfolly of their conduct: Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the\neast wind; he daily increaseth falsehood and vanity: and a league is\nmade with Assyria, and oil carried into Egypt,\u201d Hosea xii, 1. The\nIsraelites, in the decline of their national glory, carried the produce\nof their olive plantations into Egypt as a tribute to their ancient\noppressors, or as a present to conciliate their favour, and obtain their\nassistance in the sanguinary wars which they were often compelled to\nwage with the neighbouring states. There was an unguent, very precious\nand sacred, used in anointing the priests, the tabernacle, and\nfurniture. This was compounded of spicy drugs; namely, myrrh, sweet\ncinnamon, sweet calamus, and cassia, mixed with oil olive.\n\nOLIVE TREE, \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1, Matt. xxi, 1; Rom. xi, 17, 24; James iii, 12;\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _oleaster_, the wild olive, Rom. xi, 17, 24. Tournefort\nmentions eighteen kinds of olives; but in the Scripture we only read of\nthe cultivated and wild olive. The cultivated olive is of a moderate\nheight, and thrives best in a sunny and warm soil. Its trunk is knotty;\nits bark is smooth, and of an ash colour; its wood is solid, and\nyellowish; its leaves are oblong, and almost like those of the willow,\nof a dark green colour on the upper side, and a whitish below. In the\nmonth of June it puts forth white flowers, growing in bunches, each of\none piece, and widening toward the top, and dividing into four parts.\nAfter this flower succeeds the fruit, which is oblong and plump. It is\nfirst green, then pale, and, when quite ripe, becomes black. Within it\nis enclosed a hard stone, filled with oblong seeds. The wild olives were\nof a less kind. Canaan much abounded with olives. It seems almost every\nproprietor, whether kings or subjects, had their olive yards. The olive\nbranch was, from most ancient times, used as the symbol of\nreconciliation and peace.\n\nOLIVES. The Mount of Olives was situated to the east of Jerusalem, and\ndivided from the city only by the brook Kidron, and by the valley of\nJehoshaphat, which stretches out from the north to the south. It was\nupon this mount that Solomon built temples to the gods of the Ammonites,\n1 Kings xi, 7, and the Moabites, out of complaisance to his wives of\nthose nations. Hence it is that the Mount of Olives is called the\nmountain of corruption, 2 Kings xxiii, 13. The Mount of Olives forms\npart of a ridge of limestone hills, extending to the north and the south\nwest. Pococke describes it as having four summits. On the lowest and\nmost northerly of these, which, he tells us, is called Sulman Tashy, the\nstone of Solomon, there is a large domed sepulchre, and several other\nMohammedan tombs. The ascent to this point, which is to the north-east\nof the city, he describes as very gradual, through pleasant corn fields,\nplanted with olive trees. The second summit is that which overlooks the\ncity: the path to it rises from the ruined gardens of Gethsemane, which\noccupy part of the valley. About half way up the ascent is a ruined\nmonastery, built, as the monks tell us, on the spot where our Saviour\nwept over Jerusalem. From this point, the spectator enjoys, perhaps, the\nbest view of the holy city. On reaching the summit, an extensive view is\nobtained toward the east, embracing the fertile plain of Jericho,\nwatered by the Jordan, and the Dead Sea, enclosed by mountains of\nconsiderable grandeur. Here there is a small village, surrounded by some\ntolerable corn land. This summit is not relatively high, and would more\nproperly be termed a hill than a mountain: it is not above two miles\ndistant from Jerusalem. At a short distance from the summit is shown the\nsupposed print of our Saviour\u2019s left foot; Chateaubriand says the mark\nof the right was once visible, and Bernard de Breidenbach saw it in\n1483! This is the spot fixed upon by the mother of Constantine, as that\nfrom which our Lord ascended, and over which she accordingly erected a\nchurch and monastery, the ruins of which still remain. Pococke describes\nthe building which was standing in his time, as a small Gothic chapel,\nround within, and octagonal without, and tells us that it was converted\ninto a mosque. The Turks, for a stipulated sum, permit the Christian\npilgrims to take an impression of the foot print in wax or plaster, to\ncarry home. Twice,\u201d says Dr. Richardson, I visited this memorable spot;\nand each time it was crowded with devout pilgrims, taking casts of the\nholy vestige. They had to purchase permission of the Turks; but, had it\nnot been in the possession of the Turks, they would have had to purchase\nit from the more mercenary and not less merciless Romans or Greeks.\u201d On\nascension eve, the Christians come and encamp in the court, and that\nnight they perform the offices of the ascension. Here, however, as with\nregard to Calvary and almost all the supposed sacred places,\nsuperstition has blindly followed the blind. That this is not the place\nof the ascension, is certain from the words of St. Luke, who says that\nour Lord led out his disciples as far as Bethany, and lifted up his\nhands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he\nwas parted from them, and carried up to heaven,\u201d Acts i. Bethany is a\nsmall village to the east of the Mount of Olives, on the road to\nJericho, not farther from Jerusalem than the pinnacle of the hill. There\nare two roads to it; one passes over the Mount of Olives; the other,\nwhich is the shorter and easier, winds round the eastern end, having the\ngreater part of the hill on the north or left hand, and on the right the\nelevation called by some writers the Mount of Offence, which is,\nhowever, very little above the valley of Jehoshaphat. The village of\nBethany is small and poor, and the cultivation of the soil is much\nneglected; but it is a pleasant and somewhat romantic spot, sheltered by\nMount Olivet on the north, and abounding with trees and long grass. The\ninhabitants are Arabs.\n\nThe olive is still found growing in patches at the foot of the mount to\nwhich it gives its name; and as a spontaneous produce, uninterruptedly\nresulting from the original growth of this part of the mountain, it is\nimpossible,\u201d says Dr. E. D. Clarke, to view even these trees with\nindifference.\u201d Titus cut down all the wood in the neighbourhood of\nJerusalem; but there would seem to have been constantly springing up a\nsuccession of these hardy trees. It is truly a curious and interesting\nfact,\u201d adds the learned traveller, that, during a period of little more\nthan two thousand years, Hebrews, Assyrians, Romans, Moslems, and\nChristians, have been successively in possession of the rocky mountains\nof Palestine; yet, the olive still vindicates its paternal soil, and is\nfound, at this day, upon the same spot which was called by the Hebrew\nwriters Mount Olivet and the Mount of Olives, eleven centuries before\nthe Christian era,\u201d 2 Sam. xv, 30; Zech. xiv, 4.\n\nOMEGA, the last letter in the Greek alphabet, Rev. i, 8; a title of\nChrist.\n\nOMNIPOTENCE. See ALMIGHTY.\n\nOMNIPRESENCE, that attribute of God by which he is present in all\nplaces. The statement of this doctrine in the inspired records, like\nthat of all the other attributes of God, is made in their own peculiar\ntone and emphasis of majesty and sublimity. Whither shall I go from thy\nSpirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up to\nheaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there;\nif I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of\nthe sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall\nhold me. Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him?\nDo not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord? Am I a God at hand,\nsaith the Lord, and not a God afar off?\u201d \u201cThus saith the Lord, Behold,\nheaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.\u201d Behold, heaven, and\nthe heaven of heavens cannot contain thee.\u201d \u201cThough he dig into hell,\nthence shall my hand take him; though he climb up into heaven, thence\nwill I bring him down; and though he hide himself in the top of Carmel,\nI will search and take him out from thence.\u201d In him we live, and move,\nand have our being.\u201d \u201cHe filleth all things.\u201d\n\nSome striking passages on the ubiquity of the divine presence may be\nfound in the writings of some of the Greek philosophers, arising out of\nthis notion, that God was the soul of the world; but their very\nconnection with this speculation, notwithstanding the imposing phrase\noccasionally adopted, strikingly marks the difference between their most\nexalted views, and those of the Hebrew prophets on this subject. To a\nlarge proportion of those who hold a distinguished rank among the\nancient theistical philosophers, the idea of the personality of the\nDeity was in a great measure unknown. The Deity by them was considered\nnot so much an intelligent Being, as an animating power, diffused\nthroughout the world, and was introduced into their speculative system\nto account for the motion of that passive mass of matter, which was\nsupposed co\u00ebval, and indeed co\u00ebxistent, with himself. These defective\nnotions are confessed by Gibbon, a writer not disposed to undervalue\ntheir attainments: The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from\nthe nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated,\nhowever, on the divine nature, as a very curious and important\nspeculation; and, in the profound inquiry, they displayed the strength\nand weakness of the human understanding. Of the four most considerable\nsects, the Stoics and the Platonicians endeavoured to reconcile the\njarring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most\nsublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the First Cause; but\nas it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the\nworkman, in the Stoic philosophy, was not sufficiently distinguished\nfrom the work; while, on the contrary, the spiritual god of Plato and\nhis disciples resembled more an idea than a substance.\u201d\n\nSimilar errors have been revived in the infidel philosophy of modern\ntimes, from Spinoza down to the later offspring of the German and French\nschools. The same remark applies also to the oriental philosophy, which\npresents at this day a perfect view of the boasted wisdom of ancient\nGreece, which was brought to nought\u201d by the foolishness\u201d of apostolic\npreaching. But in the Scriptures there is nothing confused in the\ndoctrine of the divine ubiquity. God is every where, but he is not every\nthing. All things have their being in him, but he is distinct from all\nthings; he fills the universe, but is not mingled with it. He is the\nintelligence which guides, and the power which sustains; but his\npersonality is preserved, and he is independent of the works of his\nhands, however vast and noble. So far is his presence from being bounded\nby the universe itself, that, as we are taught in the passage above\nquoted from the Psalms, were it possible for us to wing our way into the\nimmeasurable depths and breadths of space, God would there surround us,\nin as absolute a sense as that in which he is said to be about our bed\nand our path in that part of the world where his will has placed us.\n\nOn this, as on all similar subjects, the Scriptures use terms which are\ntaken in their common-sense acceptation among mankind; and though the\nvanity of the human mind disposes many to seek a philosophy in the\ndoctrine thus announced deeper than that which its popular terms convey,\nwe are bound to conclude, if we would pay but a common respect to an\nadmitted revelation, that, where no manifest figure of speech occurs,\nthe truth of the doctrine lies in the tenor of the terms by which it is\nexpressed. Otherwise there would be no revelation, we do not say of the\n_modus_, [manner,] (for that is confessedly incomprehensible,) but of\nthe fact. In the case before us, the terms _presence_ and _place_ are\nused according to common notions; and must be so taken, if the\nScriptures are intelligible. Metaphysical refinements are not Scriptural\ndoctrines, when they give to the terms chosen by the Holy Spirit an\nacceptation out of their general and proper use, and make them the signs\nof a perfectly distinct class of ideas; if, indeed, all distinctness of\nidea is not lost in the attempt. It is therefore in the popular and\njust, because Scriptural, manner, that we are to conceive of the\nomnipresence of God. If we reflect upon ourselves, we may observe that\nwe fill but a small space, and that our knowledge or power reaches but a\nlittle way. We can act at one time in one place only, and the sphere of\nour influence is narrow at largest. Would we be witnesses to what is\ndone at any distance from us, or exert there our active powers, we must\nremove ourselves thither. For this reason we are necessarily ignorant of\na thousand things which pass around us, incapable of attending and\nmanaging any great variety of affairs, or performing at the same time\nany number of actions, for our own good, or for the benefit of others.\nAlthough we feel this to be the present condition of our being, and the\nlimited state of our intelligent and active powers, yet we can easily\nconceive there may exist beings more perfect, and whose presence may\nextend far and wide: any one of whom, present in what are to us various\nplaces, at the same time, may know at once what is done in all these,\nand act in all of them; and thus be able to regard and direct a variety\nof affairs at the same instant: and who farther being qualified, by the\npurity and activity of their nature, to pass from one place to another,\nwith great ease and swiftness, may thus fill a large sphere of action,\ndirect a great variety of affairs, confer a great number of benefits,\nand observe a multitude of actions at the same time, or in so swift a\nsuccession as to us would appear but one instant. Thus perfect we may\nreadily believe the angels of God.\n\nWe can farther conceive this extent of presence, and of ability for\nknowledge and action, to admit of degrees of ascending perfection\napproaching to infinite. And when we have thus raised our thoughts to\nthe idea of a being, who is not only present throughout a large empire,\nbut throughout our world; and not only in every part of our world, but\nin every part of all the numberless suns and worlds which roll in the\nstarry heavens,--who is not only able to enliven and actuate the plants,\nanimals, and men who live upon this globe, but countless varieties of\ncreatures every where in an immense universe,--yea, whose presence is\nnot confined to the universe, immeasurable as that is by any finite\nmind, but who is present every where in infinite space; and who is\ntherefore able to create still new worlds, and fill them with proper\ninhabitants, attend, supply, and govern them all,--when we have thus\ngradually raised and enlarged our conceptions, we have the best idea we\ncan form of the universal presence of the great Jehovah, who filleth\nheaven and earth. There is no part of the universe, no portion of space,\nuninhabited by God; none wherein this Being of perfect power, wisdom,\nand benevolence is not essentially present. Could we with the swiftness\nof a sun beam dart ourselves beyond the limits of the creation, and for\nages continue our progress in infinite space, we should still be\nsurrounded with the divine presence; nor ever be able to reach that\nspace where God is not. His presence also penetrates every part of our\nworld; the most solid parts of the earth cannot exclude it; for it\npierces as easily the centre of the globe as the empty air. All\ncreatures live and move and have their being in him. And the inmost\nrecesses of the human heart can no more exclude his presence, or conceal\na thought from his knowledge, than the deepest caverns of the earth.\n\nThe illustrations and confirmatory proofs of this doctrine which the\nmaterial world furnishes, are numerous and striking. It is a most\nevident and acknowledged truth that a being cannot act where it is not:\nif, therefore, actions and effects, which manifest the highest wisdom,\npower, and goodness in the author of them, are continually produced\nevery where, the author of these actions, or God, must be continually\npresent with us, and wherever he thus acts. The matter which composes\nthe world is evidently lifeless and thoughtless: it must therefore be\nincapable of moving itself, or designing or producing any effects which\nrequire wisdom or power. The matter of our world, or the small parts\nwhich constitute the air, the earth, and the waters, is yet continually\nmoved, so as to produce effects of this kind; such are the innumerable\nherbs, and trees, and fruits which adorn the earth, and support the\ncountless millions of creatures who inhabit it. There must therefore be\nconstantly present, all over the earth, a most wise, mighty, and good\nBeing, the author and director of these motions.\n\nWe cannot, it is true, see him with our bodily eyes, because he is a\npure Spirit; yet this is not any proof that he is not present. A\njudicious discourse, a series of kind actions, convince us of the\npresence of a friend, a person of prudence and benevolence. We cannot\nsee the present mind, the seat and principle of these qualities; yet the\nconstant regular motion of the tongue, the hand, and the whole body,\n(which are the instruments of our souls, as the material universe and\nall the various bodies in it are the instruments of the Deity,) will not\nsuffer us to doubt that there is an intelligent and benevolent principle\nwithin the body which produces all these skilful motions and kind\nactions. The sun, the air, the earth, and the waters, are no more able\nto move themselves, and produce all that beautiful and useful variety of\nplants, and fruits, and trees, with which our earth is covered, than the\nbody of a man, when the soul hath left it, is able to move itself, form\nan instrument, plough a field, or build a house. If the laying out\njudiciously and well cultivating a small estate, sowing it with proper\ngrain at the best time of the year, watering it in due season and\nquantities, and gathering in the fruits when ripe, and laying them up in\nthe best manner,--if all these effects prove the estate to have a\nmanager, and the manager possessed of skill and strength,--certainly the\nenlightening and warming the whole earth by the sun, and so directing\nits motion and the motion of the earth as to produce in a constant\nuseful succession day and night, summer and winter, seed time and\nharvest; the watering the earth continually by the clouds, and thus\nbringing forth immense quantities of herbage, grain, and\nfruits,--certainly all these effects continually produced, must prove\nthat a Being of the greatest power, wisdom, and benevolence is\ncontinually present throughout our world, which he thus supports, moves,\nactuates, and makes fruitful.\n\nThe fire which warms us knows nothing of its serviceableness to this\npurpose, nor of the wise laws according to which its particles are moved\nto produce this effect. And that it is placed in such a part of the\nhouse, where it may be greatly beneficial and no way hurtful, is\nascribed without hesitation to the contrivance and labour of a person\nwho knew its proper place and uses. And if we came daily into a house\nwherein we saw this was regularly done, though we never saw an\ninhabitant in it, we could not doubt that the house was occupied by a\nrational inhabitant. That huge globe of fire in the heavens, which we\ncall the sun, and on the light and influences of which the fertility of\nour world, and the life and pleasure of all animals, depend, knows\nnothing of its serviceableness to these purposes, nor of the wise laws\naccording to which its beams are dispensed, nor what place or motions\nwere requisite for these beneficial purposes. Yet its beams are darted\nconstantly in infinite numbers, every one according to those well chosen\nlaws, and its proper place and motion are maintained. Must not, then,\nits place be appointed, its motion regulated, and beams darted, by\nalmighty wisdom and goodness, which prevent the sun\u2019s ever wandering in\nthe boundless spaces of the heavens, so as to leave us in disconsolate\ncold and darkness, or coming so near, or emitting his rays in such a\nmanner, as to burn us up? Must not the great Being who enlightens and\nwarms us by the sun, his instrument, who raises and sends down the\nvapours, brings forth and ripens the grain and fruits, and who is thus\never acting around us for our benefit, be always present in the sun,\nthroughout the air, and all over the earth, which he thus moves and\nactuates?\n\nThis earth is in itself a dead, motionless mass, and void of all\ncounsel; yet proper parts of it are continually raised through the small\npipes which compose the bodies of plants and trees, and are made to\ncontribute to their growth, to open and shine in blossoms and leaves,\nand to swell and harden into fruit. Could blind, thoughtless particles\nthus continually keep on their way, through numberless windings, without\nonce blundering, if they were not guided by an unerring hand? Can the\nmost perfect human skill from earth and water form one grain, much more\na variety of beautiful and relishing fruits? Must not the directing\nmind, who does all this constantly, be most wise, mighty, and\nbenevolent? Must not the Being who thus continually exerts his skill and\nenergy around us, for our benefit, be confessed to be always present and\nconcerned for our welfare? Can these effects be ascribed to any thing\nbelow an all-wise and almighty cause? And must not this cause be present\nwherever he acts? Were God to speak to us every month from heaven, and\nwith a voice loud as thunder declare that he observes, provides for, and\ngoverns us; this would not be a proof, in the judgment of sound reason,\nby many degrees so valid: since much less wisdom and power are required\nto form such sounds in the air, than to produce these effects; and to\ngive, not merely verbal declarations, but substantial evidences of his\npresence and care over us. In every part and place of the universe, with\nwhich we are acquainted, we perceive the exertion of a power, which we\nbelieve, mediately or immediately, to proceed from the Deity. For\ninstance: in what part or point of space, that has ever been explored,\ndo we not discover attraction? In what regions do we not find light? In\nwhat accessible portion of our globe do we not meet with gravity,\nmagnetism, electricity; together with the properties also and powers of\norganized substances, of vegetable or of animated nature? Nay, farther,\nwhat kingdom is there of nature, what corner of space, in which there is\nany thing that can be examined by us, where we do not fall upon\ncontrivance and design? The only reflection, perhaps, which arises in\nour minds from this view of the world around us, is, that the laws of\nnature every where prevail; that they are uniform and universal. But\nwhat do we mean by the laws of nature, or by any law? Effects are\nproduced by power, not by laws. A law cannot execute itself. A law\nrefers us to an agent.\n\nThe usual argument _a priori_, on this attribute of the divine nature,\nhas been stated as follows; but, amidst such a mass of demonstration of\na much higher kind, it cannot be of any great value:--The First Cause,\nthe supreme all-perfect Mind, as he could not derive his being from any\nother cause, must be independent of all other, and therefore unlimited.\nHe exists by an absolute necessity of nature; and as all the parts of\ninfinite space are exactly uniform and alike, for the same reason that\nhe exists in any one part he must exist in all. No reason can be\nassigned for excluding him from one part, which would not exclude him\nfrom all. But that he is present in some parts of space, the evident\neffects of his wisdom, power, and benevolence continually produced,\ndemonstrate beyond all rational doubt. He must therefore be alike\npresent every where, and fill infinite space with his infinite Being.\n\nAmong metaphysicians, it has been matter of dispute, whether God is\npresent every where by an infinite extension of his essence. This is the\nopinion of Newton, Dr. S. Clarke, and their followers; others have\nobjected to this notion, that it might then be said, God is neither in\nheaven nor in earth, but only a part of God in each. The former opinion,\nhowever, appears most in harmony with the Scriptures; though the term\nextension, through the inadequacy of language, conveys too material an\nidea. The objection just stated is wholly grounded on notions taken from\nmaterial objects, and is therefore of little weight, because it is not\napplicable to an immaterial substance. It is best to confess with one\nwho had thought deeply on the subject, There is an incomprehensibleness\nin the manner of every thing about which no controversy can or ought to\nbe concerned.\u201d That we cannot comprehend how God is fully, and\ncompletely, and undividedly present every where, need not surprise us,\nwhen we reflect that the manner in which our own minds are present with\nour bodies is as incomprehensible as the manner in which the supreme\nMind is present with every thing in the universe.\n\nOMNISCIENCE. This attribute of God is constantly connected in Scripture\nwith his omnipresence, and forms a part of almost every description of\nthat attribute; for, as God is a Spirit, and therefore intelligent, if\nhe is every where, if nothing can exclude him, not even the most solid\nbodies, nor the minds of intelligent beings, then are all things naked\nand opened to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Where he acts, he\nis; and where he is, he perceives. He understands and considers things\nabsolutely, and as they are in their own natures, powers, properties,\ndifferences, together with all the circumstances belonging to them.\nKnown unto him are all his works from the beginning of the world,\u201d\nrather, \u03b1\u03c0 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _from, all eternity_; known, before they were made,\nin their possible, and known, now they are made, in their actual,\nexistence. Lord, thou hast searched me and known me; thou knowest my\ndown-sitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.\nThou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all\nmy ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou\nknowest it altogether. The darkness hideth not from thee; but the night\nshineth as the day. The ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and\nhe pondereth all his goings; he searcheth their hearts, and\nunderstandeth every imagination of their thoughts.\u201d Nor is this perfect\nknowledge to be confined to men or angels; it reaches into the state of\nthe dead, and penetrates the regions of the damned. Hell,\u201d _hades_, is\nnaked before him; and destruction,\u201d the seats of destruction, hath no\ncovering.\u201d No limits at all are to be set to this perfection: Great is\nthe Lord, his understanding is infinite.\u201d\n\nIn Psalm xciv, the knowledge of God is argued from the communication of\nit to men: Understand, ye brutish among the people; and, ye fools, when\nwill ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that\nformed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the Heathen, shall\nnot he correct? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?\u201d This\nargument is as easy as it is conclusive, obliging all who acknowledge a\nFirst Cause, to admit his perfect intelligence, or to take refuge in\natheism itself. It fetches not the proof from a distance, but refers us\nto our bosoms for the constant demonstration that the Lord is a God of\nknowledge, and that by him actions are weighed. We find in ourselves\nsuch qualities as thought and intelligence, power and freedom, &c, for\nwhich we have the evidence of consciousness as much as for our own\nexistence. Indeed, it is only by our consciousness of these, that our\nexistence is known to ourselves. We know, likewise, that these are\nperfections, and that to have them is better than to be without them. We\nfind also that they have not been in us from eternity. They must,\ntherefore, have had a beginning, and consequently some cause, for the\nvery same reason that a being beginning to exist in time requires a\ncause. Now this cause, as it must be superior to its effect, must have\nthose perfections in a superior degree; and if it be the First Cause it\nmust have them in an infinite or unlimited degree, since bounds or\nlimitations, without a limiter, would be an effect without a cause. If\nGod gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to men of understanding; if\nhe communicates this perfection to his creatures, the inference must be\nthat he himself is possessed of it in a much more eminent degree than\nthey; that his knowledge is deep and intimate, reaching to the very\nessence of things, theirs but slight and superficial; his clear and\ndistinct, theirs confused and dark; his certain and infallible, theirs\ndoubtful and liable to mistake; his easy and permanent, theirs obtained\nwith much pains, and soon lost again by the defects of memory or age;\nhis universal and extending to all objects, theirs short and narrow,\nreaching only to some few things, while that which is wanting cannot be\nnumbered; and therefore, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so,\nas the prophet has told us, are his ways above our ways, and his\nthoughts above our thoughts.\n\nBut his understanding is infinite; a doctrine which the sacred writers\nnot only authoritatively announce, but confirm by referring to the\nwisdom displayed in his works. The only difference between wisdom and\nknowledge is, that the former always supposes action, and action\ndirected to an end. But wherever there is wisdom there must be\nknowledge; and as the wisdom of God in the creation consists in the\nformation of things which, by themselves, or in combination with others,\nshall produce certain effects, and that in a variety of operation which\nis to us boundless, the previous knowledge of the possible qualities and\neffects inevitably supposes a knowledge which can have no limit. For as\ncreation out of nothing argues a power which is omnipotent; so the\nknowledge of the possibilities of things which are not, (a knowledge\nwhich, from the effect, we are sure must exist in God,) argues that such\na Being must be omniscient. For all things being not only present to\nhim, but also entirely depending upon him, and having received both\ntheir being itself, and all their powers and faculties from him; it is\nmanifest that, as he knows all things that are, so he must likewise know\nall possibilities of things, that is, all effects that can be. For,\nbeing himself alone self-existent, and having alone given to all things\nall the powers and faculties they are endued with; it is evident he must\nof necessity know perfectly what all and each of those powers and\nfaculties, which are derived wholly from himself, can possibly produce:\nand seeing, at one boundless view, all the possible compositions and\ndivisions, variations and changes, circumstances and dependencies of\nthings; all their possible relations one to another, and their\ndispositions or fitnesses to certain and respective ends, he must,\nwithout possibility of error, know exactly what is best and properest in\nevery one of the infinite possible cases or methods of disposing things;\nand understand perfectly how to order and direct the respective means,\nto bring about what he so knows to be, in its kind, or in the whole, the\nbest and fittest in the end. This is what we mean by infinite wisdom.\n\nOn the subject of the divine omniscience, many fine sentiments are to be\nfound in the writings of Pagans; for an intelligent First Cause being in\nany sense admitted, it was most natural and obvious to ascribe to him a\nperfect knowledge of all things. They acknowledge that nothing is hid\nfrom God, who is intimate to our minds, and mingles himself with our\nvery thoughts; nor were they all unaware of the practical tendency of\nsuch a doctrine, and of the motive it affords to a cautious and virtuous\nconduct. But among them it was not held, as by the sacred writers, in\nconnection with other right views of the divine nature, which are\nessential to give to this its full moral effect. Not only on this\nsubject does the manner in which the Scriptures state the doctrine far\ntranscend that of the wisest Pagan theists; but the moral of the\nsentiment is infinitely more comprehensive and impressive. With them it\nis connected with man\u2019s state of trial; with a holy law, all the\nviolations of which, in thought, word, and deed, are both infallibly\nknown, and strictly marked; with promises of grace, and of a mild and\nprotecting government as to all who have sought and found the mercy of\nGod in forgiving their sins and admitting them into his family. The\nwicked are thus reminded, that their hearts are searched, and their sins\nnoted; that the eyes of the Lord are upon their ways; and that their\nmost secret works will be brought to light in the day when God the\nwitness shall become God the judge. But as to the righteous, the eyes of\nthe Lord are said to be over them; that they are kept by him who never\nslumbers or sleeps; that he is never far from them; that his eyes run to\nand fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in their\nbehalf; that foes, to them invisible, are seen by his eye, and\ncontrolled by his arm; and that this great attribute, so appalling to\nwicked men, affords to them, not only the most influential reason for a\nperfectly holy temper and conduct, but the strongest motive to trust,\nand joy, and hope, amidst the changes and afflictions of the present\nlife. Socrates, as well as other philosophers, could express themselves\nwell, so long as they expressed themselves generally, on this subject.\nThe former could say, Let your own frame instruct you. Does the mind\ninhabiting your body dispose and govern it with ease? Ought you not then\nto conclude, that the universal Mind with equal ease actuates and\ngoverns universal nature; and that, when you can at once consider the\ninterest of the Athenians at home, in Egypt, and in Sicily, it is not\ntoo much for the divine wisdom to take care of the universe? These\nreflections will soon convince you, that the greatness of the divine\nmind is such, as at once to see all things, hear all things, be present\nevery where, and direct all the affairs of the world.\u201d These views are\njust, but they wanted that connection with others relative both to the\ndivine nature and government, which we see only in the Bible, to render\nthem influential; they neither gave correct moral distinctions nor led\nto a virtuous practice, no, not in Socrates, who, on some subjects, and\nespecially on the personality of the Deity, and his independence on\nmatter, raised himself far above the rest of his philosophic brethren,\nbut in moral feeling and practice was perhaps as censurable as they. See\nPRESCIENCE.\n\nON, or AVEN, a city of Egypt, situated in the land of Goshen, on the\neast of the Nile, and about five miles from the modern Cairo. It was\ncalled Heliopolis by the Greeks, and Bethshemeth by the Hebrews, Jer.\nxliii, 13; both of which names, as well as its Egyptian one of On, imply\nthe city or house of the sun. The inhabitants of this city are\nrepresented by Herodotus as the wisest of the Egyptians; and here Moses\nresided, and received that education which made him learned in all the\nwisdom of the Egyptians.\u201d But notwithstanding its being the seat of the\nsciences, such were its egregious idolatries, that it was nicknamed\nAven, or Beth-Aven, the house of vanity,\u201d or idolatry, by the Jews. A\nvillage standing on part of its site, at the present day, is called\nMatarea; while the spring of excellent water, or fountain of the sun,\nwhich is supposed to have given rise to the city, is still called Ain\nShems, or fountain of the sun, by the Arabs. This is one of the most\nancient cities of the world of which any distinct vestige can now be\ntraced. It was visited eighteen hundred and fifty years ago by Strabo,\nwhose description proves it to have been nearly as desolate then as now.\nMost of the ruins of this once famous city, described by that\ngeographer, are buried in the accumulation of the soil: but that which\nmarks its site, and is, perhaps, the most ancient work at this time\nexisting in the world, in a perfect state, is a column of red granite,\nseventy feet high, and covered with hieroglyphics. Dr. E. D. Clarke has\ngiven a very good representation of this column; to whom, also, the\ncurious reader is referred for a learned dissertation on the characters\nengraved upon it.\n\nThe city On, according to Josephus, was given to the Israelites to dwell\nin, when they first went into Egypt; and it was a daughter of a priest\nof the temple of the sun at this place, who was given in marriage to\nJoseph by Pharaoh. Here, also, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus,\nleave was obtained of that king by Onias, high priest of the Jews, to\nbuild a temple, when dispossessed of his office by Antiochus; which was\nlong used by the Hellenist Jews. It was predicted by Jeremiah, xliii,\n13, and by Ezekiel, xxx, 17, that this place, with its temples and\ninhabitants, should be destroyed; which was probably fulfilled by\nNebuchadnezzar. See NOPH.\n\nONESIMUS was a Phrygian by nation, a slave to Philemon, and a disciple\nof the Apostle Paul. Onesimus having run away from his master, and also\nhaving robbed him, Philemon v, 18, went to Rome while St. Paul was there\nin prison the first time. As Onesimus knew him by repute, (his master\nPhilemon being a Christian,) he sought him out. St. Paul brought him to\na sense of the greatness of his crime, instructed him, baptized him, and\nsent him back to his master Philemon with a letter, inserted among St.\nPaul\u2019s epistles, which is universally acknowledged as canonical. This\nletter had all the good success he could desire. Philemon not only\nreceived Onesimus as a faithful servant, but rather as a brother and a\nfriend. A little time after, he sent him back to Rome to St. Paul, that\nhe might continue to be serviceable to him in his prison. And we see\nthat after this Onesimus was employed to carry such epistles as the\nApostle wrote at that time. He carried, for example, that which was\nwritten to the Colossians, while St. Paul was yet in his bonds.\n\nONESIPHORUS is mentioned, 2 Tim. i, 16, 17, and highly commended by St.\nPaul.\n\nONION, \u05d1\u05e6\u05dc, Num. xi, 5; a well known garden plant with a bulbous root.\nOnions and garlics were highly esteemed in Egypt; and not without\nreason, this country being admirably adapted to their culture. The\n_allium cepa_, called by the Arabs _basal_, Hasselquist thinks one of\nthe species of onions for which the Israelites longed. He would infer\nthis from the quantities still used in Egypt, and their goodness.\nWhoever has tasted onions in Egypt,\u201d says he, \u201cmust allow that none can\nbe had better in any part of the universe. Here they are sweet; in other\ncountries they are nauseous and strong. Here they are soft; whereas in\nthe northern and other parts they are hard, and their coats so compact\nthat they are difficult of digestion. Hence they cannot in any place be\neaten with less prejudice, and more satisfaction, than in Egypt.\u201d The\nEgyptians are reproached with swearing by the leeks and onions of their\ngardens. Juvenal ridicules some of these superstitious people who did\nnot dare to eat leeks, garlic, or onions, for fear of injuring their\ngods:--\n\n        _Quis nescit, Volusi Bythynice, qualia demens\n        \u00c6gyptus portenta colit?\n        Porrum et cepe nefas violare aut frangere morsu;\n        O sanctas gentes quibus h\u00e6c nascuntur in hortis Numina!_\n                                             _Sat._ xv.\n\n          \u201cHow Egypt, mad with superstition grown,\n          Makes gods of monsters, but too well is known.\n          \u2019Tis mortal sin an onion to devour;\n          Each clove of garlic has a sacred power.\n          Religious nation, sure! and blest abodes,\n          Where ev\u2019ry garden is o\u2019errun with gods!\u201d\n\nSo Lucian in his Jupiter, where he is giving an account of the different\ndeities worshipped by the several inhabitants of Egypt, says,\n\u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd, those of Pelusium worship the onion.\u201d Hence\narises a question, how the Israelites durst venture to violate the\nnational worship, by eating those sacred plants. We may answer, in the\nfirst place, that whatever might be the case of the Egyptians in later\nages, it is not probable that they were arrived at such a pitch of\nsuperstition in the time of Moses; for we find no indications of this in\nHerodotus, the most ancient of the Greek historians: secondly, the\nwriters here quoted appear to be mistaken in imagining these plants to\nhave been generally the objects of religious worship. The priests,\nindeed, abstained from the use of them, and several other vegetables;\nand this might give rise to the opinion of their being reverenced as\ndivinities: but the use of them was not prohibited to the people, as is\nplain from the testimonies of ancient authors, particularly of Diodorus\nSiculus.\n\nONYX, \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd, Gen. ii, 12; Exod. xxv, 7; xxviii, 9, 20; xxxv, 27; xxxix, 6;\n1 Chron. xxix, 2; Job xxviii, 16; Ezekiel xxviii, 13. A precious stone,\nso called from the Greek \u1f45\u03bd\u03c5\u03be, _the nail_, to the colour of which it\nnearly approaches. It is first mentioned with the gold and bdellium of\nthe river Pison in Eden; but the meaning of the Hebrew word is not\neasily determined. The Septuagint render it, in different places, the\n_sardius_, _beryl_, _sapphire_, _emerald_, &c. Such names are often\nambiguous, even in Greek and Latin, and no wonder if they are more so in\nHebrew. In Exodus xxviii, 9, 10, a direction is given that two onyx\nstones should be fastened on the ephod of the high priest, on which were\nto be graven the names of the children of Israel, like the engravings on\na signet; six of the names on one stone, and six on the other. In 1\nChron. xxix, 2, onyx stones are among the things prepared by David for\nthe temple. The author of Scripture Illustrated\u201d observes, upon this\npassage, that \u201cthe word _onyx_ is equivocal; signifying, first, a\nprecious stone or gem; and, secondly, a marble called in Greek\n_onychites_, which Pliny mentions as a stone of Caramania. Antiquity\ngave both these stones this name, because of their resemblance to the\nnail of the fingers. The onyx of the high priest\u2019s pectoral was, no\ndoubt, the gem onyx; the stone prepared by David was the marble onyx, or\nrather _onychus_; for one would hardly think that gems of any kind were\nused externally in such a building, but variegated marble may readily be\nadmitted.\u201d\n\nOPHIR, a place or country remote from Judea, to which the ships of\nSolomon traded. There has been much discussion respecting the situation\nof this place; some supposing it to have been the island of Socotora,\nwithout the straits of Babelmandel; others, that anciently called\nTabrobana, which is supposed by some to have been Ceylon, and by others\nSumatra; while others fix its situation on the continent of India. M.\nHuet and, after him, Bruce, place Ophir at Sofala, in South Africa,\nwhere mines of gold and silver have been found, which show marks of\nhaving been very anciently and extensively worked. The latter says,\nalso, that the situation of this place explains the period of three\nyears which the Ophir ships were absent, from the different courses of\nthe monsoons and trade winds, which they would have to encounter going\nand returning. Ruins of ancient buildings have also been found in the\nneighbourhood of these mines. In confirmation of this opinion, Bruce\nsays there was a place called Tarshish near Melinda.\n\nIn the same direction with Ophir lay Tarshish; the voyage to both places\nbeing accomplished under one, and always, as it would seem, in the same\nspace of time, three years; by which it may be inferred that,\nnotwithstanding the imperfect navigation of the times, they must be at a\nconsiderable distance from the ports of Judea. But the true situation of\nthese places must ever remain matter of conjecture; and all that can be\nconsidered as certain respecting them is, that from the articles\nimported from them, namely, gold, silver, ivory, apes, peacocks, and\nprecious stones, they must have been situated in the tropical parts of\neither Africa or Asia.\n\nORACLE denotes something delivered by supernatural wisdom; and the term\nis also used in the Old Testament to signify the most holy place from\nwhence the Lord revealed his will to ancient Israel, 1 Kings vi, 5,\n19\u201321, 23. But when the word occurs in the plural number, as it mostly\ndoes, it denotes the revelations contained in the sacred writings of\nwhich the nation of Israel were the depositaries. So Moses is said by\nStephen to have received the lively oracles\u201d to give unto the\nIsraelites. These oracles contained the law, both moral and ceremonial,\nwith all the types and promises relating to the Messiah which are to be\nfound in the writings of Moses. They also contained all the intimations\nof the divine mind which he was pleased to communicate by means of the\nsucceeding prophets who prophesied beforehand of the coming and of the\nsufferings of the Messiah with the glory that should follow. The Jews\nwere a highly privileged people in many and various respects, Rom. ix,\n4, 5; but the Apostle Paul mentions it as their chief advantage that\nunto them were committed the oracles of God,\u201d Romans iii, 2. What\nnation,\u201d says Moses, is there that hath statutes and judgments so\nrighteous as all this law which I set before you this day?\u201d Deut. iv, 8.\nThe psalmist David enumerates their excellent properties under various\nepithets; such as the law of the Lord, his testimony, his statutes, his\ncommandments, his judgments, &c. Their properties are extolled as\nperfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and righteous altogether; more\nto be desired than much fine gold; sweeter than honey and the honey\ncomb. Their salutary effects are all mentioned; such as their converting\nthe soul, making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the\neyes; and the keeping of them is connected with a great reward, Psalm\nxix. The hundred and nineteenth Psalm abounds with praises of the lively\noracles, the word of the living God; it abounds with the warmest\nexpressions of love to it, of delight in it, and the most fervent\npetitions for divine illumination in the knowledge of it. Such was the\nesteem and veneration which the faithful entertained for the lively\noracles under the former dispensation, when they had only Moses and the\nprophets; how, then, ought they to be prized by Christians, who have\nalso Christ and his Apostles!\n\nAmong the Heathen the term _oracle_ is usually taken to signify an\nanswer, generally couched in very dark and ambiguous terms, supposed to\nbe given by demons of old, either by the mouths of their idols, or by\nthose of their priests, to the people, who consulted them on things to\ncome. _Oracle_ is also used for the demon who gave the answer, and the\nplace where it was given. Seneca defines oracles to be enunciations by\nthe mouths of men of the will of the gods; and Cicero simply calls them,\n_deorum oratio_, the language of the gods. Among the Pagans they were\nheld in high estimation; and they were consulted on a variety of\noccasions pertaining to national enterprises and private life. When they\nmade peace or war, enacted laws, reformed states, or changed the\nconstitution, they had in all these cases recourse to the oracle by\npublic authority. Also, in private life, if a man wished to marry, if he\nproposed to take a journey, or to engage in any business of importance,\nhe repaired to the oracle for counsel. Mankind have had always a\npropensity to explore futurity; and conceiving that future events were\nknown to their gods, who possessed the gift of prophecy, they sought\ninformation and advice from the oracles, which, in their opinion, were\nsupernatural and divine communications. The institution of oracles\nseemed to gratify the prevalent curiosity of mankind, and proved a\nsource of immense wealth, as well as authority and influence, to those\nwho had the command of them. Accordingly, every nation, in which\nidolatry has subsisted, had its oracles, by means of which imposture\npractised on superstition and credulity. The principal oracles of\nantiquity are, that of Ab\u00e6, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Amphiaraus,\nat Oropus in Macedonia; that of the Branchid\u00e6 at Didymeum; that of the\ncamps at Laced\u00e6mon; that of Dodona; that of Jupiter Ammon; that of\nNabarca in the country of the Anariaci, near the Caspian Sea; that of\nTrophonius, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Chrysopolis; that of Claros,\nin Ionia; that of Amphilochus at Mallos; that of Petarea; that of Pella\nin Macedonia; that of Phaselides in Cilicia; that of Sinope in\nPaphlagonia; that of Orpheus\u2019s head at Lesbos, mentioned by\nPhilostratus. But of all oracles, the oracle of Apollo Pythius at Delphi\nwas the most celebrated; this was consulted in the dernier resort by\nmost of the princes of those ages.\n\nMost of the Pagan deities had their appropriate oracles. Apollo had the\ngreatest number: such as those of Claros, of the Branchid\u00e6, of the\nsuburbs of Daphne at Antioch, of Delos, of Argos, of Troas, \u00c6olis, &c,\nof Bai\u00e6 in Italy, and others in Cilicia, in Egypt, in the Alps, in\nThrace, at Corinth, in Arcadia, in Laconia, and in many other places\nenumerated by Van Dale. Jupiter, beside that of Dodona and some others,\nthe honour of which he shared with Apollo, had one in B\u0153otia under\nthe name of Jupiter the Thunderer, and another in Elis, one at Thebes\nand at Meroe, one near Antioch, and several others. \u00c6sculapius was\nconsulted in Cilicia, at Apollonia, in the isle of Cos, at Epidaurus,\nPergamos, Rome, and elsewhere. Mercury had oracles at Patras, upon\nH\u00e6mon, and in other places; Mars, in Thrace, Egypt, and elsewhere;\nHercules, at Cadiz, Athens, in Egypt, at Tivoli, in Mesopotamia, where\nhe issued his oracles by dreams, whence he was called Somnialis. Isis,\nOsiris, and Serapis delivered in like manner their oracles by dreams, as\nwe learn from Pausanias, Tacitus, Arrian, and other writers; that of\nAmphilochus was also delivered by dreams; the ox Apis had also his\noracle in Egypt. The gods, called Cabiri, had their oracle in B\u0153otia.\nDiana, the sister of Apollo, had several oracles in Egypt, Cilicia,\nEphesus, &c. Those of fortune at Pr\u00e6neste, and of the lots at Antium are\nwell known. The fountains also delivered oracles, for to each of them a\ndivinity was ascribed: such was the fountain of Castalia at Delphi,\nanother of the same name in the suburbs of Antioch, and the prophetic\nfountain near the temple of Ceres in Achaia. Juno had several oracles:\none near Corinth, one at Nysa, and others at different places. Latona\nhad one at Butis in Egypt; Leucothea had one in Colchis; Memnon in\nEgypt; Machaon at Gerania in Laconia; Minerva had one in Egypt, in\nSpain, upon mount \u00c6tna, at Mycen\u00e6 and Colchis, and in other places.\nThose of Neptune were at Delphos, at Calauria, near Neocesarea, and\nelsewhere. The nymphs had theirs in the cave of Corycia. Pan had\nseveral, the most famous of which was that in Arcadia. That of the\nPalici was in Sicily. Pluto had one at Nysa. Saturn had oracles in\nseveral places, but the most famous were those of Cum\u00e6 in Italy, and of\nAlexandria in Egypt. Those of Venus were dispersed in several places, at\nGaza, upon Mount Libanus, at Paphos, in Cyprus, &c. Serapis had one at\nAlexandria, consulted by Vespasian. Venus Aphacite had one at Aphaca\nbetween Heliopolis and Byblus. Geryon, the three-headed monster slain by\nHercules, had an oracle in Italy near Padua, consulted by Tiberius; that\nof Hercules was at Tivoli, and was given by lots, like those of Pr\u00e6neste\nand Antium. The demi-gods and heroes had likewise their oracles, such\nwere those of Castor and Pollux at Laced\u00e6mon, of Amphiaraus, of Mopsus\nin Cilicia, of Ulysses, Amphilochus, Sarpedon in Troas, Hermione in\nMacedonia, Pasiph\u00e4e in Laconia, Chalcas in Italy, Arist\u00e6us in B\u0153otia,\nAutolycus at Sinope, Phryxus among the Colchi, Zamolxis among the Get\u00e6,\nHeph\u00e6stion the minion of Alexander, and Antinous, &c.\n\nThe responses of oracles were delivered in a variety of ways: at Delphi,\nthey interpreted and put into verse what the priestess pronounced in the\ntime of her furor. Mr. Bayle observes that at first this oracle gave its\nanswers in verse; and that it fell at length to prose, upon the people\u2019s\nbeginning to laugh at the poorness of its versification. The Epicureans\nmade this the subject of their jests, and said, in raillery, it was\nsurprising enough, that Apollo, the god of poetry, should be a much\nworse poet than Homer, whom he himself had inspired. By the railleries\nof these philosophers, and particularly by those of the Cynics and\nPeripatetics, the priests were at length obliged to desist from the\npractice of versifying the responses of the Pythia, which, according to\nPlutarch, was one of the principal causes of the declension of the\noracle of Delphos. At the oracle of Ammon, the priests pronounced the\nresponse of their god; at Dodona, the response was issued from the\nhollow of an oak; at the cave of Trophonius, the oracle was inferred\nfrom what the suppliant said before he recovered his senses; at Memphis,\nthey drew a good or bad omen, according as the ox Apis received or\nrejected what was presented to him, which was also the case with the\nfishes of the fountain of Limyra. The suppliants, who consulted the\noracles, were not allowed to enter the sanctuaries where they were\ngiven; and, accordingly, care was taken that neither the Epicureans nor\nChristians should come near them. In several places, the oracles were\ngiven by letters sealed up, as in that of Mopsus, and at Mallus in\nCilicia. Oracles were frequently given by lot, the mode of doing which\nwas as follows: the lots were a kind of dice, on which were engraven\ncertain characters or words, whose explanations they were to seek on\ntables made for the purpose. The way of using these dice for knowing\nfuturity, was different, according to the places where they were used.\nIn some temples, the person threw them himself; in others, they were\ndropped from a box; whence came the proverbial expression, The lot is\nfallen.\u201d This playing with dice was always preceded by sacrifices and\nother customary ceremonies. The ambiguity of the oracles in their\nresponses, and their double meaning, contributed to their support.\n\nAblancourt observes, that the study or research of the meaning of\noracles was but a fruitless thing; and that they were never understood\ntill after their accomplishment. Historians relate, that Cr\u0153sus was\ntricked by the ambiguity and equivocation of the oracle:\n\n              \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f09\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nThus rendered in Latin:\n\n    _Cr\u0153sus Halym superans magnam pervertet opum vim._\u201d\n\n    [If Cr\u0153sus cross the Halys he will overthrow a great empire.]\n\nThus, if the Lydian monarch had conquered Cyrus, he overthrew the\nAssyrian empire; if he himself was routed, he overturned his own. That\ndelivered to Pyrrhus, which is comprised in this Latin verse,\n\n   _Credo equidem \u00c6acidas Romanos vincere posse_,\u201d\n\n   [I believe indeed that the sons of \u00c6acus the Romans will conquer,]\n\nhad the same advantage; for, according to the rules of syntax, either of\nthe two accusatives may be governed by the verb, and the verse be\nexplained, either by saying the Romans shall conquer the \u00c6acid\u00e6, of whom\nPyrrhus was descended, or those shall conquer the Romans. When Alexander\nfell sick at Babylon, some of his courtiers who happened to be in Egypt,\nor who went thither on purpose, passed the night in the temple of\nSerapis, to inquire if it would not be proper to bring Alexander to be\ncured by him. The god answered, it was better that Alexander should\nremain where he was. This in all events was a very prudent and safe\nanswer. If the king recovered his health, what glory must Serapis have\ngained by saving him the fatigue of the journey! If he died, it was but\nsaying he died in a favourable juncture after so many conquests; which,\nhad he lived, he could neither have enlarged nor preserved. This is\nactually the construction they put upon the response; whereas had\nAlexander undertaken the journey, and died in the temple, or by the way,\nnothing could have been said in favour of Serapis. When Trajan had\nformed the design of his expedition against the Parthians, he was\nadvised to consult the oracle of Heliopolis, to which he had no more to\ndo but send a note under a seal. That prince, who had no great faith in\noracles, sent thither a blank note; and they returned him another of the\nsame kind. By this Trajan was convinced of the divinity of the oracle.\nHe sent back a second note to the god, in which he inquired whether he\nshould return to Rome after finishing the war he had in view. The god,\nas Macrobius tells the story, ordered a vine, which was among the\nofferings of his temple, to be divided into pieces, and brought to\nTrajan. The event justified the oracle; for the emperor dying in that\nwar, his bones were carried to Rome, which had been represented by that\nbroken vine. As the priests of that oracle knew Trajan\u2019s design, which\nwas no secret, they happily devised that response, which, in all events,\nwas capable of a favourable interpretation, whether he routed and cut\nthe Parthians in pieces, or if his army met with the same fate.\nSometimes the responses of the oracles were mere banter, as in the case\nof the man who wished to know by what means he might become rich, and\nwho received for answer from the god, that he had only to make himself\nmaster of all that lay between Sicyon and Corinth. Another, wanting a\ncure for the gout, was answered by the oracle, that he was to drink\nnothing but cold water.\n\nThere are two points in dispute on the subject of oracles; namely,\nwhether they were human, or diabolical machines; and whether or not they\nceased upon the publication or preaching of the Gospel. Most of the\nfathers of the church supposed that the devil issued oracles; and looked\non it as a pleasure he took to give dubious and equivocal answers, in\norder to have a handle to laugh at them. Vossius allows that it was the\ndevil who spoke in oracles; but thinks that the obscurity of his answers\nwas owing to his ignorance as to the precise circumstances of events.\nThat artful and studied obscurity in which the answers were couched,\nsays he, showed the embarrassment the devil was under; as those double\nmeanings they usually bore provided for their accomplishment. Where the\nthing foretold did not happen accordingly, the oracle, forsooth, was\nmisunderstood. Eusebius has preserved some fragments of a philosopher,\ncalled \u0152nomaus; who, out of resentment for his having been so often\nfooled by the oracles, wrote an ample confutation of all their\nimpertinencies: When we come to consult thee,\u201d says he to Apollo, \u201cif\nthou seest what is in futurity, why dost thou use expressions that will\nnot be understood? Dost thou not know, that they will not be understood?\nIf thou dost, thou takest pleasure in abusing us; if thou dost not, be\ninformed of us, and learn to speak more clearly. I tell thee, that if\nthou intendest an equivoque, the Greek word whereby thou affirmedst that\nCr\u0153sus should overthrow a great empire was ill chosen; and that it\ncould signify nothing but Cr\u0153sus\u2019s conquering Cyrus. If things must\nnecessarily come to pass, why dost thou amuse us with thy ambiguities?\nWhat doest thou, wretch as thou art, at Delphi? employed in muttering\nidle prophecies!\u201d But \u0152nomaus is still more out of humour with the\noracle, for the answer which Apollo gave the Athenians, when Xerxes was\nabout to attack Greece with all the strength of Asia. The Pythian\ndeclared, that Minerva, the protectress of Athens, had endeavoured in\nvain to appease the wrath of Jupiter; yet that Jupiter, in complaisance\nto his daughter, was willing the Athenians should save themselves within\nwooden walls; and that Salamis should behold the loss of a great many\nchildren, dear to their mothers, either when Ceres was spread abroad, or\ngathered together. Here \u0152nomaus loses all patience with the god of\nDelphi. This contest,\u201d says he, \u201cbetween father and daughter is very\nbecoming the deities! It is excellent, that there should be contrary\ninclinations and interests in heaven. Poor wizard, thou art ignorant\nwhose the children are that Salamis shall see perish; whether Greeks or\nPersians. It is certain they must be either one or the other; but thou\nneedest not to have told so openly, that thou knewest not which. Thou\nconcealest the time of the battle under those fine poetical expressions,\n\u2018either when Ceres is spread abroad, or gathered together;\u2019 and wouldest\nthou cajole us with such pompous language? Who knows not, that if there\nbe a sea fight, it must either be in seed time or harvest? It is certain\nit cannot be in winter. Let things go how they will, thou wilt secure\nthyself by this Jupiter, whom Minerva is endeavouring to appease. If the\nGreeks lose the battle, Jupiter proved inexorable to the last; if they\ngain it, why then Minerva at length prevailed.\u201d\n\nIt is a very general opinion among the more learned, that oracles were\nall mere cheats and impostures; either calculated to serve the\navaricious ends of the Heathen priests, or the political views of the\nprinces. Bayle says positively, they were mere human artificers, in\nwhich the devil had no hand. He was strongly supported by Van Dale and\nFontenelle, who have written expressly on the subject. Father Balthus, a\nJesuit, wrote a treatise in defence of the fathers with regard to the\norigin of oracles; but without denying the imposture of the priests,\noften blended with the oracles. He maintains the intervention of the\ndevil in some predictions, which could not be ascribed to the cheats of\nthe priests alone. The Abb\u00e9 Banier espouses the same side of the\nquestion, and objects that oracles would not have lasted so long, and\nsupported themselves with so much splendour and reputation, if they had\nbeen merely owing to the forgeries of the priests. Bishop Sherlock, in\nhis Discourses concerning the Use and Intent of Prophecy,\u201d expresses his\nopinion, that it is impious to disbelieve the Heathen oracles, and to\ndeny them to have been given out by the devil; to which assertion, Dr.\nMiddleton, in his Examination,\u201d &c, replies, that he is guilty of this\nimpiety, and that he thinks himself warranted to pronounce from the\nauthority of the best and wisest of the Heathens themselves, and the\nevidence of plain facts, which are recorded of those oracles, as well as\nfrom the nature of the thing itself, that they were all mere imposture,\nwholly invented and supported by human craft, without any supernatural\naid or interposition whatsoever. He alleges, that Cicero, speaking of\nthe Delphic oracle, the most revered of any in the Heathen world,\ndeclares, that nothing was become more contemptible, not only in his\ndays, but long before him; that Demosthenes, who lived about three\nhundred years earlier, affirmed of the same oracle, in a public speech\nto the people of Athens, that it was gained to the interests of King\nPhilip, an enemy to that city; that the Greek historians tell us, how,\non several other occasions, it had been corrupted by money, to serve the\nviews of particular persons and parties, and the prophetess sometimes\nhad been deposed for bribery and lewdness; that there were some great\nsects of philosophers, who, on principle, disavowed the authority of all\noracles; agreeably to all which Strabo tells us, that divination in\ngeneral and oracles had been in high credit among the ancients, but in\nhis days were treated with much contempt; lastly, that Eusebius also,\nthe great historian of the primitive church, declares, that there were\nsix hundred writers among the Heathens themselves who had publicly\nwritten against the reality of them. Plutarch has a treatise on the\nceasing of some oracles; and Van Dale, a Dutch physician, has a volume\nto prove they did not cease at the coming of Christ; but that many of\nthem ceased long before, and that others held till the fall of Paganism,\nunder the empire of Theodosius the Great, when Paganism being\ndissipated, these institutions could no longer subsist. Van Dale was\nanswered by a German, one M\u0153bius, professor of theology at Leipsic,\nin 1685. Fontenelle espoused Van Dale\u2019s system, and improved upon it in\nhis History of Oracles;\u201d and showed the weakness of the argument used by\nmany writers in behalf of Christianity, drawn from the ceasing of\noracles. Cicero says, the oracles became dumb in proportion as people,\ngrowing less credulous, began to suspect them for cheats. Plutarch\nalleges two reasons for the ceasing of oracles: the one was Apollo\u2019s\nchagrin; who, it seems, took it in dudgeon to be interrogated about so\nmany trifles. The other was, that in proportion as the genii, or demons,\nwho had the management of the oracles, died, and became extinct, the\noracles must necessarily cease. He adds a third and more natural cause\nfor the ceasing of oracles; namely, the forlorn state of Greece, ruined\nand desolated by wars; for, hence, the smallness of the gains let the\npriests sink into a poverty and contempt too bare to cover the fraud.\nThat the oracles were silenced about or soon after the time of our\nSaviour\u2019s advent, may be proved, says Dr. Leland, in the first volume of\nhis learned work on The Necessity and Advantage of Revelation,\u201d &c, from\nexpress testimonies, not only of Christian but of Heathen authors.\nLucan, who wrote his Pharsalia\u201d in the reign of Nero, scarcely thirty\nyears after our Lord\u2019s crucifixion, laments it as one of the greatest\nmisfortunes of that age, that the Delphian oracle, which he represents\nas one of the choicest gifts of the gods, was become silent.\n\n                                   _Non ullo s\u00e6cula dono\n             Nostra carent majore Deum, quam Delphica sedes\n             Quod sileat._\n                                  _Pharsal._ lib. v, 111.\n\n             Of all the wants with which the age is curst,\n             The Delphic silence surely is the worst.\u201d\n                                               ROWE.\n\nIn like manner, Juvenal says,\n\n                           _Delphis oracula cessant,\n             Et genus humanum damnat caligo futuri._\n                                           _Sat._ vi, 554.\n\n             Since Delphi now, if we may credit fame,\n             Gives no responses, and a long dark night\n             Conceals the future hour from mortal sight.\u201d\n                                           GIFFORD.\n\nLucian says, that when he was at Delphi, the oracle gave no answer, nor\nwas the priestess inspired. This likewise appears from Plutarch\u2019s\ntreatise, why the oracles cease to give answers, already cited; whence\nit is also manifest, that the most learned Heathens were very much at a\nloss how to give a tolerable account of it. Porphyry, in a passage cited\nfrom him by Eusebius, says, The city of Rome was overrun with sickness,\n\u00c6sculapius and the rest of the gods having withdrawn their converse with\nmen; because since Jesus began to be worshipped, no man had received any\npublic help or benefit from the gods.\u201d With respect to the origin of\noracles, they were probably imitations, first, of the answers given to\nthe holy patriarchs from the divine presence or Shechinah, and secondly,\nof the responses to the Jewish high priest from the mercy seat: for all\nPaganism is a parody of the true religion.\n\nORDINATION, the act of conferring holy orders, or of initiating a person\ninto the ministry of the Gospel, by prayer and with or without the\nlaying on of hands. In the church of England, ordination has always been\nesteemed the principal prerogative of bishops; and bishops still retain\nthe function as a mark of their spiritual sovereignty in their diocess.\nWithout ordination no person can receive any benefice, parsonage,\nvicarage, &c. A person must be twenty-three years of age, or near it,\nbefore he can be ordained deacon, or have any share in the ministry; and\nfull twenty-four before he can be ordained priest, and by that means be\npermitted to administer the holy communion. A bishop, on the ordination\nof clergymen, is to examine them in the presence of the ministers, who\nin the ordination of priests, but not of deacons, assist him at the\nimposition of hands; but this is only done as a mark of assent, not\nbecause it is thought necessary. In case any crime, as drunkenness,\nperjury, forgery, &c, is alleged against any one that is to be ordained,\neither priest or deacon, the bishop ought to desist from ordaining him.\nThe person to be ordained is to bring a testimonial of his life and\ndoctrine to the bishop, and to give an account of his faith in Latin;\nand both priests and deacons are obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine\narticles. In the ancient discipline there was no such thing as a vague\nand absolute ordination; but every one was to have a church, whereof he\nwas to be ordained clerk or priest. In the twelfth century the bishops\ngrew more remiss, and ordained without any title or benefice. The\ncouncil of Trent, however, restored the ancient discipline, and\nappointed that none should be ordained but those who were provided with\na benefice; which practice still obtains in the church of England.\n\nThe reformed held the call of the people the only thing essential to the\nvalidity of the ministry; and teach, that ordination is only a ceremony,\nwhich renders the call more august and authentic. Accordingly the\nProtestant churches of Scotland, France, Holland, Switzerland, Germany,\nPoland, Hungary, Denmark, &c, have no episcopal ordination. For Luther,\nCalvin, Bucer, Melancthon, &c, and all the first reformers and founders\nof these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were themselves\npresbyters, and no other. And though in some of these churches there are\nministers called superintendents, or bishops, yet these are only _primi\ninter pares_, the first among equals; not pretending to any superiority\nof orders. Having themselves no other orders than what either presbyters\ngave them, or what was given them as presbyters, they can convey no\nother to those they ordain. On this ground the Protestant Dissenters\nplead that their ordination, though not episcopal, is the same with that\nof all the illustrious Protestant churches abroad; and object, that a\npriest ordained by a popish bishop should be received into the church of\nEngland as a valid minister, rightfully ordained; while the orders of\nanother, ordained by the most learned religious presbyter, which any\nforeign country can boast, are pronounced not valid, and he is required\nto submit to be ordained afresh. In opposition to episcopal ordination,\nthey urge that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the\npresbytery, 1 Tim. iv, 14; that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by\ncertain prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, and not by any\nbishop presiding in that city, Acts xiii, 1\u20133; and that it is a well\nknown fact, that presbyters in the church of Alexandria ordained even\ntheir own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages\nof Christianity. They farther argue, that bishops and presbyters are in\nScripture the same, and not denominations of distinct orders or offices\nin the church, referring to Phil. i, 1; Titus i, 5, 7; Acts xx, 27, 28;\n1 Peter v, 1, 2. To the same purpose they maintain, that the superiority\nof bishops to presbyters is not pretended to be of divine, but of human,\ninstitution; not grounded on Scripture, but only upon the custom or\nordinances of this realm, by the first reformers and founders of the\nchurch of England; nor by many of its most learned and eminent doctors\nsince. See Stillingfleet\u2019s _Irenicum_, in which the learned author\naffirms and shows this to be the sentiment of Cranmer, and other chief\nreformers both in Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth\u2019s reign, of Archbishop\nWhitgift, Bishop Bridges, Lee, Hooker, Sutcliff, Hales, Chillingworth,\n&c. Moreover, the book entitled, the Institution of a Christian Man,\u201d\nsubscribed by the clergy in convocation, and confirmed by parliament,\nowns bishops and presbyters by Scripture to be the same. Beside, the\nProtestant Dissenters allege, that if episcopal ordination be really\nnecessary to constitute a valid minister, it does not seem to be\nenjoined by the constitution of the church of England; because the power\nof ordination which the bishops exercise in this kingdom, is derived\nentirely and only from the civil magistrate; and he authoritatively\nprescribes how, and to whom ordination is to be given: that if an\nordination should be conducted in other manner and form than that\nprescribed by him, such ordination would be illegal, and of no authority\nin the church. Accordingly the bishop at the ordination of the candidate\nasks, Are you called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and\nthe due order of this realm?\u201d The constitution and law of England seem\nto know nothing of uninterrupted lineal descent, but considers the king\nvested, by act of parliament, or the suffrage of the people, with a\nfulness of all power ecclesiastical in these realms, as empowering and\nauthorizing bishops to ordain: and this power of ordination was once\ndelegated to Cromwell, a layman, as vicegerent to the king. They farther\nthink it strange, that the validity of orders and ministrations should\nbe derived, as some have contended, from a succession of popish bishops;\nbishops of a church, which, by the definition of the nineteenth article\nof the church, can be no part of the true visible church of Christ, and\nbishops, likewise, who consider the Protestant clergy, although ordained\nby Protestant bishops, as mere common unconsecrated laymen.\n\nOn reviewing the whole of this controversy, says Dr. Watts, that since\nthere are some texts in the New Testament, wherein single persons,\neither Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in the\nchurches, or evangelists, as Timothy and Titus; and since other missions\nor ordinations are intimated to be performed by several persons, namely,\nprophets, teachers, elders, or a presbytery, Acts xiii, 1; 1 Timothy iv,\n14; since there is sometimes mention made of the imposition of hands in\nthe mission of a minister, and sometimes no mention is made of it; and\nsince it is evident that in some cases popular ordinations are and must\nbe valid without any bishop or elder,--I think none of these differences\nshould be made a matter of violent contest among Christians; nor ought\nany words to be pronounced against each other by those of the episcopal,\npresbyterian, or independent way. Surely all may agree thus far, that\nvarious forms or modes, seeming to be used in the mission or ordination\nof ministers in primitive times, may give a reasonable occasion or\ncolour for sincere and honest searchers after truth to follow different\nopinions on this head, and do therefore demand our candid and charitable\nsentiments concerning those who differ from us. Among the Wesleyan\nMethodists, the ordination of their ministers is in the annual\nconference, with a president at its head, and is by prayer without\nimposition of hands. The latter they hold to be a circumstance of\nordination, not an essential. They sometimes therefore use it, and at\nothers omit it. The missionaries sent out by that body, if not\npreviously ordained by the conference, are set apart by a few senior\nministers; and ordinarily in this case, the service of the church of\nEngland, with some alterations, is used, with imposition of the hands of\nthe ministers present.\n\nOSSIFRAGE, \u05e4\u05e8\u05e1, Lev. xi, 13; Deut. xiv, 12. Interpreters are not agreed\non this bird; some read vulture,\u201d others the black eagle,\u201d others the\nfalcon.\u201d The name _peres_, by which it is called in Hebrew, denotes to\ncrush, to break;\u201d and this name agrees with our version, which implies\nthe bone-breaker,\u201d which name is given to a kind of eagle, from the\ncircumstance of its habit of breaking the bones of its prey, after it\nhas eaten the flesh: some say also, that he even swallows the bones thus\nbroken. Onkelos uses a word which signifies naked,\u201d and leads us to the\nvulture: indeed, if we were to take the classes of birds in any thing\nlike a natural order in the passages here referred to, the vulture\nshould follow the eagle as an unclean bird. The Septuagint interpreter\nalso renders vulture; and so do Munster, Schindler, and the Zurick\nversions.\n\nOSTRICH, \u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4; in Arabic _neamah_; in Greek \u03db\u03c1\u0223\u03b8\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _the camel\nbird_; and still in the east, says Niebuhr, it is called _thar\nedsjammel_, the camel bird,\u201d Lev. xi, 16; Deut. xiv, 15; Job xxx, 29;\nIsaiah xiii, 21; xxxiv, 13; xliii, 20; Jer. 1, 39; Lam. iv, 3; Micah i,\n8; \u05e8\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Job xxxix, 13. The first name in the places above quoted is,\nby our own translators, generally rendered owls.\u201d \u201cNow it should be\nrecollected,\u201d says the author of Scripture Illustrated,\u201d \u201cthat the owl\nis not a desert bird, but rather resides in places not far from\nhabitations, and that it is not the companion of serpents; whereas, in\nseveral of these passages, the _joneh_ is associated with deserts, dry,\nextensive, thirsty deserts, and with serpents, which are their natural\ninhabitants. Our ignorance of the natural history of the countries which\nthe ostrich inhabits has undoubtedly perverted the import of the above\npassages; but let any one peruse them afresh, and exchange the owl for\nthe ostrich, and he will immediately discover a vigour of description,\nand an imagery much beyond what he had formerly perceived.\u201d The Hebrew\nphrase \u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4, means the daughter \u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 of vociferation,\u201d and is\nunderstood to be the female ostrich, probably so called from the noise\nwhich this bird makes. It is affirmed by travellers of good credit, that\nostriches make a fearful, screeching, lamentable noise.\n\nOstriches are inhabitants of the deserts of Arabia, where they live\nchiefly upon vegetables; lead a social and inoffensive life, the male\nassorting with the female with connubial fidelity. Their eggs are very\nlarge, some of them measuring above five inches in diameter, and\nweighing twelve or fifteen pounds. These birds are very prolific, laying\nforty or fifty eggs at a clutch. They will devour leather, grass, hair,\nstones, metals, or any thing that is given to them; but those substances\nwhich the coats of the stomach cannot act upon pass whole. It is so\nunclean an animal as to eat its own ordure as soon as it voids it. This\nis a sufficient reason, were others wanting, why such a fowl should be\nreputed unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited. The\nostrich,\u201d says M. Buffon, was known in the remotest ages, and mentioned\nin the most ancient books. How indeed could an animal so remarkably\nlarge, and so wonderfully prolific, and peculiarly suited to the climate\nas is the ostrich, remain unknown in Africa, and part of Asia, countries\npeopled from the earliest ages, full of deserts indeed, but where there\nis not a spot which has not been traversed by the foot of man? The\nfamily of the ostrich, therefore, is of great antiquity. Nor in the\ncourse of ages has it varied or degenerated from its native purity. It\nhas always remained on its paternal estate; and its lustre has been\ntransmitted unsullied by foreign intercourse. In short, it is among the\nbirds what the elephant is among the quadrupeds, a distinct race, widely\nseparated from all the others by characters as striking as they are\ninvariable.\u201d \u201cOn the least noise,\u201d says Dr. Shaw, \u201cor trivial occasion,\nshe forsakes her eggs, or her young ones; to which perhaps she never\nreturns; or if she does, it may be too late either to restore life to\nthe one, or to preserve the lives of the others. Agreeably to this\naccount the Arabs meet sometimes with whole nests of these eggs\nundisturbed: some of them are sweet and good, others are addle and\ncorrupted; others again have their young ones of different growth,\naccording to the time, it may be presumed, they have been forsaken of\nthe dam. The Arabs often meet with a few of the little ones no bigger\nthan well grown pullets, half starved, straggling and moaning about like\nso many distressed orphans for their mother. In this manner the ostrich\nmay be said to be hardened against her young ones as though they were\nnot hers; her labour, in hatching and attending them so far, being vain,\nwithout fear, or the least concern of what becomes of them afterward.\nThis want of affection is also recorded, Lam. iv, 3, \u2018the daughter of my\npeople is become cruel, like ostriches in the wilderness;\u2019 that is, by\napparently deserting their own, and receiving others in return.\u201d Natural\naffection and sagacious instinct are the grand instruments by which\nprovidence continues the race of other animals: but no limits can be set\nto the wisdom and power of God. He preserveth the breed of the ostrich\nwithout those means, and even in a penury of all the necessaries of\nlife. Notwithstanding the stupidity of this animal, its Creator hath\namply provided for its safety, by endowing it with extraordinary\nswiftness, and a surprising apparatus for escaping from its enemy. They,\nwhen they raise themselves up for flight, laugh at the horse and his\nrider.\u201d They afford him an opportunity only of admiring at a distance\nthe extraordinary agility and the stateliness likewise of their motions,\nthe richness of their plumage, and the great propriety there was in\nascribing to them an expanded quivering wing. Nothing certainly can be\nmore entertaining than such a sight, the wings, by their rapid but\nunwearied vibrations, equally serving them for sails and oars; while\ntheir feet, no less assisting in conveying them out of sight, seem to be\ninsensible of fatigue.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  MAP OF\n  PALESTINE.\n  _Illustrating the_\n  NEW TESTAMENT.\n]\n\nOWL. There are several varieties of this species, all too well known to\nneed a particular description. They are nocturnal birds of prey, and\nhave their eyes better adapted for discerning objects in the evening or\ntwilight than in the glare of day. 1. \u05db\u05d5\u05e1, Lev. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 16;\nPsalm cii, 6, is in our version rendered the little owl.\u201d Aquila,\nTheodotion, Jerom, Kimchi, and most of the older interpreters, are\nquoted to justify this rendering. Micha\u00eblis, at some length, supports\nthe opinion that it is the horned owl. Bochart, though with some\nhesitation, suspected it to be the _onocrotalus_, a kind of pelican,\nbecause the Hebrew name signifies _cup_, and the pelican is remarkable\nfor a pouch or bag under the lower jaw; but there are good reasons for\nsupposing that bird to be the \u05e7\u05d0\u05ea of the next verse. Dr. Geddes thinks\nthis bird the cormorant; and as it begins the list of water fowl, and is\nmentioned always in the same contexts with \u05e7\u05d0\u05ea, confessedly a water\nbird, his opinion may be adopted. 2. \u05e7\u05d0\u05ea, Lev. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 16;\nIsaiah xxxiv, 11. In the two first places our translators render this\nthe great owl,\u201d which is strangely placed after the little owl, and\namong water birds. Our translators,\u201d says the author of Scripture\nIllustrated,\u201d \u201cseem to have thought the owl a convenient bird, as we\nhave three owls in two verses.\u201d Some critics think it means a species of\nnight bird, because the word may be derived from \u05e0\u05e9\u05e3, which signifies\n_the twilight_, the time when owls fly about. But this interpretation,\nsays Parkhurst, seems very forced; and since it is mentioned among water\nfowls, and the LXX. have, in the first and last of those texts, rendered\nit by \u1f34\u03b2\u03b9\u03c2, _the ibis_, we are disposed to adopt it here, and think the\nevidence strengthened by this, that in a Coptic version of Lev. xi, 17,\nit is called _ip_ or _hip_, which, with a Greek termination, would very\neasily make \u03b9\u03b2\u03b9\u03c2. 3. \u05e7\u05e4\u05d5\u05df, which occurs only in Isaiah xxxiv, 15, is in\nour version rendered the great owl.\u201d 4. \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea, Isa. xxxiv, 14, in our\nversion the screech owl.\u201d The root signifies _night_; and as undoubtedly\na bird frequenting dark places and ruins is referred to, we must admit\nsome kind of owl.\n\n             A place of lonely desolation, where\n               The screeching tribe and pelicans abide,\n             And the dun ravens croak mid ruins drear,\n               And moaning owls from man the farthest hide.\n\nOX, \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8, in Arabic _b\u0153kerre_ and _bykar_, the male of horned cattle\nof the beeve kind, at full age, when fit for the plough. Younger ones\nare called bullocks. Micha\u00eblis, in his elaborate work on the laws of\nMoses, has proved that castration was never practised. The rural economy\nof the Israelites led them to value the ox as by far the most important\nof domestic animals, from the consideration of his great use in all the\noperations of farming. In the patriarchal ages, the ox constituted no\ninconsiderable portion of their wealth. Thus Abraham is said to be very\nrich in cattle, Gen. xxiv, 35. Men of every age and country have been\nmuch indebted to the labours of this animal. So early as in the days of\nJob, who was probably contemporary with Isaac, the oxen were ploughing,\nand the asses were feeding beside them,\u201d when the Sabeans fell upon\nthem, and took them away. In times long posterior, when Elijah was\ncommissioned to anoint Elisha, the son of Shaphat, prophet in his stead,\nhe found him ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen, 1 Kings xix, 19. For\nmany ages the hopes of oriental husbandmen depended entirely on their\nlabours. This was so much the case in the time of Solomon, that he\nobserves, in one of his proverbs, Where no oxen are, the crib is clean,\u201d\nor rather empty; but much increase is by the strength of the ox,\u201d Prov.\nxiv, 4. The ass, in the course of ages was compelled to bend his\nstubborn neck to the yoke, and share the labours of the ox; but still\nthe preparation of the ground in the time of spring depended chiefly on\nthe more powerful exertions of the latter. When this animal was employed\nin bringing home the produce of the harvest, he was regaled with a\nmixture of chaff, chopped straw, and various kinds of grain, moistened\nwith acidulated water. But among the Jews, the ox was best fed when\nemployed in treading out the corn; for the divine law, in many of whose\nprecepts the benevolence of the Deity conspicuously shines, forbad to\nmuzzle him, and, by consequence, to prevent him from eating what he\nwould of the grain he was employed to separate from the husks. The ox\nwas also compelled to the labour of dragging the cart or wagon. The\nnumber of oxen commonly yoked to one cart appears to have been two, Num.\nvii, 3, 7, 8; 1 Sam. vi, 7; 2 Sam. vi, 3, 6.\n\nThe _wild ox_, \u05ea\u05d0\u05df, Deut. xiv, 5, is supposed to be the oryx of the\nGreeks, which is a species of large stag.\n\n\nPADAN-ARAM, called also Sedan-Aram in Hosea; both names denoting _Aram_\nor _Syria the fruitful_, or _cultivated_, and apply to the northern part\nof Mesopotamia, in which Haran or Charran was situated. See MESOPOTAMIA.\n\nPAGANS, Heathens, and particularly those who worship idols. The term\ncame into use after the establishment of Christianity, the cities and\ngreat towns affording the first converts. The Heathens were called\nPagans, from _pagus_, a village,\u201d because they were then found chiefly\nin remote country places; but we use the term commonly for all who do\nnot receive the Jewish, Christian, or Mohammedan religions.\n\nPAINTING THE FACE, 2 Kings ix, 30. See EYES.\n\nPALESTINE, taken in a limited sense, denotes the country of the\nPhilistines or Palestines, including that part of the land of promise\nwhich extended along the Mediterranean Sea, from Gaza south to Lydda\nnorth. The LXX. were of opinion that the word _Philistiim_, which they\ngenerally translate _Allophyli_, signified strangers,\u201d or men of another\ntribe. Palestine, taken in a more general sense, signifies the whole\ncountry of Canaan, the whole land of promise, as well beyond as on this\nside Jordan, though pretty frequently it is restrained to the country on\nthis side that river; so that in later times the words Judea and\nPalestine were synonymous. We find, also, the name of Syria Palestina\ngiven to the land of promise, and even sometimes this province is\ncomprehended in C\u0153lo-Syria, or the Lower Syria. Herodotus is the most\nancient writer we know that speaks of Syria Palestina. He places it\nbetween Phenicia and Egypt. See CANAAN.\n\nPALM TREE, \u05ea\u05de\u05e8, Exodus xv, 27, &c. This tree, sometimes called the date\ntree, grows plentifully in the east. It rises to a great height. The\nstalks are generally full of rugged knots, which are the vestiges of the\ndecayed leaves; for the trunk of this tree is not solid, like other\ntrees, but its centre is filled with pith, round which is a tough bark\nfull of strong fibres when young, which, as the tree grows old, hardens\nand becomes ligneous. To this bark the leaves are closely joined, which\nin the centre rise erect; but, after they are advanced above the vagina\nwhich surrounds them, they expand very wide on every side the stem; and,\nas the older leaves decay, the stalk advances in height. The leaves,\nwhen the tree has grown to a size for bearing fruit, are six or eight\nfeet long, are very broad when spread out, and are used for covering the\ntops of houses, &c. The fruit, which is called date, grows below the\nleaves in clusters and is of a sweet and agreeable taste. The learned\nK\u00e6mpfer, as a botanist, an antiquary, and a traveller, has exhausted the\nwhole subject of palm trees. The diligent natives,\u201d says Mr. Gibbon,\ncelebrated, either in verse or prose, the three hundred and sixty uses\nto which the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the juice, and the fruit,\nwere skilfully applied.\u201d \u201cThe extensive importance of the date tree,\u201d\nsays Dr. E. D. Clarke, is one of the most curious subjects to which a\ntraveller can direct his attention. A considerable part of the\ninhabitants of Egypt, of Arabia, and Persia, subsist almost entirely\nupon its fruit. They boast also of its medicinal virtues. Their camels\nfeed upon the date stone. From the leaves they make couches, baskets,\nbags, mats, and brushes; from the branches, cages for their poultry, and\nfences for their gardens; from the fibres of the boughs, thread, ropes,\nand rigging; from the sap is prepared a spirituous liquor; and the body\nof the tree furnishes fuel. It is even said that from one variety of the\npalm tree, the _ph\u0153nix farinifera_, meal has been extracted, which is\nfound among the fibres of the trunk, and has been used for food.\u201d\n\nIn the temple of Solomon were pilasters made in the form of palm trees,\n1 Kings vi, 29. It was under a tree of this kind that Deborah dwelt\nbetween Ramah and Bethel, Judges iv, 5. To the fair, flourishing, and\nfruitful condition of this tree, the psalmist very aptly compares the\nvotary of virtue, Psalm xcii, 12, 13, 14:--\n\n            The righteous shall flourish like a palm tree.\n            Those that are planted in the house of Jehovah,\n            In the courts of our God, shall flourish;\n            In old age they shall still put forth buds,\n            They shall be full of sap and vigorous.\n\nThe palm tree is crowned at its top with a large tuft of spiring leaves\nabout four feet long, which never fall off, but always continue in the\nsame flourishing verdure. The tree, as Dr. Shaw was informed, is in its\ngreatest vigour about thirty years after it is planted, and continues in\nfull vigour seventy years longer; bearing all this while, every year,\nabout three or four hundred pounds\u2019 weight of dates. The trunk of the\ntree is remarkably straight and lofty. Jeremiah, speaking of the idols\nthat were carried in procession, says they were upright as the palm\ntree, Jer. x, 5. And for erect stature and slenderness of form, the\nspouse, in Canticles vii, 7, is compared to this tree:--\n\n                 How framed, O my love, for delights!\n                 Lo, thy stature is like a palm tree,\n                 And thy bosom like clusters of dates.\n\nOn this passage Mr. Good observes, that \u201cthe very word _tamar_, here\nused for the palm tree, and whose radical meaning is \u2018straight,\u2019 or\n\u2018upright,\u2019 (whence it was afterward applied to pillars or columns, as\nwell as to the palm,) was also a general name among the ladies of\nPalestine, and unquestionably adopted in honour of the stature they had\nalready acquired, or gave a fair promise of attaining.\u201d\n\nA branch of palm was a signal of victory, and was carried before\nconquerors in the triumphs. To this, allusion is made, Rev. vii, 9: and\nfor this purpose were they borne before Christ in his way to Jerusalem,\nJohn xii, 13. From the inspissated sap of the tree, a kind of honey, or\ndispse, as it is called, is produced, little inferior to that of bees.\nThe same juice, after fermentation, makes a sort of wine much used in\nthe east. It is once mentioned as wine, Num. xxviii, 7; Exodus xxix, 40;\nand by it is intended the strong drink, Isaiah v, 11; xxiv, 9. Theodoret\nand Chrysostom, on these places, both Syrians, and unexceptionable\nwitnesses in what belongs to their own country, confirm this\ndeclaration. This liquor,\u201d says Dr. Shaw, which has a more luscious\nsweetness than honey, is of the consistence of a thin syrup, but quickly\ngrows tart and ropy, acquiring an intoxicating quality, and giving by\ndistillation an agreeable spirit, or _ar\u00e2ky_, according to the general\nname of these people for all hot liquors, extracted by the alembic.\u201d Its\nHebrew name is \u05e9\u05db\u05e8, the \u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 of the Greeks; and from its sweetness,\nprobably, the _saccharum_ of the Romans. Jerom informs us that in Hebrew\nany inebriating liquor is called _sicera_, whether made of grain, the\njuice of apples, honey, dates, or any other fruit.\u201d\n\nThis tree was formerly of great value and esteem among the Israelites,\nand so very much cultivated in Judea, that, in after times, it became\nthe emblem of that country, as may be seen in a medal of the Emperor\nVespasian upon the conquest of Judea. It represents a captive woman\nsitting under a palm tree, with this inscription, _Judea capta_;\u201d [Judea\ncaptivated;] and upon a Greek coin, likewise, of his son Titus, struck\nupon the like occasion, we see a shield suspended upon a palm tree, with\na Victory writing upon it. Pliny also calls Judea _palmis inclyta_,\nrenowned for palms.\u201d Jericho, in particular, was called the city of\npalms,\u201d Deut. xxxiv, 3; 2 Chron. xxviii, 15; because, as Josephus,\nStrabo, and Pliny, have remarked, it anciently abounded in palm trees.\nAnd so Dr. Shaw remarks, that, though these trees are not now either\nplentiful or fruitful in other parts of the holy land, yet there are\nseveral of them at Jericho, where there is the conveniency they require\nof being often watered; where, likewise, the climate is warm, and the\nsoil sandy, such as they thrive and delight in. Tamar, a city built in\nthe desert by Solomon, 1 Kings ix, 18; Ezekiel xlvii, 19; xlviii, 28,\nwas probably so named from the palm trees growing about it; as it was\nafterward by the Romans called Palmyra, or rather Palmira, on the same\naccount, from _palma_, a palm tree.\u201d\n\nPALMER WORM, \u05d2\u05d5\u05dd, Joel i, 4; Amos iv, 9. Bochart says that it is a kind\nof locust, furnished with very sharp teeth, with which it gnaws off\ngrass, corn, leaves of trees, and even their bark. The Jews support this\nidea by deriving the word from \u05d2\u05d5\u05d6 or \u05d2\u05d6\u05df, _to cut_, _to shear_, or\n_mince_. Notwithstanding the unanimous sentiments of the Jews that this\nis a locust, yet the LXX. read \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b7, and the Vulgate _eruca_, a\ncaterpillar;\u201d which rendering is supported by Fuller. Micha\u00eblis agrees\nwith this opinion, and thinks that the sharp cutting teeth of the\ncaterpillar, which, like a sickle, clear away all before them, might\ngive name to this insect. Caterpillars also begin their ravages before\nthe locust, which seems to coincide with the nature of the creature here\nintended.\n\nPALSY. See DISEASES.\n\nPAMPHYLIA, a province of Asia Minor which gives name to that part of the\nMediterranean Sea which washes its coast, Acts xxvii, 5. To the south it\nis bounded by the Mediterranean, and to the north by Pisidia; having\nLycia to the west, and Cilicia to the east. Paul and Barnabas preached\nat Perga, in Pamphylia, Acts xiii, 13; xiv, 24.\n\nPANTHEISM, a doctrine into which some of the sages of antiquity fell by\nrevolting at the monstrous absurdities of Polytheism. Not knowing the\ntrue God as an infinite and personal subsistence, a cause above and\ndistinct from all effects, they believed that God was every thing, and\nevery thing God. This monstrous, and in its effects immoral, notion, is\nstill held by the Brahmins of India.\n\nPAPER REED, \u05d2\u05de\u05d0, Exod. ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7.\nWhen the outer skin, or bark, is taken off, there are several films, or\ninner pellicles, one within another. These, when separated from the\nstalk, were laid on a table artfully matched and flatted together, and\nmoistened with the water of the Nile, which, dissolving the glutinous\njuices of the plant, caused them to adhere closely together. They were\nafterward pressed, and then dried in the sun, and thus were prepared\nsheets or leaves for writing upon in characters marked by a coloured\nliquid passing through a hollow reed. The best papyrus was called\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74, or paper of the priests. On this the sacred documents of Egypt\nwere written. Ancient books were written on papyrus, and those of the\nNew Testament among the rest. In the fourth century however these sacred\nwritings are found on skins. This was preferred for durability; and many\ndecayed copies of the New Testament, belonging to libraries, were early\ntransferred to parchment. Finally came paper, the name of which was\ntaken from the Egyptian reed; but the materials of which it was\nfabricated were cotton and linen. See BULRUSH and BOOK.\n\nPAPHOS, a celebrated city of Cyprus, lying on the western coast of the\nisland, where Venus (who from hence took the name of Paphia) had her\nmost ancient and most famous temple; and here the Roman proconsul,\nSergius Paulus, resided, whom St. Paul converted to Christianity, Acts\nxiii, 6.\n\nPARABLE, \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, formed from \u03d6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to oppose_ or _compare_, an\nallegorical instruction, founded on something real or apparent in nature\nor history, from which a moral is drawn, by comparing it with some other\nthing in which the people are more immediately concerned. (See\n_Allegory_.) Aristotle defines parable, a similitude drawn from form to\nform. Cicero calls it a collation; others, a simile. F. de Colonia calls\nit a rational fable; but it may be founded on real occurrences, as many\nparables of our Saviour were. The Hebrews call it \u05de\u05e9\u05dc, from a word which\nsignifies either _to predominate_ or _to assimilate_; the Proverbs of\nSolomon are by them also called >\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, _parables_, or _proverbs_.\n\nParable, according to the eminently learned Bishop Lowth, is that kind\nof allegory which consists of a continued narration of a fictitious or\naccommodated event, applied to the illustration of some important truth.\nThe Greeks call these \u03b1\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, _allegories_, or _apologues_; the Latins,\n_fabul\u00e6_, or fables;\u201d and the writings of the Phrygian sage, or those\ncomposed in imitation of him, have acquired the greatest celebrity. Nor\nhas our Saviour himself disdained to adopt the same method of\ninstruction; of whose parables it is doubtful whether they excel most in\nwisdom and utility, or in sweetness, elegance, and perspicuity. As the\nappellation of parable has been applied to his discourses of this kind,\nthe term is now restricted from its former extensive signification to a\nmore confined sense. But this species of composition occurs very\nfrequently in the prophetic poetry, and particularly in that of Ezekiel.\nIf to us they should sometimes appear obscure, we must remember, that,\nin those early times when the prophetical writings were indited, it was\nuniversally the mode throughout all the eastern nations to convey sacred\ntruths under mysterious figures and representations. In order to our\nforming a more certain judgment upon this subject, Dr. Lowth has briefly\nexplained some of the primary qualities of the poetic parables; so that,\nby considering the general nature of them, we may decide more accurately\non the merits of particular examples.\n\nIt is the first excellence of a parable to turn upon an image well known\nand applicable to the subject, the meaning of which is clear and\ndefinite; for this circumstance will give it perspicuity, which is\nessential to every species of allegory. If the parables of the sacred\nprophets are examined by this rule, they will not be found deficient.\nThey are in general founded upon such imagery as is frequently used, and\nsimilarly applied by way of metaphor and comparison in the Hebrew\npoetry. Examples of this kind occur in the parable of the deceitful\nvineyard, Isaiah v, 1\u20137, and of the useless vine, Ezek. xv; xix, 10\u201314;\nfor under this imagery the ungrateful people of God are more than once\ndescribed; Ezek. xix, 1\u20139; xxxi; xvi; xxiii. Moreover, the image must\nnot only be apt and familiar, but it must be also elegant and beautiful\nin itself; since it is the purpose of a poetic parable, not only to\nexplain more perfectly some proposition, but frequently to give it some\nanimation and splendour. As the imagery from natural objects is in this\nrespect superior to all others, the parables of the sacred poets consist\nchiefly of this kind of imagery. It is also essential to the elegance of\na parable, that the imagery should not only be apt and beautiful, but\nthat all its parts and appendages should be perspicuous and pertinent.\nOf all these excellencies, there cannot be more perfect examples than\nthe parables that have been just specified; to which we may add the well\nknown parable of Nathan, 2 Sam. xii, 1\u20134, although written in prose, as\nwell as that of Jotham, Judges ix, 7\u201315, which appears to be the most\nancient extant, and approaches somewhat nearer to the poetical form. It\nis also the criterion of a parable, that it be consistent throughout,\nand that the literal be never confounded with the figurative sense; and\nin this respect it materially differs from that species of allegory,\ncalled the continued metaphor, Isaiah v, 1\u20137. It should be considered,\nthat the continued metaphor and the parable have a very different view.\nThe sole intention of the former is to embellish a subject, to represent\nit more magnificently, or at the most to illustrate it, that, by\ndescribing it in more elevated language, it may strike the mind more\nforcibly; but the intent of the latter is to withdraw the truth for a\nmoment from our sight, in order to conceal whatever it may contain\nungrateful or reproving, and to enable it secretly to insinuate itself,\nand obtain an ascendency as it were by stealth. There is, however, a\nspecies of parable, the intent of which is only to illustrate the\nsubject; such is that remarkable one of the cedar of Lebanon, Ezek.\nxxxi; than which, if we consider the imagery itself, none was ever more\napt or more beautiful; or the description and colouring, none was ever\nmore elegant or splendid; in which, however, the poet has occasionally\nallowed himself to blend the figurative with the literal description,\nverses 11, 14\u201317; whether he has done this because the peculiar nature\nof this kind of parable required it, or whether his own fervid\nimagination alone, which disdained the stricter rules of composition,\nwas his guide, our learned author can scarcely presume to determine.\n\nIn the New Testament, the word parable is used variously: in Luke iv,\n23, for a proverb, or adage; in Matt. xv, 15, for a thing darkly and\nfiguratively expressed; in Heb. ix, 9, &c, for a type; in Luke xiv, 7,\n&c, for a special instruction; in Matt. xxiv, 32, for a similitude or\ncomparison.\n\nPARADISE, according to the original meaning of the term, whether it be\nof Hebrew, Chaldee, or Persian derivation, signifies, a place enclosed\nfor pleasure and delight.\u201d The LXX., or Greek translators of the Old\nTestament, make use of the word paradise, when they speak of the garden\nof Eden, which Jehovah planted at the creation, and in which he placed\nour first parents. There are three places in the Hebrew text of the Old\nTestament where this word is found, namely, Neh. ii, 8; Cant. iv, 13;\nEccles. ii, 5. The term paradise is obviously used in the New Testament,\nas another word for heaven; by our Lord, Luke xxiii, 43; by the Apostle\nPaul, 2 Cor. xii, 4; and in the Apocalypse, ii, 7. See EDEN.\n\nPARAN, DESERT OF, a great and terrible wilderness\u201d which the children of\nIsrael entered after leaving Mount Sinai, Num. x, 12; Deut. i, 19; and\nin which thirty-eight of their forty years of wandering were spent. It\nextended from Mount Sinai on the south, to the southern border of the\nland of Canaan on the north; having the desert of Shur, with its\nsubdivisions, the deserts of Etham and Sin, on the west, and the eastern\nbranch of the Red Sea, the desert of Zin and Mount Seir, on the east.\nBurckhardt represents this desert, which he entered from that of Zin, or\nvalley of El Araba, about the parallel of Suez, as a dreary expanse of\ncalcareous soil, covered with black flints.\n\nPARTRIDGE, \u05e7\u05d3\u05d0, 1 Samuel xxvi, 20; Jer. xvii, 11; \u03d6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03be, Ecclus. xi,\n30. In the first of these places David says, The king of Israel is come\nout to hunt a partridge on the mountains;\u201d and in the second, The\npartridge sitteth,\u201d on eggs, and produceth,\u201d or hatcheth, not; so he\nthat getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of\nhis days, and at his end shall be contemptible.\u201d This passage does not\nnecessarily imply that the partridge hatches the eggs of a stranger, but\nonly that she often fails in her attempts to bring forth her young. To\nsuch disappointments she is greatly exposed from the position of her\nnest on the ground, where her eggs are often spoiled by the wet, or\ncrushed by the foot. So he that broods over his ill-gotten gains will\noften find them unproductive; or, if he leaves them, as a bird\noccasionally driven from her nest, may be despoiled of their possession.\nAs to the hunting of the partridge, which, Dr. Shaw observes, is the\ngreater, or red-legged kind, the traveller says: The Arabs have another,\nthough a more laborious, method of catching these birds; for, observing\nthat they become languid and fatigued after they have been hastily put\nup twice or thrice, they immediately run in upon them, and knock them\ndown with their _zerwattys_, or bludgeons as we should call them.\u201d\nPrecisely in this manner Saul hunted David, coming hastily upon him,\nputting him up incessantly, in hopes that at length his strength and\nresources would fail, and he would become an easy prey to his pursuer.\nForskal mentions a partridge whose name in Arabic is _kurr_; and Latham\nsays, that, in the province of Andalusia in Spain, the name of the\npartridge is _churr_; both taken, no doubt, like the Hebrew, from its\nnote.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Map of the\n  _COUNTRIES_\n  Travelled by the\n  APOSTLES\n  with the\n  ROUTES OF ST. PAUL\n  through\n  _Asia & Europe_\n]\n\nPASSOVER, \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7, signifies _leap_, _passage_. The passover was a solemn\nfestival of the Jews, instituted in commemoration of their coming out of\nEgypt; because the night before their departure the destroying angel\nthat slew the first-born of the Egyptians passed over the houses of the\nHebrews without entering them, because they were marked with the blood\nof the lamb, which, for this reason, was called the paschal lamb. The\nfollowing is what God ordained concerning the passover: the month of the\ncoming out of Egypt was after this to be the first month of the sacred\nor ecclesiastical year; and the fourteenth day of this month, between\nthe two evenings, that is, between the sun\u2019s decline and its setting, or\nrather, according to our reckoning, between three o\u2019clock in the\nafternoon and six in the evening, at the equinox, they were to kill the\npaschal lamb, and to abstain from leavened bread. The day following,\nbeing the fifteenth, reckoned from six o\u2019clock of the preceding evening,\nwas the grand feast of the passover, which continued seven days; but\nonly the first and seventh days were peculiarly solemn. The slain lamb\nwas to be without defect, a male, and of that year. If no lamb could be\nfound, they might take a kid. They killed a lamb or a kid in each\nfamily; and if the number of the family was not sufficient to eat the\nlamb, they might associate two families together. With the blood of the\nlamb they sprinkled the door posts and lintel of every house, that the\ndestroying angel at the sight of the blood might pass over them. They\nwere to eat the lamb the same night, roasted, with unleavened bread, and\na sallad of wild lettuces, or bitter herbs. It was forbid to eat any\npart of it raw, or boiled; nor were they to break a bone; but it was to\nbe eaten entire, even with the head, the feet, and the bowels. If any\nthing remained to the day following it was thrown into the fire, Exod.\nxii, 46; Num. ix, 12; John xix, 36. They who ate it were to be in the\nposture of travellers, having their reins girt, shoes on their feet,\nstaves in their hands, and eating in a hurry. This last part of the\nceremony was but little observed; at least, it was of no obligation\nafter that night when they came out of Egypt. During the whole eight\ndays of the passover no leavened bread was to be used. They kept the\nfirst and last day of the feast; yet it was allowed to dress victuals,\nwhich was forbidden on the Sabbath day. The obligation of keeping the\npassover was so strict, that whoever should neglect it was condemned to\ndeath, Num. ix, 13. But those who had any lawful impediment, as a\njourney, sickness, or uncleanness, voluntary or involuntary, for\nexample, those who had been present at a funeral, &c, were to defer the\ncelebration of the passover till the second month of the ecclesiastical\nyear, the fourteenth day of the month Jair, which answers to April and\nMay. We see an example of this postponed passover under Hezekiah, 2\nChron. xxx, 2, 3, &c.\n\nThe modern Jews observe in general the ceremonies practised by their\nancestors in the celebration of the passover. While the temple was in\nexistence, the Jews brought their lambs thither, and there sacrificed\nthem; and they offered their blood to the priest, who poured it out at\nthe foot of the altar. The paschal lamb was an illustrious type of\nChrist, who became a sacrifice for the redemption of a lost world from\nsin and misery; but resemblances between the type and antitype have been\nstrained by many writers into a great number of fanciful particulars. It\nis enough for us to be assured, that as Christ is called our passover;\u201d\nand the Lamb of God,\u201d without spot,\u201d by the sprinkling of whose blood\u201d\nwe are delivered from guilt and punishment; and as faith in him is\nrepresented to us as eating the flesh of Christ,\u201d with evident allusion\nto the eating of the paschal sacrifice; so, in these leading\nparticulars, the mystery of our redemption was set forth. The paschal\nlamb therefore prefigured the offering of the spotless Son of God, the\nappointed propitiation for the sins of the whole world; by virtue of\nwhich, when received by faith, we are delivered from the bondage of\nguilt and misery; and nourished with strength for our heavenly journey\nto that land of rest, of which Canaan, as early as the days of Abraham,\nbecame the divinely instituted figure.\n\nPATMOS, a small rocky island in the \u00c6gean Sea, about eighteen miles in\ncircumference; which, on account of its dreary and desolate character,\nwas used by the Roman emperors as a place of confinement for criminals.\nTo this island St. John was banished by the Emperor Domitian; and here\nhe had his revelation, recorded in the Apocalypse.\n\nPATRIARCHS. This name is given to the ancient fathers, chiefly those who\nlived before Moses, as Adam, Lamech, Noah, Shem, &c, Abraham, Isaac,\nJacob, the sons of Jacob, and heads of the tribes. The Hebrews call them\nprinces of the tribes, or heads of the fathers. The name patriarch is\nderived from the Greek _patriarcha_, head of a family.\u201d\n\nPAUL was born at Tarsus, the principal city of Cilicia, and was by birth\nboth a Jew and a citizen of Rome, Acts xxi, 39; xxii, 25. He was of the\ntribe of Benjamin, and of the sect of the Pharisees, Phil. iii, 5. In\nhis youth he appears to have been taught the art of tent making, Acts\nxviii, 3; but we must remember that among the Jews of those days a\nliberal education was often accompanied by instruction in some\nmechanical trade. It is probable that St. Paul laid the foundation of\nthose literary attainments, for which he was so eminent in the future\npart of his life, at his native city of Tarsus; and he afterward studied\nthe law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders, at Jerusalem, under\nGamaliel, a celebrated rabbi, Acts xxii, 4. St. Paul is not mentioned in\nthe Gospels; nor is it known whether he ever heard our Saviour preach,\nor saw him perform any miracle. His name first occurs in the account\ngiven in the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, A. D. 34, to which he\nis said to have consented, Acts viii, 1: he is upon that occasion called\na young man; but we are no where informed what was then his precise age.\nThe death of St. Stephen was followed by a severe persecution of the\nchurch at Jerusalem, and St. Paul became distinguished among its enemies\nby his activity and violence, Acts viii, 3. Not contented with\ndisplaying his hatred to the Gospel in Judea, he obtained authority from\nthe high priest to go to Damascus, and to bring back with him bound any\nChristians whom he might find in that city. As he was upon his journey\nthither, A. D. 35, his miraculous conversion took place, the\ncircumstances of which are recorded in Acts ix, and are frequently\nalluded to in his epistles, 1 Cor. xv, 9; Gal. i, 13; 1 Tim. i, 12, 13.\n\nSoon after St. Paul was baptized at Damascus, he went into Arabia; but\nwe are not informed how long he remained there. He returned to Damascus;\nand being supernaturally qualified to be a preacher of the Gospel, he\nimmediately entered upon his ministry in that city. The boldness and\nsuccess with which he enforced the truths of Christianity so irritated\nthe unbelieving Jews, that they resolved to put him to death, Acts ix,\n23; but, this design being known, the disciples conveyed him privately\nout of Damascus, and he went to Jerusalem, A. D. 38. The Christians of\nJerusalem, remembering St. Paul\u2019s former hostility to the Gospel, and\nhaving no authentic account of any change in his sentiments or conduct,\nat first refused to receive him; but being assured by Barnabas of St.\nPaul\u2019s real conversion, and of his exertions at Damascus, they\nacknowledged him as a disciple, Acts ix, 27. He remained only fifteen\ndays among them, Gal. i, 18; and he saw none of the Apostles except St.\nPeter and St. James. It is probable that the other Apostles were at this\ntime absent from Jerusalem, exercising their ministry at different\nplaces. The zeal with which St. Paul preached at Jerusalem had the same\neffect as at Damascus: he became so obnoxious to the Hellenistic Jews,\nthat they began to consider how they might kill him, Acts ix, 29; which\nwhen the brethren knew, they thought it right that he should leave the\ncity. They accompanied him to C\u00e6sarea, and thence he went into the\nregions of Syria and Cilicia, where he preached the faith which once he\ndestroyed, Gal. i, 21, 23.\n\nHitherto the preaching of St. Paul, as well as of the other Apostles and\nteachers, had been confined to the Jews; but the conversion of\nCornelius, the first Gentile convert, A. D. 40, having convinced all the\nApostles that to the Gentiles, also, God had granted repentance unto\nlife,\u201d St. Paul was soon after conducted by Barnabas from Tarsus, which\nhad probably been the principal place of his residence since he left\nJerusalem, and they both began to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles at\nAntioch, A. D. 42, Acts xi, 25. Their preaching was attended with great\nsuccess. The first Gentile church was now established at Antioch; and in\nthat city, and at this time, the disciples were first called Christians,\nActs xi, 26. When these two Apostles had been thus employed about a\nyear, a prophet called Agabus predicted an approaching famine, which\nwould affect the whole land of Judea. Upon the prospect of this\ncalamity, the Christians of Antioch made a contribution for their\nbrethren in Judea, and sent the money to the elders at Jerusalem by St.\nPaul and Barnabas, A. D. 44, Acts xi, 28, &c. This famine happened soon\nafter, in the fourth or fifth year of the Emperor Claudius. It is\nsupposed that St. Paul had the vision, mentioned in Acts xxii, 17, while\nhe was now at Jerusalem this second time after his conversion.\n\nSt. Paul and Barnabas, having executed their commission, returned to\nAntioch; and soon after their arrival in that city they were separated,\nby the express direction of the Holy Ghost, from the other Christian\nteachers and prophets, for the purpose of carrying the glad tidings of\nthe Gospel to the Gentiles of various countries, Acts xiii, 1. Thus\ndivinely appointed to this important office, they set out from Antioch,\nA. D. 45, and preached the Gospel successively at Salamis and Paphos,\ntwo cities of the isle of Cyprus, at Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in\nPisidia, and at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, three cities of Lycaonia.\nThey returned to Antioch in Syria, A. D. 47, nearly by the same route.\nThis first apostolical journey of St. Paul, in which he was accompanied\nand assisted by Barnabas, is supposed to have occupied about two years;\nand in the course of it many, both Jews and Gentiles, were converted to\nthe Gospel.\n\nPaul and Barnabas continued at Antioch a considerable time; and while\nthey were there, a dispute arose between them and some Jewish Christians\nof Judea. These men asserted, that the Gentile converts could not obtain\nsalvation through the Gospel, unless they were circumcised; Paul and\nBarnabas maintained the contrary opinion, Acts xv, 1, 2. This dispute\nwas carried on for some time with great earnestness; and it being a\nquestion in which not only the present but all future Gentile converts\nwere concerned, it was thought right that St. Paul and Barnabas, with\nsome others, should go up to Jerusalem to consult the Apostles and\nelders concerning it. They passed through Phenicia and Samaria, and upon\ntheir arrival at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, a council was assembled for the\npurpose of discussing this important point, Gal. ii, 1. St. Peter and\nSt. James the less were present, and delivered their sentiments, which\ncoincided with those of St. Paul and Barnabas; and after much\ndeliberation it was agreed, that neither circumcision, nor conformity to\nany part of the ritual law of Moses, was necessary in Gentile converts;\nbut that it should be recommended to them to abstain from certain\nspecified things prohibited by that law, lest their indulgence in them\nshould give offence to their brethren of the circumcision, who were\nstill very zealous for the observance of the ceremonial part of their\nancient religion. This decision which was declared to have the sanction\nof the Holy Ghost, was communicated to the Gentile Christians of Syria\nand Cilicia by a letter written in the name of the Apostles, elders, and\nwhole church at Jerusalem, and conveyed by Judas and Silas, who\naccompanied St. Paul and Barnabas to Antioch for that purpose.\n\nSt. Paul, having preached a short time at Antioch, proposed to Barnabas\nthat they should visit the churches which they had founded in different\ncities, Acts xv, 36. Barnabas readily consented; but while they were\npreparing for the journey, there arose a disagreement between them,\nwhich ended in their separation. In consequence of this dispute with\nBarnabas, St. Paul chose Silas for his companion, and they set out\ntogether from Antioch, A. D. 50. They travelled through Syria and\nCilicia, confirming the churches, and then came to Derbe and Lystra,\nActs xvi. Thence they went through Phrygia and Galatia; and, being\ndesirous of going into Asia Propria, or the Proconsular Asia, they were\nforbidden by the Holy Ghost. They therefore went into Mysia; and, not\nbeing permitted by the Holy Ghost to go into Bithynia as they had\nintended, they went to Troas. While St. Paul was there, a vision\nappeared to him in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed\nhim, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.\u201d St. Paul knew this\nvision to be a command from Heaven, and in obedience to it immediately\nsailed from Troas to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis, a city\nof Thrace; and thence he went to Philippi, the principal city of that\npart of Macedonia. St. Paul remained some time at Philippi, preaching\nthe Gospel; and several occurrences which took place in that city, are\nrecorded in Acts xvii. Thence he went through Amphipolis and Apollonia\nto Thessalonica, Acts xvii, where he preached in the synagogues of the\nJews on three successive Sabbath days. Some of the Jews, and many of the\nGentiles of both sexes, embraced the Gospel; but the unbelieving Jews,\nmoved with envy and indignation at the success of St. Paul\u2019s preaching,\nexcited a great disturbance in the city, and irritated the populace so\nmuch against him, that the brethren, anxious for his safety, thought it\nprudent to send him to Berea, where he met with a better reception than\nhe had experienced at Thessalonica. The Bereans heard his instructions\nwith attention and candour, and having compared his doctrines with the\nancient Scriptures, and being satisfied that Jesus, whom he preached,\nwas the promised Messiah, they embraced the Gospel; but his enemies at\nThessalonica, being informed of his success at Berea, came thither, and,\nby their endeavours to stir up the people against him, compelled him to\nleave that city also. He went thence to Athens, where he delivered that\ndiscourse recorded in Acts xvii. From Athens, Paul went to Corinth, Acts\nxviii, A. D. 51, and lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, two\nJews, who, being compelled to leave Rome in consequence of Claudius\u2019s\nedict against the Jews, had lately settled at Corinth. St. Paul was\ninduced to take up his residence with them, because, like himself, they\nwere tent makers. At first he preached to the Jews in their synagogue;\nbut upon their violently opposing his doctrine, he declared that from\nthat time he would preach to the Gentiles only; and, accordingly, he\nafterward delivered his instructions in the house of one Justus, who\nlived near the synagogue. Among the few Jews who embraced the Gospel,\nwere Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his family; and many of\nthe Gentile Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.\u201d St. Paul\nwas encouraged in a vision to persevere in his exertions to convert the\ninhabitants of Corinth; and although he met with great opposition and\ndisturbance from the unbelieving Jews, and was accused by them before\nGallio, the Roman governor of Achaia, he continued there a year and six\nmonths, teaching the word of God.\u201d During this time he supported himself\nby working at his trade of tent making, that he might not be burdensome\nto the disciples. From Corinth St. Paul sailed into Syria, and thence he\nwent to Ephesus: thence to C\u00e6sarea; and is supposed to have arrived at\nJerusalem just before the feast of pentecost. After the feast he went to\nAntioch, A. D. 53; and this was the conclusion of his second apostolical\njourney, in which he was accompanied by Silas; and in part of it, Luke\nand Timothy were also with him.\n\nHaving made a short stay at Antioch, St. Paul set out upon his third\napostolical journey. He passed through Galatia, and Phrygia, A. D. 54,\nconfirming the Christians of those countries; and thence, according to\nhis promise, he went to Ephesus, Acts xix. He found there some\ndisciples, who had only been baptized with John\u2019s baptism: he directed\nthat they should be baptized in the name of Jesus, and then he\ncommunicated to them the Holy Ghost. He preached for the space of three\nmonths in the synagogue; but the Jews being hardened beyond conviction,\nand speaking reproachfully of the Christian religion before the\nmultitude, he left them; and from that time he delivered his\ninstructions in the school of a person called Tyrannus, who was probably\na Gentile. St. Paul continued to preach in this place about two years,\nso that all the inhabitants of that part of Asia Minor heard the word of\nthe Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.\u201d He also performed many miracles\nat Ephesus; and not only great numbers of people were converted to\nChristianity, but many also of those who in this superstitious city used\nincantations and magical arts, professed their belief in the Gospel, and\nrenounced their former practices by publicly burning their books.\nPrevious to the disturbance raised by Demetrius, Paul had intended to\ncontinue at Ephesus till Titus should return, whom he had sent to\ninquire into the state of the church at Corinth, 2 Cor. xii, 18. He now\nthought it prudent to go from Ephesus immediately, Acts xx, A. D. 56;\nand having taken an affectionate leave of the disciples, he set out for\nTroas, 2 Cor. ii, 12, 13, where he expected to meet Titus. Titus,\nhowever, from some cause which is not known, did not come to Troas; and\nPaul was encouraged to pass over into Macedonia, with the hope of making\nconverts. St. Paul, after preaching in Macedonia, receiving from the\nChristians of that country liberal contributions for their poor brethren\nin Judea, 2 Cor. viii, 1, went to Corinth, A. D. 57, and remained there\nabout three months. The Christians also of Corinth, and of the rest of\nAchaia, contributed to the relief of their brethren in Judea. St. Paul\u2019s\nintention was to have sailed from Corinth into Syria; but being informed\nthat some unbelieving Jews, who had discovered his intention, lay in\nwait for him, he changed his plan, passed through Macedonia, and sailed\nfrom Philippi to Troas in five days, A. D. 58. He stayed at Troas seven\ndays, and preached to the Christians on the first day of the week, the\nday on which they were accustomed to meet for the purpose of religious\nworship. From Troas he went by land to Assos; and thence he sailed to\nMitylene; and from Mitylene to Miletus. Being desirous of reaching\nJerusalem before the feast of pentecost, he would not allow time to go\nto Ephesus, and therefore he sent for the elders of the Ephesian church\nto Miletus, and gave them instructions, and prayed with them. He told\nthem that he should see them no more, which impressed them with the\ndeepest sorrow. From Miletus he sailed by Cos, Rhodes, and Patara in\nLycia, to Tyre, Acts xxi. Finding some disciples at Tyre, he stayed with\nthem several days, and then went to Ptolemais, and thence to C\u00e6sarea.\nWhile St. Paul was at C\u00e6sarea, the Prophet Agabus foretold by the Holy\nGhost, that St. Paul, if he went to Jerusalem, would suffer much from\nthe Jews. This prediction caused great uneasiness to St. Paul\u2019s friends,\nand they endeavoured to dissuade him from his intention of going\nthither. St. Paul, however, would not listen to their entreaties, but\ndeclared that he was ready to die at Jerusalem, if it were necessary,\nfor the name of the Lord Jesus. Seeing him thus resolute, they desisted\nfrom their importunities, and accompanied him to Jerusalem, where he is\nsupposed to have arrived just before the feast of pentecost, A. D. 58.\nThis may be considered as the end of St. Paul\u2019s third apostolical\njourney.\n\nSt. Paul was received by the Apostles and other Christians at Jerusalem\nwith great joy and affection; and his account of the success of his\nministry, and of the collections which he had made among the Christians\nof Macedonia and Achaia, for the relief of their brethren in Judea,\nafforded them much satisfaction; but not long after his arrival at\nJerusalem, some Jews of Asia, who had probably in their own country\nwitnessed St. Paul\u2019s zeal in spreading Christianity among the Gentiles,\nseeing him one day in the temple, endeavoured to excite a tumult, by\ncrying out that he was the man who was aiming to destroy all distinction\nbetween Jew and Gentile; who taught things contrary to the law of Moses;\nand who had polluted the holy temple, by bringing into it uncircumcised\nHeathens. This representation did not fail to enrage the multitude\nagainst St. Paul; they seized him, dragged him out of the temple, beat\nhim, and were upon the point of putting him to death, when he was\nrescued out of their hands by Lysias, a Roman tribune, and the principal\nmilitary officer then at Jerusalem. What followed,--his defence before\nFelix and Agrippa,--his long detention at C\u00e6sarea, and his appeal to the\nemperor, which occasioned his voyage to Rome, are all circumstantially\nstated in the latter chapters of the Acts. Upon his arrival at Rome, St.\nPaul was committed to the care of the captain of the guard, A. D. 61.\nThe Scriptures do not inform us whether he was ever tried before Nero,\nwho was at this time emperor of Rome; and the learned are much divided\nin their opinion upon that point. St. Luke only says, Paul was suffered\nto dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. And Paul dwelt two\nwhole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto\nhim, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which\nconcern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding\nhim.\u201d During his confinement he converted some Jews resident at Rome,\nand many Gentiles, and, among the rest, several persons belonging to the\nemperor\u2019s household, Phil. iv, 22.\n\nThe Scripture history ends with the release of St. Paul from his two\nyears\u2019 imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 63; and no ancient author has left us\nany particulars of the remaining part of this Apostle\u2019s life. It seems\nprobable, that, immediately after he recovered his liberty, he went to\nJerusalem; and that afterward he travelled through Asia Minor, Crete,\nMacedonia, and Greece, confirming his converts, and regulating the\naffairs of the different churches which he had planted in those\ncountries. Whether at this time he also preached the Gospel in Spain, as\nsome have imagined, is very uncertain. It was the unanimous tradition of\nthe church, that St. Paul returned to Rome, that he underwent a second\nimprisonment there, and at last was put to death by the Emperor Nero.\nTacitus and Suetonius have mentioned a dreadful fire which happened at\nRome in the time of Nero. It was believed, though probably without any\nreason, that the emperor himself was the author of that fire; but to\nremove the odium from himself, he chose to attribute it to the\nChristians; and, to give some colour to that unjust imputation, he\npersecuted them with the utmost cruelty. In this persecution St. Peter\nand Paul suffered martyrdom, probably, A. D. 65; and if we may credit\nSulpitius Severus, a writer of the fifth century, the former was\ncrucified, and the latter beheaded.\n\nSt. Paul was a person of great natural abilities, of quick apprehension,\nstrong feelings, firm resolution, and irreproachable life. He was\nconversant with Grecian and Jewish literature; and gave early proofs of\nan active and zealous disposition. If we may be allowed to consider his\ncharacter independent of his supernatural endowments, we may pronounce\nthat he was well qualified to have risen to distinction and eminence,\nand that he was by nature peculiarly adapted to the high office to which\nit pleased God to call him. As a minister of the Gospel, he displayed\nthe most unwearied perseverance and undaunted courage. He was deterred\nby no difficulty or danger, and endured a great variety of persecutions\nwith patience and cheerfulness. He gloried in being thought worthy of\nsuffering for the name of Jesus, and continued with unabated zeal to\nmaintain the truth of Christianity against its bitterest and most\npowerful enemies. He was the principal instrument under Providence of\nspreading the Gospel among the Gentiles; and we have seen that his\nlabours lasted through many years, and reached over a considerable\nextent of country. Though emphatically styled the great Apostle of the\nGentiles, he began his ministry, in almost every city, by preaching in\nthe synagogue of the Jews; and though he owed by far the greater part of\nhis persecutions to the opposition and malice of that proud and\nobstinate people, whose resentment he particularly incurred by\nmaintaining that the Gentiles were to be admitted to an indiscriminate\nparticipation of the benefits of the new dispensation, yet it rarely\nhappened in any place, that some of the Jews did not yield to his\narguments, and embrace the Gospel. He watched with paternal care over\nthe churches which he had founded; and was always ready to strengthen\nthe faith, and regulate the conduct of his converts, by such directions\nand advice as their circumstances might require.\n\nThe exertions of St. Paul in the cause of Christianity were not confined\nto personal instruction: he also wrote fourteen epistles to individuals\nor churches which are now extant, and form a part of our canon. These\nletters furnish evidence of the soundness and sobriety of his judgment.\nHis caution in distinguishing between the occasional suggestions of\ninspiration, and the ordinary exertions of his natural understanding, is\nwithout example in the history of enthusiasm. His morality is every\nwhere calm, pure, and rational; adapted to the condition, the activity,\nand the business of social life, and of its various relations; free from\nthe overscrupulousness and austerities of superstition, and from, what\nwas more perhaps to be apprehended, the abstractions of quietism, and\nthe soarings or extravagancies of fanaticism. His judgment concerning a\nhesitating conscience, his opinion of the moral indifferency of many\nactions, yet of the prudence and even the duty of compliance, where\nnon-compliance would produce evil effects upon the minds of the persons\nwho observed it, are all in proof of the calm and discriminating\ncharacter of his mind; and the universal applicability of his precepts\naffords strong presumption of his inspiration. What Lord Lyttleton has\nremarked of the preference ascribed by St. Paul to rectitude of\nprinciple above every other religious accomplishment, is weighty: Though\nI speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I\nam become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal,\u201d &c, 1 Cor. xiii,\n1\u20133. Did ever enthusiast prefer that universal benevolence, meant by\ncharity here, (which, we may add, is attainable by every man,) to faith,\nand to miracles, to those religious opinions which he had embraced, and\nto those supernatural graces and gifts which he imagined he had\nacquired, nay, even to the merit of martyrdom? Is it not the genius of\nenthusiasm to set moral virtues infinitely below the merit of faith; and\nof all moral virtues to value that least which is most particularly\nenforced by St. Paul, a spirit of candour, moderation, and peace?\nCertainly, neither the temper nor the opinions of a man subject to\nfanatic delusions are to be found in this passage. His letters, indeed,\nevery where discover great zeal and earnestness in the cause in which he\nwas engaged; that is to say, he was convinced of the truth of what he\ntaught; he was deeply impressed, but not more so than the occasion\nmerited, with a sense of its importance. This produces a corresponding\nanimation and solicitude in the exercise of his ministry. But would not\nthese considerations, supposing them to have been well founded, have\nholden the same place, and produced the same effect, in a mind the\nstrongest and the most sedate? Here, then, we have a man of liberal\nattainments, and in other respects of sound judgment, who had addicted\nhis life to the service of the Gospel. We see him in the prosecution of\nhis purpose, travelling from country to country, enduring every species\nof hardship, encountering every extremity of danger, assaulted by the\npopulace, punished by the magistrates, scourged, beaten, stoned, left\nfor dead; expecting, wherever he came, a renewal of the same treatment,\nand the same dangers; yet, when driven from one city, preaching in the\nnext; spending his whole time in the employment; sacrificing to it his\npleasures, his ease, his safety; persisting in this course to old age,\nunaltered by the experience of perverseness, ingratitude, prejudice,\ndesertion; unsubdued by anxiety, want, labour, persecutions; unwearied\nby long confinement; undismayed by the prospect of death. Such was St.\nPaul; and such were the proofs of Apostleship found in him.\u201d\n\nThe following remarks of Hug on the character of this Apostle are\nequally just and eloquent: This most violent man, having such terrible\npropensities, whose turbulent impulses rendered him of a most\nenterprising character, would have become nothing better than a John of\nGishala, a blood-intoxicated zealot, \u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5,\nbreathing out threatenings and slaughter, Acts ix, 1, had not his whole\nsoul been changed. The harsh tone of his mind inclined him to the\nprinciples of Pharisaism, which had all the appearance of severity, and\nwas the predominant party among the Jews. Nature had not withholden from\nhim the external endowments of eloquence, although he afterward spoke\nvery modestly of them. At Lystra he was deemed the tutelar god of\neloquence. This character, qualified for great things, but, not master\nof himself from excess of internal power, was an extreme of human\ndispositions, and, according to the natural course, was prone to\nabsolute extremities. His religion was a destructive zeal, his anger was\nfierceness, his fury required victims. A ferocity so boisterous did not\npsychologically qualify him for a Christian nor a philanthropist; but,\nleast of all, for a quietly enduring man. He, nevertheless, became all\nthis on his conversion to Christianity, and each bursting emotion of his\nmind subsided directly into a well regulated and noble character.\nFormerly hasty and irritable, now only spirited and resolved; formerly\nviolent, now full of energy and enterprising: once ungovernably\nrefractory against every thing which obstructed him, now only\npersevering; once fanatical and morose, now only serious; once cruel,\nnow only firm; once a harsh zealot, now fearing God; formerly\nunrelenting, deaf to sympathy and commiseration, now himself acquainted\nwith tears, which he had seen without effect in others. Formerly the\nfriend of none, now the brother of mankind, benevolent, compassionate,\nsympathizing; yet never weak, always great; in the midst of sadness and\nsorrow manly and noble; so he showed himself at his deeply moving\ndeparture from Miletus, Acts xx: it is like the departure of Moses, like\nthe resignation of Samuel, sincere and heart-felt, full of\nself-recollection, and in the midst of pain full of dignity. His\nwritings are a true expression of this character, with regard to the\ntone predominant in them. Severity, manly seriousness, and sentiments\nwhich ennoble the heart, are interchanged with mildness, affability, and\nsympathy: and their transitions are such as nature begets in the heart\nof a man penetrated by his subject, noble and discerning. He exhorts,\nreproaches, and consoles again; he attacks with energy, urges with\nimpetuosity, then again he speaks kindly to the soul; he displays his\nfiner feelings for the welfare of others, his forbearance and his fear\nof afflicting any body: all as the subject, time, opposite dispositions,\nand circumstances require. There prevails throughout in them an\nimportuning language, an earnest and lively communication. Rom. i,\n26\u201332, is a comprehensive and vigorous description of morals. His\nantithesis, Rom. ii, 21\u201324; 2 Cor. iv, 8\u201312; vi, 9\u201311; ix, 22\u201330; his\nenumerations, 1 Cor. xiii, 4\u201310; 2 Cor. vi, 4\u20137; 2 Tim. iii, 1\u20135; Eph.\niv, 4\u20137; v, 3\u20136; his gradations, Romans viii, 29, 30; Titus iii, 3, 4;\nthe interrogations, exclamations, and comparisons, sometimes animate his\nlanguage even so as to give a visible existence to it. That, however,\nwhich we principally perceive in Paul, and from which his whole actions\nand operations become intelligible, is the peculiar impression which the\nidea of a universal religion has wrought upon his mind. This idea of\nestablishing a religion for the world had not so profoundly engrossed\nany soul, no where kindled so much vigour, and projected it into such a\nconstant energy. In this he was no man\u2019s scholar; this he had\nimmediately received from the Spirit of his Master; it was a spark of\nthe divine light which enkindled him. It was this which never allowed\nhim to remain in Palestine and in Syria, which so powerfully impelled\nhim to foreign parts. The portion of some others was Judea and its\nenvirons: but his mission was directed to the nations, and his allotment\nwas the whole of the Heathen world. Thus he began his career among the\ndifferent nations of Asia Minor, and when this limit also became too\nconfined for him, he went with equal confidence to Europe, among other\nnations, ordinances, sciences, and customs; and here likewise he finally\nwith the same indefatigable spirit circulated his plans, even to the\npillars of Hercules. In this manner Paul prepared the overthrow of two\nreligions, that of his ancestors, and that of the Heathens.\n\nPEACOCK, \u05ea\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21; a bird distinguished by\nthe length of its tail, and the brilliant spots with which it is\nadorned; which displays all that dazzles in the sparkling lustre of\ngems, and all that astonishes in the rainbow. The peacock is a bird\noriginally of India; thence brought into Persia and Media. Aristophanes\nmentions Persian peacocks; and Suidas calls the peacock the Median bird.\nFrom Persia it was gradually dispersed into Judea, Egypt, Greece, and\nEurope. If the fleet of Solomon visited India, they might easily procure\nthis bird, whether from India itself, or from Persia; and certainly the\nbird by its beauty was likely to attract attention, and to be brought\namong other rarities of natural history by Solomon\u2019s servants, who would\nbe instructed to collect every curiosity in the countries they visited.\n\nPEARL, a hard, white, shining body, usually roundish, found in a shell\nfish resembling an oyster. The oriental pearls have a fine polished\ngloss, and are tinged with an elegant blush of red. They are esteemed in\nthe east beyond all other jewels.\n\nPELAGIANS, a sect that arose in the fifth century. Pelagius was a\nBritish monk, of some rank, and very exalted reputation. He, with his\nfriend Celestius, travelled to Rome, where they resided very early in\nthe fifth century, and opposed with warmth certain received notions\nrespecting original sin, and the necessity of divine grace. What\nreception their doctrines met with at Rome does not appear; but their\nvirtue excited general approbation. On the approach of the Goths, they\nretired to Africa, where Celestius remained, with a view of gaining\nadmittance as a presbyter into the church of Carthage. Pelagius\nproceeded to Palestine, where he enjoyed the favour and protection of\nJohn, bishop of Jerusalem. But his friend and his opinions met with a\nvery different reception from St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of\nHippo. Whatever parts were visited by these unorthodox friends, they\nstill asserted their peculiar opinions; and they were gradually engaged\nin a warm contest, in the course of which they were probably led to\nadvance more than had originally occurred to them. In contending for the\ntruth of their doctrines, they are said to have asserted, that mankind\nderived no injury from the sin of Adam; that we are now as capable of\nobedience to the will of God as he was; that, otherwise, it would have\nbeen cruel and absurd to propose to mankind the performance of certain\nduties, with the sanction of rewards, and the denunciation of\npunishments; and that, consequently, men are born without vice, as well\nas without virtue.\u201d Pelagius is charged also with having maintained,\nthat it is possible for men, provided they fully employ the powers and\nfaculties with which they are endued, to live without sin;\u201d and though\nhe did not deny that external grace, or the doctrines and motives of the\nGospel, are necessary, yet he is said to have rejected the necessity of\ninternal grace, or the aids of the divine Spirit. He acknowledged, that\nthe power we possess of obeying the will of God, is a divine gift;\u201d but\nasserted, that the direction of this power depends upon ourselves; that\nnatural death is not a consequence of the sin of Adam, but of the frame\nof man; and that Adam would have died, though he had not sinned.\u201d\nIsidore, Chrysostom, and Augustine strenuously opposed these opinions;\nand the latter procured their condemnation in a synod held at Carthage\nin 412. They were, however, favourably received at Rome, and Pope\nZozimus was at the head of the Pelagian party: but his decision against\nthe African bishops, who had opposed Pelagianism, was disregarded by\nthem, and the pontiff yielded at length to their reasonings and\nremonstrances, and condemned the men whom he had before honoured with\nhis approbation. The council of Ephesus likewise condemned the opinions\nof Pelagius and Celestius; and the Emperor Honorius, in 418, published\nan edict, which ordained that the leaders of the sect should be expelled\nfrom Rome, and their followers exiled. Some of the Pelagians taught that\nChrist was a mere man, and that men might lead sinless lives, because\nChrist did so; that Jesus became Christ after his baptism, and God after\nhis resurrection; the one arising from his unction, the other from the\nmerit of his passion. The Pelagian controversy, which began with the\ndoctrines of grace and original sin, was extended to predestination, and\nexcited continual discord and division in the church. It must however be\nrecollected, that we are acquainted with the sentiments of Pelagius only\nthrough the medium of his opponents; and that it is probable that they\nwere much misrepresented. See AUGUSTINE.\n\nThe followers of the truly evangelical Arminius, or those who hold the\ntenet of general redemption with its concomitants, have often been\ngreatly traduced, by the ignorant among their doctrinal opponents, as\nPelagians, or at least as Semi-Pelagians. It may therefore serve the\ncause of truth to exhibit the appropriate reply which the Dutch\nArminians gave to this charge when urged against them at the synod of\nDort, and which they verified and maintained by arguments and\nauthorities that were unanswerable. In their concluding observations\nthey say, \u201cFrom all these remarks a judgment may easily be formed at\nwhat an immense distance our sentiments stand from the dogmatical\nassertions of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians _on the grace of God in\nthe conversion of man_. Pelagius, in the first instance, attributed all\nthings to nature: but we acknowledge nothing but grace. When Pelagius\nwas blamed for not acknowledging grace, he began indeed to speak of it,\nbut it is evident that by _grace_ he understood the power of nature as\ncreated by God, that is, _the rational will_: but by grace we understand\n_a supernatural gift_. Pelagius, when afterward pressed with passages of\nScripture, also admitted this supernatural grace; but he placed it\nsolely in the external teaching of the law: though we affirm that God\noffers his word to men, yet we likewise affirm that he inwardly causes\nthe understanding to believe. Subsequently Pelagius joined to this\nexternal grace _that by which sins are pardoned_: we acknowledge not\nonly the grace by which sins are forgiven, but also that by which men\nare assisted to refrain from the commission of sin. In addition to his\nprevious concessions Pelagius granted, that _the grace of Christ_ was\nrequisite beside the two kinds which he had enumerated; but he\nattributed it entirely to the doctrine and example of Christ that we are\naided in our endeavours not to commit sin: we likewise admit that the\ndoctrine and example of Christ afford us some aid in refraining from\nsin, but in addition to their influence we also place the gift of the\nHoly Spirit with which God endues us, and which enlightens our\nunderstandings, and confers strength and power upon our will to abstain\nfrom sinning. When Pelagius afterward owned the assistance of divine\npower inwardly working in man by the Holy Spirit, he placed it solely in\nthe enlightening of the understanding: but we believe, that it is not\nonly necessary for us to know or understand what we ought to do, but\nthat it is also requisite for us to implore the aid of the Holy Spirit\nthat we may be rendered capable of performing, and may delight in the\nperformance of, that which it is our duty to do. Pelagius admitted\ngrace,--but it has been a question with some whether he meant only\nillumination, or, beside this, a power communicated to the will;--he\nadmitted grace, but he did this only to show that by means of it man can\n_with greater ease_ act aright: we, on the contrary, affirm that grace\nis bestowed, not that we may be able with greater ease to act aright,\n(which is as though we can do this even without grace,) but that grace\nis absolutely necessary to enable us to act at all aright. Pelagius\nasserted, that man, so far from requiring the aid of grace for the\nperformance of good actions, is, through the powers implanted in him at\nthe time of his creation, capable of fulfilling the whole law, of loving\nGod, and of overcoming all temptations: we, on the contrary, assert that\nthe grace of God is required for the performance of every act of piety.\nPelagius declared, that by the works of nature man renders himself\nworthy of grace: but we, in common with the church universal, condemn\nthis dogma. When Pelagius afterward himself condemned this tenet, he\nunderstood by _grace_, partly natural grace, which is antecedent to all\nmerit, and partly remission of sins, which he acknowledged to be\ngratuitous; but he added, that through works performed by the powers of\nnature alone, at least through the desire of good and the imperfect\nlonging after it, men merit that spiritual grace by which they are\nassisted in good works: but we declare, that men will that which is good\non account of God\u2019s prevenience or going before them by his grace, and\nexciting within them a longing after good; otherwise grace would no\nlonger be grace, because it would not be _gratuitously_ bestowed, but\nonly _on account of the merit of man_.\u201d That many who have held some\ntenets in common with the true Arminians have been, in different\ndegrees, followers of Pelagius is well known; but the original Arminians\nwere in truth as far from Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian errors, granting the\nopinions of Pelagius to be fairly reported by his adversaries, as the\nCalvinists themselves. This is also the case with the whole body of\nWesleyan Methodists, and of the cognate societies to which they have\ngiven rise, both in Great Britain and America.\n\nPELICAN, \u05e7\u05d0\u05ea, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 17; Psa. cii, 7; Isa. xxxiv, 11;\nZeph. ii, 14; a very remarkable aquatic bird, of the size of a large\ngoose. Its colour is a grayish white, except that the neck looks a\nlittle yellowish, and the middle of the back feathers are blackish. The\nbill is long, and hooked at the end, and has under it a lax membrane,\nextended to the throat, which makes a bag or sack, capable of holding a\nvery large quantity. Feeding her young from this bag has so much the\nappearance of feeding them with her own blood, that it caused this\nfabulous opinion to be propagated, and made the pelican an emblem of\npaternal, as the stork had been before chosen, more justly, of filial\naffection. The voice of this bird is harsh and dissonant, which some say\nresembles that of a man grievously complaining. David compares his\ngroaning to it, Psalm cii, 7.\n\nPENTATEUCH. This word, which is derived from the Greek \u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, from\n\u03d6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5, _five_, and \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, _a volume_, signifies the collection of the\nfive books of Moses, which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and\nDeuteronomy. That the Jews have acknowledged the authenticity of the\nPentateuch, from the present time back to the era of their return from\nthe Babylonish captivity, a period of more than two thousand three\nhundred years, admits not a possibility of doubt. The five books of\nMoses have been during that period constantly placed at the head of the\nJewish sacred volume, and divided into fixed portions, one of which was\nread and explained in their synagogues, not only every Sabbath with the\nother Scriptures, but in many places twice a week, and not unfrequently\nevery evening, when they alone were read. They have been received as\ndivinely inspired by every Jewish sect, even by the Sadducees, who\nquestioned the divinity of the remaining works of the Old Testament. In\ntruth, the veneration of the Jews for their Scriptures, and above all\nfor the Pentateuch, seems to have risen almost to a superstitious\nreverence. Extracts from the Mosaic law were written on pieces of\nparchment, and placed on the borders of their garments, or round their\nwrists and foreheads: nay, they at a later period counted, with the\nminutest exactness, not only the chapters and paragraphs, but the words\nand letters, which each book of their Scriptures contains. Thus also the\ntranslation, first of the Pentateuch, and afterward of the remaining\nworks of the Old Testament, into Greek, for the use of the Alexandrian\nJews, disseminated this sacred volume over a great part of the civilized\nworld, in the language most universally understood, and rendered it\naccessible to the learned and inquisitive in every country; so as to\npreclude all suspicion that it could be materially altered by either\nJews or Christians, to support their respective opinions as to the\nperson and character of the Messiah; the substance of the text being, by\nthis translation, fixed and authenticated at least two hundred and\nseventy years before the appearance of our Lord.\n\nBut, long previous to the captivity, two particular examples, deserving\npeculiar attention, occur in the Jewish history, of the public and\nsolemn homage paid to the sacredness of the Mosaic law as promulgated in\nthe Pentateuch; and which, by consequence, afford the fullest testimony\nto the authenticity of the Pentateuch itself: the one in the reign of\nHezekiah, while the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel still\nsubsisted; and the other in the reign of his great grandson Josiah,\nsubsequent to the captivity of Israel. In the former we see the pious\nmonarch of Judah assembling the priests and Levites and the rulers of\nthe people; to deplore with him the trespasses of their fathers against\nthe divine law, to acknowledge the justice of those chastisements which,\naccording to the prophetic warnings of that law, had been inflicted upon\nthem; to open the house of God which his father had impiously shut, and\nrestore the true worship therein according to the Mosaic ritual, 2 Kings\nxviii; 2 Chron. xxix; xxx; with the minutest particulars of which he\ncomplied, in the sin-offerings and the peace-offerings which, in\nconjunction with his people, he offered for the kingdom and the\nsanctuary and the people, to make atonement to God for them and for all\nIsrael; restoring the service of God as it had been performed in the\npurest times. And Hezekiah,\u201d says the sacred narrative, rejoiced, and\nall the people, that God had prepared the people; for the thing was done\nsuddenly,\u201d 2 Chron. xxix, 36; immediately on the king\u2019s accession to the\nthrone, on the first declaration of his pious resolution. How clear a\nproof does this exhibit of the previous existence and clearly\nacknowledged authority of those laws which the Pentateuch contains!\n\nBut a yet more remarkable part of this transaction still remains. At\nthis time Hoshea was king of Israel, and so far disposed to countenance\nthe worship of the true God, that he appears to have made no opposition\nto the pious zeal of Hezekiah; who, with the concurrence of the whole\ncongregation which he had assembled, sent out letters and made a\nproclamation, not only to his own people of Judah, 2 Chron. xxx, 1, but\nto Ephraim and Manasseh and all Israel, from Beersheba even unto Dan,\nthat they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the\npassover unto the Lord God of Israel; saying, Ye children of Israel,\nturn again to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he will\nreturn to the remnant of you who are escaped out of the hands of the\nkings of Assyria; and be not ye like your fathers and your brethren,\nwhich trespassed against the Lord God of their fathers, who therefore\ngave them up to desolation as ye see. Now be ye not stiff-necked, as\nyour fathers were; but yield yourselves unto the Lord, and enter into\nhis sanctuary which he hath sanctified for ever, and serve the Lord your\nGod, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you. So the\nposts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and\nManasseh even unto Zebulun,\u201d 2 Chron. xxx, 6, &c.\n\nNow, can we conceive that such an attempt as this could have been made,\nif the Pentateuch containing the Mosaic code had not been as certainly\nrecognized through the ten tribes of Israel as in the kingdom of Judah?\nThe success was exactly such as we might reasonably expect if it were so\nacknowledged; for, though many of the ten tribes laughed to scorn and\nmocked the messengers of Hezekiah, who invited them to the solemnity of\nthe passover, from the impious contempt which through long disuse they\nhad conceived for it; Nevertheless,\u201d says the sacred narrative, divers\nof Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to\nJerusalem; and there assembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the\nfeast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great\ncongregation; and they killed the passover, and the priests and Levites\nstood in their places after their manner, according to the law of Moses,\nthe man of God. So there was great joy in Jerusalem; for since the time\nof Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, there was not the like at\nJerusalem: and when all this was finished, all Israel that were present\nwent out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut\ndown the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of\nall Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had\nutterly destroyed them all,\u201d 2 Chronicles xxx, 11; xxxi. Can any clearer\nproof than this be desired of the constant and universal acknowledgment\nof the divine authority of the Pentateuch throughout the entire nation\nof the Jews, notwithstanding the idolatries and corruptions which so\noften prevented its receiving such obedience as that acknowledgment\nought to have produced? The argument from this certain antiquity of the\nPentateuch, a copy of which existed in the old Samaritan character as\nwell as in the modern Hebrew, is most conclusive as to the numerous\nprophecies of Christ, and the future and present condition of the Jews\nwhich it contains. These are proved to have been delivered many ages\nbefore they were accomplished; they could be only the result of divine\nprescience, and the uttering of them by Moses proves therefore the\ninspiration and the authority of his writings. See LAW and MOSES.\n\nPENTECOST, \u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03db\u1f74, a solemn festival of the Jews; so called, because\nit was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the sixteenth of Nisan,\nwhich was the second day of the passover. The Hebrews call it the feast\nof weeks, because it was kept seven weeks after the passover. They then\noffered the first fruits of the wheat harvest, which was then completed;\nbeside which, they presented at the temple seven lambs of that year, one\ncalf, and two rams for a burnt-offering; two lambs for a peace-offering;\nand a goat for a sin-offering, Lev. xxiii, 15, 16; Exod. xxxiv, 22;\nDeut. xvi, 9, 10. The feast of pentecost was instituted among the\nIsraelites, first, to oblige them to repair to the temple of the Lord,\nthere to acknowledge his absolute dominion over the whole country, by\noffering him the first fruits of the harvest; and, secondly, to\ncommemorate and give thanks to God for the law which he had given them\nfrom Sinai, on the fiftieth day after their coming out of Egypt. The\nmodern Jews celebrate the pentecost for two days. They deck the\nsynagogues, where the law is read, and their own houses, with garlands\nof flowers. They hear an oration in praise of the law, and read from the\nPentateuch and prophets lessons which have a relation to this festival,\nand accommodate their prayers to the same occasion. It was on the feast\nof pentecost that the Holy Ghost descended in the miraculous manner\nrelated, Acts ii.\n\nPERGAMUS, a city of Troas, very considerable in the time of John the\nevangelist, Rev. ii, 12, 13. This city was, for the space of one hundred\nand fifty years, the capital of a kingdom of the same name founded by\nPhilet\u00e6rus, B. C. 283; who treacherously made use of the treasures\ncommitted to his care by Lysimachus after the battle of Ipsus, and,\nseizing on Pergamus, established an independent kingdom. After\nPhilet\u00e6rus were five kings of the same race; the last of whom, Attalus\nPhilopater, left his kingdom, which comprehended Mysia, \u00c6olis, Ionia,\nLydia, and Caria, to the Roman empire; to which it belonged when the\nfirst Christian church was established there. This church early became\ncorrupted by the Nicolaitans, for which it was reproved by St. John, and\ncharged quickly to repent, Rev. ii, 14\u201316. Pergamus, now called Bergamo,\nlike most other places which have been cursed by the presence of the\nTurks, is reduced to comparative decay, containing a poor population,\nwho are too indolent or too oppressed to profit by the richness of their\nsoil and the beauty of the climate. The number of inhabitants, however,\nis still said to amount to thirty thousand, of whom three thousand are\nGreek Christians. Many remains of former magnificence are still to be\nfound; among which are those of several Christian churches. It is about\nsixty miles north of Smyrna. The celebrated physician Galen was a native\nof this place.\n\nPERIZZITES. The ancient inhabitants of Palestine, mingled with the\nCanaanites. There is also a great probability that they themselves were\nCanaanites, but, having no fixed habitations, were wandering about here\nand there, and scattered over all the country. Thus, in the time of\nAbraham and Lot, the Canaanite and Perizzite were in the land, Gen.\nxiii, 7; Josh. xvii, 15. Solomon subdued the remains of the Canaanites\nand Perizzites, which the children of Israel had not rooted out, and\nmade them tributary to him, 1 Kings ix, 20, 21; 2 Chron. viii, 7. There\nstill remained some of this people as late as the time of Ezra, ix, 1.\n\nPERSECUTION is any pain or affliction which a person designedly inflicts\nupon another; and, in a more restrained sense, the sufferings of\nChristians on account of their religion. The establishment of\nChristianity was opposed by the powers of the world, and occasioned\nseveral severe persecutions against Christians, during the reigns of\nseveral Roman emperors. Though the absurdities of polytheism were openly\nderided and exposed by the Apostles and their successors, yet it does\nnot appear that any public laws were enacted against Christianity till\nthe reign of Nero, A. D. 64, by which time it had acquired considerable\nstability and extent. As far the greater number of the first converts to\nChristianity were of the Jewish nation, one secondary cause for their\nbeing so long preserved from persecution may probably be deduced from\ntheir appearing to the Roman governors only as a sect of Jews, who had\nseceded from the rest of their brethren on account of some opinion,\ntrifling in its importance, and perhaps difficult to be understood. Nor,\nwhen their brethren were fully discovered to have cast off the religion\nof the synagogue, did the Jews find it easy to infuse into the breasts\nof the Roman magistrates that rancour and malice which they themselves\nexperienced. But the steady and uniform opposition made by the\nChristians to Heathen superstition could not long pass unnoticed. Their\nopen attacks upon Paganism made them extremely obnoxious to the\npopulace, by whom they were represented as a society of atheists, who,\nby attacking the religious constitution of the empire, merited the\nseverest animadversion of the civil magistrate. Horrid tales of their\nabominations were circulated throughout the empire; and the minds of the\nPagans were, from all these circumstances, prepared to regard with\npleasure or indifference every cruelty which could be inflicted upon\nthis despised sect. Historians usually reckon ten general persecutions.\n\n_First general persecution._--Nero selected the Christians as a grateful\nsacrifice to the Roman people, and endeavoured to transfer to this hated\nsect the guilt of which he was strongly suspected; that of having caused\nand enjoyed the fire which had nearly desolated the city. (See _Nero_.)\nThis persecution was not confined to Rome: the emperor issued edicts\nagainst the Christians throughout most of the provinces of the empire.\nHe was far, however, from obtaining the object of his hopes and\nexpectations; and the virtues of the Christians, their zeal for the\ntruth, and their constancy in suffering, must have considerably\ncontributed to make their tenets more generally known.\n\n_Second general persecution._--From the death of Nero to the reign of\nDomitian, the Christians remained unmolested and daily increasing; but\ntoward the close of the first century, they were again involved in all\nthe horrors of persecution. In this persecution many eminent Christians\nsuffered; but the death of Domitian soon delivered them from this\ncalamity.\n\n_Third general persecution._--This persecution began in the third year\nof the Emperor Trajan, A. D. 100. Many things contributed toward it; as\nthe laws of the empire, the emperor\u2019s zeal for his religion, and\naversion to Christianity, and the prejudices of the Pagans, supported by\nfalsehoods and calumnies against the Christians. Under the plausible\npretence of their holding illegal meetings and societies, they were\nseverely persecuted by the governors and other officers; in which\npersecution great numbers fell by the rage of popular tumult, as well as\nby laws and processes. This persecution continued several years, with\ndifferent degrees of severity in many parts of the empire; and was so\nmuch the more afflicting, because the Christians generally suffered\nunder the notion of malefactors and traitors, and under an emperor famed\nfor his singular justice and moderation. The most noted martyr in this\npersecution was Clement, bishop of Rome. After some time the fury of\nthis persecution was abated, but did not cease during the whole reign of\nTrajan. In the eighth year of his successor Adrian, it broke out with\nnew rage. This is by some called the fourth general persecution; but is\nmore commonly considered as a revival or continuance of the third.\n\n_Fourth general persecution._--This took place under Antoninus the\nphilosopher; and at different places, with several intermissions, and\ndifferent degrees of severity, it continued the greater part of his\nreign. Antoninus himself has been much excused as to this persecution.\nAs the character of the virtuous Trajan, however, is sullied by the\nmartyrdom of Ignatius, so the reign of the philosophic Marcus is for\never disgraced by the sacrifice of the venerable Polycarp, bishop of\nSmyrna, the friend and companion of St. John. A few days previous to his\ndeath, he is said to have dreamed that his pillow was on fire. When\nurged by the proconsul to renounce Christ, he replied, Fourscore and six\nyears have I served him, and he has never done me an injury: can I\nblaspheme my King and my Saviour?\u201d Several miracles are reported to have\nhappened at his death. The flames, as if unwilling to injure his sacred\nperson, are said to have arched over his head; and it is added, that at\nlength, being despatched with a sword, a dove flew out of the wound; and\nthat from the pile proceeded a most fragrant smell. It is obvious that\nthe arching of the flames might be an accidental effect, which the\nenthusiastic veneration of his disciples might convert into a miracle;\nand as to the story of the dove, &c, Eusebius himself apparently did not\ncredit it; since he has omitted it in his narrative of the transaction.\nAmong many other victims of persecution in this philosophic reign, we\nmust also record that of the excellent and learned Justin. But it was at\nLyons and Vienne in Gaul, that the most shocking scenes were acted.\nAmong many nameless sufferers, history has preserved from oblivion\nPothinus, the respectable bishop of Lyons, who was then more than ninety\nyears of age; Sanctus, a deacon of Vienne; Attalus, a native of\nPergamus; Maturus, and Alexander; some of whom were devoured by wild\nbeasts, and some of them tortured in an iron chair made red hot. Some\nfemales, also, and particularly Biblias and Blandina, reflected honour\nboth upon their sex and religion by their constancy and courage.\n\n_Fifth general persecution._--A considerable part of the reign of\nSeverus proved so far favourable to the Christians, that no additions\nwere made to the severe edicts already in force against them. For this\nlenity they were probably indebted to Proculus, a Christian, who, in a\nvery extraordinary manner, cured the emperor of a dangerous distemper by\nthe application of oil. But this degree of peace, precarious as it was,\nand frequently interrupted by the partial execution of severe laws, was\nterminated by an edict, A. D. 197, which prohibited every subject of the\nempire, under severe penalties, from embracing the Jewish or Christian\nfaith. This law appears, upon a first view, designed merely to impede\nthe farther progress of Christianity; but it incited the magistracy to\nenforce the laws of former emperors, which were still existing, against\nthe Christians; and during seven years they were exposed to a rigorous\npersecution in Palestine, Egypt, the rest of Africa, Italy, Gaul, and\nother parts. In this persecution Leonidas, the father of Origen, and\nIren\u00e6us, bishop of Lyons, suffered martyrdom. On this occasion\nTertullian composed his Apology.\u201d The violence of Pagan intolerance was\nmost severely felt in Egypt, and particularly at Alexandria.\n\n_Sixth general persecution._--This persecution began with the reign of\nthe Emperor Maximinus, A. D. 235, and seems to have arisen from that\nprince\u2019s hatred to his predecessor, Alexander, in whose family many\nChristians had found shelter and patronage. Though this persecution was\nvery severe in some places, yet we have the names of only a few martyrs.\nOrigen at this time was very industrious in supporting the Christians\nunder these fiery trials.\n\n_Seventh general persecution._--This was the most dreadful persecution\nthat ever had been known in the church. During the short reign of\nDecius, the Christians were exposed to greater calamities than any they\nhad hitherto suffered. It has been said, and with some probability, that\nthe Christians were involved in this persecution by their attachment to\nthe family of the Emperor Philip. Considerable numbers were publicly\ndestroyed; several purchased safety by bribes, or secured it by flight;\nand many deserted from the faith, and willingly consented to burn\nincense on the altars of the gods. The city of Alexandria, the great\ntheatre of persecution, had even anticipated the edicts of the emperor,\nand had put to death a number of innocent persons, among whom were some\nwomen. The imperial edict for persecuting the Christians was published\nA. D. 249; and shortly after, Fabianus, bishop of Rome, with a number of\nhis followers, was put to death. The venerable bishops of Jerusalem and\nAntioch died in prison, the most cruel tortures were employed, and the\nnumbers that perished are by all parties confessed to have been very\nconsiderable.\n\n_Eighth general persecution._--The Emperor Valerian, in the fourth year\nof his reign, A. D. 257, listening to the suggestions of Macrinus, a\nmagician of Egypt, was prevailed upon to persecute the Christians, on\npretence that by their wicked and execrable charms they hindered the\nprosperity of the emperor. Macrinus advised him to perform many impious\nrites, sacrifices, and incantations; to cut the throats of infants, &c;\nand edicts were published in all places against the Christians, who were\nexposed without protection to the common rage. We have the names of\nseveral martyrs, among whom were the famous St. Laurence, archdeacon of\nRome, and the great St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage.\n\n_Ninth general persecution._--This persecution took place under the\nEmperor Aurelian, A. D. 274; but it was so small and inconsiderable,\nthat it gave little interruption to the peace of the church.\n\n_Tenth general persecution._--The tenth and last general persecution of\nthe Christians began in the nineteenth year of the Emperor Diocletian,\nA. D. 303. The most violent promoters of it were Hierocles the\nphilosopher, who wrote against the Christian religion, and Galerius,\nwhom Diocletian had declared C\u00e6sar. This latter was excited not only by\nhis own cruelty and superstition, but likewise by his mother, who was a\nzealous Pagan. Diocletian, contrary to his inclination, was prevailed\nupon to authorize the persecution by his edicts. Accordingly, it began\nin the city of Nicomedia, whence it spread into other cities and\nprovinces, and became at last universal. Great numbers of Christians\nsuffered the severest tortures in this persecution, though the accounts\ngiven of it by succeeding historians are probably exaggerated. There is,\nhowever, sufficient of well authenticated facts to assure us amply of\nthe cruel and intolerant disposition of the professors of Pagan\nphilosophy. The human imagination was, indeed, almost exhausted in\ninventing a variety of tortures. Some were impaled alive; some had their\nlimbs broken, and in that condition were left to expire. Some were\nroasted by slow fires; and some suspended by their feet with their heads\ndownward, and, a fire being placed under them, were suffocated by the\nsmoke. Some had melted lead poured down their throats, and the flesh of\nsome was torn off with shells, and others had splinters of reeds thrust\nunder the nails of their fingers and toes. The few who were not\ncapitally punished had their limbs and their features mutilated. It\nwould be endless to enumerate the victims of superstition. The bishops\nof Nicomedia, of Tyre, of Sidon, of Emesa, several matrons and virgins\nof the purest character, and a nameless number of plebians, arrived at\nimmortality through the flames of martyrdom. At last it pleased God that\nthe Emperor Constantine, who himself afterward became a Christian,\nopenly declared for the Christians, and published the first law in\nfavour of them. The death of Maximin, emperor of the east, soon after\nput a period to all their troubles; and this was the great epoch when\nChristianity triumphantly got possession of the thrones of princes.\n\nThe guilt of persecution has, however, been attached to professing\nChristians. Had men been guided solely by the spirit and the precepts of\nthe Gospel, the conduct of its blessed Author, and the writings and\nexample of his immediate disciples, we might have boldly affirmed that\namong Christians there could be no tendency to encroach upon freedom of\ndiscussion, and no approach to persecution. The Gospel, in every page of\nit, inculcates tenderness and mercy; it exhibits the most unwearied\nindulgence to the frailties and errors of men; and it represents charity\nas the badge of those who in sincerity profess it. In St. Paul\u2019s\ninimitable description of this grace he has drawn a picture of mutual\nforbearance and kindness and toleration, upon which it is scarcely\npossible to dwell, without being raised superior to every contracted\nsentiment, and glowing with the most diffusive benevolence. In the\nchurches which he planted he had often to counteract the efforts of\nteachers who had laboured to subvert the foundation which he had laid,\nto misrepresent his motives, and to inculcate doctrines which, through\nthe inspiration that was imparted to him, he discerned to proceed from\nthe most perverted views, and to be inconsistent with the great designs\nof the Gospel. These teachers he strenuously and conscientiously\nopposed; he endeavoured to show the great importance of those to whom he\nwrote being on their guard against them; and he evinced the most ardent\nzeal in resisting their insidious purposes: but he never, in the most\ndistant manner, insinuated that they should be persecuted, adhering\nalways to the maxim which he had laid down, that the weapons of a\nChristian\u2019s warfare are not carnal but spiritual. He does, indeed,\nsometimes speak of heretics; and he even exhorts that, after\nexpostulation with him, a heretic should be rejected, and not\nacknowledged to be a member of the church to which he had once belonged.\nBut that precept of the Apostle has no reference to the persecution\nwhich it has sometimes been conceived to sanction, and which has been\ngenerally directed against men quite sincere in their belief, however\nerroneous that belief may be esteemed.\n\nUpon a subject thus enforced by precept and example, it is not to be\nsupposed that the first converts, deriving their notions of Christianity\nimmediately from our Lord or his Apostles, could have any opinion\ndifferent in theory, at least, from that which has been now established.\nAccordingly, we find that the primitive fathers, although, in many\nrespects, they erred, unequivocally express themselves in favour of the\nmost ample liberty as to religious sentiment, and highly disapprove of\nevery attempt to control it. Passages from many of these writers might\nbe quoted to establish that this was almost the universal sentiment till\nthe age of Constantine. Lactantius in particular has, with great force\nand beauty, delivered his opinion against persecution: There is no need\nof compulsion and violence, because religion cannot be forced; and men\nmust be made willing, not by stripes, but by arguments. Slaughter and\npiety are quite opposite to each other; nor can truth consist with\nviolence, or justice with cruelty. They are convinced that nothing is\nmore excellent than religion, and therefore think that it ought to be\ndefended with force; but they are mistaken, both in the nature of\nreligion, and in proper methods to support it; for religion is to be\ndefended, not by murder, but by persuasion; not by cruelty, but by\npatience; not by wickedness, but by faith. If you attempt to defend\nreligion by blood, and torments, and evil, this is not to defend, but to\nviolate and pollute it; for there is nothing that should be more free\nthan the choice of religion, in which, if consent be wanting, it becomes\nentirely void and ineffectual.\u201d\n\nThe general conduct of Christians during the first three centuries was\nin conformity with the admirable maxims now quoted. Eusebius has\nrecorded that Polycarp, after in vain endeavouring to persuade Anicetus,\nwho was bishop of Rome, to embrace his opinion as to some point with\nrespect to which they differed, gave him, notwithstanding, the kiss of\npeace, while Anicetus communicated with the martyr; and Iren\u00e6us mentions\nthat although Polycarp was much offended with the Gnostic heretics, who\nabounded in his days, he converted numbers of them, not by the\napplication of constraint or violence, but by the facts and arguments\nwhich he calmly submitted for their consideration. It must be admitted,\nhowever, that even during the second century some traces of persecution\nare to be found. Victor, one of the early pontiffs, because the Asiatic\nbishops differed from him about the rule for the observation of Easter,\nexcommunicated them as guilty of heresy; and he acted in the same manner\ntoward a person who held what he considered as erroneous notions\nrespecting the trinity. This stretch of authority was, indeed,\nreprobated by the generality of Christians, and remonstrances against it\nwere accordingly presented. There was, however, in this proceeding of\nVictor, too clear a proof that the church was beginning to deviate from\nthe perfect charity by which it had been adorned, and too sure an\nindication that the example of one who held so high an office, when it\nwas in harmony with the corruption or with the worst passions of our\nnature, would be extensively followed. But still there was, in the\nexcommunication rashly pronounced by the pope, merely an exertion of\necclesiastical power, not interfering with the personal security, with\nthe property, or with the lives of those against whom it was directed;\nand we may, notwithstanding this slight exception, consider the first\nthree centuries as marked by the candour and the benevolence implied in\nthe charity which judgeth not, and thinketh no evil.\n\nIt was after Christianity had been established as the religion of the\nempire, and after wealth and honour had been conferred on its ministers,\nthat the monstrous evil of persecution acquired gigantic strength, and\nthrew its blasting influence over the religion of the Gospel. The causes\nof this are apparent. Men exalted in the scale of society were eager to\nextend the power which had been intrusted to them; and they sought to do\nso by exacting from the people acquiescence in the peculiar\ninterpretations of tenets and doctrines which they chose to publish as\narticles of faith. The moment that this was attempted, the foundation\nwas laid for the most inflexible intolerance; because reluctance to\nsubmit was no longer regarded solely as a matter of conscience, but as\ninterfering with the interest and the dominion of the ruling party. It\nwas therefore proceeded against with all the eagerness which men so\nunequivocally display when the temporal blessings that gratify their\nambition or add to their comfort are attempted to be wrested from them.\nTo other dictates than those of the word of God the members of the\nchurch now listened; and opinions were viewed, not in reference to that\nword, but to the effect which they might produce upon the worldly\nadvancement or prosperity of those by whom they were avowed. From the\nera, then, of the conversion of Constantine we may date, if not\naltogether the introduction, at least the decisive influence of\npersecution.\n\nPERSIA, an ancient kingdom of Asia, bounded on the north by Media, on\nthe west by Susiana, on the east by Carmania, and on the south by the\nPersian Gulf. The Persians became very famous from the time of Cyrus,\nthe founder of the Persian monarchy. Their ancient name was Elamites,\nand in the time of the Roman emperors they went by the name of\nParthians; but now Persians. See CYRUS; and for the religion of the\nancient Persians, MAGI.\n\nPESTILENCE, or plague, generally is used by the Hebrews for all epidemic\nor contagious diseases. The prophets usually connect together sword,\npestilence, and famine, being three of the most grievous inflictions of\nthe Almighty upon a guilty people. See DISEASES.\n\nPETER, the great Apostle of the circumcision, was the son of Jona, and\nborn at Bethsaida, a town situated on the western shore of the lake of\nGennesareth, but in what particular year we are not informed, John i,\n42, 43. His original name was Simon or Simeon, which his divine Master,\nwhen he called him to the Apostleship, changed for that of Cephas, a\nSyriac word signifying _a stone_ or _rock_; in Latin, _petra_, from\nwhence is derived the term Peter. He was a married man, and had his\nhouse, his mother-in-law, and his wife, at Capernaum, on the lake of\nGennesareth, Matt. viii, 14; Mark i, 29; Luke iv, 38. He had also a\nbrother of the name of Andrew, who had been a disciple of John the\nBaptist, and was called to the knowledge of the Saviour prior to\nhimself. Andrew was present when the venerable Baptist pointed his\ndisciples to Jesus, and added, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away\nthe sin of the world;\u201d and, meeting Simon shortly afterward, said, We\nhave found the Messiah,\u201d and then brought him to Jesus, John i, 41. When\nthe two brothers had passed one day with the Lord Jesus, they took their\nleave of him, and returned to their ordinary occupation of fishing. This\nappears to have taken place in the thirtieth year of the Christian era.\nToward the end of the same year, as Jesus was one morning standing on\nthe shore of the lake of Gennesareth, he saw Andrew and Peter engaged\nabout their employment. They had been fishing during the whole night,\nbut without the smallest success; and, after this fruitless expedition,\nwere in the act of washing their nets, Luke v, 1\u20133. Jesus entered into\ntheir boat, and bade Peter throw out his net into the sea, which he did;\nand now, to his astonishment, the multitude of fishes was so immense\nthat their own vessel, and that of the sons of Zebedee, were filled with\nthem. Peter evidently saw there was something supernatural in this, and,\nthrowing himself at the feet of Jesus, he exclaimed, Depart from me, O\nLord, for I am a sinful man.\u201d The miracle was no doubt intended for a\nsign to the four disciples of what success should afterward follow their\nministry in preaching the doctrine of his kingdom; and therefore Jesus\nsaid unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men;\u201d on which\nthey quitted their boats and nets, and thenceforth became the constant\nassociates of the Saviour, during the whole of his public ministry, Luke\nxviii, 28.\n\nFrom the instant of his entering upon the apostolic office, we find St.\nPeter on almost every occasion evincing the strength of his faith in\nJesus as the Messiah, and the most extraordinary zeal in his service, of\nwhich many examples are extant in the Gospels. When Jesus in private\nasked his disciples, first, what opinion the people entertained of him;\nnext, what was their own opinion: Simon Peter answered and said, Thou\nart the Christ, the Son of the living God,\u201d Matt. xvi, 16. Having\nreceived this answer, Jesus declared Peter blessed on account of his\nfaith; and in allusion to the signification of his name, added, Thou art\nPeter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and I will give thee\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on\nearth,\u201d &c. Many think these things were spoken to St. Peter alone, for\nthe purpose of conferring on him privileges and powers not granted to\nthe rest of the Apostles. But others, with more reason, suppose that,\nthough Jesus directed his discourse to St. Peter, it was intended for\nthem all; and that the honours and powers granted to St. Peter by name\nwere conferred on them all equally. For no one will say that Christ\u2019s\nchurch was built upon St. Peter singly: it was built on the foundation\nof all the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief\ncorner stone. As little can any one say that the power of binding and\nloosing was confined to St. Peter, seeing it was declared afterward to\nbelong to all the Apostles, Matt. xviii, 18; John xx, 23. To these\nthings add this, that as St. Peter made his confession in answer to a\nquestion which Jesus put to all the Apostles, that confession was\ncertainly made in the name of the whole; and, therefore, what Jesus said\nto him in reply was designed for the whole without distinction;\nexcepting this, which was peculiar to him, that he was to be the first\nwho, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, should preach the Gospel to\nthe Jews, and then to the Gentiles: an honour which was conferred on St.\nPeter in the expression, I will give thee the keys,\u201d &c.\n\nSt. Peter was one of the three Apostles whom Jesus admitted to witness\nthe resurrection of Jairus\u2019s daughter, and before whom he was\ntransfigured, and with whom he retired to pray in the garden the night\nbefore he suffered. He was the person who in the fervour of his zeal for\nhis Master cut off the ear of the high priest\u2019s slave, when the armed\nband came to apprehend him. Yet this same Peter, a few hours after that,\ndenied his Master three different times in the high priest\u2019s palace, and\nthat with oaths. In the awful defection of the Apostle on this occasion\nwe have melancholy proof of the power of human depravity even in\nregenerate men, and of the weakness of human resolutions when left to\nourselves. St. Peter was fully warned by his divine Master of his\napproaching danger; but confident in his own strength, he declared\nhimself ready to accompany his Lord to prison and even to judgment.\nAfter the third denial Jesus turned and looked upon Peter;\u201d that look\npierced him to the heart; and, stung with deep remorse, he went out, and\nwept bitterly.\u201d St. Peter, however, obtained forgiveness; and, when\nJesus had risen from the dead, he ordered the glad tidings of his\nresurrection to be conveyed to St. Peter by name: Go tell my disciples\nand Peter,\u201d Mark xvi, 8. He afterward received repeated assurances of\nhis Saviour\u2019s love, and from that time uniformly showed the greatest\nzeal and fortitude in his Master\u2019s service.\n\nSoon after our Lord\u2019s ascension, in a numerous assembly of the Apostles\nand brethren, St. Peter gave it as his opinion, that one should be\nchosen to be an Apostle in the room of Judas. To this they all agreed;\nand, by lot, chose Matthias, whom on that occasion they numbered with\nthe eleven Apostles. On the day of pentecost following, when the Holy\nSpirit fell on the Apostles and disciples, St. Peter, standing up with\nthe eleven, lifted up his voice; that is, St. Peter, rising up, spake\nwith a loud voice, in the name of the Apostles, as he had done on\nvarious occasions in his Master\u2019s lifetime, and gave the multitude an\naccount of that great miracle, Acts ii, 14. St. Peter now began to\nexperience the fulfilment of Christ\u2019s promise to make him a fisher of\nmen, and also that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.\nHis sermon on this occasion produced an abundant harvest of converts to\nChrist. Three thousand of his audience were pricked to the heart, and\ncried out, Men and brethren, what shall we do?\u201d St. Peter proclaimed to\nthem the riches of pardoning mercy through the divine blood of the Son\nof God; and they that gladly received his doctrine were baptized and\nadded to the church, Acts ii, 37\u201343. The effects produced on the mind of\nthis great Apostle of the circumcision by the resurrection of his divine\nMaster, and the consequent effusion of the Holy Spirit, were evidently\nof the most extraordinary kind, and such as it is impossible to account\nfor upon natural principles. He was raised superior to all\nconsiderations of personal danger and the fear of man. And though all\nthe Apostles could now say, God hath not given us the spirit of fear,\nbut of power, and of love, and of a sound mind;\u201d yet an attentive reader\nof the Acts of the Apostles cannot fail to perceive that upon almost\nevery occasion of difficulty St. Peter is exhibited to our view as\nstanding foremost in the rank of Apostles. When St. Peter and John were\nbrought before the council to be examined concerning the miracle wrought\non the impotent man, St. Peter spake. It was St. Peter who questioned\nAnanias and Sapphira about the price of their lands; and, for their\nlying in that matter, punished them miraculously with death. It is\nremarkable, also, that although by the hands of the Apostles many signs\nand wonders were wrought, it was by St. Peter\u2019s shadow alone that the\nsick, who were laid in the streets of Jerusalem, were healed as he\npassed by. Lastly: It was St. Peter who replied to the council in the\nname of the Apostles, not obeying their command to preach no more in the\nname of Jesus.\n\nSt. Peter\u2019s fame was now become so great, that the brethren of Joppa,\nhearing of his being in Lydda, and of his having cured Eneas\nmiraculously of a palsy, sent, desiring him to come and restore a\ndisciple to life, named Tabitha, which he did. During his abode in\nJoppa, the Roman centurion, Cornelius, directed by an angel, sent for\nhim to come and preach to him. On that occasion the Holy Ghost fell on\nCornelius and his company, while St. Peter spake. St. Peter, by his zeal\nand success in preaching the Gospel, having attracted the notice of the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, Herod Agrippa, who, to please the Jews, had\nkilled St. James, the brother of St. John, still farther to gratify\nthem, cast St. Peter into prison. But an angel brought him out; after\nwhich he concealed himself in the city, or in some neighbouring town,\ntill Herod\u2019s death, which happened about the end of the year. Some\nlearned men think St. Peter at that time went to Antioch or to Rome. But\nif he had gone to any celebrated city, St. Luke, as L\u2019Enfant observes,\nwould probably have mentioned it. Beside, we find him in the council of\nJerusalem, which met not long after this to determine the famous\nquestion concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles. The council being\nended, St. Peter went to Antioch, where he gave great offence, by\nrefusing to eat with the converted Gentiles. But St. Paul withstood him\nto the face, rebuking him before the whole church for his pusillanimity\nand hypocrisy, Gal. ii, 11\u201321.\n\nIn the Acts of the Apostles, no mention is made of St. Peter after the\ncouncil of Jerusalem. But from Gal. ii, 11, it appears that after that\ncouncil he was with St. Paul at Antioch. He is likewise mentioned by St.\nPaul, 1 Cor. i, 12; iii, 22. It is generally supposed that after St.\nPeter was at Antioch with St. Paul, he returned to Jerusalem. What\nhappened to him after that is not told in the Scriptures. But Eusebius\ninforms us that Origen wrote to this purpose: St. Peter is supposed to\nhave preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,\nBithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; and at length, coming to Rome, was\ncrucified with his head downward.\n\nWe are indebted to this Apostle for two epistles, which constitute a\nvaluable part of the inspired writings. The first epistle of St. Peter\nhas always been considered as canonical; and in proof of its genuineness\nwe may observe that it is referred to by Clement of Rome, Hermas, and\nPolycarp; that, we are assured by Eusebius, that it was quoted by\nPapias; and that it is expressly mentioned by Iren\u00e6us, Clement of\nAlexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and most of the later fathers. The\nauthority of the second epistle of St. Peter was for some time disputed,\nas we learn from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom; but since the fourth\ncentury it has been universally received, except by the Syriac\nChristians. It is addressed to the same persons as the former epistle,\nand the design of it was to encourage them to adhere to the genuine\nfaith and practice of the Gospel.\n\nPETHOR, a city of Mesopotamia, of which the Prophet Balaam was a native.\nThe Hebrews call this city Pethura. Ptolemy calls it Pachora; and\nEusebius, Pathara. He places it in the Upper Mesopotamia.\n\nPHARAOH, a common name of the kings of Egypt. We meet with it as early\nas Gen. xii, 15. Josephus says, that all the kings of Egypt, from\nMin\u00e6us, the founder of Memphis, who lived several ages before Abraham,\nalways had the name of Pharaoh, down to the time of Solomon, for more\nthan three thousand three hundred years. He adds, that, in the Egyptian\nlanguage, the word Pharaoh means _king_, and that these princes did not\nassume the name until they ascended the throne, at which time they\nquitted their former name.\n\nPHARISEES, a sect of the Jews. The earliest mention of them is by\nJosephus, who tells us that they were a sect of considerable weight when\nJohn Hyrcanus was high priest, B. C. 108. They were the most numerous,\ndistinguished, and popular sect among the Jews. The time when they first\nappeared is not known, but it is supposed to have been not long after\nthe institution of the Sadducees, if, indeed the two sects did not\ngradually spring up together. They derived their name from the Hebrew\nword _pharash_, which signifies separated,\u201d or set apart;\u201d because they\nseparated themselves from the rest of the Jews to superior strictness in\nreligious observances. They boasted that, from their accurate knowledge\nof religion, they were the favourites of Heaven; and thus, trusting in\nthemselves that they were righteous, despised others, Luke xi, 52;\nxviii, 9, 11. Among the tenets inculcated by this sect, we may enumerate\nthe following: namely, they ascribed all things to fate or providence;\nyet not so absolutely as to take away the free will of man; for fate\ndoes not co\u00f6perate in every action, Acts v, 38, 39. They also believed\nin the existence of angels and spirits, and in the resurrection of the\ndead; Acts xxiii, 8. Lastly: the Pharisees contended that God stood\nengaged to bless the Jews, to make them all partakers of the terrestrial\nkingdom of the Messiah, to justify them, and make them eternally happy.\nThe cause of their justification they derived from the merits of\nAbraham, from their knowledge of God, from their practising the rite of\ncircumcision, and from the sacrifices they offered. And as they\nconceived works to be meritorious, they had invented a great number of\nsupererogatory ones, to which they attached greater merit than to the\nobservance of the law itself. To this notion St. Paul has some allusions\nin those parts of his Epistle to the Romans, in which be combats the\nerroneous suppositions of the Jews, Rom. i-xi.\n\nThe Pharisees were the strictest of the three principal sects that\ndivided the Jewish nation, Acts xxvi, 5, and affected a singular probity\nof manners according to their system; which, however, was, for the most\npart, both lax and corrupt. Thus many things which Moses had tolerated\nin civil life, in order to avoid a greater evil, the Pharisees\ndetermined to be morally right: for instance, the law of divorce from a\nwife for any cause, Matt. v, 31, &c; xix, 3\u201312. (See _Divorce_.)\nFarther: they interpreted certain of the Mosaic laws most literally, and\ndistorted their meaning so as to favour their own selfish system. Thus,\nthe law of loving their neighbour, they expounded solely of the love of\ntheir friends, that is, of the whole Jewish race; all other persons\nbeing considered by them as natural enemies, whom they were in no\nrespect bound to assist, Matt. v, 43; Luke x, 31\u201333. They also trifled\nwith oaths. Dr. Lightfoot has cited a striking illustration of this from\nMaimonides. An oath, in which the name of God was not distinctly\nspecified, they taught was not binding, Matt. v, 33; maintaining that a\nman might even swear with his lips, and at the same time annul it in his\nheart! And yet so rigorously did they understand the command of\nobserving the Sabbath day, that they accounted it unlawful to pluck ears\nof corn, and heal the sick, &c, Matt. xii; Luke vi, 6, &c; xiv. Many\nmoral rules they accounted inferior to the ceremonial laws, to the total\nneglect of mercy and fidelity, Matt. v, 19; xv, 4; xxiii, 23. Hence they\naccounted causeless anger and impure desires as trifles of no moment,\nMatt. v, 21, 22, 27\u201330; they compassed sea and land to make proselytes\nto the Jewish religion from among the Gentiles, that they might rule\nover their consciences and wealth; and these proselytes, through the\ninfluence of their own scandalous examples and characters, they soon\nrendered more profligate and abandoned than ever they were before their\nconversion, Matt. xxiii, 15. Esteeming temporal happiness and riches as\nthe highest good, they scrupled not to accumulate wealth by every means,\nlegal or illegal, Matt. v, 1\u201312; xxiii, 5; Luke xvi, 14; James ii, 1\u20138;\nvain and ambitious of popular applause, they offered up long prayers in\npublic places, but not without self-complacency in their own holiness,\nMatt. vi, 2\u20135; Luke xviii, 11; under a sanctimonious appearance of\nrespect for the memories of the prophets whom their ancestors had slain,\nthey repaired and beautified their sepulchres, Matt. xxiii, 29; and such\nwas their idea of their own sanctity, that they thought themselves\ndefiled if they but touched or conversed with sinners, that is, with\npublicans or tax-gatherers, and persons of loose and irregular lives,\nLuke vii, 39; xv, 1.\n\nBut, above all their other tenets, the Pharisees were conspicuous for\ntheir reverential observance of the traditions or decrees of the elders:\nthese traditions, they pretended, had been handed down from Moses\nthrough every generation, but were not committed to writing; and they\nwere not merely considered as of equal authority with the divine law,\nbut even preferable to it. The words of the scribes,\u201d said they, are\nlovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty\nand light, but the words of the scribes are _all_ weighty.\u201d Among the\ntraditions thus sanctimoniously observed by the Pharisees, we may\nbriefly notice the following: the washing of hands up to the wrist\nbefore and after meat, Matthew xv, 2; Mark vii, 3; which they accounted\nnot merely a religious duty, but considered its omission as a crime\nequal to fornication, and punishable by excommunication: the\npurification of the cups, vessels, and couches used at their meals by\nablutions or washings, Mark vii, 4; for which purpose the six large\nwater pots mentioned by St. John, ii, 6, were destined: their fasting\ntwice a week with great appearance of austerity, Luke xviii, 12; Matt.\nvi, 16; thus converting that exercise into religion which is only a help\ntoward the performance of its hallowed duties: their punctilious payment\nof tithes, (temple-offerings,) even of the most trifling things, Luke\nxviii, 12; Matt. xxiii, 23. And their wearing broader phylacteries and\nlarger fringes to their garments than the rest of the Jews, Matt. xxiii,\n5. See PHYLACTERIES.\n\nWith all their pretensions to piety, the Pharisees entertained the most\nsovereign contempt for the people; whom, being ignorant of the law, they\npronounced to be accursed, John vii, 49. Yet such was the esteem and\nveneration in which they were held by the populace, that they may almost\nbe said to have given what direction they pleased to public affairs; and\nhence the great men dreaded their power and authority. It is\nunquestionable, as Mosheim has well remarked, that the religion of the\nPharisees was, for the most part, founded in consummate hypocrisy; and\nthat, at the bottom, they were generally the slaves of every vicious\nappetite, proud, arrogant, and avaricious, consulting only the\ngratification of their lusts, even at the very moment when they\nprofessed themselves to be engaged in the service of their Maker. These\nodious features in the character of the Pharisees caused them to be\nreprehended by our Saviour with the utmost severity, even more so than\nthe Sadducees; who, although they had departed widely from the genuine\nprinciples of religion, yet did not impose on mankind by a pretended\nsanctity, or devote themselves with insatiate greediness to the\nacquisition of honours and riches. A few, and a few only of the sect of\nthe Pharisees in those times, might be of better character,--men who,\nthough self-righteous and deluded and bigoted, were not like the rest,\nhypocritical. Of this number was Saul of Tarsus; but as a body their\nattachment to traditions; their passionate expectation of deliverance\nfrom the Roman yoke by the Messiah, and the splendour of his civil\nreign, their pride, and above all their vices, sufficiently account for\nthat unconquerable unbelief which had possessed their minds as to the\nclaims of Christ, and their resistance to the evidence of his miracles.\nThe sect of the Pharisees was not extinguished by the ruin of the Jewish\ncommonwealth. The greater part of the Jews are still Pharisees, being as\nmuch devoted to traditions, or the oral law, as their ancestors were.\n\nPHARPAR. See ABANA.\n\nPHEBE, a deaconess of the port of Corinth, called Cenchrea. St. Paul had\na particular esteem for this holy woman; and Theodoret thinks the\nApostle lodged at her house for some time, while he continued in or near\nCorinth. It is thought she carried the epistle to Rome, which he wrote\nto the church of that city, in which she is so highly commended, Rom.\nxvi, 1, 2. It is thought that, in quality of deaconess, she was employed\nby the church in some ministrations suitable to her sex and condition;\nas to visit and instruct the Christian women, and attend them in their\nsickness, and distribute alms to them in their necessities.\n\nPHENICIA, a province of Syria, the limits of which have been differently\nrepresented. Sometimes it has been defined as extending from north to\nsouth, from Orthosia as far as Pelusium. At other times its southern\nlimit is said to have been Mount Carmel and Ptolemais. It is certain\nthat, from the conquest of Palestine by the Hebrews, its limits were\nnarrow, containing no part of the country of the Philistines, which\noccupied all the coast from Mount Carmel along the Mediterranean, as far\nas the borders of Egypt. It had also very little extent on the land\nside, because the Israelites, who possessed all Galilee, confined it to\nthe coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The chief cities of Phenicia were\nSidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, Ecdippe, Sarepta, Berythe, Biblos, Tripoli,\nOrthosia, Simira, Aradus. They formerly had possession of some cities in\nLibanus: and sometimes the Greek authors comprehend all Judea under the\nname of Phenicia. Phenicia may be considered as the birthplace of\ncommerce, if not also of letters and the arts. It was a Phenician who\nintroduced into Greece the knowledge and the use of letters. Phenician\nworkmen built the temple of Solomon; Phenician sailors navigated his\nships; Phenician pilots directed them; and before other nations had\nventured to lose sight of their own shores, colonies of Phenicians were\nestablished in the most distant parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. These\nearly advantages were owing, doubtless, in part to their own\nenterprising character, and in part also to their central situation,\nwhich enabled them to draw into their own narrow territory all the\ncommerce between the east and the west. Bochart has laboured to show\nthat they sent colonies to almost all the isles and coasts of the\nMediterranean Sea; but the most famous of all their colonies was that of\nCarthage.\n\nPHILADELPHIA, a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and one of the seven\nchurches of Asia. It derived its name from Attalus Philadelphus, its\nfounder; and was seated on a branch of Mount Tmolus, about twenty-five\nmiles south-east of Sardis, and seventy, in nearly the same direction,\nfrom Smyrna. It suffered greatly, in common with all this part of Asia,\nin the terrible earthquake during the reign of Tiberius, and in the\nseventeenth year of the Christian era. It has, however, retained a\nbetter fate than most of its neighbours; for under the name of Alahsher,\nor the city of God, it is still a place of some repute, chiefly\nsupported by trade, it being in the route of the caravans to Smyrna.\nAmong the Greek colonies and churches of Asia,\u201d says Gibbon,\nPhiladelphia is still erect, a column in a scene of ruins.\u201d Although\nthis city is now in the possession of the Turks, it has about a thousand\nChristian inhabitants, chiefly Greeks; who have five churches with a\nresident bishop, and inferior clergy.\n\nPHILEMON was an inhabitant of Colosse; and from the manner in which he\nis addressed by St. Paul in his epistle to him, it is probable that he\nwas a person of some consideration in that city. St. Paul seems to have\nbeen the means of converting him to the belief of the Gospel, Philemon\n19. He calls him his fellow-labourer; and from that expression some have\nthought that he was bishop or deacon of the church at Colosse; but\nothers have been of opinion, that he was only a private Christian, who\nhad shown a zealous and active disposition in the cause of Christianity,\nwithout holding any ecclesiastical office. We learn from this epistle\nitself, that it was written when St. Paul was a prisoner, and when he\nhad hope of soon recovering his liberty, Philemon 1, 22; and thence we\nconclude that it was written toward the end of his first confinement at\nRome. This epistle has always been deservedly admired for the delicacy\nand address with which it is written; and it places St. Paul\u2019s character\nin a very amiable point of view. He had converted a fugitive slave to\nthe Christian faith; and he here intercedes with his master in the most\nearnest and affectionate manner for his pardon; he speaks of Onesimus in\nterms calculated to soften Philemon\u2019s resentment, engages to make full\ncompensation for any injury which he might have sustained from him, and\nconjures him to reconciliation and forgiveness by the now endearing\nconnection of Christian brotherhood. See ONESIMUS.\n\nPHILIP, the Apostle, was a native of Bethsaida in Galilee. Jesus Christ\nhaving seen him, said to him, Follow me,\u201d John i, 43, 44. Philip\nfollowed him; he was present at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. Philip\nwas called at the beginning of our Saviour\u2019s mission. He is mentioned,\nLuke vi, 13; Matt. x, 3; John vi, 5\u20137. Some Gentiles having a curiosity\nto see Jesus, a little before his passion, addressed themselves to\nPhilip, John xii, 21, 22, who mentioned it to Andrew, and these two to\nChrist. At the last supper Philip desired the Saviour to show them the\nFather, John xiv, 8\u201310. This is all that we find concerning Philip in\nthe Gospel.\n\n2. PHILIP, the second of the seven deacons, Acts vi, 5, was, some say,\nof C\u00e6sarea in Palestine. It is certain his daughters lived in that city,\nActs xxi, 8, 9. After the death of Stephen all the Christians, except\nthe Apostles, having left Jerusalem, and being dispersed in several\nplaces, Philip went to preach at Sebaste or Samaria, where he performed\nseveral miracles, and converted many persons, Acts viii, 1\u20133, &c. He\nbaptized them; but informed the Apostles at Jerusalem that Samaria had\nreceived the word of God, that they might come and communicate the Holy\nGhost to them. Peter and John came thither for that purpose. Philip was,\nprobably, at Samaria, when an angel commanded him to go on the road that\nleads from Jerusalem to old Gaza. Philip obeyed, and there met with an\nEthiopian eunuch, belonging to Candace, queen of Ethiopia, whom he\nconverted and baptized, Acts viii, 26. Being come out of the water, the\nSpirit of the Lord took away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more.\n\nPHILIPPI, one of the chief cities of Macedonia, lying on the north-west\nof Neapolis, and formerly called Datum or Datos, but afterward taking\nits name from Philip, the celebrated king of Macedon, by whom it was\nrepaired and beautified. In process of time, it became a Roman colony.\nIt was the first place at which St. Paul preached the Gospel upon the\ncontinent of Europe, A. D. 51. He made many converts there, who soon\nafterward gave strong proofs of their attachment to him, Phil. iv, 15.\nHe was at Philippi a second time, but nothing which then occurred is\nrecorded. The Philippian Christians having heard of St. Paul\u2019s\nimprisonment at Rome, with their accustomed zeal, sent Epaphroditus to\nassure him of the continuance of their regard, and to offer him a supply\nof money. His epistle was written in consequence of that act of\nkindness; and it is remarkable for its strong expressions of affection.\nAs the Apostle tells the Philippians that he hoped to see them shortly,\nPhil. ii, 24, and there are plain intimations in this epistle of his\nhaving been some time at Rome, Phil. i, 12; ii, 26, it is probable that\nit was written A. D. 62, toward the end of his confinement.\n\nIt is a strong proof,\u201d says Chrysostom, of the virtuous conduct of the\nPhilippians, that they did not afford the Apostle a single subject of\ncomplaint; for, in the whole epistle which he wrote to them, there is\nnothing but exhortation and encouragement, without the mixture of any\ncensure whatever.\u201d\n\nPHILISTIM, or PHILISTINES, a people who are commonly said to have\ndescended from Casluhim, the son of Mizraim or Mizr, who peopled Egypt.\nThe Philistines, it is probable, continued with their progenitors in\nEgypt until they were sufficiently numerous and powerful to stretch\nthemselves along the coast of Canaan; doubtless by driving out that\nportion of the family of Ham. It is certain that, in the time of\nAbraham, the Canaanites were in possession of the rest of the land, to\nwhich they gave their name: but the extreme south of Philistia, or\nPalestine, was even then possessed by the Philistines, whose king,\nAbimelech, reigned at Gerar. After this, in the time of Joshua, we find\ntheir country divided into five lordships or principalities; namely,\nGaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron; giving sometimes also, as it\nappears, the title of king to their respective rulers; Achish being\ntermed king of Gath, I Sam. xxi, 10. The time of their coming to\nPalestine is unknown; but they had been long in Canaan when Abraham came\nthither, in the year of the world 2083. The name Philistine is not\nHebrew. The Septuagint generally translate it \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, _strangers_.\nThe Pelethites and Cherethites were also Philistines; and the Septuagint\nsometimes translate _Cherethim_, \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _Cretes_. They were not of the\ncursed seed of Canaan. However, Joshua did not forbear to give their\nland to the Hebrews, and to attack them by command from the Lord,\nbecause they possessed a country promised to Israel. But these conquests\nof Joshua must have been ill maintained, since, under the Judges, under\nSaul, and at the beginning of the reign of King David, the Philistines\nhad their kings, and their lords, whom they called Sazenim; since their\nstate was divided into five little kingdoms, or satrapies; and since\nthey oppressed the Israelites during the government of the high priest\nEli, and of Samuel, and during the reign of Saul, for about a hundred\nand twenty years, from A. M. 2848 to A. M. 2960. True it is, that\nShamgar, Samson, Samuel, and Saul, opposed them, and killed some of\ntheir people, but did not reduce their power. They continued independent\ntill the time of David, who subdued them, 2 Sam. v, 17; viii, 1, 2, &c.\n\nThey continued in subjection to the kings of Judah down to the reign of\nJehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, about two hundred and forty-six years, when\nthey revolted from Jehoram, 2 Chron. xxi, 16. Jehoram made war against\nthem, and probably reduced them to his obedience again; because it is\nobserved in Scripture, that they revolted again from Uzziah, who kept\nthem to their duty during his whole reign, 2 Chron. xxvi, 6, 7. Uzziah\nbegan to reign A. M. 3194. During the unfortunate reign of Ahaz, the\nPhilistines made great havoc in the territory of Judah; but his son and\nsuccessor Hezekiah subdued them again, 2 Chron. xxviii, 18; 2 Kings\nxviii, 8. Lastly, they regained their full liberty under the later kings\nof Judah; and we may see, by the menaces made against them by the\nProphets Isaiah, Amos, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, that they\nbrought a thousand hardships and calamities on the children of Israel,\nfor which God threatened to punish them with great misfortunes.\n\nEsar-haddon, successor to Sennacherib, besieged Ashdod, or Azoth, and\ntook it by the arms of his general, Thasthan, or Tartan. Psammetichus,\nking of Egypt, took the same city after a siege of twenty-nine years,\naccording to Herodotus. During the siege of Tyre, which held out\nthirteen years, Nebuchadnezzar used part of his army to subdue the\nAmmonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and other nations bordering on\nthe Jews. There is great probability that the Philistines could not\nwithstand him, but were reduced to his obedience, as well as the other\npeople of Syria, Phenicia, and Palestine. Afterward they fell under the\ndominion of the Persians; then under that of Alexander the Great, who\ndestroyed the city of Gaza, the only city of the Phenicians that dared\nto oppose him. After the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, the\nAsmoneans took by degrees several cities from the country of the\nPhilistines, which they subjected. Tryphon, regent of the kingdom of\nSyria, gave to Jonathan, the Asmonean, the government of the whole coast\nof the Mediterranean, from Tyre to Egypt; consequently, all the country\nof the Philistines.\n\nThe land of the Philistines bordered on the west and south-west of\nJudea, and lies on the south-east point of the Mediterranean Sea. The\ncountry to the north of Gaza is very fertile; and, long after the\nChristian era, it possessed a very numerous population, and strongly\nfortified cities. No human probability, says Keith, could have existed,\nin the time of the prophets, or at a much more recent date, of its\neventual desolation. But it has belied, for many ages, every promise\nwhich the fertility of its soil, and the excellence both of its climate\nand situation, gave for many preceding centuries of its permanency as a\nrich and well cultivated region. And the voice of prophecy, which was\nnot silent respecting it, proclaimed the fate that awaited it, in terms\nas contradictory, at the time, to every natural suggestion, as they are\ndescriptive of what Philistia now actually is. I will stretch out my\nhand upon the Philistines, and destroy the remnant of the sea coasts,\u201d\nEzek. xxv, 16. Baldness is come upon Gaza; Ashkelon is cut off with the\nremnant of their valley,\u201d Jer. xlvii, 5. Thus saith the Lord, For three\ntransgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the\npunishment thereof. I will send a fire upon the wall of Gaza, which\nshall devour the palaces thereof. And I will cut off the inhabitant from\nAshdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon; and I will turn\nmy hand against Ekron; and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,\nsaith the Lord God,\u201d Amos i, 6, 7, 8. For Ashkelon shall be a\ndesolation;\u201d it shall be cut off with the remnant of the valley; and\nEkron shall be rooted up.--O Canaan, the land of the Philistines, I will\neven destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant; and the sea coast\nshall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks,\u201d\nZeph. ii, 4, 5, 6. The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall\nnot be inhabited,\u201d Zech. ix, 5.\n\nThe land of the Philistines was to be destroyed. It partakes of the\ngeneral desolation common to it with Judea and other neighbouring\nstates. While ruins are to be found in all Syria, they are particularly\nabundant along the sea coast, which formed, on the south, the realm of\nthe Philistines. But its aspect presents some existing peculiarities,\nwhich travellers fail not to particularize, and which, in reference both\nto the state of the country and the fate of its different cities, the\nprophets failed not to discriminate as justly as if their description\nhad been drawn both with all the accuracy which ocular observation, and\nall the certainty which authenticated history, could give. Volney,\n(though, like one who in ancient times was instrumental to the\nfulfilment of a special prediction, he meant not so, neither did his\nheart think so,\u201d) from the manner in which he generalizes his\nobservations, and marks the peculiar features of the different districts\nof Syria, with greater acuteness and perspicuity than any other\ntraveller whatever, is the ever ready purveyor of evidence in all the\ncases which came within the range of his topographical description of\nthe wide field of prophecy: while, at the same time, from his known,\nopen, and zealous hostility to the Christian cause, his testimony is\nalike decisive and unquestionable: and the vindication of the truth of\nthe following predictions may safely be committed to this redoubted\nchampion of infidelity. In the plain between Ramla and Gaza,\u201d the very\nplain of the Philistines along the sea coast, we met with a number of\nvillages badly built, of dried mud, and which, like the inhabitants,\nexhibit every mark of poverty and wretchedness. The houses, on a nearer\nview, are only so many huts, (cottages,) sometimes detached, at others\nranged in the form of cells, around a court yard, enclosed by a mud\nwall. In winter, they and their cattle may be said to live together; the\npart of the dwelling allotted to themselves being only raised two feet\nabove that in which they lodge their beasts:\u201d--\u201cdwellings and cottages\nfor shepherds, and folds for flocks.\u201d--\u201cExcept the environs of these\nvillages, all the rest of the country is a desert, and abandoned to the\nBedouin Arabs, who feed their flocks on it.\u201d--Thus accomplishing the\nwords of prophecy, The remnant shall perish; the land of the Philistines\nshall be destroyed, that there shall be no inhabitant; and the sea coast\nshall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks.\u201d\n\u201cThe ruins of white marble, sometimes found at Gaza, prove that it was\nformerly the abode of luxury and opulence. It has shared in the general\ndestruction; and, notwithstanding its proud title of the capital of\nPalestine, it is now no more than a defenceless village,\u201d (baldness has\ncome upon it,) peopled by, at most, only two thousand inhabitants.\u201d--\u201cIt\nis forsaken,\u201d says the prophet, and bereaved of its king.\u201d \u201cThe sea\ncoast, by which it was formerly washed, is every day removing farther\nfrom the deserted ruins of Ashkelon.\u201d Amidst the various successive\nruins, those of Edzoud,\u201d Ashdod, so powerful under the Philistines, are\nnow remarkable for their scorpions.\u201d--Here again we are reminded of the\nwords of inspiration: The inhabitants shall be cut off from Ashdod.\u201d\n\nThus Volney becomes an unconscious commentator upon prophecy. But let us\nhear a Christian traveller. Ashkelon,\u201d says Richardson, \u201cwas one of the\nproudest satrapies of the lords of the Philistines: now there is not an\ninhabitant within its walls; and the prophecy of Zechariah is fulfilled:\n\u2018The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited.\u2019\nWhen the prophecy was uttered, both cities were in an equally\nflourishing condition; and nothing but the prescience of Heaven could\npronounce on which of the two, and in what manner, the vial of its wrath\nshould be poured out. Gaza is truly without a king. The lofty towers of\nAshkelon lie scattered on the ground, and the ruins within its walls do\nnot shelter a human being. How is the wrath of man made to praise his\nCreator! Hath he not said, and shall he not do it? The oracle was\ndelivered by the mouth of the prophet more than five hundred years\nbefore the Christian era, and we beheld its accomplishment eighteen\nhundred years after that event.\u201d There is yet another city which was\nnoted by the prophets, the very want of any information respecting\nwhich, and the absence of its name from several modern maps of\nPalestine, while the sites of other ruined cities are marked, are really\nthe best confirmation of the truth of the prophecy that could possibly\nbe given. Ekron shall be rooted up.\u201d It is rooted up. It was one of the\nchief cities of the Philistines; but, though Gaza still subsists, and\nwhile Ashkelon and Ashdod retain their names in their ruins, the very\nname of Ekron is missing.\n\nPHILOSOPHY, in general, is defined, the knowledge and study of nature\nand morality, founded on reason and experience.\u201d Philosophy owes its\nname to the modesty of Pythagoras, who refused the high title of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2,\n_wise_, given to his predecessors, Thales, Pherecydes, &c, as too\nassuming; and contented himself with the simple appellation of\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, _quasi_ \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _a friend_ or _lover of wisdom_:\nbut Chauvin rather chooses to derive the name from \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, _desire to\nstudy_, and \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, _studium sapienti\u00e6_; and says that Pythagoras,\nconceiving that the application of the human mind ought rather to be\ncalled study than science, set aside the appellation of wise, and, in\nlieu thereof, took that of philosopher.\n\nA knowledge of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, or the\nscience of natural history, was always an object of interest. We are\ninformed that Solomon himself had given a description of the animal and\nvegetable kingdoms, 1 Kings iv, 33. Traces of philosophy, strictly so\ncalled, that is, the system of prevailing moral opinions, may be found\nin the book of Job, in the thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and\nseventy-third Psalms; also in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,\nbut chiefly in the apocryphal book of Wisdom, and the writings of the\nson of Sirach. During the captivity, the Jews acquired many new notions,\nparticularly from the Mahestani, and appropriated them, as occasion\noffered, to their own purposes. They at length became acquainted with\nthe philosophy of the Greeks, which makes its appearance abundantly in\nthe book of Wisdom. After the captivity, the language in which the\nsacred books were written was no longer vernacular. Hence arose the need\nof an interpreter on the sabbatic year, a time when the whole law was\nread, and also on the Sabbath in the synagogues, which some think had\nbeen recently erected, in order to make the people understand what was\nread. These interpreters learned the Hebrew language at the schools. The\nteachers of these schools, who, for the two generations preceding the\ntime of Christ, had maintained some acquaintance with the Greek\nphilosophy, were not satisfied with a simple interpretation of the\nHebrew idiom, as it stood, but shaped the interpretation so as to render\nit conformable to their philosophy. Thus arose contentions, which gave\noccasion for the various sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. In\nthe time of our Saviour, divisions had arisen among the Pharisees\nthemselves. No less than eighteen nice questions, if we may believe the\nJewish rabbins, were contested at that period between the schools of\nHillel and Shammai; one of which questions was an inquiry, what cause\nwas sufficient for a bill of divorce. If the Shammai and Hillel of the\nTalmud are the same with the learned men mentioned in Josephus, namely,\nSameas and Pollio, who flourished thirty-four years before Christ, then\nShammai or Sameas is undoubtedly the same with the Simeon who is\nmentioned, Luke ii, 25\u201335; and his son Gamaliel, so celebrated in the\nTalmud, is the same with the Gamaliel mentioned, Acts v, 34; xxii, 3.\n\nAnciently, learned men were denominated among the Hebrews \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, as\namong the Greeks they were called \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76, _wise men_. In the time of\nChrist, the common appellative for men of that description was\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, in the Hebrew \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8, _a scribe_. They were addressed by the\nhonorary title of _rabbi_, \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9, great,\u201d or master.\u201d The Jews, in\nimitation of the Greeks, had their seven wise men, who were called\n_rabboni_. Gamaliel was one of the number. They called themselves the\nchildren of wisdom; expressions which correspond very nearly to the\nGreek \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, Matthew xi, 19; Luke vii, 35. The heads of sects were\ncalled fathers;\u201d the disciples were denominated sons,\u201d or children,\u201d\nMatt. xii, 27; xxiii, 1\u20139. The Jewish teachers, at least some of them,\nhad private lecture rooms; but they also taught and disputed in\nsynagogues, in temples, and, in fact, wherever they could find an\naudience. The method of these teachers was the same with that which\nprevailed among the Greeks. Any disciple who chose might propose\nquestions, upon which it was the duty of the teachers to remark and give\ntheir opinions, Luke ii, 46. The teachers were not invested with their\nfunctions by any formal act of the church, or of the civil authority:\nthey were self-constituted. They received no other salary than some\nvoluntary present from the disciples, which was called an honorary,\u201d\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74, _honorarium_, 1 Tim. v, 17. They acquired a subsistence, in the\nmain, by the exercise of some art or handicraft. That they took a higher\nseat than their auditors, although it was probably the case, does not\nfollow, as is sometimes supposed, from Luke ii, 46. According to the\nTalmudists, they were bound to hold no conversation with women, and to\nrefuse to sit at table with the lower class of people, Matt. ix, 11;\nJohn iv, 27. The subjects on which they taught were numerous, commonly\nintricate, and of no great consequence; of which there are abundant\nexamples in the Talmud.\n\nSt. Paul bids the Colossians beware lest any man should spoil them\nthrough philosophy and vain deceit;\u201d that is, a vain and deceitful\nphilosophy, such as was popular in that day, and had been compounded out\nof all preceding systems, Grecian and oriental. An explanation of this\nphilosophy is given under GNOSTICS, and CABBALA.\n\nOn these ancient systems of pretended wisdom, Dr. Burton justly remarks:\n\u201cPhilosophy is indeed the noblest stretch of intellect which God has\nvouchsafed to man; and it is only when man forgets that he received his\nreasoning powers from God, that he is in danger of losing himself in\ndarkness when he sought for light. To measure that which is infinite, is\nas impossible in metaphysics as in physics. If it had not been for\nrevelation, we should have known no more of the Deity than the Heathen\nphilosophers knew before: and to what did their knowledge amount? They\nfelt the necessity of a First Cause, and they saw that that Cause must\nbe intrinsically good; but when they came to systems, they never went\nfarther than the point from which they first set out, that evil is not\ngood, and good is not evil. The Gnostics thought to secure the triumph\nof their scheme by veiling its weaker points in mystery, and by\nborrowing a part from almost every system. But popular, and even\nsuccessful, as this attempt may have been, we may say with truth, that\nthe scheme which flattered the vanity of human wisdom, and which strove\nto conciliate all opinions, has died away, and is forgotten; while the\nGospel, the unpresuming, the uncompromising doctrine of the Gospel,\naided by no human wisdom, and addressing itself not merely to the head,\nbut to the heart, has triumphed over all systems and all philosophers;\nand still leads its followers to that true knowledge which some have\nendeavoured to teach \u2018after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of\nthe world, and not after Christ.\u2019\u201d\n\nPHINEHAS, son of Eleazar, and grandson of Aaron, third high priest of\nthe Jews, A. M. 2571 to about A. M. 2590, B. C. 1414. He is particularly\ncommended in Scripture for zeal in vindicating the glory of God, when\nthe Midianites had sent their daughters into the camp of Israel, to\ntempt the Hebrews to fornication and idolatry, Num. xxv, 7. On this\naccount the Lord promised the priesthood to Phinehas by perpetual\ncovenant; evidently including this tacit condition, that his children\nshould continue faithful and obedient: for we know the priesthood passed\nout of the family of Eleazar and Phinehas to that of Ithamar, and that\nit returned not to the posterity of Eleazar until after about a hundred\nand fifty years.\n\nPHUT or PUT, the posterity of Phut, the son of Ham, Gen. x, 6. Calmet is\nof opinion that Phut, the third son of Ham, peopled either the canton of\nPhtemphu, Phtemphti, Phtembuti, of Pliny and Ptolemy, whose capital was\nThara, in Lower Egypt, inclining toward Libya; or the canton called\nPhtenotes, of which Buthas was the capital. The prophets often speak of\nPhut. In the time of Jeremiah, xlvi, 9, Phut was under the obedience of\nNecho, king of Egypt. Nahum, iii, 9, reckons this people in the number\nof those who ought to come to the assistance of No-Ammon, or Diospolis.\n\nPHYLACTERIES, called by the Jews \u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05df, are little scrolls of parchment,\nin which are written certain sentences of the law, enclosed in leather\ncases, and bound with thongs on the forehead and on the left arm. They\nare called in Greek \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, from \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9, _custodio_, either because\nthey were supposed to preserve the law in memory, or rather because they\nwere looked upon as a kind of amulets or charms to keep them from\ndanger. The making and wearing these phylacteries, as the Jews still do\nin their private devotions, is owing to a misinterpretation of those\ntexts, on which they ground the practice, namely, God\u2019s commanding them\nto bind the law for a sign on their hands, and to let it be as frontlets\nbetween their eyes,\u201d &c, Deut. vi, 8. The command ought doubtless to be\nunderstood metaphorically, as a charge to remember it, to meditate upon\nit, to have it as it were continually before their eyes, and to conduct\ntheir lives by it; as when Solomon says, concerning the commandments of\nGod in general, Bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of\nthy heart,\u201d Prov. iii, 1, 3; vi, 21. However, the Jews understanding the\nprecept literally, wrote out the several passages wherever it occurs,\nand to which it seems to refer, and bound them upon their foreheads and\nupon their arms. It seems the Pharisees used to make broad their\nphylacteries.\u201d This some understand of the knots of the thongs by which\nthey were fastened, which were tied very artificially in the form of\nHebrew letters; and that the pride of the Pharisees induced them to have\nthese knots larger than ordinary, as a peculiar ornament. The Pharisees\nare farther said to enlarge the borders of their garments,\u201d \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, Matt. xxiii, 5. These \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1 were the \u05e6\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05ea, the fringes\nwhich the Jews are commanded to wear upon the borders of their garments,\nNum. xv, 38, 39. The Targum of Onkelos calls them \u05db\u05e8\u05e1\u05e4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df, which has so\nnear an affinity with the Greek word \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, that there is no doubt\nbut it signifies the same thing; which is, therefore, an evidence that\nthe \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1 were the \u05e6\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05ea. These were worn by our Saviour, as appears\nfrom the following passage: Behold, a woman, which was diseased with an\nissue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his\ngarment,\u201d \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5, Matt. ix, 20. Again: the inhabitants of\nGennesaret are said to have brought unto him their diseased, and to have\nbesought him, that they might only touch the hem of his garment,\u201d\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, Matt. xiv, 36. \u039a\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 is, in both\nthese passages, very improperly translated the hem of his garment.\u201d It\nshould have been rendered the fringe.\u201d The Pharisees are censured by our\nSaviour for enlarging these fringes of their garments, which we may\nsuppose they did partly from pride, and partly from hypocrisy, as\npretending thereby an extraordinary regard for the precepts of the law.\nIt is reported by Jerom, as quoted by Godwin, that they used to have\nfringes extravagantly long; sticking thorns in them, that, by pricking\ntheir legs as they walked, they might put them in mind of the law. See\nFRONTLETS.\n\nPIETISTS, PROTESTANT, a denomination in the seventeenth century, which\nowed its origin to the pious and learned Spener,\u201d as Dr. Mosheim calls\nhim, who formed private devotional societies at Frankfort, in order to\ncultivate vital and practical religion; and published a book entitled\nPious Desires,\u201d which greatly promoted this object. His followers laid\nit down as an essential maxim, that none should be admitted into the\nministry but those who not only had received a proper education, but\nwere also distinguished by their wisdom and sanctity of manners, and had\nhearts filled with divine love. Hence they proposed an alteration in the\nschools of divinity, which embraced the following points: 1. That the\nscholastic theology, which reigned in the academies, and was composed of\nintricate and disputable doctrines, and obscure and unusual forms of\nexpression, should be totally abolished. 2. That polemical divinity,\nwhich comprehended the controversies subsisting between Christians of\ndifferent communions, should be less eagerly studied, and less\nfrequently treated, though not entirely neglected. 3. That all mixture\nof philosophy and human science with divine wisdom, was to be most\ncarefully avoided; that is, that Pagan philosophy and classical learning\nshould be kept distinct from, and by no means supersede, Biblical\ntheology. But, 4. That, on the contrary, all those students, who were\ndesigned for the ministry, should be accustomed from their early youth\nto the perusal and study of the Holy Scriptures, and be taught a plain\nsystem of theology, drawn from these unerring sources of truth. 5. That\nthe whole course of their education was to be so directed as to render\nthem useful in life, by the practical power of their doctrine, and the\ncommanding influence of their example. Such, in substance, is Mosheim\u2019s\naccount of the meditated reforms in the public schools. But it was not\nintended to confine these reforms to students and the clergy. Religious\npersons of every class and rank were encouraged to meet in what were\ncalled Biblical colleges, or colleges of piety, (we might call them\nprayer meetings,) where some exercised in reading the Scriptures,\nsinging, and prayer, and others engaged in the exposition of the\nScriptures; not in a dry and critical way, but in a strain of practical\nand experimental piety, by which they mutually edified each other. This\npractice, which always more or less obtains where religion flourishes,\nas, for instance, at the Reformation, raised the same sort of outcry as\nat the rise of Methodism; and those who entered not into the spirit of\nthe design, were eager to catch at every instance of weakness or\nimprudence, to bring disgrace on that which, in fact, brought disgrace\nupon themselves, as lukewarm and formal Christians. In so saying,\nMaster, thou reproachest us also.\u201d This work began about 1670. In 1691\nDr. Spener removed from Dresden to Berlin, where he propagated the same\nprinciples, which widely spread, and were well supported in many parts\nof Germany by the excellent Professor Francke and others, until the\ngeneral decline of religion which has unhappily prevailed in Germany for\nthe last half century. See NEOLOGY.\n\nPI-HAHIROTH. The Hebrew _pi_ answers to the modern Arabic word _fum_,\nsignifying mouth;\u201d and is generally applied to the passes in the\nmountains. In the English and Septuagint versions, Hahiroth is taken as\na proper name; and the whole word would imply the mouth or pass of\nHahiroth or Hiroth, whatever particular origin or signification may\nbelong to that word. The name, however, sufficiently explains the\nsituation of the children of Israel; who were hemmed in at this place,\nbetween the sea in front, and a narrow mountain pass behind; which no\ndoubt encouraged Pharaoh to make his attack upon them in so\ndisadvantageous a position; thinking that they must inevitably fall an\neasy prey into his hands, or be cut to pieces: when their deliverance,\nand his own destruction, were unexpectedly wrought by the parting of the\nwaters of the sea. The place where this miracle is supposed to have\nhappened, is still called Bahral-Kolsum, or the Sea of Destruction; and\njust opposite to the situation which answers to the opening called\nPi-hahiroth, is a bay, where the north cape is called Ras Musa, or the\nCape of Moses. That part of the western or Heroopolitan branch of the\nRed Sea where, from these coincidences, the passage most probably took\nplace, is described by Bruce as about three leagues over, with fourteen\nfathoms of water in the channel, nine at the sides, and good anchorage\nevery where. The farther side is also represented as a low sandy coast,\nand an easy landing place. See RED SEA.\n\nPILATE. It is not known of what country or family Pontius Pilate was,\nbut it is believed that he was of Rome, or, at least, of Italy. He was\nsent to govern Judea in the room of Gratus, A. D. 26, or 27. He presided\nover this province for ten years, from the twelfth or thirteenth year of\nTiberius, to the twenty-second of the same emperor. He is represented,\nboth by Philo and Josephus, as a man of an impetuous and obstinate\ntemper, and, as a judge, one who used to sell justice, and, for money,\nto pronounce any sentence that was desired. The same authors make\nmention of his rapines, his injuries, his murders, the torments that he\ninflicted upon the innocent, and the persons he put to death without any\nform of process. Philo, in particular, describes him as a man that\nexercised an excessive cruelty during the whole time of his government;\nwho disturbed the repose of Judea; and was the occasion of the troubles\nand revolt that followed. St. Luke acquaints us, that Pilate had mingled\nthe blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices; and that the matter,\nhaving been related to Jesus Christ, he introduced the subject into his\ndiscourse, Luke xiii. The reason why Pilate treated them in this manner,\nwhile sacrificing in the temple, is not known. At the time of our\nSaviour\u2019s passion, Pilate made some attempts to deliver him out of the\nhands of the Jews. He knew the reasons of their enmity against him,\nMatthew xxvii, 18. His wife, also, having had a dream that alarmed her,\nrequested he would not stain his hands with the blood of that just\nperson, verse 19. He therefore attempted to appease the wrath of the\nJews by scourging Jesus, John xix, 1; Matt. xxvii, 26; and also tried to\ntake him out of their hands by proposing to deliver him or Barabbas on\nthe day of the passover. Lastly, be thought to discharge himself from\npronouncing judgment against him, by sending him to Herod, king of\nGalilee, Luke xxiii, 7, 8. When he saw all this would not satisfy the\nJews, and that they even threatened him in some manner, saying, he could\nbe no friend to the emperor if he suffered Jesus to be set at liberty,\nJohn xix, 12\u201315, he caused water to be brought, and washed his hands\nbefore all the people, and publicly declared himself innocent of the\nblood of that just person, Matthew xxvii, 23, 24. Yet at the same time\nhe delivered him to his soldiers that they might crucify him. This was\nenough to justify Jesus Christ, as Calmet observes, and to prove that he\nheld him as innocent; but it was not enough to vindicate the conscience\nand integrity of a judge, whose duty it was as well to assert the cause\nof oppressed innocence, as to punish the guilty. He ordered the\ninscription to be placed over the head of our Saviour, John xix, 19; and\nwhen requested by the Jews to alter it, peremptorily refused. He also\ngave leave for the removal of our Lord\u2019s body, and to place a guard over\nthe sepulchre, Matthew xxvii, 65. These are all the particulars that we\nlearn concerning Pilate from the writers of the Gospels.\n\nThe extreme reluctance of Pilate to condemn Christ, considering his\nmerciless character, is signally remarkable, and still more his repeated\nprotestations of the innocence of his prisoner; although, on occasions\nof massacre, he made no scruple of confounding the innocent with the\nguilty. But he was unquestionably influenced by the overruling\nprovidence of God, to make the righteousness of his Son appear as clear\nas the noon day, even when condemned and executed as a malefactor, by\nthe fullest, the most authentic, and the most public evidence: 1. By the\ntestimony even of his judges, Pilate and Herod, after examination of\nevidence. 2. By the message of Pilate\u2019s wife, delivered to him on the\ntribunal. 3. By the testimony of the traitor Judas, who hanged himself\nin despair, for betraying the innocent blood. 4. By the testimony of the\nRoman centurion and guard, at his crucifixion, to his divinity and\nrighteousness. And, 5. Of his fellow sufferer on the cross. Never was\ninnocence so attested as his innocence.\n\nJustin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and after them several others, both\nancient and modern, assure us that it was formerly the custom for Roman\nmagistrates to prepare copies of all verbal processes and judical acts,\nwhich they passed in their several provinces, and to send them to the\nemperor. And Pilate, in compliance with the custom, having sent word to\nTiberius of what had passed relating to Jesus Christ, the emperor wrote\nan account of it to the senate, in a manner that gave reason to judge\nthat he thought favourably of the religion of Jesus Christ, and showed\nthat he should be willing for them to confer divine honours upon him;\nbut the senate was not of the same opinion, and so the matter dropped.\nIt appears by what Justin says of these acts, that the miracles of\nChrist were mentioned there, and even that the soldiers had divided his\ngarments among them. Eusebius insinuates that they spoke of his\nresurrection and ascension. Tertullian and Justin refer to these acts\nwith so much confidence, as would make one believe they had read and\nhandled them. However, neither Eusebius nor Jerom, who were both\ninquisitive and understanding persons, nor any other author who wrote\nafterward, seems to have seen them, at least not the true and original\nacts. For as to what we have now in great number, they are not\nauthentic, being neither ancient nor uniform. There are also some\npretended letters of Pilate to Tiberius, giving a history of our\nSaviour; but they are universally allowed to be spurious. Pilate being a\nman who, by his excessive cruelties and rapine, had disturbed the repose\nof Judea, during the whole time of his government, was at length deposed\nby Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria, A. D. 36, and sent to Rome to give\nan account of his conduct to the emperor. But, though Tiberius died\nbefore Pilate arrived at Rome, yet his successor Caligula banished him\nto Vienne in Gaul, where he was reduced to such extremity that he laid\nviolent hands upon himself. The evangelists call him governor, though in\nreality he was nothing more than procurator of Judea, not only because\ngovernor was a name of general use, but because Pilate, in effect, acted\nas one, by taking upon him to judge in criminal matters, as his\npredecessors had done, and as other procurators in the small provinces\nof the empire, where there was no proconsul, constantly did.\n\nPILLAR properly means a column raised to support a building; but in\nScripture the term mostly occurs in a metaphorical or figurative sense.\nThus we have a pillar of cloud, a pillar of fire, a pillar of smoke, &c;\nsignifying a cloud, a fire, a smoke raised up toward heaven in the form\nor shape of a pillar, Exod. xiii, 21; Judges xx, 40. Job speaks of the\npillars of heaven and the pillars of the earth, Job ix, 6; xxvi, 11;\nwhich are strong metaphorical expressions, that suppose the heavens and\nthe earth to be an edifice raised by the hand of the almighty Creator,\nand founded upon its basis. St. Paul speaks of the Christian church\nunder the similitude of a pillar or column on which the truth, or\ndoctrine of the glorious Gospel is inscribed, 1 Tim. iii, 15.\n\nPILLOWS. The prophet speaks of sewing pillows to arm holes.\u201d There is\nhere, probably, an allusion to the easy indulgence of the great. To this\nday in the east they cover the floors of their houses with carpets: and\nalong the sides of the wall or floor, a range of narrow beds or\nmattresses is often placed upon these carpets; and, for their farther\nease and convenience, several velvet or damask bolsters are placed upon\nthese carpets or mattresses,--indulgences that seem to be alluded to by\nthe stretching of themselves upon couches, and by the sewing of pillows\nto arm holes,\u201d Ezekiel xiii, 18; Amos vi, 4.\n\nPINE TREE. The pine appears in our translation three times, Neh. viii,\n15; Isaiah xli, 19; lx, 13. Nehemiah, viii, 15, giving directions for\nobserving the feast of tabernacles, says, \u201cFetch olive branches, pine\nbranches, myrtle branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths.\u201d\nThe Hebrew phrase \u05e9\u05de\u05df, means literally _\u201cbranches of oily_ or _gummy\nplants_.\u201d The LXX. say _cypress_. Scheuchzer says the Turks call the\ncypress _zemin_. The author of Scripture Illustrated\u201d says, I should\nprefer the whole species called jasmin, on account of its verdure, its\nfragrance, and its flowers, which are highly esteemed. The word _jasmin_\nand _jasemin_ of the Turks, resembles strongly the _shemen_ of the\nHebrew original here. The Persians also name this plant _semen_ and\n_simsyk_.\u201d The authority, however, of the Septuagint must prevail. In\nIsa. xli, 19; lx, 13, the Hebrew word is \u05ea\u05d3\u05d4\u05e8; a tree, says Parkhurst,\nso called from the springiness or elasticity of its wood. Luther thought\nit the elm, which is a lofty and spreading tree; and Dr. Stock renders\nit the ash. After all, it may be thought advisable to retain the pine.\nLa Roche, describing, a valley near to Mount Lebanon, has this\nobservation: \u201c_La continuelle verdure des pins et des ch\u00eanes verds fait\ntoujours sa beaut\u00e9_.\u201d [The perpetual verdure of the pines and the live\noaks makes it ever beautiful.]\n\nPISGAH, a part of Mount Nebo, so called, being, in all probability, a\ndistinct, and most likely the highest, summit of that mountain. Here\nMoses climbed to view the land of Canaan; and here he died.\n\nPISIDIA, a province of Asia Minor, having Lycaonia to the north,\nPamphylia to the south, Cilicia and Cappadocia to the east, and the\nprovince of Asia to the west. St. Paul preached at Antioch in Pisidia,\nActs xiii, 14; xiv, 24.\n\nPITCH, \u05d5\u05e4\u05ea, Exod. ii, 3; Isaiah xxxiv, 9; Septuagint \u1f04\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; a fat,\ncombustible, oily matter, sometimes called asphaltos, from the lake\nAsphaltites, or Dead Sea, in Judea, on the surface of which it rises in\nthe nature of liquid pitch, and floats like other oleaginous bodies; but\nis condensed by degrees, through the heat of the sun, and grows dry and\nhard. The word which our translators have rendered _pitch_ in Gen. vi,\n14, and \u05d7\u05de\u05e8, _slime_, Gen. xi, 3; xiv, 10, is generally supposed to be\nbitumen. In the first of these places it is mentioned as used for\nsmearing the ark, and closing its interstices. It was peculiarly adapted\nto this purpose. Being at first soft, viscous, and pliable, it might be\nthrust into every chasm and crevice with the greatest ease; but would\nsoon acquire a tenacity and hardness superior to those of our pitch. A\ncoat of it spread over both the inside and outside of the ark would make\nit perfectly water proof. The longer it was kept in the water, the\nharder and stronger it would grow. The Arabs still use it for careening\ntheir vessels. In the second passage it is described as applied for\ncement in building the tower of Babel. It was much used in ancient\nbuildings in that region; and, in the ruins of Babylon, large masses of\nbrick work cemented with it are discovered. It is known that the plain\nof Shinar did abound with it, both in its liquid and solid state; that\nthere was there a cave and fountain which was continually casting it\nout; and that the famous tower and no less famous walls of Babylon were\nbuilt by this kind of cement, is confirmed by the testimony of several\nancient authors. The slime pits of Siddim, Gen. xiv, 10, were holes out\nof which issued this liquid bitumen, or _naphtha_. Bitumen was formerly\nmuch used by the Egyptians and Jews in embalming the bodies of their\ndead.\n\nPITHOM, one of the cities that the Israelites built for Pharaoh in\nEgypt, during the time of their servitude, Exod. i, 11.\n\nPLAGUES OF EGYPT. The design of these visitations, growing more awful\nand tremendous in their progress, was to make Pharaoh know, and confess,\nthat the God of the Hebrews was the supreme Lord, and to exhibit his\npower and his justice in the strongest light to all the nations of the\nearth, Exod. ix, 16; 1 Sam. iv, 8, &c; to execute judgment upon the\nEgyptians and upon all their gods, inanimate and bestial, for their\ncruelty to the Israelites, and for their grovelling polytheism and\nidolatry, Exod. vii, 14\u201317; xii, 12. The Nile was the principal divinity\nof the Egyptians. According to Heliodorus, they paid divine honours to\nthis river, and revered it as the first of their gods. They declared him\nto be the rival of heaven, since he watered the country without the aid\nof the clouds and rain. His principal festival was at the summer\nsolstice, when the inundation commenced; at which season, in the dog\ndays, by a cruel idolatrous rite, they sacrificed red-haired persons,\nprincipally foreigners, to Typhon, or the power that presided over\ntempests, at Busiris, Heliopolis, &c, by burning them alive, and\nscattering their ashes in the air, for the good of the people, as we\nlearn from Plutarch. Hence Bryant infers the probability, that these\nvictims were chosen from among the Israelites, during their residence in\nEgypt. The judgment then inflicted upon the river, and all the waters of\nEgypt, in the presence of Pharaoh and of his servants, as\nforetold,--when, as soon as Aaron had smitten the waters of the river,\nthey were turned into blood, and continued in that state for seven days,\nso that all the fish died, and the Egyptians could not drink of the\nwaters of the river, in which they delighted as the most wholesome of\nall waters, but were forced to dig wells for pure water to drink--was a\nsignificant sign of God\u2019s displeasure for their senseless idolatry in\nworshipping the river and its fish, and also a manifest reproof of that\nbloody edict whereby the infants were slain,\u201d Wisdom xi, 7.\n\nIn the plague of frogs, their sacred river itself was made an active\ninstrument of their punishment, together with another of their gods. The\nfrog was one of their sacred animals, consecrated to the sun, and\nconsidered as an emblem of divine inspiration in its inflations.\n\nThe plague of lice, which was produced without any previous intimation\nto Pharaoh, was peculiarly offensive to a people so superstitiously nice\nand cleanly as the Egyptians; and, above all, to their priests, who used\nto shave their whole body every third day, that neither louse, nor any\nother vermin, might be found upon them while they were employed in\nserving their gods, as we learn from Herodotus; and Plutarch informs us,\nthat they never wore woollen garments, but linen only, because linen is\nleast apt to produce lice. This plague, therefore, was particularly\ndisgraceful to the magicians themselves; and when they tried to imitate\nit, but failed, on account of the minuteness of the objects, (not like\nserpents, water, or frogs, of a sensible bulk that could be handled,)\nthey were forced to confess that this was no human feat of legerdemain,\nbut rather the finger of God.\u201d Thus were the illusions of their magic\nput down, and their vaunting in wisdom reproved with disgrace,\u201d Wisdom\nxvii, 7. Their folly was manifest unto all men,\u201d in absurdly and\nwickedly attempting at first to place the feats of human art on a level\nwith the stupendous operations of divine power, in the first two\nplagues; and being foiled in the third, by shamefully miscarrying, they\nexposed themselves to the contempt of their admirers. Philo, the Jew,\nhas a fine observation on the plagues of Egypt: Some, perhaps, may\ninquire, Why did God punish the country by such minute and contemptible\nanimals as frogs, lice, flies, rather than by bears, lions, leopards, or\nother kinds of savage beasts which prey on human flesh? Or, if not by\nthese, why not by the Egyptian asp, whose bite is instant death? But let\nhim learn, if he be ignorant, first, that God chose rather to correct\nthan to destroy the inhabitants; for, if he desired to annihilate them\nutterly, he had no need to have made use of animals as his auxiliaries,\nbut of the divinely inflicted evils of famine and pestilence. Next, let\nhim farther learn that lesson so necessary for every state of life,\nnamely, that men, when they war, seek the most powerful aid to supply\ntheir own weakness; but God, the highest and the greatest power, who\nstands in need of nothing, if at any time he chooses to employ\ninstruments, as it were, to inflict chastisement, chooses not the\nstrongest and greatest, disregarding their strength, but rather the mean\nand the minute, whom he endues with invincible and irresistible power to\nchastise offenders.\u201d The first three plagues were common to the\nEgyptians and the Israelites, to convince both that \u201cthere was none like\nthe Lord;\u201d and to wean the latter from their Egyptian idolatries, and\ninduce them to return to the Lord their God. And when this end was\nanswered, the Israelites were exempted from the ensuing plagues; for the\nLord severed the land of Goshen from the rest of Egypt; whence the\nensuing plagues, confined to the latter, more plainly appeared to have\nbeen inflicted by the God of the Hebrews, Exodus viii, 20\u201323, to\nconvince both more clearly of \u201cthe goodness and severity of God,\u201d Rom.\nxi, 22; that great plagues remain for the ungodly, but mercy embraceth\nthe righteous on every side,\u201d Psalm xxxii, 10.\n\nThe visitation of flies, of the gad fly, or hornet, was more intolerable\nthan any of the preceding. By this, his minute, but mighty army, God\nafterward drove out some of the devoted nations of Canaan before Joshua,\nExod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Josh. xxiv, 12. This insect was\nworshipped in Palestine and elsewhere under the title of Baal-zebub,\nlord of the gad fly,\u201d 2 Kings i, 1, 2. Egypt, we learn from Herodotus,\nabounded with prodigious swarms of flies, or gnats; but this was in the\nheat of summer, during the dog days; whence this fly is called by the\nSeptuagint \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, _the dog fly_. But the appointed time of this\nplague was in the middle of winter; and, accordingly, this plague\nextorted Pharaoh\u2019s partial consent, Go ye, sacrifice to your God, but in\nthe land;\u201d and when Moses and Aaron objected the offence they would give\nto the Egyptians, who would stone them for sacrificing the abomination\nof the Egyptians,\u201d namely, animal sacrifices, he reluctantly consented,\nonly ye shall not go very far away;\u201d for he was apprehensive of their\nflight, like his predecessor, who first enslaved the Israelites, Exod.\ni, 10; and he again desired them to entreat for him.\u201d But he again dealt\ndeceitfully; and after the flies were removed so effectually that not\none was left, when Moses entreated the Lord, Pharaoh hardened his heart\nthis fifth time also, neither would he let the people go.\u201d\n\nThis second breach of promise on the part of Pharaoh drew down a plague\nof a more deadly description than the preceding. The fifth plague of\nmurrain destroyed all the cattle of Egypt, but of the cattle of the\nIsraelites died not one.\u201d It was immediately inflicted by God himself,\nafter previous notification, and without the agency of Moses and Aaron,\nto manifest the divine indignation at Pharaoh\u2019s falsehood. And though\nthe king sent and found that not one of the Israelites was dead, yet his\nheart was hardened this sixth time also, and he would not let the people\ngo, Exod. ix, 1\u20137.\n\nAt length, after Pharaoh had repeatedly abused the gracious respites and\nwarnings vouchsafed to him and his servants, a sorer set of plagues,\naffecting themselves, began to be inflicted; and Moses now, for the\nfirst time, appears as the executioner of divine vengeance; for in the\npresence of Pharaoh, by the divine command, he sprinkled ashes of the\nfurnace toward heaven, and it became a boil, breaking forth with blains\nupon man and upon beast. And the magicians could not stand before Moses\nbecause of the boil, which affected them and all the Egyptians, Exod.\nix, 8\u201311. This was a very significant plague: the furnace from which the\nashes were taken aptly represented the iron furnace\u201d of Egyptian\nbondage, Deut. iv, 20, and the scattering of the ashes in the air might\nhave referred to the usage of the Egyptians in their Typhonian\nsacrifices of human victims; while it converted another of the elements,\nand of their gods, the air, or ether, into an instrument of their\nchastisement. And now the Lord,\u201d for the first time, hardened the heart\nof Pharaoh,\u201d after he had so repeatedly hardened it himself, and he\nhearkened not unto them, as the Lord had foretold unto Moses,\u201d Exod. ix,\n12. Though Pharaoh probably felt, the scourge of the boil, as well as\nhis people, it did not soften nor humble his heart; and when he wilfully\nand obstinately turned away from the light, and shut his eyes against\nthe luminous evidences vouchsafed to him of the supremacy of the God of\nthe Hebrews, and had twice broken his promise when he was indulged with\na respite, and dealt deceitfully, he became a just object of punishment;\nand God now began to increase the hardness or obduracy of his heart. And\nsuch is the usual and the righteous course of his providence; when\nnations or individuals despise the warnings of Heaven, abuse their best\ngifts, and resist the means of grace, God then delivers them over to a\nreprobate\u201d or undiscerning mind, to work all uncleanness with\ngreediness,\u201d Rom. i, 28.\n\nIn the tremendous plague of hail, the united elements of air, water, and\nfire, were employed to terrify and punish the Egyptians by their\nprincipal divinities. This plague was formally announced to Pharaoh and\nhis people: I will at this season send all my plagues upon thine heart,\nand upon thy servants, and upon thy people, that thou mayest know that\nthere is none like me in all the earth. For now I could stretch out my\nhand, and smite thee and thy people with pestilence,\u201d or destroy thee at\nonce, like thy cattle with the murrain, and thou shouldest be cut off\nfrom the earth; but, in truth, for this cause have I sustained thee,\nthat I might manifest in thee my power, and that my name might be\ndeclared throughout the whole earth,\u201d Exod. ix, 13\u201316. This rendering of\nthe passage is more conformable to the context, the Chaldee paraphrase,\nand to Philo, than the received translation, For now I will stretch out\nmy hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence;\u201d for\nsurely Pharaoh and his people were not smitten with pestilence; and they\nwere preserved\u201d or kept from immediate destruction, according to the\nSeptuagint, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, to manifest the divine power,\u201d by the number and\nvariety of their plagues. Still, however, in the midst of judgment, God\nremembered mercy; he gave a gracious warning to the Egyptians, to avoid,\nif they chose, the threatened calamity: Send, therefore, now, and gather\nthy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field; every man and beast\nthat shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the\nhail shall come down upon them, and they shall die.\u201d And this warning\nhad some effect: He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants\nof Pharaoh, made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses; and\nhe that regarded not the word of the Lord, left his servants and his\ncattle in the field,\u201d Exod. ix, 17\u201321. But it may be asked, If all the\ncattle of the Egyptians were destroyed by the foregoing plague of\nmurrain, as asserted Exod. ix, 6, how came there to be any cattle left?\nSurely the Egyptians might have recruited their stock from the land of\nGoshen, where not one of the cattle of the Israelites died.\u201d And this\njustifies the supposition, that there was some respite, or interval,\nbetween the several plagues, and confirms the conjecture of the duration\nof the whole, about a quarter of a year. And that the warning, in this\ncase, was respected by many of the Egyptians, we may infer from the\nnumber of chariots and horsemen that went in pursuit of the Israelites\nafterward. This was foretold to be a very grievous hail, such as had not\nbeen in Egypt since the foundation thereof: and the Lord sent thunder\nand hail, and the fire ran along the ground; and the hail smote\nthroughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and\nbeast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree\nof the field. Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel\nwere, there was no hail.\u201d Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron,\nand said unto them, I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and\nI and my people are wicked: entreat the Lord,\u201d for it is enough, that\nthere might be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you\ngo, and ye shall stay no longer.\u201d But when there was respite, Pharaoh\nsinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants; neither\nwould he let the people go,\u201d Exod. ix, 27\u201335. In this instance, there is\na remarkable suspension of the judicial infatuation. Pharaoh had humbled\nhimself, and acknowledged his own and his people\u2019s guilt, and the\njustice of the divine plague: the Lord, therefore, forbore this time to\nharden his heart. But he abused the long sufferance of God, and this\nadditional respite; he sinned yet more, because he now sinned wilfully,\nafter he had received information of the truth; he relapsed, and\nhardened his own heart a seventh time. He became, therefore, a vessel of\nwrath, fitted to destruction,\u201d Heb. x, 26; Rom. ix, 22.\n\nThe design of the eighth and the ensuing plagues, was to confirm the\nfaith of the Israelites: \u201cThat thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son,\nand of thy son\u2019s son, what I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I\nhave done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord.\u201d This\nplague of locusts, inflicted on the now devoted Egyptians and their\nking, completed the havoc begun by the hail; by this the wheat and rye\nwere destroyed, and every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the\ntrees which the hail had left: and there remained not any verdure in the\ntrees, nor in the herbs of the field, throughout the land of Egypt. Very\ngrievous were they; before them were no such locusts as they, neither\nafter them shall there be such,\u201d Exod. x, 3\u201315.\n\nThe awful plague of darkness over all the land of Egypt, for three days,\na thick darkness which might be felt,\u201d in the emphatic language of\nScripture, was inflicted on the Egyptians, and their chief god, the sun;\nand was, indeed, a most significant sign of the divine displeasure, and\nof that mental darkness under which they now laboured. Their\nconsternation thereat is strongly represented by their total inaction;\nneither rose any from his place for three days, petrified, as they were,\nwith horror. They were also scared with strange apparitions and visions,\nwhile a heavy night was spread over them, an image of that darkness\nwhich should afterward receive them. But yet, they were unto themselves\nmore grievous than that darkness,\u201d Wisdom xvii, 3\u201321; Psalm lxxviii, 49.\nThis terrific and horrible plague compelled Pharaoh to relax; he offered\nto let the men and their families go; but he wished to keep the flocks\nand herds as security for their return; but Moses peremptorily declared,\nthat not a hoof should be left behind. Again \u201cthe Lord hardened\nPharaoh\u2019s heart, so that he would not let them go,\u201d Exod. x, 21\u201327. And\nthe Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that my\nwonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. And Moses and Aaron did\nall these wonders before Pharaoh; and the Lord\u201d ultimately \u201chardened\nPharaoh\u2019s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out\nof his land,\u201d Exod. xi, 9, 10. This passage forms the conclusion to the\nnine plagues, and should properly follow the preceding; for the result\nof the tenth and last plague was foretold, that Pharaoh should not only\nlet them go, but surely thrust them out altogether, Exod. xi, 1.\n\nThe tenth plague was announced to Pharaoh with much solemnity: Thus\nsaith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt,\nand all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the\nfirst-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even to the\nfirst-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill; and all the\nfirst-born of cattle. And there shall be a great cry throughout the land\nof Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be any more. But\nagainst any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue,\nagainst man or beast; that ye may know, how that the Lord doth make a\ndifference between the Egyptians and Israel. And all these thy servants\nshall come down unto me, and bow themselves unto me, saying, Get thee\nout, and all the people that follow thee. And after that I will go out,\u201d\nExod. xi, 4\u20138. Such a threat, delivered in so high a tone, both in the\nname of the God of Israel and of Moses, did not fail to exasperate the\ninfatuated Pharaoh, and he said, Get thee from me; take heed to thyself;\nsee my face no more: for in the day thou seest my face thou shalt die.\nAnd Moses said, Be it so as thou hast spoken; I will see thy face again\nno more. And he went out from Pharaoh in great anger,\u201d Exod. x, 28, 29;\nxi, 8. And at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of\nEgypt; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house in\nwhich there was not one dead,\u201d Exod. xii, 1\u201330. This last tremendous\njudgment is described with much sublimity in the book of Wisdom, xviii,\n14\u201318.\n\n       For when all things were wrapt in still silence,\n       And night, in her proper speed, holding her mid course,\n       Thy all powerful oracle leapt down from heaven,\n       Out of the royal throne, a fierce warrior,\n       Into the midst of the land of destruction,\n       Wielding a sharp sword, thine unfeigned command,\n       And standing up, he filled the whole with death,\n       He touched the heavens, indeed, but trod upon the earth!\u201d\n\nAnd Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants, and all the\nEgyptians; and he called for,\u201d or sent to, Moses and Aaron by night, and\nsaid, Get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of\nIsrael; and go, serve the Lord, as ye said; take also your flocks and\nyour herds, and be gone; and bless me also. And the Egyptians also were\nurgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste; for they\nsaid, We shall all be dead.\u201d It is evident from the extreme urgency of\nthe occasion, when all the Egyptians apprehended total destruction, if\nthe departure of the Israelites was delayed any longer, that Pharaoh had\nno personal interview with Moses and Aaron, which would have wasted\ntime, and was quite unnecessary; he only sent them a peremptory mandate\nto be gone on their own terms. And the children of Israel did according\nto the word of Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver,\nand jewels of gold, and raiment. And the Lord gave the people favour in\nthe sight of the Egyptians, so that they freely gave what they required,\nand they spoiled the Egyptians,\u201d Exod. xii, 31\u201336, as originally\nforetold to Abraham, Gen. xv, 14; and to Moses before the plagues began.\nThis was an act of perfect retributive justice, to make the Egyptians\npay for the long and laborious services of the Israelites, whom they had\nunjustly enslaved, in violation of their charter.\n\nThe Israelites were thrust out of Egypt on the fifteenth day of the\nfirst month, about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside women and\nchildren. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks and\nherds, even very much cattle,\u201d Exod. xii, 37\u201338; Num. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3.\nAnd they went out with a high hand; for the Lord went before them by\nday, in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a\npillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night. He took not\naway the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night,\nfrom before the people,\u201d Exod. xiii, 22; Num. ix, 15\u201323. And the motion\nor rest of this divine guide regulated their marches, and their stations\nor encampments during the whole of their route, Num. x, 33\u201336. See RED\nSEA.\n\nPLATONISTS. The Platonic philosophy is denominated from Plato, who was\nborn about B. C. 426. He founded the old academy on the opinions of\nHeraclitus, Pythagoras, and Socrates; and by adding the information he\nhad acquired to their discoveries, he established a sect of\nphilosophers, who were esteemed more perfect than any who had before\nappeared in the world. The outlines of Plato\u2019s philosophical system were\nas follows:--that there is one God, eternal, immutable, and immaterial;\nperfect in wisdom and goodness, omniscient, and omnipresent: that this\nall-perfect Being formed the universe out of a mass of eternally\npre\u00ebxisting matter, to which he gave form and arrangement: that there is\nin matter a necessary, but blind and refractory force, which resists the\nwill of the supreme Artificer, so that he cannot perfectly execute his\ndesigns; and this is the cause of the mixture of good and evil which is\nfound in the material world: that the soul of man was derived by\nemanation from God; but that this emanation was not immediate, but\nthrough the intervention of the soul of the world, which was itself\ndebased by some material admixture: that the relation which the human\nsoul, in its original constitution, bears to matter, is the source of\nmoral evil; that when God formed the universe, he separated from the\nsoul of the world inferior souls, equal in number to the stars, and\nassigned to each its proper celestial abode: that these souls were sent\ndown to earth to be imprisoned in mortal bodies; hence arose the\ndepravity and misery to which human nature is liable: that the soul is\nimmortal; and by disengaging itself from all animal passions, and rising\nabove sensible objects to the contemplation of the world of\nintelligence, it may be prepared to return to its original habitation:\nthat matter never suffers annihilation, but that the world will remain\nfor ever; and that by the action of its animating principle it\naccomplishes certain periods, within which every thing returns to its\nancient place and state. This periodical revolution of nature is called\nthe Platonic, or great year.\n\nThe Platonic system makes the perfection of morality to consist in\nliving in conformity to the will of God, the only standard of truth, and\nteaches that our highest good consists in the contemplation and\nknowledge of the supreme Being. In this divine Being Plato admitted a\nsort of trinity of _three hypostases_. The first he considered as\nself-existent, calling him, by way of eminence, \u03c4\u1f78 h\u1f78\u03bd, the Being, or \u03c4\u1f78\nh\u1f72\u03bd, the One. The only attribute which he acknowledged in this person\nwas goodness; and therefore he frequently styles him, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd, the\n_good_. The second he considered as, \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, the _mind_, or, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, the\n_wisdom_ or _reason_ of the former, and the \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u0223\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, _maker of the\nworld_. The third he always speaks of as, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74, the _soul_ of the world.\nHe taught that the second is a necessary emanation from the first, and\nthe third from the second, or perhaps from both; comparing these\nemanations to those of light and heat from the sun. From the above use\nof _Logos_ for the second person of the Platonic trinity, it has been\nthought that St. John borrowed the term from Plato; but it is not likely\nthat this Apostle was conversant with his writings, and therefore both\nLe Clerc and Dr. Campbell think it more probable that he took it from\nthe Old Testament. The end of all knowledge, or philosophy, according to\nPlato, was to make us resemble the Deity as much as is compatible with\nhuman nature. This likeness consists in the possession and practice of\nall the moral virtues. After the death of Plato, many of his disciples\ndeviated from his doctrines. His school was then divided into the old,\nthe middle, and the new academy. The old academy strictly adhered to his\ntenets. The middle academy partially receded from his system, without\nentirely deserting it. The new academy almost entirely relinquished the\noriginal doctrines of Plato, and verged toward the skeptical philosophy.\nAn infusion of Platonism, though in a perverted form, is seen in the\nphilosophy most prevalent in the times of the Apostles. It was Judaized\nby the contemplative Hellenists, and, through them, their native Judaism\nwas Platonized. The eclectic philosophy added other ingredients to the\ncompound, from the oriental systems. All however issued in pride, and\nthe domination of bewildering and monstrous imaginations.\n\nPLOUGH. The Syrian plough, which was probably used in all the regions\naround, is a very simple frame, and commonly so light, that a man of\nmoderate strength might carry it in one hand. Volney states that in\nSyria it is often nothing else than the branch of a tree cut below a\nbifurcation, and used without wheels. It is drawn by asses and cows,\nseldom by oxen. And Dr. Russel informs us, the ploughing of Syria is\nperformed often by a little cow, at most with two, and sometimes only by\nan ass. In Persia it is for the most part drawn by one ox only, and not\nunfrequently even by an ass, although it is more ponderous than in\nPalestine. With such an imperfect instrument, the Syrian husbandman can\ndo little more than scratch the surface of his field, or clear away the\nstones or weeds that encumber it, and prevent the seed from reaching the\nsoil. The ploughshare is a piece of iron, broad, but not large, which\ntips the end of the shaft.\u201d So much does it resemble the short sword\nused by the ancient warriors, that it may with very little trouble, be\nconverted into that deadly weapon; and when the work of destruction is\nover, reduced again into its former shape, and applied to the purposes\nof agriculture. In allusion to the first operation, the Prophet Joel\nsummons the nations to leave their peaceful employments in the\ncultivated field, and buckle on their armour: Beat your ploughshares\ninto swords, and your pruning hooks into spears,\u201d Joel iii, 10. This\nbeautiful image the Prophet Isaiah has reversed, and applied to the\nestablishment of that profound and lasting peace which is to bless the\nchurch of Christ in the latter days: And they shall beat their swords\ninto ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not\nlift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more,\u201d\nIsaiah ii, 4. The plough used in Syria is so light and simple in its\nconstruction, that the husbandman is under the necessity of guiding it\nwith great care, bending over it, and loading it with his own weight,\nelse the share would glide along the surface without making any\nincision. His mind should be wholly intent on his work, at once to press\nthe plough into the ground, and direct it in a straight line. Let the\nploughman,\u201d said Hesiod, attend to his charge, and look before him; not\nturn aside to look on his associates, but make straight furrows, and\nhave his mind attentive to his work.\u201d And Pliny: Unless the ploughman\nstoop forward,\u201d to press his plough into the soil, and conduct it\nproperly, he will turn it aside.\u201d To such careful and incessant\nexertion, our Lord alludes in that declaration, No man having put his\nhand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven,\u201d\nLuke ix, 62.\n\nPOETRY OF THE HEBREWS. Among the books of the Old Testament, says Bishop\nLowth, there is such an apparent diversity in style, as sufficiently\ndiscovers which of them are to be considered as poetical, and which as\nprose. While the historical books and legislative writings of Moses are\nevidently prosaic compositions, the book of Job, the Psalms of David,\nthe Song of Solomon, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, a great part of the\nprophetical writings, and several passages scattered occasionally\nthrough the historical books, carry the most plain and distinguishing\nmarks of poetical writing. There is not the least reason for doubting\nthat originally these were written in verse, or some kind of measured\nnumbers; though, as the ancient pronunciation of the Hebrew language is\nnow lost, we are not able to ascertain the nature of the Hebrew verse,\nor at most can ascertain it but imperfectly. Let any person read the\nhistorical introduction to the book of Job, contained in the first and\nsecond chapters, and then go on to Job\u2019s speech in the beginning of the\nthird chapter, and he cannot avoid being sensible that he passes all at\nonce from the region of prose to that of poetry. From the earliest times\nmusic and poetry were cultivated among the Hebrews. In the days of the\njudges mention is made of the schools or colleges of the prophets, where\none part of the employment of the persons trained in such schools was to\nsing the praises of God, accompanied with various instruments. But in\nthe days of King David music and poetry were carried to the greatest\nheight. In 1 Chron. xxv, an account is given of David\u2019s institutions\nrelating to the sacred music and poetry, which were certainly more\ncostly, more splendid and magnificent, than ever obtained in the public\nservice of any other nation. See PSALMS.\n\nThe general construction of the Hebrew poetry is of a singular nature,\nand peculiar to itself. It consists in dividing every period into\ncorrespondent, for the most part into equal, members, which answer to\none another both in sense and sound. In the first member of the period a\nsentiment is expressed; and in the second member the same sentiment is\namplified, or is repeated in different terms, or sometimes contrasted\nwith its opposite; but in such a manner, that the same structure, and\nnearly the same number of words, is preserved. This is the general\nstrain of all the Hebrew poetry. Instances of it occur every where on\nopening the Old Testament. Thus, in Psalm xcvi:--\n\n           Sing unto the Lord a new song.\n             Sing unto the Lord, all the earth.\n           Sing unto the Lord, and bless his name.\n             Show forth his salvation from day to day.\n           Declare his glory among the Heathen,\n             His wonders among all the people.\n           For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised.\n             He is to be feared above all the gods.\n           Honour and majesty are before him;\n             Strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.\u201d\n\nIt is owing in a great measure to this form of composition, that our\nversion, though in prose, retains so much of a poetical cast: for, the\nversion being strictly word for word after the original, the form and\norder of the original sentence are preserved; which, by this artificial\nstructure, this regular alternation and correspondence of parts, makes\nthe ear sensible of a departure from the common style and tone of prose.\nThe origin of this form of poetical composition among the Hebrews is\nclearly to be deduced from the manner in which their sacred hymns were\nwont to be sung. They were accompanied with music, and they were\nperformed by choirs or bands of singers and musicians, who answered\nalternately to each other. When, for instance, one band began the hymn\nthus: The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice;\u201d the chorus, or\nsemi-chorus, took up the corresponding versicle, Let the multitude of\nthe isles be glad thereof.\u201d \u201cClouds and darkness are round about him,\u201d\nsung the one; the other replied, Judgment and righteousness are the\nhabitation of his throne.\u201d And in this manner their poetry, when set to\nmusic, naturally divided itself into a succession of strophes and\nantistrophes correspondent to each other; whence it is probable the\nantiphon, or responsory, in the public religious service of so many\nChristian churches, derived its origin. The twenty-fourth Psalm, in\nparticular, which is thought to have been composed on the great and\nsolemn occasion of the ark of the covenant being brought back to Mount\nZion, must have had a noble effect when performed after this manner, as\nDr. Lowth has illustrated it. The whole people are supposed to be\nattending the procession. The Levites and singers, divided into their\nseveral courses, and accompanied with all their musical instruments, led\nthe way. After the introduction to the Psalm, in the two first verses,\nwhen the procession begins to ascend the sacred mount, the question is\nput, as by a semi-chorus, Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord,\nand who shall stand in his holy place?\u201d The response is made by the full\nchorus with the greatest dignity: He that hath clean hands and a pure\nheart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn\ndeceitfully.\u201d As the procession approaches to the doors of the\ntabernacle, the chorus, with all their instruments, join in this\nexclamation: Lift up your heads, ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye\neverlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in.\u201d Here the\nsemi-chorus plainly breaks in, as with a lower voice, Who is this King\nof glory?\u201d And at the moment when the ark is introduced into the\ntabernacle, the response is made by the burst of the whole chorus: The\nLord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.\u201d\n\nThe method of composition which has been explained, by correspondent\nversicles being universally introduced into the hymns or musical poetry\nof the Jews, easily spread itself through their other poetical writings,\nwhich were not designed to be sung in alternate portions, and which,\ntherefore, did not so much require this mode of composition. But the\nmode became familiar to their ears, and carried with it a certain solemn\nmajesty of style, particularly suited to sacred subjects. Hence,\nthroughout the prophetical writings, we find it prevailing as much as in\nthe Psalms of David. This form of writing is one of the great\ncharacteristics of the ancient Hebrew poetry; very different from, and\neven opposite to, the style of the Greek and Roman poets. Independently\nof this peculiar mode of construction, the sacred poetry is\ndistinguished by the highest beauties of strong, concise, bold, and\nfigurative expression. Conciseness and strength are two of its most\nremarkable characters. One might, indeed, imagine that the practice of\nthe Hebrew poets, of always amplifying the same thought, by repetition\nor contrast, might tend to enfeeble their style. But they conduct\nthemselves so as not to produce this effect. Their sentences are always\nshort. Few superfluous words are used. The same thought is never dwelt\nupon long. To their conciseness and sobriety of expression their poetry\nis indebted for much of its sublimity; and all writers who attempt the\nsublime might profit much by imitating, in this respect, the style of\nthe Old Testament.\n\nNo writings whatever abound so much with the most bold and animated\nfigures as the sacred books. In order to do justice to these, it is\nnecessary that we transport ourselves as much as we can into the land of\nJudea, and place before our eyes that scenery and those objects with\nwhich the Hebrew writers were conversant. Natural objects are in some\nmeasure common to them with poets of all ages and countries. Light and\ndarkness, trees and flowers, the forest and the cultivated field,\nsuggest to them many beautiful figures. But, in order to relish their\nfigures of this kind, we must take notice that several of them arise\nfrom the particular circumstances of the land of Judea. During the\nsummer months little or no rain falls throughout all that region. While\nthe heats continued, the country was intolerably parched; want of water\nwas a great distress; and a plentiful shower falling, or a rivulet\nbreaking forth, altered the whole face of nature, and introduced much\nhigher ideas of refreshment and pleasure than the like causes can\nsuggest to us. Hence, to represent distress, such frequent allusions\namong them, to a dry and thirsty land where no water is;\u201d and hence, to\ndescribe a change from distress to prosperity, their metaphors are\nfounded on the falling of showers, and the bursting out of springs in\nthe desert. Thus: The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad,\nand the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose. For in the\nwilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert; and the\nparched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land, springs of\nwater; in the habitation of dragons there shall be grass, with rushes\nand reeds,\u201d Isaiah xxxv, 1, 6, 7. Images of this nature are very\nfamiliar to Isaiah, and occur in many parts of his book. Again: as Judea\nwas a hilly country, it was, during the rainy months, exposed to\nfrequent inundations by the rushing of torrents, which came down\nsuddenly from the mountains, and carried every thing before them; and\nJordan, their only great river, annually overflowed its banks. Hence the\nfrequent allusions to the noise, and to the rushings of many waters;\u201d\nand hence great calamities so often compared to the overflowing torrent,\nwhich, in such a country, must have been images particularly striking:\nDeep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts; all thy waves\nand thy billows are gone over me,\u201d Psalm xlii, 7. The two most\nremarkable mountains of the country were Lebanon and Carmel; the former\nnoted for its height, and the woods of lofty cedars that covered it; the\nlatter, for its beauty and fertility, the richness of its vines and\nolives. Hence, with the greatest propriety, Lebanon is employed as an\nimage of whatever is great, strong, or magnificent; Carmel, of what is\nsmiling and beautiful. The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it, and\nthe excellency of Carmel,\u201d Isaiah xxxv, 2. Lebanon is often put\nmetaphorically for the whole state or people of Israel, for the temple,\nfor the king of Assyria; Carmel, for the blessings of peace and\nprosperity. His countenance is as Lebanon,\u201d says Solomon, speaking of\nthe dignity of a man\u2019s appearance; but when he describes female beauty,\nThine head is like Mount Carmel,\u201d Cant. v, 15; vii, 5. It is farther to\nbe remarked under this head, that, in the images of the awful and\nterrible kind, with which the sacred poets abound, they plainly draw\ntheir descriptions from that violence of the elements, and those great\nconcussions of nature, with which their climate rendered them\nacquainted. Earthquakes were not unfrequent; and the tempests of hail,\nthunder, and lightning, in Judea and Arabia, accompanied with whirlwinds\nand darkness, far exceed any thing of that sort which happens in more\ntemperate regions. Isaiah, xxiv, 20, describes, with great majesty, the\nearth, reeling to and fro like a drunkard, and removed like a cottage.\u201d\nAnd in those circumstances of terror, with which an appearance of the\nAlmighty is described, in Psalm xviii, when his pavilion round about him\nwas darkness; when hail stones and coals of fire were his voice; and\nwhen, at his rebuke, the channels of the waters are said to be seen, and\nthe foundations of the hills discovered; though there may be some\nreference, as Dr. Lowth thinks, to the history of God\u2019s descent upon\nMount Sinai; yet it seems more probable that the figures were taken\ndirectly from those commotions of nature with which the author was\nacquainted, and which suggested stronger and nobler images than those\nwhich now occur to us.\n\nBeside the natural objects of their own country, we find the rites of\ntheir religion, and the arts and employments of their common life,\nfrequently employed as grounds of imagery among the Hebrews. Hence\nflowed, of course, the many allusions to pastoral life, to the green\npastures and the still waters,\u201d and to the care and watchfulness of a\nshepherd over his flock, which carry to this day so much beauty and\ntenderness in them, in Psalm xxiii, and in many other passages of the\npoetical writings of Scripture. Hence all the images founded upon rural\nemployments, upon the wine press, the threshing floor, the stubble and\nthe chaff. To disrelish all such images is the effect of false delicacy.\nHomer is at least as frequent, and much more minute and particular, in\nhis similes, founded on what we now call low life; but, in his\nmanagement of them, far inferior to the sacred writers, who generally\nmix with their comparisons of this kind somewhat of dignity and grandeur\nto ennoble them. What inexpressible grandeur does the following rural\nimage in Isaiah, for instance, receive from the intervention of the\nDeity!--\u201cThe nations shall rush like the rushings of many waters; but\nGod shall rebuke them, and they shall fly far off; and they shall be\nchased as the chaff of the mountain before the wind, and like the down\nof the thistle before the whirlwind.\u201d Figurative allusions, too, we\nfrequently find to the rites and ceremonies of their religion, to the\nlegal distinctions of things clean and unclean, to the mode of their\ntemple service, to the dress of their priests, and to the most noted\nincidents recorded in their sacred history; as, to the destruction of\nSodom, the descent of God upon Mount Sinai, and the miraculous passage\nof the Israelites through the Red Sea. The religion of the Hebrews\nincluded the whole of their laws and civil constitution. It was full of\nsplendid external rites, that occupied their senses; it was connected\nwith every part of their national history and establishment; and hence,\nall ideas founded on religion possessed in this nation a dignity and\nimportance peculiar to themselves, and were uncommonly suited to impress\nthe imagination.\n\nFrom all this it results that the imagery of the sacred poets is, in a\nhigh degree, expressive and natural; it is copied directly from real\nobjects that were before their eyes; it has this advantage, of being\nmore complete within itself, more entirely founded on national ideas and\nmanners, than that of the most of other poets. In reading their works we\nfind ourselves continually in the land of Judea. The palm trees, and the\ncedars of Lebanon, are ever rising in our view. The face of their\nterritory, the circumstances of their climate, the manners of the\npeople, and the august ceremonies of their religion, constantly pass\nunder different forms before us. The comparisons employed by the sacred\npoets are generally short, touching on one point only of resemblance,\nrather than branching out into little episodes. In this respect they\nhave an advantage over the Greek and Roman authors; whose comparisons,\nby the length to which they are extended, sometimes interrupt the\nnarration too much, and carry too visible marks of study and labour;\nwhereas, in the Hebrew poets, they appear more like the glowings of a\nlively fancy, just glancing aside to some resembling object, and\npresently returning to its track. Such is the following fine comparison,\nintroduced to describe the happy influence of good government upon a\npeople, in what are called the last words of David: He that ruleth over\nmen must be just, ruling in the fear of God; and he shall be as the\nlight of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds;\nas the tender grass springing out of the earth, by clear shining after\nrain,\u201d 2 Sam. xxiii, 3. This is one of the most regular and formal\ncomparisons in the sacred books.\n\nAllegory, likewise, is a figure frequently found in them. But the\npoetical figure which, beyond all others, elevates the style of\nScripture, and gives it a peculiar boldness and sublimity, is\n_prosopop\u0153ia_, or personification. No personifications employed by\nany poets are so magnificent and striking as those of the inspired\nwriters. On great occasions they animate every part of nature,\nespecially when any appearance or operation of the Almighty is\nconcerned. Before him went the pestilence.\u201d \u201cThe waters saw thee, O God,\nand were afraid.\u201d The mountains saw thee, and they trembled.\u201d \u201cThe\noverflowing of the water passed by.\u201d The deep uttered his voice, and\nlifted up his hands on high.\u201d When inquiry is made about the place of\nwisdom, Job introduces the deep, saying, It is not in me; and the sea\nsaith, It is not in me. Destruction and death say, We have heard the\nfame thereof with our ears.\u201d That noted sublime passage in the book of\nIsaiah, which describes the fall of the king of Assyria, is full of\npersonified objects; the fir trees and cedars of Lebanon breaking forth\ninto exultation on the fall of the tyrant; hell from beneath stirring up\nall the dead to meet him at his coming; and the dead kings introduced as\nspeaking and joining in the triumph. In the same strain are those many\nlively and passionate apostrophes to cities and countries, to persons\nand things, with which the prophetical writings every where abound. O\nthou sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? Put\nthyself up into the scabbard, rest, and be still. How can it be quiet,\u201d\nas the reply is instantly made, seeing the Lord hath given it a charge\nagainst Askelon, and the sea shore? there hath he appointed it,\u201d Jer.\nxlvii, 6. In general, for it would carry us too far to enlarge upon all\nthe instances, the style of the poetical books of the Old Testament is,\nbeyond the style of all other poetical works, fervid, bold, and\nanimated. It is extremely different from that regular correct expression\nto which our ears are accustomed in modern poetry. It is the burst of\ninspiration. The scenes are not coolly described, but represented as\npassing before our eyes. Every object and every person is addressed and\nspoken to, as if present. The transition is often abrupt; the connection\noften obscure; the persons are often changed; figures crowded, and\nheaped upon one another. Bold sublimity, not correct elegance, is its\ncharacter. We see the spirit of the writer raised beyond himself, and\nlabouring to find vent for ideas too mighty for his utterance.\n\nThe several kinds of poetical composition which we find in Scripture are\nchiefly the didactic, elegiac, pastoral, and lyric. Of the didactic\nspecies of poetry, the book of Proverbs is the principal instance. The\nfirst nine chapters of that book are highly poetical, adorned with many\ndistinguished graces, and figures of expression. The book of\nEcclesiastes comes, likewise, under this head; and some of the Psalms,\nas the hundred and nineteenth in particular. Of elegiac poetry, many\nvery beautiful specimens occur in Scripture; such as the lamentation of\nDavid over his friend Jonathan; several passages in the prophetical\nbooks; and several of David\u2019s Psalms, composed on occasions of distress\nand mourning. The forty-second Psalm, in particular, is, in the highest\ndegree, tender and plaintive. But the most regular and perfect elegiac\ncomposition in the Scripture, perhaps in the whole world, is the\nLamentations of Jeremiah. As the prophet mourns, in that book, over the\ndestruction of the temple and the holy city, and the overthrow of the\nwhole state, he assembles all the affecting images which a subject so\nmelancholy could suggest. The Song of Solomon affords us a high\nexemplification of pastoral poetry. Considered with respect to its\nspiritual meaning, it is undoubtedly a mystical allegory; in its form it\nis a dramatic pastoral, or a perpetual dialogue between personages in\nthe character of shepherds; and, suitably to that form, it is full of\nrural and pastoral images from beginning to end. Of lyric poetry, or\nthat which is intended to be accompanied with music, the Old Testament\nis full. Beside a great number of hymns and songs, which we find\nscattered in the historical and prophetical books, such as the song of\nMoses, the song of Deborah, and many others of like nature, the whole\nbook of Psalms is to be considered as a collection of sacred odes. In\nthese we find the ode exhibited in all the varieties of its form, and\nsupported with the highest spirit of lyric poetry; sometimes sprightly,\ncheerful, and triumphant; sometimes solemn and magnificent; sometimes\ntender and soft. From these instances it clearly appears, that there are\ncontained in the Holy Scriptures full exemplifications of several of the\nchief kinds of poetical writing.\n\nPOLLUX, a tutelar deity of mariners in ancient times, Acts xxviii, 11,\nwhose image was placed either at the prow or stern of the ship.\n\nPOMEGRANATE, \u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05df, Numbers xiii, 23; xx, 5; 1 Sam. xiv, 2, &c, a low\ntree growing very common in Palestine, and in other parts of the east.\nIts branches are very thick and bushy; some of them are armed with sharp\nthorns. They are garnished with narrow spear-shaped leaves. Its flowers\nare of an elegant red colour, resembling a rose. It is chiefly valued\nfor the fruit, which is as big as a large apple, is quite round, and has\nthe general qualities of other summer fruits, allaying heat and\nquenching thirst. The high estimation in which it was held by the people\nof Israel, may be inferred from its being one of the three kinds of\nfruit brought by the spies from Eshcol to Moses and the congregation in\nthe wilderness, Num. xiii, 23; xx, 5; and from its being specified by\nthat rebellious people as one of the greatest luxuries which they\nenjoyed in Egypt, the want of which they felt so severely in the sandy\ndesert. The pomegranate, classed by Moses with wheat and barley, vines\nand figs, oil olive and honey, was, in his account, one principal\nrecommendation of the promised land, Deut. viii, 8. The form of this\nfruit was so beautiful, as to be honoured with a place at the bottom of\nthe high priest\u2019s robe, Exodus xxviii, 33; Ecclus. xlv, 9; and was the\nprincipal ornament of the stately columns of Solomon\u2019s temple. The\ninside is full of small kernels, replenished with a generous liquor. In\nshort there is scarcely any part of the pomegranate which does not\ndelight and recreate the senses.\n\nPORTERS OF THE TEMPLE. The Levites discharged the office of porters of\nthe temple both day and night, and had the care both of the treasure and\nofferings. The office of porter was in some sort military; properly\nspeaking, they were the soldiers of the Lord, and the guards of his\nhouse, to whose charge the several gates of the courts of the sanctuary\nwere appointed by lot, 1 Chronicles xxvi, 1, 13, 19. They waited at\nevery gate; and were not permitted to depart from their service,\u201d 2\nChron. xxxv, 15; and they attended by turns in their courses, as the\nother Levites did, 2 Chron. viii, 14. Their proper business was to open\nand shut the gates, and to attend at them by day, as a sort of peace\nofficers, in order to prevent any tumult among the people; to keep\nstrangers and the excommunicated and unclean persons, from entering into\nthe holy court; and, in short, to prevent whatever might be prejudicial\nto the safety, peace, and purity of the holy place and service. They\nalso kept guard by night about the temple and its courts; and they are\nsaid to have been twenty-four, including three priests, who stood sentry\nat so many different places. There was a superior officer over the whole\nguard, called by Maimonides, the man of the mountain of the house;\u201d he\nwalked the round as often as he pleased; when he passed a sentinel that\nwas standing, he said, Peace be unto you;\u201d but if he found one asleep,\nhe struck him, and he had liberty to set fire to his garment. This\ncustom may, perhaps, be alluded to in the following passage: Behold, I\ncome as a thief,\u201d that is, unawares; blessed is he that watcheth and\nkeepeth his garments,\u201d Rev. xvi, 15. Psalm cxxxiv, seems to be addressed\nto these watchmen of the temple, who by night stand in the house of the\nLord;\u201d in which they are exhorted to employ their waking hours in acts\nof praise and devotion.\n\nPOST, a messenger or regulated courier, appointed to carry with\nexpedition the despatches of princes, or the letters of private persons\nin general, Job ix, 25; Jer. li, 31; 2 Chron. xxx, 6; Esther iii, 13,\n&c. It is thought that the use of posts is derived from the Persians.\nDiodorus Siculus observes, that the kings of Persia, in order to have\nintelligence of what was passed through all the provinces of their vast\ndominions, placed centinels at eminences, at convenient distances, where\ntowers were built. These centinels gave notice of public occurrences\nfrom one to another, with a very loud and shrill voice, by which news\nwas transmitted from one extremity of the kingdom to another with great\nexpedition. But as this could not be practised, except in the case of\ngeneral news, which it was expedient that the whole nation should be\nacquainted with, Cyrus, as Xenophon relates, appointed couriers and\nplaces for post horses, building on purpose on all the high roads houses\nfor the reception of the couriers, where they were to deliver their\npackets to the next, and so on. This they did night and day, so that no\ninclemency of weather was to stop them; and they are represented as\nmoving with astonishing speed. In the judgment of many they went faster\nthan cranes could fly. Herodotus owns, that nothing swifter was known\nfor a journey by land. Xerxes, in his famous expedition against Greece,\nplanted posts from the \u00c6gean Sea to Shushan, or Susa, to send notice\nthither of what might happen to his army; he placed these messengers\nfrom station to station, to convey his packets, at such distances from\neach other as a horse might easily travel.\n\nPOTTER. Frequent mention is made of the potter in Scripture, Jer. xviii,\n3; Ecclus. xxxviii, 29, 30. Homer says, that the potter turns his wheel\nwith his hands. But at the present day, the wheel on which the work is\nformed is turned by another.\n\nPOTTER\u2019s FIELD, the land that was bought with the money for which Judas\nsold our Saviour, Matt. xxvii, 7, 10, and which he returned. See\nACELDAMA.\n\nPRAYER has been well defined, the offering up of our desires unto God,\nfor things agreeable to his will, in the name or through the mediation\nof Jesus Christ, by the help of the Holy Spirit, with a confession of\nour sins, and a thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. 1. Prayer is in\nitself a becoming acknowledgment of the all-sufficiency of God, and of\nour dependence upon him. It is his appointed means for the obtaining of\nboth temporal and spiritual blessings. He could bless his creatures in\nanother way: but he will be inquired of, to do for them those things of\nwhich they stand in need, Ezek. xxxvi, 37. It is the act of an indigent\ncreature, seeking relief from the fountain of mercy. A sense of want\nexcites desire, and desire is the very essence of prayer. One thing have\nI desired of the Lord,\u201d says David: that will I seek after.\u201d Prayer\nwithout desire is like an altar without a sacrifice, or without the fire\nfrom heaven to consume it. When all our wants are supplied, prayer will\nbe converted into praise; till then Christians must live by prayer, and\ndwell at the mercy seat. God alone is able to hear and to supply their\nevery want. The revelation which he has given of his goodness lays a\nfoundation for our asking with confidence the blessings we need, and his\nability encourages us to hope for their bestowment. O thou that hearest\nprayer; unto thee shall all flesh come,\u201d Psalm lxv, 2. 2. Prayer is a\nspiritual exercise, and can only be performed acceptably by the\nassistance of the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii, 26. The sacrifice of the\nwicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is\nhis delight.\u201d The Holy Spirit is the great agent in the world of grace,\nand without his special influence there is no acceptable prayer. Hence\nhe is called the Spirit of grace and of supplication: for he it is that\nenables us to draw nigh unto God, filling our mouth with arguments, and\nteaching us to order our cause before him, Zech. xii, 10. 3. All\nacceptable prayer must be offered in faith, or a believing frame of\nmind. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men\nliberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him\nask in faith, nothing wavering--for let not the wavering man think that\nhe shall receive any thing of the Lord,\u201d James i, 5\u20137. He that cometh\nunto God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that\ndiligently seek him,\u201d Heb. xi, 6. It must be offered in the name of\nChrist, believing in him as revealed in the word of God, placing in him\nall our hope of acceptance, and exercising unfeigned confidence in his\natoning sacrifice and prevalent intercession. 4. Prayer is to be offered\nfor things agreeable to the will of God.\u201d So the Apostle says: This is\nthe confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according\nto his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever\nwe ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him,\u201d 1\nJohn v, 14, 15. Our prayers must therefore be regulated by the revealed\nwill of God, and come within the compass of the promises. These are to\nbe the matter and the ground of our supplications. What God has not\nparticularly promised he may nevertheless possibly bestow; but what he\nhas promised he will assuredly perform. Of the good things promised to\nIsrael of old not one failed, but all came to pass; and in due time the\nsame shall be said of all the rest. 5. All this must be accompanied with\nconfession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of God\u2019s mercies.\nThese are two necessary ingredients in acceptable prayer. I prayed,\u201d\nsays the Prophet Daniel, and made confession.\u201d Sin is a burden, of which\nconfession unloads the soul. Father,\u201d said the returning prodigal, I\nhave sinned against Heaven and in thy sight.\u201d Thanksgiving is also as\nnecessary as confession; by the one we take shame to ourselves; by the\nother, we give glory to God. By the one, we abase the creature; by the\nother we exalt the Creator. In petitioning favours from God, we act like\ndependent creatures; in confession, like sinners; but in thanksgiving,\nlike angels.\n\nThe reason on which this great and efficacious duty rests, has been a\nsubject of some debate. On this point, however, we have nothing stated\nin the Scriptures. From them we learn only, that God has appointed it;\nthat he enjoins it to be offered in faith, that is, faith in Christ,\nwhose atonement is the meritorious and procuring cause of all the\nblessings to which our desires can be directed; and that prayer so\noffered is an indispensable condition of our obtaining the blessings for\nwhich we ask. As a matter of inference, however, we may discover some\nglimpses of the reason in the divine Mind on which its appointment\nrests. That reason has sometimes been said to be the moral preparation\nand state of fitness produced in the soul for the reception of the\ndivine mercies which the act and, more especially the habit of prayer\nmust induce. Against this stands the strong, and, in a Scriptural view,\nfatal objection, that an efficiency is thus ascribed to the mere act of\na creature to produce those great, and, in many respects, radical\nchanges in the character of man, which we are taught, by inspired\nauthority, to refer to the direct influences of the Holy Spirit. What is\nit that fits man for forgiveness, but simply repentance? Yet that is\nexpressly said to be the gift\u201d of Christ, and supposes strong operations\nof the illuminating and convincing Spirit of truth, the Lord and Giver\nof spiritual life; and if the mere acts and habit of prayer had\nefficiency enough to produce a Scriptural repentance, then every\nformalist attending with ordinary seriousness to his devotions must, in\nconsequence, become a penitent. Again: if we pray for spiritual\nblessings aright, that is, with an earnestness of desire which arises\nfrom a due apprehension of their importance, and a preference of them to\nall earthly good, who does not see that this implies such a deliverance\nfrom the earthly and carnal disposition which characterizes our\ndegenerate nature, that an agency far above our own, however we may\nemploy it, must be supposed? or else, if our own prayers could be\nefficient up to this point, we might, by the continual application of\nthis instrument, complete our regeneration, independent of that grace of\nGod, which, after all, this theory brings in. It may indeed be said,\nthat the grace of God operates by our prayers to produce in us a state\nof moral fitness to receive the blessings we ask. But this gives up the\npoint contended for, the moral efficiency of prayer; and refers the\nefficiency to another agent working by our prayers as an instrument.\nStill, however, it may be affirmed, that the Scriptures no where\nrepresent prayer as an instrument for improving our moral state, in any\nother way than as the means of bringing into the soul new supplies of\nspiritual life and strength. It is therefore more properly to be\nconsidered as a condition of our obtaining that grace by which such\neffects are wrought, than as the instrument by which it effects them. In\nfact, all genuine acts of prayer depend upon a grace previously\nbestowed, and from which alone the disposition and the power to pray\nproceed. So it was said of Saul of Tarsus, Behold, he prayeth!\u201d He\nprayed in fact then for the first time; but that was in consequence of\nthe illumination of his mind as to his spiritual danger, effected by the\nmiracle on the way to Damascus, and the grace of God which accompanied\nthe miracle. Nor does the miraculous character of the means by which\nconviction was produced in his mind, affect the relevancy of this to\nordinary cases. By whatever means God may be pleased to fasten the\nconviction of our spiritual danger upon our minds, and to awaken us out\nof the long sleep of sin, that conviction must precede real prayer, and\ncomes from the influence of his grace, rendering the means of conviction\neffectual. Thus it is not the prayer which produces the conviction, but\nthe conviction which gives birth to the prayer; and if we pursue the\nmatter into its subsequent stages, we shall come to the same result. We\npray for what we feel we want; that is, for something not in our\npossession; we obtain this either by impartation from God, to whom we\nlook up as the only Being able to bestow the good for which we ask him;\nor else we obtain it, according to this theory, by some moral efficiency\nbeing given to the exercise of prayer to work it in us. Now, the latter\nhypothesis is in many cases manifestly absurd. We ask for pardon of sin,\nfor instance; but this is an act of God done _for_ us, quite distinct\nfrom any moral change which prayer may be said to produce in us,\nwhatever efficiency we may ascribe to it; for no such change in us can\nbe pardon, since that must proceed from the party offended. We ask for\nincrease of spiritual strength; and prayer is the expression of that\nwant. But if it supply this want by its own moral efficiency, it must\nsupply it in proportion to its intensity and earnestness; which\nintensity and earnestness can only be called forth by the degree in\nwhich the want is felt, so that the case supposed is contradictory and\nabsurd, as it makes the sense of want to be in proportion to the supply\nwhich ought to abate or remove it. And if it be urged, that prayer at\nleast produces in us a fitness for the supply of spiritual strength,\nbecause it is excited by a sense of our wants, the answer is, that the\nfitness contended for consists in that sense of want itself which must\nbe produced in us by the _previous_ agency of grace, or we should never\npray for supplies. There is, in fact, nothing in prayer simply which\nappears to have any adaptation, as an _instrument_, to effect a moral\nchange in man, although it should be supposed to be made use of by the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit. The word of God is properly an instrument,\nbecause it contains the doctrine which that Spirit explains and applies,\nand the motives to faith and obedience which he enforces upon the\nconscience and affections; and although prayer brings these truths and\nmotives before us, prayer cannot properly be said to be an instrument of\nour regeneration, because that which is thus brought by prayer to bear\nupon our case is the word of God itself introduced into our prayers,\nwhich derive their sole influence in that respect from that\ncircumstance. Prayer simply is the application of an insufficient to a\nsufficient Being for the good which the former cannot otherwise obtain,\nand which the latter only can supply; and as that supply is dependent\nupon prayer, and in the nature of the thing consequent, prayer can in no\ngood sense be said to be the instrument of supplying our wants, or\nfitting us for their supply, except relatively, as a mere condition\nappointed by the Donor.\n\nIf we must inquire into the reason of the appointment of prayer, and it\ncan scarcely be considered as a purely arbitrary institution, that\nreason seems to be, the preservation in the minds of men of a solemn and\nimpressive sense of God\u2019s agency in the world, and the dependence of all\ncreatures upon him. Perfectly pure and glorified beings, no longer in a\nstate of probation, and therefore exposed to no temptations, may not\nneed this institution; but men in their fallen state are constantly\nprone to forget God; to rest in the agency of second causes; and to\nbuild upon a sufficiency in themselves. This is at once a denial to God\nof the glory which he rightly claims, and a destructive delusion to\ncreatures, who, in forsaking God as the object of their constant\naffiance, trust but in broken reeds, and attempt to drink from broken\ncisterns which can hold no water.\u201d It is then equally in mercy to us, as\nin respect to his own honour and acknowledgment, that the divine Being\nhas suspended so many of his blessings, and those of the highest\nnecessity to us, upon the exercise of prayer; an act which acknowledges\nhis uncontrollable agency, and the dependence of all creatures upon him;\nour insufficiency, and his fulness; and lays the foundation of that\nhabit of gratitude and thanksgiving which is at once so meliorating to\nour own feelings, and so conducive to a cheerful obedience to the will\nof God. And if this reason for the injunction of prayer is no where in\nScripture stated in so many words, it is a principle uniformly supposed\nas the foundation of the whole scheme of religion which they have\nrevealed.\n\nTo this duty objections have been sometimes offered, at which it may be\nwell at least to glance. One has been grounded upon a supposed\npredestination of all things which come to pass; and the argument is,\nthat as this established predetermination of all things cannot be\naltered, prayer, which supposes that God will depart from it, is vain\nand useless. The answer which a pious predestinarian would give to this\nobjection is, that the argument drawn from the predestination of God\nlies with the same force against every other human effort, as against\nprayer; and that as God\u2019s predetermination to give food to man does not\nrender the cultivation of the earth useless and impertinent, so neither\ndoes the predestination of things shut out the necessity and efficacy of\nprayer. It would also be urged, that God has ordained the means as well\nas the end; and although he is an unchangeable Being, it is a part of\nthe unchangeable system which he has established, that prayer shall be\nheard and accepted. Those who have not these views of predestination\nwill answer the objection differently; for if the premises of such a\npredestination as is assumed by the objection, and conceded in the\nanswer, be allowed, the answer is unsatisfactory. The Scriptures\nrepresent God, for instance, as purposing to inflict a judgment upon an\nindividual or a nation, which purpose is often changed by prayer. In\nthis case either God\u2019s purpose must be denied, and then his threatenings\nare reduced to words without meaning; or the purpose must be allowed; in\nwhich case either prayer breaks in upon predestination, if understood\nabsolutely, or it is vain and useless. To the objection so drawn out it\nis clear that no answer is given by saying that the means as well as the\nend are predestinated, since prayer in such cases is not a means to the\nend, but an instrument of thwarting it; or is a means to one end in\nopposition to another end, which, if equally predestinated with the same\nabsoluteness, is a contradiction. The true answer is, that although God\nhas absolutely predetermined some things, there are others which respect\nhis government of free and accountable agents, which he has but\nconditionally predetermined. The true immutability of God consists, not\nin his adherence to his purposes, but in his never changing the\nprinciples of his administration; and he may therefore, in perfect\naccordance with his pre\u00f6rdination of things, and the immutability of his\nnature, purpose to do, under certain conditions dependent upon the free\nagency of man, what he will not do under others; and for this reason,\nthat an immutable adherence to the principles of a wise, just, and\ngracious government requires it. Prayer is in Scripture made one of\nthese conditions; and if God has established it as one of the principles\nof his moral government to accept prayer, in every case in which he has\ngiven us authority to ask, he has not, we may be assured, entangled his\nactual government of the world with the bonds of such an eternal\npredestination of particular events, as either to reduce prayer to a\nmere form of words, or not to be able himself, consistently with his\ndecrees, to answer it, whenever it is encouraged by his express\nengagements.\n\nA second objection is, that as God is infinitely wise and good, his\nwisdom and justice will lead him to bestow whatever is fit for us\nwithout praying; and if any thing be not fit for us, we cannot obtain it\nby praying.\u201d To this Dr. Paley very well replies, that it may be\nagreeable to perfect wisdom to grant that to our prayers which it would\nnot have been agreeable to the same wisdom to have given us without\npraying for.\u201d This, independent of the question of the authority of the\nScriptures which explicitly enjoin prayer, is the best answer which can\nbe given to the objection; and it is no small confirmation of it, that\nit is obvious to every reflecting man, that for God to withhold favours\ntill asked for, tends,\u201d as the same writer observes, to encourage\ndevotion among his rational creatures, and to keep up and circulate a\nknowledge and sense of their dependency upon him.\u201d But it is urged, God\nwill always do what is best from the moral perfection of his nature,\nwhether we pray or not.\u201d This objection, however, supposes that there is\nbut one mode of acting for the best, and that the divine will is\nnecessarily determined to that mode only; both which positions,\u201d says\nPaley, presume a knowledge of universal nature, much beyond what we are\ncapable of attaining.\u201d It is, indeed, a very unsatisfactory mode of\nspeaking, to say, God will always do what is best; since we can conceive\nhim capable in all cases of doing what is still better for the creature,\nand also that the creature is capable of receiving more and more from\nhis infinite fulness for ever. All that can be rationally meant by such\na phrase is, that, in the circumstances of the case, God will always do\nwhat is most consistent with his own wisdom, holiness, and goodness; but\nthen the disposition to pray, and the act of praying, add a new\ncircumstance to every case, and often bring many other new circumstances\nalong with them. It supposes humility, contrition, and trust, on the\npart of the creature; and an acknowledgment of the power and compassion\nof God, and of the merit of the atonement of Christ: all which are\nmanifestly new positions, so to speak, of the circumstances of the\ncreature, which, upon the very principle of the objection, rationally\nunderstood, must be taken into consideration.\n\nBut if the efficacy of prayer as to ourselves be granted, its influence\nupon the case of others is said to be more difficult to conceive. This\nmay be allowed without at all affecting the duty. Those who bow to the\nauthority of the Scriptures will see, that the duty of praying for\nourselves and for others rests upon the same divine appointment; and to\nthose who ask for the reason of such intercession in behalf of others,\nit is sufficient to reply, that the efficacy of prayer being established\nin one case, there is the same reason to conclude that our prayers may\nbenefit others, as any other effort we may use. It can only be by divine\nappointment that one creature is made dependent upon another for any\nadvantage, since it was doubtless in the power of the Creator to have\nrendered each independent of all but himself. Whatever reason,\ntherefore, might lead him to connect and interweave the interests of one\nman with the benevolence of another, will be the leading reason for that\nkind of mutual dependence which is implied in the benefit of mutual\nprayer. Were it only that a previous sympathy, charity, and good will,\nare implied in the duty, and must, indeed, be cultivated in order to it,\nand be strengthened by it, the wisdom and benevolence of the institution\nwould, it is presumed, be apparent to every well constituted mind. That\nall prayer for others must proceed upon a less perfect knowledge of them\nthan we have of ourselves, is certain; that all our petitions must be,\neven in our own mind, more conditional than those which respect\nourselves, though many of these must be subjected to the principles of a\ngeneral administration, which we but partially apprehend; and that all\nspiritual influences upon others, when they are subject to our prayers,\nwill be understood by us as liable to the control of their free agency,\nmust also be conceded; and, therefore, when others are concerned, our\nprayers may often be partially or wholly fruitless. He who believes the\nScriptures will, however, be encouraged by the declaration that the\neffectual fervent prayer of a righteous man,\u201d for his fellow creatures,\navaileth much;\u201d and he who demands something beyond mere authoritative\ndeclaration, as he cannot deny that prayer is one of those instruments\nby which another may be benefited, must acknowledge that, like the\ngiving of counsel, it may be of great utility in some cases, although it\nshould fail in others; and that as no man can tell how much good counsel\nmay influence another, or in many cases say whether it has ultimately\nfailed or not, so it is with prayer. It is a part of the divine plan, as\nrevealed in his word, to give many blessings to man independent of his\nown prayers, leaving the subsequent improvement of them to himself. They\nare given in honour of the intercession of Christ, man\u2019s great\nAdvocate;\u201d and they are given, subordinately, in acceptance of the\nprayers of Christ\u2019s church, and of righteous individuals. And when many\nor few devout individuals become thus the instruments of good to\ncommunities, or to whole nations, there is no greater mystery in this\nthan in the obvious fact, that the happiness or misery of large masses\nof mankind is often greatly affected by the wisdom or the errors, the\nskill or the incompetence, the good or the bad conduct, of a few\npersons, and often of one.\n\nPREACHING is the discoursing publicly on any religious subject. From the\nsacred records, says Robert Robinson, we learn that when men began to\nassociate for the purpose of worshipping the Deity, Enoch prophesied,\nJude 14, 15. We have a very short account of this prophet and his\ndoctrine; enough, however, to convince us that he taught the principal\ntruths of natural and revealed religion. Conviction of sin was in his\ndoctrine, and communion with God was exemplified in his conduct, Gen. v,\n24; Heb. xi, 5, 6. From the days of Enoch to the time of Moses, each\npatriarch worshipped God with his family: probably several assembled at\nnew moons, and alternately instructed the whole company. Noah,\u201d it is\nsaid, was a preacher of righteousness,\u201d 1 Peter iii, 19, 20; 2 Peter ii,\n5. Abraham commanded his household after him to keep the way of the\nLord, and to do justice and judgment, Gen. xviii, 19; and Jacob, when\nhis house lapsed to idolatry, remonstrated against it, and exhorted all\nthem that were with him to put away the strange gods, and go up with him\nto Bethel, Gen. xxxv, 2, 3. Melchisedec, also, we may consider as the\nfather, the priest, and the prince, of his people; publishing the glad\ntidings of peace and salvation, Gen. xiv; Heb. vii.\n\nMoses was a most eminent prophet and preacher, raised up by the\nauthority of God, and by whom, it was said, came the law, John i, 17.\nThis great man had much at heart the promulgation of his doctrine: he\ndirected it to be inscribed on pillars, to be transcribed in books, and\nto be taught both in public and private by word of mouth, Deut. iv, 9;\nvi, 9; xvii, 18; xxvii, 8; xxxi, 19; Num. v, 23. He himself set the\nexample of each; and how he and Aaron preached, we may see by several\nparts of his writings. The first discourse was heard with profound\nreverence and attention; the last was both uttered and received with\nraptures, Exod. iv, 31; Deut. xxxiii, 7, 8, &c. Public preaching does\nnot appear under this economy to have been attached to the priesthood:\npriests were not officially preachers; and we have innumerable instances\nof discourses delivered in assemblies by men of other tribes beside that\nof Levi, Psalm lxviii, 11. Joshua was an Ephraimite; but, being full of\nthe spirit of wisdom, he gathered the tribes to Shechem, and harangued\nthe people of God, Deut. xxxiv, 9; Joshua xxiv. Solomon was a prince of\nthe house of Judah; Amos, a herdsman of Tekoa; yet both were preachers,\nand one at least was a prophet, 1 Kings ii; Amos vii, 14, 15. When the\nignorant notions of Pagans, the vices of their practice, and the\nidolatry of their pretended worship, were in some sad periods\nincorporated into the Jewish religion by the princes of that nation, the\nprophets and all the seers protested against this apostasy; and they\nwere persecuted for so doing. Shemaiah preached to Rehoboam, the\nprinces, and all the people at Jerusalem, 2 Chron. xii, 5; Azariah and\nHanani preached to Asa and his army, 2 Chron. xv, 1; xvi, 7; Micaiah, to\nAhab. Some of them opened schools, or houses of instruction; and there\nto their disciples they taught the pure religion of Moses. At Naioth, in\nthe suburbs of Ramah, there was one where Samuel dwelt; and there was\none at Jericho, and a third at Bethel, to which Elijah and Elisha often\nresorted. Thither the people went on Sabbath days and at new moons, and\nreceived public lessons of piety and morality, 1 Sam. xix, 18; 2 Kings\nii, 2, 5; iv, 2, 3. Through all this period, however, there was a dismal\nconfusion of the useful ordinance of public preaching. Sometimes they\nhad no open vision, and the word of the Lord was precious, or scarce;\nthe people heard it only now and then. At other times they were left\nwithout a teaching priest, and without law. And at other seasons again,\nitinerants, both princes, priests, and Levites, were sent through all\nthe country, to carry the book of the law, and to teach in the cities.\nIn a word, preaching flourished when pure religion grew; and when the\nlast decayed, the first was suppressed. Moses had not appropriated\npreaching to any order of men: persons, places, times, and manners, were\nall left open and discretional. Many of the discourses were preached in\ncamps and courts, in streets, schools, cities, villages; sometimes, with\ngreat composure and coolness; at other times, with vehement action and\nrapturous energy; sometimes, in a plain, blunt style; at other times, in\nall the magnificent pomp of eastern allegory. On some occasions, the\npreachers appeared in public with visible signs, with implements of war,\nwith yokes of slavery, or something adapted to their subject. They gave\nlectures on these, held them up to view, girded them on, broke them in\npieces, rent their garments, rolled in the dust, and endeavoured, by all\nthe methods they could devise, agreeably to the customs of their\ncountry, to impress the minds of their auditors with the nature and\nimportance of their doctrines. These men were highly esteemed by the\npious part of the nation; and princes thought proper to keep seers and\nothers who were scribes, who read and expounded the law, 2 Chron. xxxiv,\n29, 30; xxxv, 15. Hence, false prophets, bad men, who found their\naccount in pretending to be good, crowded the courts of princes.\nJezebel, an idolatress, had four hundred prophets of Baal; and Ahab, a\npretended worshipper of Jehovah, had as many pretended prophets of his\nown profession, 2 Chron. xviii, 5.\n\nWhen the Jews were carried captive into Babylon, the prophets who were\nwith them inculcated the principles of religion, and endeavoured to\npossess their minds with an aversion to idolatry; and, to the success of\npreaching, we may attribute the re-conversion of the Jews to the belief\nand worship of one God; a conversion that remains to this day. The Jews\nhave since fallen into horrid crimes; but they have never since this\nperiod lapsed into gross idolatry, Hosea ii, iii; Ezekiel ii, iii,\nxxxiv. There were not wanting, however, multitudes of false prophets\namong them, whose characters are strikingly delineated by the true\nprophets, and which the reader may see in Ezek. xiii; Isa. lvi; Jer.\nxxiii. When the seventy years of the captivity were expired, the good\nprophets and preachers, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Haggai, and others, having\nconfidence in the word of God, and being concerned to possess their\nnatural, civil, and religious rights, endeavoured, by all means, to\nextricate themselves and their countrymen from that mortifying state\ninto which the crimes of their ancestors had brought them. They wept,\nfasted, prayed, preached, prophesied, and at length prevailed. The chief\ninstruments were Nehemiah and Ezra; the former was governor, and\nreformed the civil state; the latter was a scribe of the law of the God\nof heaven, and applied himself to ecclesiastical matters, in which he\nrendered the noblest service to his country, and to all posterity. He\ncollected and collated MSS. of the sacred writings, and arranged and\npublished the books of the holy canon in their present form. To this he\nadded a second work, as necessary as the former: he revised and new\nmodelled public teaching, and exemplified his plan in his own person.\nThe Jews had almost lost, in the seventy years\u2019 captivity, their\noriginal language; that was now become dead; and they spoke a jargon\nmade up of their own language and that of the Chaldeans, and other\nnations, with whom they had been mingled. Formerly, preachers had only\nexplained subjects: now they were obliged to explain words; words which,\nin the sacred code, were become obsolete, equivocal, or dead. Houses\nwere now opened, not for ceremonial worship, as sacrificing, for this\nwas confined to the temple; but for moral and religious instruction, as\npraying, preaching, reading the law, divine worship, and social duties.\nThese houses were called synagogues: the people repaired thither for\nmorning and evening prayer; and on Sabbaths and festivals, the law was\nread and expounded to them. We have a short but beautiful description of\nthe manner of Ezra\u2019s first preaching, Neh. viii. Upward of fifty\nthousand people assembled in a street, or large square, near the water\ngate. It was early in the morning of a Sabbath day. A pulpit of wood, in\nthe fashion of a small tower, was placed there on purpose for the\npreacher; and this turret was supported by a scaffold, or temporary\ngallery, where, in a wing on the right hand of the pulpit, sat six of\nthe principal preachers; and in another on the left, seven. Thirteen\nother principal teachers, and many Levites, were present also, on\nscaffolds erected for the purpose, alternately to officiate. When Ezra\nascended the pulpit, he produced and opened the book of the law, and the\nwhole congregation instantly rose up from their seats, and stood. Then\nhe offered up prayer and praise to God. The people bowing their heads\nand worshipping the Lord with their faces to the ground; and at the\nclose of the prayer, with uplifted hands, they solemnly pronounced,\nAmen! Amen!\u201d Then all standing, Ezra, assisted at times by the Levites,\nread the law distinctly, gave the sense, and caused them to understand\nthe reading. The sermons delivered so affected the hearers, that they\nwept excessively; and about noon the sorrow became so exuberant and\nimmeasurable, that it was thought necessary by the governor, the\npreacher, and the Levites, to restrain it. Go your way,\u201d said they, eat\nthe fat, and drink the sweet, send portions to them for whom nothing is\nprepared.\u201d The wise and benevolent sentiments of these noble souls were\nimbibed by the whole congregation, and fifty thousand troubled hearts\nwere calmed in a moment. Home they returned, to eat, to drink, to send\nportions, and rejoice, because they had understood the words that were\ndeclared unto them. Plato was living at this time, teaching dull\nphilosophy to cold academics; but what was he, and what was Xenophon, or\nDemosthenes, or any of the Pagan orators, in comparison with these men?\nFrom this period to that of the appearance of Jesus Christ, public\npreaching was universal; synagogues were multiplied, vast numbers\nattended, and elders and rulers were appointed for the purpose of order\nand instruction.\n\nThe most celebrated preacher that arose before the appearance of Jesus\nChrist was John the Baptist. He was commissioned from heaven to be the\nharbinger of the Messiah. His subjects were few, plain, and important.\nHis style was vehement, his images bold, his deportment solemn, his\naction eager, and his morals strict. But this bright morning star gave\nway to the illustrious Sun of Righteousness, who now arose on a\nbenighted world. Jesus Christ certainly was the Prince of teachers. Who\nbut can admire the simplicity and majesty of his style, the beauty of\nhis images, the alternate softness and severity of his address, the\nchoice of his subjects, the gracefulness of his deportment, and the\nindefatigableness of his zeal? Let the reader charm and solace himself\nin the study and contemplation of the character, excellency, and dignity\nof this divine teacher, as he will find them delineated in the\nevangelists.\n\nThe Apostles copied their divine Master. They formed multitudes of\nreligious societies, and were abundantly successful in their labours.\nThey confined their attention to religion, and left the schools to\ndispute, and politicians to intrigue. The doctrines they preached they\nsupported entirely by evidence; and neither had nor required such\nassistance as human laws or worldly policy, the eloquence of schools or\nthe terror of arms, could afford them.\n\nThe Apostles being dead, every thing came to pass as they had foretold;\nthe whole Christian system, in time, underwent a miserable change;\npreaching shared the fate of other institutions, and the glory of the\nprimitive church gradually degenerated. Those writers whom we call the\nfathers, however, held up to view by some as models for imitation, do\nnot deserve that indiscriminate praise ascribed to them. Christianity,\nit is true, is found in their writings; but how sadly incorporated with\nPagan philosophy and Jewish allegory! It must, indeed, be allowed, that,\nin general, the simplicity of Christianity was maintained, though under\ngradual decay, during the first three centuries. The next five centuries\nproduced many pious and excellent preachers, both in the Latin and Greek\nchurch, though the doctrine continued to degenerate. The Greek pulpit\nwas adorned with some eloquent orators. Basil, bishop of C\u00e6sarea, John\nChrysostom, preacher at Antioch, and afterward patriarch, as he was\ncalled, of Constantinople, and Gregory Nazianzen, who all flourished in\nthe fourth century, seem to have led the fashion of preaching in the\nGreek church; Jerom and Augustine did the same in the Latin church. The\nfirst preachers differed much in pulpit action; the greater part used\nvery moderate and sober gestures. They delivered their sermons all\nextempore, while there were notaries who took down what they said.\nSermons in those days were all in the vulgar tongue: the Greeks preached\nin Greek, the Latins in Latin. They did not preach by the clock, so to\nspeak, but were short or long as they saw occasion; though an hour was\nabout the usual time. Sermons were generally both preached and heard\nstanding; but sometimes both speaker and auditors sat, especially the\naged and the infirm. The fathers were fond of allegory; for Origen, that\neverlasting allegorizer, had set them the example. Before preaching, the\npreacher usually went into a vestry to pray, and afterward to speak to\nsuch as came to salute him. He prayed with his eyes shut in the pulpit.\nThe first word the preacher uttered to the people when he ascended the\npulpit was, Peace be with you;\u201d or, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,\nthe love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all;\u201d\nto whom the assembly first added, Amen,\u201d and in after times they\nanswered, And with thy spirit.\u201d Degenerate, however, as these days were,\nin comparison of those of the Apostles, yet they were golden ages in\ncomparison with the times that followed, when metaphysical reasoning,\nmystical divinity, yea, Aristotelian categories, and reading the lives\nof saints, were substituted in the place of sermons. The pulpit became a\nstage where ludicrous priests obtained the vulgar laugh by the lowest\nkind of wit, especially at the festivals of Christmas and Easter.\n\nBut the glorious Reformation was the offspring of preaching, by which\nmankind were reformed; there was a standard, and the religion of the\ntimes was put to the trial by it. The avidity of the common people to\nread the Scriptures, and to hear them expounded, was wonderful; and the\npapists were so fully convinced of the benefits of frequent public\ninstruction, that they, who were justly called unpreaching prelates, and\nwhose pulpits to use an expression of Latimer, had been bells without\nclappers\u201d for many a long year, were obliged for shame to set up regular\npreaching again. The church of Rome has produced some great preachers\nsince the Reformation, but none equal to the reformed preachers. And a\nquestion naturally arises here, which it would be unpardonable to pass\nover in silence, concerning the singular effect of the preaching of the\nreformed, which was general, national, universal reformation. In the\ndark times of popery there had arisen now and then some famous popular\npreachers, who had zealously inveighed against the vices of the times,\nand whose sermons had produced sudden and amazing effects on their\nauditors; but all these effects had died away with the preachers who had\nproduced them, and all things had gone back into their old state. Law,\nlearning, commerce, society at large had not been improved. Here a new\nscene opens; preachers arise less popular, perhaps less indefatigable\nand exemplary; their sermons produce less striking immediate effects;\nand yet their auditors go away and agree by whole nations to reform.\nJerom Savonarola, Jerom Narni, Capistran, Connecte, and many others, had\nproduced, by their sermons, great immediate effects. When Connecte\npreached, the ladies lowered their head dresses, and committed quilled\ncaps by hundreds to the flames. When Narni taught the people in lent,\nfrom the pulpits of Rome, half the city went from his sermons crying\nalong the streets, Lord, have mercy upon us;\u201d so that in only one\npassion week, two thousand crowns\u2019 worth of ropes were sold to make\nscourges with; and when he preached before the pope to the cardinals and\nbishops, and painted the sin of non-residence in its own colours, he\nfrightened thirty or forty bishops, who heard him, home to their\ndiocesses. In the pulpit of the university of Salamanca, he induced\neight hundred students to quit all worldly prospects of honour, riches,\nand pleasure, and to become penitents in divers monasteries. We know the\nfate of Savonarola, and others might be added; but all lamented the\nmomentary duration of the effects produced by their labours. Narni\nhimself was so disgusted with his office, that he renounced preaching,\nand shut himself up in his cell to mourn over his irreclaimable\ncontemporaries; for bishops went back to the court, and rope makers lay\nidle again.\n\nOur reformers taught all the good doctrines which had been taught by\nthese men, and they added two or three more, by which they laid the axe\nto the root of the apostasy, and produced general reformation. Instead\nof appealing to popes and canons, and founders and fathers, they only\nquoted them, and referred their auditors to the Holy Scriptures for law.\nPope Leo X. did not know this when he told Prierio, who complained of\nLuther\u2019s heresy, Friar Martin has a fine genius.\u201d They also taught the\npeople what little they knew of Christian liberty; and so led them into\na belief that they might follow their own ideas in religion, without the\nconsent of a confessor, a diocesan, a pope, or a council. They went\nfarther, and laid the stress of all religion on justifying faith.\n\nSince the reformers we have had multitudes who have entered into their\nviews with disinterestedness and success; and in the present times, both\nin the church and among other religious societies, names might be\nmentioned which would do honour to any nation; for though there are too\nmany who do not fill up that important station with proportionate piety\nand talents, yet we have men who are conspicuous for their extent of\nknowledge, depth of experience, originality of thought, fervency of\nzeal, consistency of deportment, and great usefulness in the Christian\nchurch.\n\nThe preceding sketch will show how mighty an agent preaching has been in\nall ages, in raising, and maintaining, and reviving the spirit of\nreligion. Wherever it has had this power, let it however be remarked, it\nhas consisted in the declaration, the proclamation, of the truth of God,\nas contained in his early revelations to man, and afterward embodied in\nthe Holy Scriptures. The effect too has been produced by preachers\nliving themselves under the influence of this truth, and filled with\nfaith and the Holy Ghost,\u201d depending wholly upon God\u2019s blessing for\nsuccess, and going forth in his name, with ardent longing to win souls,\u201d\nand to build up the church in knowledge and holiness. For preaching is\nnot a profession; but a work of divine appointment, to be rightly\ndischarged only by him who receives a commission from God, and fulfils\nit as under his eye, and in dependence upon his promise, Lo, I am with\nyou alway.\u201d\n\nPREDESTINATION, according to some, is a judgment, or decree of God, by\nwhich he has resolved, from all eternity, to save a certain number of\npersons, hence named elect. Others define it, a decree to give faith in\nJesus Christ to a certain number of men, and to leave the rest to their\nown malice and hardness of heart. A third, more Scripturally, God\u2019s\neternal purpose to save all that truly repent and unfeignedly believe\nhis holy Gospel,\u201d--according to the Apostle Paul, Whom he did foreknow\u201d\nas believers them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image\nof his Son;\u201d to his moral image here, and to the image of his glorified\nhumanity in heaven. According to the Calvinistical scheme, the reason of\nGod\u2019s predestinating some to everlasting life is not founded in a\nforesight of their faith and obedience; nevertheless, it is also\nmaintained on this scheme, that the means are decreed as well as the\nend, and that God purposes to save none but such as by his grace he\nshall prepare for salvation by sanctification. The Remonstrants define\npredestination to be God\u2019s decree to save believers, and condemn\nunbelievers. Some represent the election and predestination spoken of in\nScripture, as belonging only to nations, or, at least, bodies of men,\nand not to particular persons. The greatest difficulties with which the\nmodern theology is clogged turn on predestination; both the Romish and\nReformed churches are divided about it; the Lutherans speak of it with\nhorror; the Calvinists contend for it with the greatest zeal; the\nMolinists and Jesuits preach it down as a most dangerous doctrine; the\nJansenists assert it as an article of faith; the Arminians,\nRemonstrants, and many others, are all avowed enemies of absolute\npredestination. Those strenuous patrons of Jansenism, the\nPort-royalists, taught, that God predestinates those whom he foresees\nwill co\u00f6perate with his grace to the end. Dupin adds, that men do not\nfall into sin because not predestinated to life, but they are not\npredestinated because God foresaw their sins. See CALVINISM.\n\nThis doctrine has been already treated of. We shall here therefore\nmerely subjoin a sketch of its history previous to the Reformation. The\napostolic fathers, men little accustomed to the intricacy of\nmetaphysical disquisition, deeply impressed with the truth of the\nGospel, powerfully influenced by its spirit, and from their particular\nsituation naturally dwelling much upon it as a system of direction and\nconsolation, do not, in their writings, at all advert to the origin of\nevil, or to predestination, so closely allied to it. They press, with\nmuch earnestness, upon those in whom they were interested the vast\nimportance of practical holiness, exhibit the motives which appeared to\nthem calculated to secure it, and represent the blessedness which awaits\ngood men, and the condemnation reserved for the wicked; but they do not\nonce attempt to determine whether the sin which they were solicitous to\nremove could be accounted for, in consistency with the essential\nholiness and the unbounded mercy of the Deity. In short, they just took\nthat view of this subject which every man takes when he is not seeking\nto enter into philosophical disquisition; never for one moment doubting\nthat whatever is wrong was ultimately to be referred to man, and that\nthe economy of grace proceeding from God was the most convincing proof\nof the tenderness of his compassion for mankind.\n\nWhen, however, the church received within its communion those who had\nbeen educated in the schools of philosophy, and to whom the question as\nto the origin of evil must, while they frequented these schools, have\nbecome familiar, it was not to be supposed that, even although they were\nconvinced that we should be chiefly solicitous about the formation of\nthe Christian character, there would be no allusion to what had formerly\ninterested them, or that they would refrain from delivering their\nsentiments upon it. Agreeably to this, we find, in the works of Justin\nMartyr, Tatian, Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, and Origen, sufficient intimations\nthat they had directed their attention to the difficulty now under\nreview; and that, whether upon adequate grounds or not, they had come to\na decision as to the way in which it should be explained consistently\nwith the divine perfections. It is evident that they did not investigate\nthe subject to the depth to which it is requisite for the full\ndiscussion of it to go; and that various questions which must be put\nbefore it can be brought completely before us, they either did not put,\nor hastily regarded as of very little moment: but it is enough to dwell\nupon the fact, that they did employ their thoughts upon it, and have so\nexpressed themselves as to leave no doubt of the light in which it was\ncontemplated by them. Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, remarks that\n\u201cthey who were foreknown as to become wicked, whether angels or men, did\nso not from any fault of God, \u1f00\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, but from their own blame;\u201d\nby which observation he shows it to have been his opinion that God\nforesaw in what manner his intelligent creatures would act; but that\nthis did not affect their liberty, and did not diminish their guilt. A\nlittle after he says more fully, that God created angels and men free to\nthe practice of righteousness, having planted in them reason, through\nwhich they knew by whom they were created and through whom they existed,\nwhen before they were not, and who prescribed to them a law by which\nthey were to be judged, if they acted contrary to right reason.\nWherefore, we, angels and men, are through ourselves convicted as being\nwicked, if we do not lay hold of repentance. But if the Logos of God\nforetels that some angels and men would go to be punished, he does so\nbecause he foreknew that they would certainly become wicked by no means,\nhowever, because God made them such.\u201d Justin thus admits that man is\nwholly dependent upon God, deriving existence and every thing which he\nhas from the Almighty; but he is persuaded that we were perfectly able\nto retain our integrity, and that, although it was foreseen that we\nshould not do so, this did not abridge our moral power, or fix any\nimputation on the Deity in consequence of our transgression. Tatian, in\nhis oration against the Greeks, an excellent work which, although\ncomposed after the death of Justin, was written, in all probability,\nbefore its author had adopted the wild opinions which he defended toward\nthe conclusion of his life, expresses very much the same sentiments\navowed by Justin. He says, Both men and angels were created free, so\nthat man becoming wicked through his own fault may be deservedly\npunished, while a good man, who, from the right exercise of his free\nwill, does not transgress the law of God, is entitled to praise; that\nthe power of the divine Logos having in himself the knowledge of what\nwas to happen, not through fate or unavoidable necessity, but from free\nchoice, predicted future things, condemning the wicked and praising the\nrighteous.\u201d\n\nIren\u00e6us, in the third book of his work against heresies, has taken an\nopportunity to state his notions about the origin of evil. The\nseventy-first chapter of that book is entitled, A proof that man is\nfree, and has power to this extent, that of himself he can choose what\nis good or the contrary.\u201d In illustration of this he remarks, God gave\nto man the power of election as he did to the angels. They, therefore,\nwho do not obey are justly not found with the good, and receive deserved\npunishment, because God having given them what was good, they did not\nkeep it, but despised the riches of the divine mercy.\u201d The next chapter\nis entitled, A proof that some men are not good by nature, and others\nwicked, and that what is good is within the choice of man.\u201d In treating\non this subject, Iren\u00e6us observes, that if the reverse were the case,\nthe good would not merit praise nor the wicked blame, because being\nmerely what, without any will of theirs, they had been made, they could\nnot be considered as voluntary agents. But,\u201d he adds, since all have the\nsame nature, and are able to retain and to do what is good, and may, on\nthe other hand, lose it and not do it, some are, even in the sight of\nmen, and much more in that of God, deservedly praised and others\nblamed.\u201d In support of this he introduces a great variety of passages\nfrom Scripture. It appears, however, that the real difficulty attending\nthe subject had suggested itself to his mind; for he inquires in the\nseventy-third chapter, why God had not from the beginning made man\nperfect, all things being possible to him. He gives to this question a\nmetaphysical and unsatisfactory answer, but which so far satisfied\nhimself as to convince him that there could not, on this ground, be any\nimputation justly cast on the perfections of the Almighty, and that,\nconsequently, a sufficient explanation of the origin of evil and of the\njustice of punishing it, was to be found in the nature of man as a free\nagent, or in the abuse of that liberty with which man had been endowed.\nTertullian had also speculated upon the moral condition of man, and has\nrecorded his sentiments with respect to it. He explicitly asserts the\nfreedom of the will; lays down the position, that, if this be denied,\nthere can be neither reward nor punishment; and, in answer to an\nobjection, that since free will has been productive of such melancholy\nconsequences, it would have been better that it had not been bestowed,\nhe enters into a formal vindication of this part of our constitution. In\nreply to another suggestion, that God might have interposed to prevent\nthe choice which was to be productive of sin and misery, he maintains\nthat this could not have been done without destroying that admirable\nconstitution by which alone the interests of virtue can be really\npromoted. He thus thought that sin was to be imputed wholly to man, and\nthat it was perfectly consistent with the attributes of God, or rather\nillustrated these attributes, that there should be a system under which\nsin was possible, because without this possibility there could have been\nno accountable agents.\n\nFrom what has been stated on this subject, it seems unquestionable that\nthe apostolic fathers did not at all enter upon the subject of the\norigin of evil; that the writers by whom they were succeeded were\nsatisfied that, in the sense in which the term is now most commonly\nused, there was no such thing as predestination; that they uniformly\nrepresented the destiny of man as regulated by the use or abuse of his\nfree will; that, with the exception of Iren\u00e6us, they did not attempt to\nexplain why such a creature as man, who was to fall into sin, was\ncreated by a Being of infinite goodness; that the sole objection to\ntheir doctrine seemed to them to be, that prescience was incompatible\nwith liberty, and that, when they answered this, they considered that\nnothing more was requisite for receiving, without hesitation, the view\nof man upon which they often and fondly dwelt, as a free and accountable\nagent, who might have held fast his integrity, and whose fall from that\nintegrity was to be ascribed solely to himself, as it did not at all\nresult from any appointment of the supreme Being.\n\nAlthough opinions respecting original sin, directly tending to a very\ndifferent view of the subject than had been previously taken, had been\nstated by Cyprian, yet a thorough investigation of it, and the\nsentiments which afterward were widely received in the Christian church,\ntook their rise from the discussions to which the Pelagian controversy\ngave occasion. Previous to the part which Augustine took in that\ncontroversy, he seems to have been very much of the same sentiments with\nOrigen and the other early fathers. But, either from what he considered\nas a more deliberate and complete examination of Scripture, or from\nperceiving the necessity imposed on him, in consequence of some of the\npositions which he had laid down in his writings against Pelagius, he\nsoon changed his opinion, and advanced a notion more in harmony with\nthese positions. Having to show the absolute necessity of divine grace,\nhe inculcated that, in consequence of original sin, man was infallibly\ndetermined to evil, and was therefore in a state of condemnation, and he\nthus took away the foundation upon which the prevailing tenets rested;\nbecause it was impossible that men could be predestined to life, or the\nreverse, from prescience of their actions, when, without the special\ngrace of God, they were absolutely incapacitated for obedience to the\ndivine law. To get rid of this difficulty, Augustine, in some degree,\ntransferred the search for the origin of sin from the state of man to\nthe purposes of God, asserting that from all eternity the Almighty had\ndetermined to choose from the mass of mankind, lost in guilt and\ncorruption, a certain number to be transformed to holiness, and to be\nadmitted after this life to eternal happiness; that he did this to\npromote his own glory; and that, by the operation of his Spirit, granted\nof his own free and undeserved mercy, he produced in the elect or chosen\nthe fruits of righteousness, and qualified them for the enjoyment of\nheaven. The whole of the remainder of the human race were, according to\nthis system, left in their condition by nature, or in other words, were\ngiven up to endless misery. There immediately arose out of this view of\nthe subject, the formidable and heart-rending objection, that God was\nreally the author of sin; that, having so created mankind that of\nthemselves they could not be holy, there was on the part of those\ndelivered no virtue, as there was on the other part no blame; the case\nbeing quite different from what it would have been had God interposed\nwith respect to creatures who had not received from himself their\nphysical and moral constitution. Accordingly, it has been asserted that\na sect did arise, which, carrying out, as the members of it affirmed,\nthe principles of Augustine, maintained that God not only predestinated\nthe wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the guilt and\ntransgression for which they were punished; that the human race was thus\nwholly passive, the good and bad actions of men, or what were commonly\ntermed such, being determined from all eternity by a divine decree, or\nfixed by hopeless, irresistible necessity. These opinions it is said\nthat the venerable and enlightened bishop of Hippo zealously opposed,\nlabouring to show that they were not fairly deduced from what he had\ntaught, making a distinction probably between his account of free will\nand the necessity here confounded with it, and perhaps reluctant to push\nhis tenets so far as apparently they might be carried. The fact is, that\nalthough the doctrine of absolute predestination is occasionally clearly\ntaught by Augustine, and obviously follows from his other principles,\nyet he does not always write consistently with regard to it; or, at\nleast, there is sometimes so much vagueness in his assertions and\nillustrations, that his authority has been claimed in support of their\npeculiar tenets both by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, opposite to each\nother as the sentiments of these two orders are upon the subject of\nwhich we are treating. Still it is beyond a question that this\ncelebrated theologian did fix the attention of the church upon that\nsubject much more closely than before his age had been the case, and\ngave rise to those discussions in relation to it which have so often\nagitated Christians, and tended much more to destroy the mild and\ntolerant spirit of the Gospel, than to throw light upon its momentous\ntruths. The subject of predestination, however, was long regarded as one\nwhich it was not esteemed requisite absolutely to define, and which\nmight be very much left open to speculation; for although in different\ncountries decrees were passed, guarding against what were viewed as\nerrors resulting from it, it is plain, from what took place upon the\nrevival of the controversy in an after age, that there had not been\nformed any standard to which ecclesiastical authority required that all\nwho were esteemed orthodox should strictly conform. See AUGUSTINE.\n\nIn the ninth century, Godeschalchus, a man of illustrious birth, who\nhad, contrary to his inclinations, been devoted by his parents to a\nmonastic life, and who had, with unwearied diligence, studied the\nscience of theology, inflamed by an unhappy desire to unravel all the\ndifficulties with which that science abounds, occupied his mind with the\nconsideration of the question of predestination, and finally adopted,\nwith regard to it, the doctrine of Augustine. Not satisfied with having\nconvinced himself, he conceived it to be his duty to labour for the\nconviction of others; and he accordingly openly and zealously inculcated\nthat the elect were predestinated to life, and the rest of mankind to\neverlasting misery. Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, who had for some\nreason before this been inspired with enmity to Godeschalchus, having\nbeen informed of the tenets which he was publishing, and, as has too\noften been the case, veiling private antipathy under the cloak of\nanxiety for the purity of divine truth, opposed him with the utmost\nvehemence; and, having assembled a council in his own metropolitan city,\nprocured the condemnation of the views which he reprobated. The matter\nwas afterward taken up by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who was the\nzealous friend of Rabanus; and he also having procured the meeting of a\ncouncil, confirmed the sentence that had been already passed. Not\nsatisfied with this, he degraded Godeschalchus from the priesthood; and,\nwith an inhumanity infinitely more detestable than heresy, he put the\nunfortunate monk to the torture. The fortitude of Godeschalchus was for\na moment overpowered, and he consented to commit to the flames a\njustification of his opinions which he had presented to his execrable\ntormentors. It was not to be supposed that by atrocious violence like\nthis sincere conviction could be produced in the person against whom it\nwas directed, or that others would be disposed universally to submit to\nit. The controversy, accordingly, soon was renewed; writers on both\nsides of the question contended with the utmost warmth, and eagerly\ndisplayed the extent of their erudition. New councils were summoned, by\nwhich the decrees of former councils were reversed, and the tenets of\nGodeschalchus were confirmed; and the whole agitation terminated by\nleaving the subject in the same undefined state on the part of the\nchurch in which it had been before it was thus intemperately and cruelly\ndiscussed.\n\nTo the schoolmen, who delighted much more in losing themselves amidst\ninextricable difficulties and endless distinctions, than in opening the\nsources of knowledge and removing the difficulties with which these were\nsurrounded, this subject, from its intricate or inexplicable nature, was\nadmirably adapted; and they did not fail to exercise upon it their\ndiligence and their ingenuity. Thomas Aquinas, who flourished during the\nthirteenth century, was a man who in more enlightened times would have\nreally merited the high reputation which he enjoyed, and which procured\nfor him from his contemporaries the appellation of the Angelic Doctor.\nHe was capable of vast mental exertion, and, amidst all his avocations,\nproduced works so voluminous that in modern days even students would\nshrink from the perusal of them as an overwhelming task. He wrote\nlargely upon the nature of grace, and predestination, so intimately\nconnected with it. His opinions upon these subjects were nearly the same\nwith those of Augustine; and so much, indeed, was he conceived to\nresemble in genius and understanding that distinguished prelate, that it\nwas asserted the soul of Augustine had been sent into the body of\nAquinas. He taught that God had, from all eternity, and without any\nregard to their works, predestinated a certain number to life and\nhappiness; but he found great delight in endeavouring to reconcile this\nposition with the freedom of the human will. His celebrated antagonist,\nJohn Duns Scotus, an inhabitant of Britain, surnamed, from the acuteness\nand bent of his mind, the Subtile Doctor, also directed his attention,\nin the subsequent century, to the same thorny speculations, taking a\ndifferent view of them from Aquinas; and we find in the works of these\ntwo brilliant lights of the schoolmen all that the most learned in the\ndark ages thought upon them.\n\nIt is unnecessary to trace the various shades of opinion which existed\nin the church as to predestination from this era till the Reformation:\nit is enough to remark, that, after all which had been written upon it,\nit does not appear that any peculiar sentiments with respect to it were,\nby the reformers, judged essential to orthodoxy. It was more wisely\nconsidered that, upon a point involved in impenetrable difficulties, and\nraised far above human comprehension, men might be allowed to differ,\nwhile their attachment to the best interests of pure religion could not\nbe called in question. See CALVINISM and LUTHERANS.\n\nThe seventeenth article of the church of England is often adduced by\nCalvinists as favourable to their peculiar views of absolute\npredestination; but such a representation of it is rendered plausible\nonly by adding to its various clauses qualifying expressions to suit\nthat purpose. Under the articles _Church of England_, _Confessions_, and\n_Calvinism_, have been exhibited the just and liberal views of Cranmer\nand the principal English reformers on this subject,--the sources from\nwhich they drew the _articles of religion_ and the public formularies of\ndevotion,--and some of the futile attempts of the high predestinarians\nin the church to inoculate the public creed with their dogmas.\nCartwright and his followers, in their second Admonition to the\nParliament\u201d in 1572, complained that the articles speak dangerously of\nfalling from grace;\u201d and in 1587 they preferred a similar complaint. The\nlabours of the Westminster Assembly at a subsequent period, and their\nabortive result, in relation to this subject, are well known. Long\nbefore Arminius had turned his thoughts to the consideration of general\nredemption, a great number of the English clergy had publicly taught and\ndefended the same doctrine. It was about 1571 when Dr. Peter Baroe, a\nzealous Anti-Calvinian,\u201d as one of our church historians observes, was\nmade Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge; and\n\u201che went on teaching in his lectures, preaching in his sermons,\ndetermining in the schools, and printing in several books, divers points\ncontrary to Calvinism. And this he did for several years, without any\nmanner of disturbance or interruption. The heads of the university, in a\nletter to the Lord Burleigh, dated March 8, 1595, say, he had done it\nfor fourteen or fifteen years preceding and they might have said twenty;\nfor he printed some of his lectures in 1574, and the prosecution he was\nat last under, which will be considered hereafter, was not till 1595. In\n1584, Mr. Harsnet, afterward archbishop of York, preached against\nabsolute reprobation at St. Paul\u2019s Cross, the greatest audience then in\nthe kingdom; as did the judicious Mr. Hooker at the Temple in the year\nfollowing. In the year 1594, Mr. Barret preached at St. Mary\u2019s in\nCambridge against Calvinism, with very smart reflections upon Calvin\nhimself, Beza, Zanchy, and several others of the most noted writers in\nthat scheme. In the same year, Dr. Baroe preached at the same place to\nthe same purpose. By this time Calvinism had gained considerable ground,\nbeing much promoted by the learned Whitaker and Mr. Perkins; and several\nof the heads of the university being in that scheme, they complained of\nthe two sermons above mentioned to the Lord Burleigh their chancellor.\nTheir heads endeavoured to bring Barret to a retraction, to which\nwhether he ever submitted according to the form they drew up, may\nreasonably be doubted. At length the matter was laid before Archbishop\nWhitgift, who was offended at their proceedings, and writes to the Lord\nBurleigh, that some of the points which the heads had enjoined Barret to\nretract were such as the most learned Protestants, then living, varied\nin judgment upon; and that _the most ancient and best divines in the\nland were in the chiefest points in opinion against the heads and their\nresolutions_. Another letter he sent to the heads themselves, telling\nthem that they had enjoined Barret to affirm that which was contrary to\nthe doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in\nthe church of England, and in other churches likewise men of best\naccount; and that which for his own part he thought to be false and\ncontrary to the Scriptures; for the Scriptures are plain, that God by\nhis absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might be\nimpiety in believing the one, there could be none in believing the\nother; neither was it contrary to any article of religion established by\nauthority in this church of England, but rather agreeable thereto. This\ntestimony of the archbishop is very remarkable; and though he afterward\ncountenanced the Lambeth articles, that is of little or no weight in the\ncase. The question is not about any man\u2019s private opinion, but about the\ndoctrine of the church; and supposing the archbishop to be a Calvinist,\nas he seems to have been at least in some points, this only adds the\ngreater weight to his testimony, that our church has no where declared\nin favour of that scheme. The archbishop descended to the particulars\ncharged against Barret, asking the heads what article of the church was\ncontradicted by this or that notion of his; and Whitaker in his reply\ndoes not appeal to one of the articles, as against Barret, but forms his\nplea upon the doctrines which then generally obtained in pulpits. His\nwords are, \u2018We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth,\nif not against the articles, yet against the religion, of our church,\npublicly received, and always held in her majesty\u2019s reign, and\nmaintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.\u2019 And even this\npretence of his, weak as it would have been though true, is utterly\nfalse, directly contrary, not only to what has been already shown to be\nthe facts of the case, but also to what the archbishop affirmed, and\nthat too, as must be supposed, upon his own knowledge. As to Dr. Baroe,\nhe met with many friends, who espoused his cause. Mr. Strype\nparticularly mentions four, Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Harsnet, Dr.\nAndrews; all of them great and learned men, men of renown, and famous in\ntheir generation. How many more there were, nobody can tell. The heads\nin their letter to the Lord Burleigh do not pretend that the preaching\nagainst Calvinism gave a general offence, but that it offended many;\nwhich implies that there were many others on the opposite side; and they\nexpressly say there were divers in the Anti-Calvinian scheme, whom they\nrepresent as maintaining it with great boldness. But what put a stop to\nthis prosecution against Baroe was, a reprimand from their chancellor,\nthe Lord Burleigh, who wrote to the heads, that as good and as ancient\nwere of another judgment, and that they might punish him, but it would\nbe for well doing.\u201d\n\nBut Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, could not\nendure the farther prevalence of the doctrines of general redemption in\nthat university; he therefore, in 1595, drew up nine affirmations,\nelucidatory of his views of predestination, and obtained for them the\nsanction of several Calvinian heads of houses, with whom he repaired to\nArchbishop Whitgift. Having heard their _ex parte_ statement, his grace\nsummoned Bishops Flecher and Vaughan, and Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, to\nmeet Dr. Whitaker and the Cambridge deputation at his palace in Lambeth,\non the tenth of November, 1595; where, after much polishing and\naltering, they produced Whitaker\u2019s affirmation in the following form,\ncalled the Lambeth Articles,\u201d from the place in which their secret\nsittings had been held:--\u201c1. God from eternity hath predestinated\ncertain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or\nefficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of\nfaith or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in\nthe person predestinated; but it is only the good will and pleasure of\nGod. 3. A certain number of the predestinate is predetermined, which can\nneither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated\nto salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true,\nliving, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not\nextinguished, doth not fall off, or vanish away, in the elect, either\ntotally or finally. 6. A man who is a true believer, that is, one who is\nendued with a justifying faith, is assured with a plerophory, or firm\npersuasion, of faith concerning the remission of his sins, and his\neternal salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is neither given,\ncommunicated, nor granted to all men, by which they can be saved if they\nwill. 8. No one is able to come unto Christ unless it shall be given\nunto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not\ndrawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not\nplaced in the choice, will, or capacity of every one to be saved.\u201d Dr.\nWhitaker died a few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine\narticles to which he had procured the patronage of the primate. After\nhis demise, two competitors appeared for the vacant King\u2019s\nProfessorship, Dr. Wotton, of King\u2019s College, a professed Calvinian, and\nDr. Overal of Trinity College, almost as far,\u201d says Heylin, from the\nCalvinian doctrine in the main platform of predestination as Baroe,\nHarsnet, or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the vote of\nthe university, the place was carried for Overal by the major part;\nwhich plainly shows, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly\nstickled here by most of the heads, yet the greater part of the learned\nbody entertained them not.\u201d \u201cThe Lambeth articles,\u201d it is well observed,\nare no part of the doctrine of the church of England, having never had\nany the least sanction either from the parliament or the convocation.\nThey were drawn up by Professor Whitaker; and though they were afterward\napproved by Archbishop Whitgift, and six or eight of the inferior\nclergy, in a meeting they had at Lambeth, yet this meeting was only in a\nprivate manner, and without any authority from the queen; who was so far\nfrom approving of their proceedings, that she not only ordered the\narticles to be suppressed, but was resolutely bent for some time to\nbring the archbishop and his associates under a _premunire_, for\npresuming to make them without any warrant or legal authority.\u201d Such, in\nbrief, was the origin and such the fate of the Lambeth articles, without\nthe countenance of which the defenders of Calvinism in the church of\nEngland could find no semblance of support for their manifold\naffirmations on predestination and its kindred topics. These articles\nafford another instructive instance of the extreme ignorance of the real\nsentiments of their opponents, which often betrays itself in the conduct\nof many eminent men, when they rashly begin to fence off the reputed\nheterodoxy of their brethren from the sacred precincts of their own\northodoxy. Two of the ablest and most consistent Arminians of the old\nEnglish school, Baroe and Plaifere, have lucidly shown how every one of\nthese nine assertions may, without difficulty, be interpreted in\naccordance with their individual belief. Baroe\u2019s clever dissertation on\nthis subject will be found in Strype\u2019s Life of Whitgift;\u201d and that of\nPlaifere, in his own unanswerable _Apello Evangelium_.\u201d\n\nPRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is his existence before he was born of the\nVirgin Mary. That he really did exist, is plain from John iii, 13; vi,\n50, &c; viii, 58; xvii, 5, 24; 1 John i, 2; but there are various\nopinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the\northodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational\nsoul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His\nbody was formed in the virgin\u2019s womb; but his human soul, they suppose,\nwas the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought\ninto existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy\nunion in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his\nincarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the\nlatter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold\nhis true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who\nbelieve no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation: they differ\nfrom the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also\nfrom the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ\u2019s human soul\nbegan to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that\nlikeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii, 17. The\nwriters in favour of the pre\u00ebxistence of Christ\u2019s human soul recommend\ntheir opinion by these arguments: 1. Christ is represented as his\nFather\u2019s messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by\nhis Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem\nto be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ\nto the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man\nreally distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a\npeculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal\nunion. 2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several\npassages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he\nhad before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time\nnothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could\nnot properly have divested itself of any glory, John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor.\nviii, 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely\nself-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and\nglories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he\nwere never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It\nseems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of\nJesus Christ should pre\u00ebxist, that it might have an opportunity to give\nits previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of\nmaking atonement for our sins. On the other side, it is affirmed that\nthe doctrine of the pre\u00ebxistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and\nsubverts that of his divine personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit,\nthe first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures,\ncreated before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the\nsecond person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the\nleast difference except in name. 2. This pre\u00ebxistent intelligence,\nsupposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other\nintelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking\nthis human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to\nconsist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like\nthe rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make\nhim a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the pre\u00ebxistence of\nthe human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which\nothers allege in proof of the pre\u00ebxistence of all human souls. 5. This\nopinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this\nsublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the\nlast as passive as the first is active. 6. This notion is contrary to\nthe Scripture. St. Paul says, In all things it behoved him to be made\nlike unto his brethren,\u201d Heb. ii, 17: he partook of all our infirmities,\nexcept sin. St. Luke says, He increased in stature and wisdom,\u201d Luke ii,\n52. Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties\nwhich must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones.\nThis is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of\nresting in the plain interpretation of the word of God.\n\nPRESBYTERIANS are those that affirm there is no order in the church, as\nestablished by Christ and his Apostles, superior to that of presbyters;\nthat all ministers, being ambassadors, are equal by their commission;\nand that elder, or presbyter, and bishop, are the same in name and\noffice, and the terms synonymous. Their arguments against the\nEpiscopalians are as follows:--With respect to the successors of the\nApostles, they seem to have been placed on a footing of perfect\nequality, the \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, or deacons, not being included among the\nteachers. They were inferior officers, whose province it originally was\nto care for the poor, and to discharge those secular duties arising out\nof the formation of Christian communities, which could not be discharged\nby the ministers without interfering with the much higher duties which\nthey had to perform. These ministers are sometimes in the New Testament\nstyled \u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03d0\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or presbyters, at other times \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, or bishops;\nbut the two appellations were indiscriminately applied to all the\npastors who were the instructers of the different churches. Of this\nvarious examples may be given from the sacred writings. The Apostle\nPaul, upon a very affecting occasion, when he was convinced that he\ncould never again have an opportunity of addressing them, sent for the\nelders or presbyters of Ephesus, the persons to whom the ministry in\nthat church had been committed; and after mentioning all that he had\ndone, and intimating to them the sufferings which awaited him, he\naddressed to them what may be considered as his dying advice, and as\ncomprehending in it all that he judged it most essential for them to do.\nTake heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which\nthe Holy Ghost hath made you bishops or overseers, to feed the church of\nGod,\u201d Acts xx, 17, 28. Here they whose duty it was to feed the church of\nGod, as having been set apart through the Holy Spirit for that\ninteresting work, are termed by the Apostle presbyters and bishops, and\nthere is not the slightest allusion to the existence of any other\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, or bishop, superior to those \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, or bishops, to whom\nhe gives the moving charge now recorded. In his epistle to Titus, St.\nPaul thus writes: For this purpose I left thee in Crete,\u201d where, as yet,\nit is probable that no teachers had been appointed, that thou shouldest\nordain elders, or presbyters, in every city.\u201d He then points out the\nclass of men from which the presbyters were to be selected, adding, as\nthe reason of this, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of\nGod,\u201d Titus i, 5, 7. It is quite plain that the epithet bishop is here\napplicable to the same persons who were a little before styled elders,\nand both are declared to be the stewards of God, the guardians and\ninstructers of his church. The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle\naddressed to the Jewish converts, has these words: \u201cThe elders which are\namong you I exhort, who am also an elder, \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03d0\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and a\nwitness of the sufferings of Christ, feed the flock of God which is\namong you, taking the oversight of it, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, being bishops of\nit, not by constraint but willingly,\u201d 1 Peter v, 1, 2. This passage is a\nvery strong one. The Apostle speaks of himself in his extraordinary\ncapacity, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and in his ordinary\ncapacity as a teacher; showing, by the use of a very significant term,\nthat as to it he was on a footing of equality with the other pastors or\npresbyters. He gives it in charge to them to feed the flock of God; the\ncharge which, under most particular and affecting circumstances, he had\nreceived from the Lord after the resurrection, and which includes in it\nthe performance of every thing requisite for the comfort and the\nedification of Christians; and he accordingly expresses this by the word\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, being bishops over them. It cannot, with any shadow of\nreason, be supposed that the Apostle would exhort the elders or\npresbyters to take to themselves the office, and to perform the duties,\nof a bishop, if that term really marked out a distinct and higher order;\nor that he would have considered the presbyters as fitted for the\ndischarge of the whole ministerial office, if there were parts of that\noffice which he knew that it was not lawful for them to exercise.\n\nIt seems, by the passages that have been quoted, to be placed beyond a\ndoubt, that, in what the Apostles said respecting the ministers of\nChrist\u2019s religion, they taught that the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 and the \u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\nwere the same class of instructers; and that there were, in fact, only\ntwo orders pointed out by them, bishops or presbyters, and deacons. This\nbeing the case, even although it should appear that there were bishops,\nin the common sense of that term, recognized in the apostolic age, all\nthat could be deduced from the fact would be, that the equality at first\ninstituted among the teachers, had, for prudential reasons, or under\npeculiar circumstances, been interrupted; but it would not follow either\nthat the positive and general declarations on the subject by the\ninspired writers were not true, or that it was incumbent at all times,\nand upon all Christians, to disregard them. It has been strenuously\ncontended that there were such bishops in the infancy of the church, and\nthat allusion is made to them in Scripture; but without directly\nopposing the assertion, this much must be admitted, that the proof of it\nis less clear than that bishops and presbyters were represented as the\nsame in rank and in authority. Indeed, there does not appear to have\nbeen any occasion for this higher order. To presbyters was actually\ncommitted the most important charge of feeding the church of God, that\nis, of promoting the spiritual improvement of mankind; and it is\nremarkable that their privilege of separating from the people by\nordination the ministers of religion, is explicitly acknowledged in the\ncase of Timothy, whom the Apostle admonishes not to neglect the gift\nthat was in him, and which had been given by prophecy, and by the laying\non of the hands of the presbytery; by which can be meant only the laying\non of the hands of those who were denominated presbyters or bishops. But\nalthough all the parts of the ministerial duty had been intrusted to\npresbyters, it is still contended that the New Testament indicates the\nexistence of bishops as a higher order. There has, however, been much\ndiversity of opinion in relation to this point by those who contend for\nthe divine institution of episcopacy. Some of them maintain that the\nApostles, while they lived, were the bishops of the Christian church;\nbut this, and upon irrefragable grounds, is denied by others. Some urge\nthat Timothy and Titus were, in what they call the true sense of the\nterm, bishops; but many deny that, founding their denial upon these\nevangelists not having resided within the bounds, or been limited to the\nadministration of any one church, being sent wherever it was resolved to\nbring men to the knowledge of divine truth. Many conceive that the\nquestion is settled by the epistles in the book of Revelation being\naddressed to the angels of the respective churches named by the Apostle.\nBut it is far from being obvious what is implied under the appellation\nangel; there has been much dispute about this point, and it is certainly\na deviation from all the usual rules by which we are guided in\ninterpreting Scripture, to bring an obscure and doubtful passage in\nillustration of one, about the import of which, if we attend to the\nlanguage used, there can be no doubt. It may, therefore, be safely\naffirmed that there is nothing clear and specific in the writings of the\nNew Testament which qualifies the positive declarations that bishops and\npresbyters were the same officers; that the ground upon which the\ndistinction between them is placed, is, at least, far from obviously\nsupporting it; and that there is not the slightest intimation that the\nobservance of such a distinction is at all important, much less\nabsolutely essential to a true Christian church, insomuch that, where it\nis disregarded, the ordinances of divine appointment cannot be properly\ndispensed. If therefore it be established,--and some of the most learned\nand zealous advocates for the hierarchy which afterward arose have been\ncompelled to admit it,--that Scripture has not recognized any difference\nof rank or order between the ordinary teachers of the Gospel, all other\nmeans of maintaining this difference should be with Protestants of no\nforce. It may be shown that the admission of the distinction is not\nincompatible with the great ends for which a ministry was appointed, and\neven in particular cases may tend to promote them; but still it is\nmerely a matter of human regulation, not binding upon Christians, and\nnot in any way connected with the vital influence of the Gospel\ndispensation. The whole of the writers of antiquity may be urged in\nsupport of it, if that could be done; and, after all, every private\nChristian would be entitled to judge for himself, and to be directed by\nhis own judgment, unless it be maintained that where Scripture has\naffirmed the existence of equality, this is to be counteracted and set\nat nought by the testimonies and assertions of a set of writers, who,\nalthough honoured with the name of fathers, are very far, indeed, from\nbeing infallible, and who have, in fact, often delivered sentiments\nwhich even they who, upon a particular emergency, cling to them, must\nconfess to be directly at variance with all that is sound in reason, or\nvenerable and sublime in religion. It also follows, from the Scriptural\nidentity of bishops and presbyters, that no church in which this\nidentity is preserved, can on that account be considered as having\ndeparted from the apostolic model, or its ministers be viewed, at least\nwith any good reason, as having less ground to hope for the blessing of\nGod upon their spiritual labours; because if we admit the contrary, we\nmust also admit that the inspired writers, instead of properly\nregulating the church, betrayed it into error, by omitting to make a\ndistinction closely allied with the essence of religion. What is this\nbut to say that it is safer to follow the erring direction of frail\nmortals, than to follow the admonitions of those who, it is universally\nallowed, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or commissioned by him to be\nthe instructers of the world?\n\nIt is to be observed, however, that although bishops and presbyters were\nthe same when the epistles of the New Testament were written, it would\nbe going too far to contend that no departure from this should ever take\nplace; because, to justify such a position, it would be requisite that a\npositive injunction should have been given that equality must at all\ntimes be carefully preserved. There is, however, no such injunction.\nUnlike the Old Testament, which specified every thing, even the most\nminute, in relation to the priesthood, the New only alludes in general\nterms, and very seldom, to the ministry; and the reason probably is,\nthat, being intended for all nations, it left Christians at liberty to\nmake such modifications in the ecclesiastical constitution as in their\npeculiar situation appeared best adapted for religious edification. The\nsimple test to be applied to the varying or varied forms of church\ngovernment is that indicated by our Lord himself: By their fruits ye\nshall know them.\u201d Wherever the regulations respecting the ministry are\nsuch as to divert it from the purposes for which it was destined, to\nseparate those who form it from the flock of Christ, to relax their\ndiligence in teaching, and to destroy the connection between them and\ntheir people, so as to render their exertions of little or of no use,\nthere we find a church not apostolical. But wherever the blessed fruits\nof Gospel teaching are in abundance produced, where the people and the\nministers are cordially united, and where every regulation is calculated\nto give efficacy to the labours of those who have entered into the\nvineyard, we have an apostolical church, or, to speak more properly, a\nchurch of Christ, built upon a rock, because devoted to the beneficent\nobjects for which our Saviour came into the world.\n\nThe form of church government among the Scotch Presbyterians is as\nfollows:--The kirk session, consisting of the minister and lay elders of\nthe congregation, is the lowest ecclesiastical judicature. The next is\nthe presbytery, which consists of all the pastors within a certain\ndistrict, and one ruling elder from each parish. The provincial synods,\nof which there are fifteen, meet twice in the year, and are composed of\nthe members of the several presbyteries within the respective provinces.\nFrom the kirk sessions appeal lies to the presbyteries, from these to\nthe synods, and from them to the general assembly, which meets annually,\nand is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the kingdom. This is\ncomposed of delegates from each presbytery, from every royal borough,\nand from each of the Scotch universities; and the king presides by a\ncommission of his own appointment. The Scotch ordain by the laying on of\nthe hands of the presbytery,\u201d before which persons may be licensed to\npreach as probationers, but cannot administer the sacraments. The clergy\nare maintained by the state, and nominated to livings by patrons, as in\nother establishments. Those properly called the English Presbyterians,\nhave no connection with the Scotch kirk. They are now indeed broken into\nseparate churches, and follow the same form of church government as the\nCongregationalists or Independents. The name Presbyterian, therefore, is\nnow inapplicable to them although retained. So Dr. Doddridge: Those who\nhold every pastor to be so a bishop or overseer of his own congregation,\nas that no other person or body of men have, by divine institution, a\npower to exercise any superior or pastoral office in it, may, properly\nspeaking, be called, so far at least, congregational; and it is by a\nvulgar mistake that any such are called Presbyterians.\u201d See\nEPISCOPALIANS.\n\nPRESCIENCE, or foreknowledge, an attribute of God. (See _Omniscience_.)\nOn this subject three leading theories have been resorted to, in order\nto evade the difficulties which are supposed to be involved in the\nopinion commonly received. The Chevalier Ramsay, among his other\nspeculations, holds it a matter of choice in God, to think of finite\nideas; and similar opinions, though variously worded, have been\noccasionally adopted. In substance these opinions are, that though the\nknowledge of God be infinite as his power is infinite, there is no more\nreason to conclude, that his knowledge should be always exerted to the\nfull extent of its capacity, than that his power should be employed to\nthe extent of his omnipotence; and that if we suppose him to _choose_\nnot to know some contingencies, the infiniteness of his knowledge is not\nthereby impugned. To this it may be answered, that the infinite power of\nGod is in Scripture represented, as in the nature of things it must be,\nas an infinite capacity, and not as infinite in act; but that the\nknowledge of God is on the contrary never represented there to us as a\ncapacity to acquire knowledge, but as actually comprehending all things\nthat are, and all things that can be. 2. That the notion of God\u2019s\nchoosing to know some things, and not to know others, supposes a reason\nwhy he refuses to know any class of things or events; which reason, it\nwould seem, can only arise out of their nature and circumstances, and\ntherefore supposes at least a partial knowledge of them, from which the\nreason for his not choosing to know them arises. The doctrine is\ntherefore somewhat contradictory. But, 3. It is fatal to this opinion\nthat it does not at all meet the difficulty arising out of the question\nof the consistency of divine prescience, and the free actions of men;\nsince some contingent actions, for which men have been made accountable,\nwe are sure, have been foreknown by God, because by his Spirit in the\nprophets they were foretold; and if the freedom of man can in these\ncases be reconciled to the prescience of God, there is no greater\ndifficulty in any other case which can possibly occur.\n\nA second theory is, that the foreknowledge of contingent events, being\nin its own nature impossible, because it implies a contradiction, it\ndoes no dishonour to the divine Being to affirm, that of such events he\nhas, and can have, no prescience whatever; and thus the prescience of\nGod, as to moral actions, being wholly denied, the difficulty in\nquestion is got rid of. To this the same answer must be given as to the\nformer. It does not meet the case, so long as the Scriptures are allowed\nto contain prophecies of rewardable and punishable actions. The great\nfallacy in the argument, that the certain prescience of a moral action\ndestroys its contingent nature, lies in supposing that contingency and\ncertainty are the opposites of each other. It is, perhaps, unfortunate,\nthat a word which is of figurative etymology, and which consequently can\nonly have an ideal application to such subjects, should have grown into\ncommon use in this discussion, because it is more liable, on that\naccount, to present itself to different minds under different shades of\nmeaning. If, however, the term _contingent_ in this controversy has any\ndefinite meaning at all, as applied to the moral actions of men, it must\nmean their freedom, and stands opposed, not to certainty, but to\nnecessity. A free action is a voluntary one; and an action which results\nfrom the choice of the agent, is distinguished from a necessary one in\nthis, that it might not have been, or have been otherwise, according to\nthe self-determining power of the agent. It is with reference to this\nspecific quality of a free action, that the term contingency is used; it\nmight have been otherwise, in other words, it was not necessitated.\nContingency in moral actions is, therefore, their freedom, and is\nopposed, not to certainty, but to constraint. The very nature of this\ncontroversy fixes this as the precise meaning of the term. The question\nis not, in point of fact, about the certainty of moral actions, that is,\nwhether they _will_ happen or not; but about the nature of them, whether\nfree or constrained, whether they _must_ happen or not. Those who\nadvocate this theory care not about the certainty of actions, simply\nconsidered, that is, whether they will take place or not; the reason why\nthey object to a certain prescience of moral actions, is this,--they\nconclude, that such a prescience renders them necessary. It is the\nquality of the action for which they contend, not whether it will happen\nor not. If contingency meant _uncertainty_, the sense in which such\ntheorists take it, the dispute would be at an end. But though an\nuncertain action cannot be foreseen as certain, a free, unnecessitated\naction may; for there is nothing in the knowledge of the action, in the\nleast, to affect its nature. Simple knowledge is, in no sense, a cause\nof action, nor can it be conceived to be causal, unconnected with\nexerted power: for mere knowledge, therefore, an action remains free or\nnecessitated as the case may be. A necessitated action is not made a\nvoluntary one by its being foreknown; a free action is not made a\nnecessary one. Free actions foreknown will not, therefore, cease to be\ncontingent. But how stands the case as to their certainty? Precisely on\nthe same ground. The certainty of a necessary action foreknown, does not\nresult from the knowledge of the action, but from the operation of the\nnecessitating cause; and, in like manner, the certainty of a free action\ndoes not result from the knowledge of it, which is no cause at all, but\nfrom the voluntary cause, that is, the determination of the will. It\nalters not the case in the least, to say that the voluntary action might\nhave been otherwise. Had it been otherwise, the knowledge of it would\nhave been otherwise; but as the will which gives birth to the action, is\nnot dependent upon the previous knowledge of God, but the knowledge of\nthe action upon foresight of the choice of the will, neither the will\nnor the act is controlled by the knowledge; and the action, though\nforeseen, is still free or contingent. The foreknowledge of God has then\nno influence upon either the freedom or the certainty of actions, for\nthis plain reason, that it is knowledge, and not influence; and actions\nmay be certainly foreknown, without their being rendered necessary by\nthat foreknowledge. But here it is said, If the result of an absolute\ncontingency be certainly foreknown, it _can_ have no other result, it\n_cannot_ happen otherwise.\u201d This is not the true inference. It _will_\nnot happen otherwise; but it may be asked, Why _can_ it not happen\notherwise? _Can_ is an expression of potentiality, it denotes power or\npossibility. The objection is, that it is not possible that the action\nshould otherwise happen. But why not? What deprives it of that power? If\na necessary action were in question, it could not otherwise happen than\nas the necessitating cause shall compel; but then that would arise from\nthe necessitating cause solely, and not from the prescience of the\naction which is not causal. But if the action be free, and it enter into\nthe very nature of a voluntary action to be unconstrained, then it might\nhave happened in a thousand other ways, or not have happened at all; the\nforeknowledge of it no more affects its nature in this case than in the\nother. All its potentiality, so to speak, still remains, independent of\nforeknowledge, which neither adds to its power of happening otherwise,\nnor diminishes it. But then we are told, that the prescience of it, in\nthat case, must be uncertain.\u201d Not unless any person can prove, that the\ndivine prescience is unable to dart through all the workings of the\nhuman mind, all its comparison of things in the judgment, all the\ninfluences of motives on the affections, all the hesitances and haltings\nof the will, to its final choice. Such knowledge is too wonderful for\nus,\u201d but it is the knowledge of Him who understandeth the thoughts of\nman afar off.\u201d \u201cBut if a contingency _will_ have a given result, to that\nresult it _must_ be determined.\u201d Not in the least. We have seen that it\ncannot be determined to a given result by mere precognition; for we have\nevidence in our own minds that mere knowledge is not causal to the\nactions of another. It is determined to its result by the will of the\nagent; but even in that case, it cannot be said, that it _must_ be\ndetermined to that result, because it is of the nature of freedom to be\nunconstrained: so that here we have an instance in the case of a free\nagent that he _will_ act in some particular manner; but it by no means\nfollows from what _will_ be, whether foreseen or not, that it _must_ be.\n\nThe third theory amounts, in brief, to this, that the foreknowledge of\nGod must be supposed to differ so much from any thing of the kind which\nwe perceive in ourselves, and from any ideas which we can possibly form\nof that property of the divine nature, that no argument respecting it\ncan be grounded upon our imperfect notions; and that all controversy on\nsubjects connected with it, is idle and fruitless. But though\nforeknowledge in God should be admitted to be something of a very\ndifferent nature\u201d to the same quality in man, yet as it is represented\nas _something_ equivalent to foreknowledge, whatever that something may\nbe, since in consequence of it, prophecies have actually been uttered\nand fulfilled, and of such a kind, too, as relate to actions for which\nmen have in fact been held accountable; all the original difficulty of\nreconciling contingent events to this something, of which human\nforeknowledge is a kind of shadow,\u201d as a map of China is to China\nitself,\u201d remains in full force. The difficulty is shifted, but not\nremoved. It may, therefore, be certainly concluded, if at least the Holy\nScriptures are to be our guide, that the omniscience of God comprehends\nhis certain prescience of all events however contingent; and if any\nthing more were necessary to strengthen the argument above given, it\nmight be drawn from the irrational, and, above all, the unscriptural\nconsequences, which would follow from the denial of this doctrine. These\nare forcibly stated by President Edwards:--\u201cIt would follow from this\nnotion, (namely, that the Almighty doth not foreknow what will be the\nresult of future contingencies,) that as God is liable to be continually\nrepenting what he has done; so he must be exposed to be constantly\nchanging his mind and intentions as to his future conduct; altering his\nmeasures, relinquishing his old designs, and forming new schemes and\nprojections. For his purposes, even as to the main parts of his scheme,\nnamely, such as belong to the state of his moral kingdom, must be always\nliable to be broken, through want of foresight; and he must be\ncontinually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order,\nthrough the contingence of the actions of moral agents: he must be a\nBeing who, instead of being absolutely immutable, must necessarily be\nthe subject of infinitely the most numerous acts of repentance, and\nchanges of intention, of any being whatsoever; for this plain reason,\nthat his vastly extensive charge comprehends an infinitely greater\nnumber of those things which are to him contingent and uncertain. In\nsuch a situation he must have little else to do, but to mend broken\nlinks as well as he can, and be rectifying his disjointed frame and\ndisordered movements, in the best manner the case will allow. The\nsupreme Lord of all things must needs be under great and miserable\ndisadvantages, in governing the world which he has made, and has the\ncare of, through his being utterly unable to find out things of chief\nimportance, which hereafter shall befall his system; which, if he did\nbut know, he might make seasonable provision for. In many cases, there\nmay be very great necessity that he should make provision, in the manner\nof his ordering and disposing things, for some great events which are to\nhappen, of vast and extensive influence, and endless consequence to the\nuniverse; which he may see afterward, when it is too late, and may wish\nin vain that he had known beforehand, that he might have ordered his\naffairs accordingly. And it is in the power of man, on these principles,\nby his devices, purposes, and actions, thus to disappoint God, break his\nmeasures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to\nvexation, and bring him into confusion.\u201d\n\nSocinus and his early followers would not allow that God possesses any\nknowledge of future contingencies. The schoolmen, in reference to this\nspecies of knowledge in God, invented that called _scientia media_, and\nwhich they define as that by which God knows _sub conditione_, what men\nor angels will do according to the liberty which they have, when they\nare placed in these or those circumstances, or in this or in that order\nof things.\u201d When Gomarus, the opponent of Arminius, found that his\nopinion concerning the object of reprobation was clogged with this\nabsurdity--that it made God to be the author of Adam\u2019s sin, he very\nastutely took refuge in this conditionate foreknowledge, and, in his\ncorrected theses on predestination, published after the death of\nArminius, he describes it as that by which God, through the infinite\nlight of his own knowledge, foreknows some future things, not\nabsolutely, but as placed under a certain condition.\u201d Wal\u00e6us, the\ncelebrated antagonist of Episcopius, had recourse to the same expedient.\nThis distinction has been adopted by very few of those who espouse the\ndoctrines of general redemption; and who believe that every event, how\ncontingent soever to the creature, is, with respect to God, certainly\nforeknown. An old English divine thinks, that, \u201cin the sacred Scriptures\ncertain not obscure vestiges are apparent of this kind of knowledge, of\nthings that will happen thus or otherwise, on the supposition of the\noccurrence of this or that circumstance. Omitting the well known example\nof David in Keilah, 1 Sam. xxii, 12, and of Chorazin and Bethsaida,\nMatt. xi, 21; Luke x, 13, consult, among other sayings of the same\ndescription, the answer of our Saviour to the chief priests and scribes,\nwho had asked, \u2018Art thou the Christ? Tell us.\u2019 And he said unto them,\n\u2018If I tell you, ye will not believe.\u2019 In the subsequent verse he adds,\n\u2018If I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go,\u2019 Luke xxii,\n67, 68. You have here three events specified, which yet will not occur\neven on the supposition of Christ our Lord himself.\u201d This kind of\nknowledge might very well be included in that of _scientia visionis_,\nbecause the latter ought to include, not what God will do and what his\ncreatures will do under his appointment, but what they will do by his\npermission as free agents, and what he will do, as a consequence of\nthis, in his character of Governor and Lord. But since the\npredestinarians had confounded _scientia visionis_ with a predestinating\ndecree, the _scientia media_ well expressed what they had left quite\nunaccounted for, and which they had assumed did not really exist,--the\nactions of creatures endowed with free will, and the acts of Deity which\nfrom eternity were consequent upon them. If such actions do not take\nplace, then men are not free; and if the rectoral acts of God are not\nconsequent upon the actions of the creature in the order of the divine\nintention, and the conduct of the creature is consequent upon the\nforeordained rectoral acts of God, then we reach a necessitating eternal\ndecree, which in fact, the predestinarian contends for; but it\nunfortunately brings after it consequences which no subtleties have ever\nbeen able to shake off,--that the only _actor_ in the universe is God\nhimself; and that the only distinction among events is, that one class\nis brought to pass by God directly, and the other indirectly, not by the\nagency, but by the mere instrumentality, of his creatures.\n\nPRIEST, a general name for the minister of religion. The priest under\nthe law was, among the Hebrews, a person consecrated and ordained of God\nto offer up sacrifices for his own sins and those of the people, Lev.\niv, 5, 6. The priesthood was not annexed to a certain family till after\nthe promulgation of the law of Moses. Before that time the first-born of\nevery family, the fathers, the princes, the kings were priests. Cain and\nAbel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Abimelech and Laban, Isaac and Jacob, offered\nthemselves their own sacrifices. In the solemnity of the covenant that\nthe Lord made with his people at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses\nperformed the office of mediator, Exod. xxiv, 5, 6; and young men were\nchosen from among the children of Israel to perform the office of\npriests. But after the Lord had chosen the tribe of Levi to serve him in\nhis tabernacle, and the priesthood was annexed to the family of Aaron,\nthen the right of offering sacrifices to God was reserved to the priests\nalone of this family. The Lord ordained, Num. xvi, 40, that no stranger,\nwhich was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense\nunto the Lord, that he might not be as Korah and his company. The\npunishment of Uzziah is well known, 2 Chron. xxvi, 19, who, having\npresumed to offer incense to the Lord, was suddenly smitten with a\nleprosy, put out of his palace, and excluded from the administration of\naffairs to the day of his death. However, it seems that, on certain\noccasions, the judges and the kings of the Hebrews offered sacrifices\nunto the Lord, especially before a constant place of worship was fixed\nat Jerusalem; for in 1 Sam. vii, 8, we are told that Samuel, who was no\npriest, offered a lamb for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord; and in 1 Sam.\nix, 13, it is said that this prophet was to bless the offering of the\npeople, which should seem to be a function appropriated to the priests;\nlastly, 1 Sam. xvi, 5, he goes to Bethlehem, where he offers a sacrifice\nat the inauguration or anointing of David. Saul himself offered a\nburnt-offering to the Lord, perhaps as being king of Israel, 1 Sam.\nxiii, 9, 10. Elijah also offered a burnt-offering upon Mount Carmel, 1\nKings xviii, 33. David himself sacrificed, (at least the text expresses\nit so,) at the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and at the\nfloor of Araunah, 2 Sam. vi, 13. Solomon went up to the brazen altar\nthat was at Gibeon, and there offered sacrifices, 2 Chron. i, 5. It is\ntrue the above passages are commonly explained by supposing that these\nprinces offered their sacrifices by the hands of the priests; but the\nsacred text will by no means favour such explanations; and it is very\nnatural to imagine, that in the quality of kings and heads of the\npeople, they had the privilege of performing some sacerdotal functions,\nupon some extraordinary occasions; thus we see David clothed with the\npriestly ephod, and consulting the Lord; and upon another occasion we\nfind David and Solomon pronounce solemn benedictions on the people, 2\nSam. vi, 18; 1 Kings viii, 55. God having reserved to himself the\nfirst-born of all Israel, because he had preserved them from the hand of\nthe destroying angel in Egypt, by way of exchange or compensation\naccepted of the tribe of Levi for the service of the tabernacle, Numbers\niii, 41. Of the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the\nLord chose the family of Kohath, and out of this the house of Aaron, to\nexercise the functions of the priesthood. All the rest of the family of\nKohath, even the children of Moses and their descendants, remained of\nthe order of mere Levites. See LEVITES.\n\nThe posterity of the sons of Aaron, namely, Eleazar and Ithamar, Lev. x,\n1\u20135; 1 Chron. xxiv, 1, 2, had so increased in number in the time of\nDavid, that they were divided into twenty-four classes, which officiated\na week at a time alternately. Sixteen classes were of the family of\nEleazar, and eight of the family of Ithamar. Each class obeyed its own\nprefect or ruler. The class _Jojarib_ was the first in order, and the\nclass _Abia_ was the eighth, 1 Mac. ii, 1; Luke i, 5; 1 Chron. xxiv,\n3\u201319. This division of the priesthood was continued as a permanent\narrangement after the time of David, 2 Chron. viii, 14; xxxi, 2; xxxv,\n4, 5. Indeed, although only four classes returned from the captivity,\nthe distinction between them, and also the ancient names, were still\nretained, Ezra ii, 36\u201339; Neh. vii, 39\u201342; xii, 1.\n\nAaron, the high priest was set apart to his office by the same\nceremonies with which his sons the priests were, with this exception,\nthat the former was clothed in his robes, and the sacred oil was poured\nupon his head, Exod. xxix, 5\u20139; Lev. viii, 2. The other ceremonies were\nas follows. The priests, all of them with their bodies washed, and clad\nin their appropriate dress, assembled before the altar, where a bullock,\ntwo rams, unleavened bread, and wafers of two kinds in baskets, were in\nreadiness. When they had placed their hands upon the head of the\nbullock, he was slain by Moses as a sin-offering. He touched the horns\nof the altar with the blood, poured the remainder of it round its base,\nand placed the parts which were to compose the sacrifice on its top. The\nremaining parts of the animal were all burned without the camp, Exod.\nxxix, 10\u201314; Lev. viii, 2, 3, 14\u201317. They in like manner placed their\nhands on the head of one of the rams, which was also slain by Moses for\na whole burnt-offering, the blood was sprinkled around the altar, and\nthe parts of the ram were separated and burned upon it, Exod. xxix,\n15\u201318; Lev. viii, 18\u201321. The other ram, when the priests had laid their\nhands upon him, was likewise slain by Moses for the sacrifice of\nconsecration. He touched with the blood the tip of the right ear of the\npriests, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right\nfoot. The rest of the blood he sprinkled in part upon the bottom of the\naltar, and a part he mingled with the consecrated oil, and sprinkled on\nthe priests and their garments. He anointed the high priest by pouring a\nprofusion of oil upon his head; whence he is called the anointed, Lev.\nv, 3, 5, 16; vi, 15; Psalm cxxxiii, 2. Certain parts of the sacrifice,\nnamely, the fat, the kidneys, the haunches, the caul above the liver,\nand the right shoulder, also one cake of unleavened bread, a cake of\noiled bread, and a wafer, were placed by Moses upon the hands of the\npriests, that they might offer them to God. This ceremony was called\n\u201cfilling the hands,\u201d expressions which accordingly in a number of\npassages mean the same as consecrating, Exod. xxxii, 29; Leviticus xvi,\n32; 1 Chronicles xxix, 5. All the parts which have been mentioned as\nbeing placed in the hands of the priests, were at last burned upon the\naltar. This ceremony, which continued for eight days, for ever separated\nthe priests from all the other Israelites, not excepting the Levites; so\nthat there was subsequently no need of any farther consecration, neither\nfor themselves nor their posterity, Exodus xxix, 35\u201337; Lev. x, 7; Rom.\ni, 1; Eph. iii, 3; Acts xiii, 2, 3. That the ceremonies of inauguration\nor consecration, however, were practised at every new accession of a\nhigh priest to his office, seems to be hinted in the following passages,\nExod. xxix, 29; Lev. xvi, 32; xxi, 10; Num. xx, 26\u201328; xxxv, 25.\n\nIt was not customary for the priests to wear the sacerdotal dress except\nwhen performing their official duties, Exod. xxviii, 4, 43; Ezek. xlii,\n14; xliv, 19. The description of the dress of the priests which is given\nin Exodus xxviii, is by some thought defective, as many things are\npassed in silence, apparently for the reason that they were at that time\nsufficiently well known, without being expressly stated. Some additional\ninformation is communicated to us by Josephus; but the dress of the\npriests, as he describes it, may have been in some respects of recent\norigin. It was as follows: 1. A sort of hose, made of cotton or linen,\nwhich was fastened round the loins, and extended down so as to cover the\nthighs, Lev. vi, 10; Ezek. xliv, 18. 2. A tunic of cotton which\nextended, in the days of Josephus, down to the ankles. It was furnished\nwith sleeves, and was fabricated all of one piece without being sewn,\nExod. xxviii, 39, 41; xxix, 5; John xix, 23. 3. The girdle. According to\nJosephus it was a hand\u2019s breadth in width, woven in such a manner as to\nexhibit the appearance of scales, and ornamented with embroidered\nflowers in purple, dark blue, scarlet, and white. It was worn a little\nbelow the breast, encircled the body twice, and was tied in a knot\nbefore. The extremities of the girdle hung down nearly to the ankle. The\npriest, when engaged in his sacred functions, in order to prevent his\nbeing impeded by them, threw them over his left shoulder, Exod. xxxix,\n27\u201329. 4. The mitre or turban was originally acuminated in its shape,\nwas lofty, and was bound upon the head, Exod. xxviii, 8, 40; xxix, 9;\nLev. viii, 13. In the time of Josephus the shape of the mitre had become\nsomewhat altered; it was circular, was covered with a piece of fine\nlinen, and sat so closely on the upper part of the head, (for it did not\ncover the whole of the head,) that it would not fall off when the body\nwas bent down. The Hebrew priests, like those of Egypt and other\nnations, performed their sacred duties with naked feet; a symbol of\nreverence and veneration, Exod. iii, 5; Josh. v, 15.\n\nThe ordinary priests served immediately at the altar, offered\nsacrifices, killed and flayed them, and poured the blood at the foot of\nthe altar, 2 Chron. xxix, 34; xxxv, 11. They kept a perpetual fire\nburning upon the altar of burnt-sacrifices, and in the lamps of the\ngolden candlestick that was in the sanctuary; they prepared the loaves\nof shew bread, baked them, and changed them every Sabbath day. Every\nday, night, and morning, a priest appointed by casting lots at the\nbeginning of the week, brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer, and\nset it upon the golden table, otherwise called the altar of perfumes,\nLuke i, 9. The priests were not suffered to offer incense to the Lord\nwith strange fire, Lev. x, 1, 2; that is, with any other fire than what\nshould be taken from the altar of burnt-sacrifices. It is well known\nwith what severity God chastised Nadab and Abihu for having failed in\nthis. Those that would dedicate themselves to perpetual service in the\ntemple were well received, and were maintained by the constant and daily\nofferings, Deut. xviii, 6\u20138. The Lord had given no lands of inheritance\nto the tribe of Levi in the distribution of the land of promise. He\ndesigned that they should be supported by the tithes, the first fruits,\nthe offerings that were made in the temple, by their share of the\nsin-offerings, and thanksgiving-offerings that were sacrificed in the\ntemple, of which certain parts were appropriated to the priests. They\nhad also a share in the wool when the sheep were shorn. All the\nfirst-born, both of man and beast, belonged to the Lord, that is, to his\npriests. The men were redeemed for the sum of five shekels, Num. xviii,\n15, 16. The first-born of impure animals were redeemed or exchanged, but\nthe clean animals were not redeemed; they were sacrificed to the Lord,\ntheir blood was sprinkled about the altar, and all the rest belonged to\nthe priest, Num. xviii, 17\u201319. The first fruits of trees, Lev. xix, 23,\n24, that is, those that came on the fourth year, belonged also to the\npriest. They gave also to the priests and Levites an allowance out of\nthe dough that they kneaded. They had the tithe of all the fruits of the\nland, and of all animals which were fed under the shepherd\u2019s crook, Lev.\nxxvii, 31, 32. God also provided them with houses and accommodations, by\nappointing them forty-eight cities for their habitations, Num. xxxv,\n1\u20133. In the precincts of these cities they possessed as far as a\nthousand cubits beyond the walls. Of these forty-eight cities six were\nappointed to be cities of refuge, for the sake of those who should\ncommit any casual or involuntary manslaughter; the priests had thirteen\nof these for their share, and all the others belonged to the Levites,\nJosh. xxi, 19. One of the chief employments of the priests, next to\nattending upon the sacrifices and the service of the tabernacle or\ntemple, was the instruction of the people and the deciding\ncontroversies, distinguishing the several sorts of leprosy, the causes\nof divorce, the waters of jealousy, vows, all causes relating to the\nlaw, the uncleannesses that were contracted several ways; all these\nthings were brought before the priests, Hosea iv, 6; Mal. ii, 7, &c;\nLev. xiii, 14; Num. v, 14, 15. They publicly blessed the people in the\nname of the Lord. In time of war their business was to carry the ark of\nthe covenant, to consult the Lord, to sound the holy trumpets, and\nencourage and harangue the army.\n\nThe term priest is most properly given to Christ, of whom the high\npriests under the law were types and figures, he being the high priest\nespecially ordained of God, who, by the sacrifice of himself, and by his\nintercession, opens the way to reconciliation with God, Heb. viii, 17;\nix, 11\u201325. The word is also applied to every true believer who is\nenabled to offer up himself \u201ca spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God\nthrough Christ,\u201d 1 Pet. ii, 5; Rev. i, 6. But it is likewise improperly\napplied to Christian ministers, who have no sacrifices to offer; unless,\nindeed, when it is considered as contracted from _presbyter_, which\nsignifies an elder, and is the name given in the New Testament to those\nwho were appointed to the office of teaching and ruling in the church of\nGod. See AARON.\n\nPRISCILLA, a Christian woman, well known in the Acts, and in St. Paul\u2019s\nepistles; sometimes placed before her husband Aquila. From Ephesus this\npious pair went to Rome, where they were when St. Paul wrote his epistle\nto the Romans, A. D. 58. He salutes them the first of all, with great\ncommendations, Rom. xvi, 3. They returned into Asia some time afterward;\nand St. Paul, writing to Timothy, desires him to salute them on his\nbehalf, 2 Tim. iv, 19, A. D. 65.\n\nPROFANE, an epithet applied to those who abuse and contemn holy things.\nThe Scripture calls Esau profane, because he sold his birthright, which\nwas considered a holy thing, not only because the priesthood was annexed\nto it, but also because it was a privilege relating to Christ, and a\ntype of the title of believers to the heavenly inheritance, Heb. xii,\n16. The priests of the race of Aaron were enjoined to distinguish\nbetween sacred and profane, between pure and polluted, Lev. x, 10; xix,\n7, 8. Hence they were prohibited the use of wine during their attendance\non the temple service, that their spirits might not be discomposed by\nexcitement. To profane the temple, to profane the Sabbath, to profane\nthe altar, are common expressions to denote the violation of the rest of\nthe Sabbath, the entering of foreigners into the temple, or the want of\nreverence in those that entered it, and the impious sacrifices that were\noffered on the altar of the Lord.\n\nPROMISE, an assurance given by God, in his word, of bestowing blessings\nupon his people, 2 Pet. i, 4. The word in the New Testament is usually\ntaken for the promises that God heretofore made to Abraham, and the\nother patriarchs, of sending the Messiah, and conferring his Holy Spirit\nand eternal life on those that should believe on him. It is in this\nsense that the Apostle Paul commonly uses the word promise, Rom. iv, 13,\n14; Gal. iii, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29. The promises of the new covenant\nare called better than those of the old, Heb. viii, 6, because they are\nmore spiritual, clear, comprehensive, and universal than those of the\nMosaic covenant. The time of the promise, Acts vii, 17, is the time of\nfulfilling the promise. The \u201cchildren of the promise\u201d are, 1. The\nIsraelites descended from Isaac, in opposition to the Ishmaelites\ndescended from Ishmael and Hagar. 2. The Jews converted to Christianity,\nin opposition to the obstinate Jews, who would not believe in Christ. 3.\nAll true believers who are born again by the supernatural power of God,\nand who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ.\n\nPROPHECY, the prediction of future events; it is especially understood\nof those predictions which are contained in the Holy Scriptures; all of\nwhich claim divine inspiration, and by their wonderful fulfilment are\nproved to have proceeded from God, who only with certainty can know the\nfuture. Prophecy is one great branch of the external evidence of the\ntruth of the Scriptures; and the nature and force of this kind of\nevidence may here be properly pointed out. No argument _\u00e0 priori_\nagainst the possibility of prophecy can be attempted by any one who\nbelieves in the existence and infinitely perfect nature of God. The\ninfidel author of \u201cThe Moral Philosopher,\u201d indeed, rather insinuates\nthan attempts fully to establish a dilemma with which to perplex those\nwho regard prophecy as one of the proofs of a divine revelation. He\nthinks that either prophecy must respect events necessary, as depending\nupon necessary causes, which might be certainly foreknown and predicted;\nor that, if human actions are free, and effects contingent, the\npossibility of prophecy must be given up, as it implies foreknowledge,\nwhich, if granted, would render them necessary. The first part of this\nobjection might be allowed, were there no predictions to be adduced in\nfavour of a professed revelation, except such as related to events which\nhuman experience has taught to be dependent upon some cause, the\nexistence and necessary operation of which are within the compass of\nhuman knowledge. But to foretel such events would not be to prophesy,\nany more than to say that it will be light to-morrow at noon, or that on\na certain day and hour next year there will occur an eclipse of the sun\nor moon, when that event has been previously ascertained by astronomical\ncalculation. If, however, it were allowed that all events depended upon\na chain of necessary causes, yet, in a variety of instances, the\nargument from prophecy would not be at all affected; for the foretelling\nof necessary results in certain circumstances is beyond human\nintelligence, because they can only be known to him by whose power those\nnecessary causes on which they depend have been arranged, and who has\nprescribed the times of their operation. To borrow a case, for the sake\nof illustration, from the Scriptures, though the claims of their\npredictions are not now in question; let us allow that such a prophecy\nas that of Isaiah respecting the taking of Babylon by Cyrus was uttered,\nas it purports to be, more than a century before Cyrus was born, and\nthat all the actions of Cyrus and his army, and those of the Babylonian;\nmonarch and his people, were necessitated is it to be maintained that\nthe chain of necessitating causes running through more than a century\ncould be traced by a human mind, so as to describe the precise manner in\nwhich that fatality would unfold itself, even to the turning of the\nriver, the drunken carousal of the inhabitants, and the neglect of\nshutting the gates of the city? This being by uniform and universal\nexperience known to be above all human apprehension, would therefore\nprove that the prediction was made in consequence of a communication\nfrom a superior and divine Intelligence. Were events, therefore,\nsubjected to invincible fate and necessity, there might nevertheless be\nprophecy.\n\nThe other branch of the dilemma is founded on the notion that if we\nallow the moral freedom of human actions, prophecy is impossible,\nbecause certain foreknowledge is contrary to that freedom, and fixes and\nrenders the event necessary. To this the reply is, that the objection is\nfounded on a false assumption, the divine foreknowledge having no more\ninfluence in effectuating or making certain any event than human\nforeknowledge in the degree in which it may exist, there being no moral\ncausality at all in knowledge. This lies in the will, which is the\ndetermining acting principle in every agent; or, as Dr. Samuel Clarke\nhas expressed it, in answer to another kind of objector, \u201cGod\u2019s\ninfallible judgment concerning contingent truths does no more alter the\nnature of the things, and cause them to be necessary, than our judging\nright at any time concerning a contingent truth makes it cease to be\ncontingent; or than our science of a present truth is any cause of its\nbeing either true or present. Here, therefore, lies the fallacy of our\nauthor\u2019s argument. Because, from God\u2019s foreknowing the existence of\nthings depending upon a chain of necessary causes, it follows that the\nexistence of the things must needs be necessary; therefore, from God\u2019s\njudging infallibly concerning things which depend not on necessary but\nfree causes, he concludes that these things also depend not upon free\nbut necessary causes. Contrary, I say, to the supposition in the\nargument; for it must not be first supposed that things are in their own\nnature necessary; but from the power of judging infallibly concerning\nfree events, it must be proved that things, otherwise supposed free,\nwill thereby unavoidably become necessary.\u201d The whole question lies in\nthis, Is the simple knowledge of an action a necessitating cause of the\naction? And the answer must be in the negative, as every man\u2019s\nconsciousness will assure him. If the causality of influence, either\nimmediate, or by the arrangement of compelling events, be mixed up with\nthis, the ground is shifted; and it is no longer a question which\nrespects simple prescience. (See _Prescience_.) This metaphysical\nobjection having no foundation in truth, the force of the evidence\narising from predictions of events, distant, and beyond the power of\nhuman sagacity to anticipate, and uttered as authentications of a divine\ncommission, is apparent. \u201cSuch predictions, whether in the form of\ndeclaration, description, or representation of things future,\u201d as Mr.\nBoyle justly observes, \u201care supernatural things, and may properly be\nranked among miracles.\u201d For when, for instance, the events are distant\nmany years or ages from the uttering of the prediction itself, depending\non causes not so much as existing when the prophecy was spoken and\nrecorded, and likewise upon various circumstances and a long arbitrary\nseries of things, and the fluctuating uncertainties of human volitions,\nand especially when they depend not at all upon any external\ncircumstances nor upon any created being, but arise merely from the\ncounsels and appointment of God himself,--such events can be foreknown\nonly by that Being, one of whose attributes is omniscience, and can be\nforetold by him only to whom the \u201cFather of lights\u201d shall reveal them;\nso that whoever is manifestly endued with that predictive power must, in\nthat instance, speak and act by divine inspiration, and what he\npronounces of that kind must be received as the word of God; nothing\nmore being necessary to assure us of this than credible testimony that\nsuch predictions were uttered before the event, or conclusive evidence\nthat the records which contain them are of the antiquity to which they\npretend.\n\nThe distinction between the prophecies of Scripture and the oracles of\nHeathenism is marked and essential. In the Heathen oracles we cannot\ndiscern any clear and unequivocal tokens of genuine prophecy. They were\ndestitute of dignity and importance, had no connection with each other,\ntended to no object of general concern, and never looked into times\nremote from their own. We read only of some few predictions and\nprognostications, scattered among the writings of poets and\nphilosophers, most of which, beside being very weakly authenticated,\nappear to have been answers to questions of merely local, personal, and\ntemporary concern, relating to the issue of affairs then actually in\nhand, and to events speedily to be determined. Far from attempting to\nform any chain of prophecies, respecting things far distant as to time\nor place, or matters contrary to human probability, and requiring\nsupernatural agency to effect them, the Heathen priests and soothsayers\ndid not even pretend to a systematic and connected plan. They hardly\ndared, indeed, to assume the prophetic character in its full force, but\nstood trembling, as it were, on the brink of futurity, conscious of\ntheir inability to venture beyond the depths of human conjecture. Hence\ntheir predictions became so fleeting, so futile, so uninteresting, that,\nthough they were collected together as worthy of preservation, they soon\nfell into disrepute and almost total oblivion. (See _Oracles_.) The\nScripture prophecies, on the other hand, constitute a series of divine\npredictions, relating principally to one grand object, of universal\nimportance, the work of man\u2019s redemption, and carried on in regular\nprogression through the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian\ndispensations, with a harmony and uniformity of design, clearly\nindicating one and the same divine Author. They speak of the agents to\nbe employed in it, and especially of the great agent, the Redeemer\nhimself; and of those mighty and awful proceedings of Providence as to\nthe nations of the earth, by which judgment and mercy are exercised with\nreference both to the ordinary principles of moral government, and\nespecially to this restoring economy, to its struggles, its oppositions,\nand its triumphs. They all meet in Christ, as in their proper centre,\nand in him only; however many of the single lines, when considered\napart, may be imagined to have another direction, and though they may\npass through intermediate events. If we look, says Bishop Hurd, into the\nprophetic writings, we find that prophecy is of a prodigious extent;\nthat it commenced from the fall of man, and reaches to the consummation\nof all things; that for many ages it was delivered darkly to a few\npersons, and with large intervals from the date of one prophecy to that\nof another; but, at length, became more clear, more frequent, and was\nuniformly carried on in the line of one people, separated from the rest\nof the world,--among other reasons assigned, for this principally, to be\nthe repository of the divine oracles; that, with some intermission, the\nspirit of prophecy subsisted among that people to the coming of Christ;\nthat he himself and his Apostles exercised this power in the most\nconspicuous manner, and left behind them many predictions, recorded in\nthe books of the New Testament, which profess to respect very distant\nevents, and even run out to the end of time, or, in St. John\u2019s\nexpression, to that period \u201cwhen the mystery of God shall be perfected.\u201d\nFarther, beside the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity of the\nPerson whom it concerns deserves our consideration. He is described in\nterms which excite the most august and magnificent ideas. He is spoken\nof, indeed, sometimes as being \u201cthe seed of the woman,\u201d and as \u201cthe Son\nof man;\u201d yet so as being at the same time of more than mortal\nextraction. He is even represented to us as being superior to men and\nangels; as far above all principality and power; above all that is\naccounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and wisdom\nof God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the Heir of all things, by\nwhom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and the express\nimage of his person. We have no words to denote greater ideas than\nthese; the mind of man cannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of\nsuch transcendent worth and excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom\nall the prophets bear witness! Lastly, the declared purpose for which\nthe Messiah, prefigured by so long a train of prophecy, came into the\nworld, corresponds to all the rest of the representation. It was not to\ndeliver an oppressed nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great\ncivil empire, that is, to achieve one of those acts which history\naccounts most heroic. No: it was not a mighty state, a victor people,\n\n         _Non res Roman\u00e6 perituraque regna_,\n         [Not the empire of Rome and kingdoms about to perish,]\n\nthat was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine Person.\nIt was another and far sublimer purpose, which he came to accomplish; a\npurpose, in comparison of which all our policies are poor and little,\nand all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver a world\nfrom ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize human\nnature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be the\nSaviour of men and the blessing of all nations. There is no exaggeration\nin this account: a spirit of prophecy pervading all time, characterizing\none Person of the highest dignity, and proclaiming the accomplishment of\none purpose, the most beneficent, the most divine, the imagination\nitself can project. Such is the Scriptural delineation of that economy\nwhich we call prophetic.\n\nThe advantage of this species of evidence belongs then exclusively to\nour revelation. Heathenism never made any clear and well founded\npretensions to it. Mohammedanism, though it stands itself as a proof of\nthe truth of Scripture prophecy, is unsupported by a single prediction\nof its own.\n\nThe objection which has been raised to Scripture prophecy, from its\nsupposed obscurity, has no solid foundation. There is, it is true, a\nprophetic language of symbol and emblem; but it is a language which is\ndefinite and not equivocal in its meaning, and as easily mastered as the\nlanguage of poetry, by attentive persons. This, however, is not always\nused. The style of the prophecies of Scripture very often differs in\nnothing from the ordinary style of the Hebrew poets; and, in not a few\ncases, and those too on which the Christian builds most in the argument,\nit sinks into the plainness of historical narrative. Some degree of\nobscurity is essential to prophecy: for the end of it was not to gratify\nhuman curiosity, by a detail of future events and circumstances; and too\ngreat clearness and speciality might have led to many artful attempts to\nfulfil the predictions, and so far the evidence of their accomplishment\nwould have been weakened. The two great ends of prophecy are, to excite\nexpectation before the event, and then to confirm the truth by a\nstriking and unequivocal fulfilment; and it is a sufficient answer to\nthe allegation of the obscurity of the prophecies of Scripture, that\nthey have abundantly accomplished those objects, among the most\nintelligent and investigating, as well as among the simple and\nunlearned, in all ages. It cannot be denied, for instance, leaving out\nparticular cases which might be given, that by means of these\npredictions the expectation of the incarnation and appearance of a\ndivine Restorer was kept up among the people to whom they were given,\nand spread even to the neighbouring nations; that as these prophecies\nmultiplied, the hope became more intense; and that at the time of our\nLord\u2019s coming, the expectation of the birth of a very extraordinary\nperson prevailed, not only among the Jews, but among other nations. This\npurpose was then sufficiently answered, and an answer is given to the\nobjection. In like manner prophecy serves as the basis of our hope in\nthings yet to come; in the final triumph of truth and righteousness on\nearth, the universal establishment of the kingdom of our Lord, and the\nrewards of eternal life to be bestowed at his second appearing. In these\nall true Christians agree; and their hope could not have been so\nuniformly supported in all ages and under all circumstances, had not the\nprophecies and predictive promises conveyed with sufficient clearness\nthe general knowledge of the good for which they looked, though many of\nits particulars be unrevealed. The second end of prophecy is, to confirm\nthe truth by the subsequent event. Here the question of the actual\nfulfilment of Scripture prophecy is involved; and it is no argument\nagainst the unequivocal fulfilment of several prophecies, that many have\ndoubted or denied what the believers in revelation have on this subject\nso strenuously contended for. How few of mankind have read the\nScriptures with serious attention, or been at the pains to compare their\nprophecies with the statements in history. How few, especially of the\nobjectors to the Bible, have read it in this manner! How many of them\nhave confessed unblushingly their unacquaintance with its contents, or\nhave proved what they have not confessed by the mistakes and\nmisrepresentations into which they have fallen! As for the Jews, the\nevident dominion of their prejudices, their general averseness to\ndiscussion, and the extravagant principles of interpretation they have\nadopted for many ages, which set all sober criticism at defiance, render\nnugatory any authority which might be ascribed to their denial of the\nfulfilment of certain prophecies in the sense adopted by Christians. We\nmay add to this, that among Christian critics themselves there may be\nmuch disagreement. Eccentricities and absurdities are found among the\nlearned in every department of knowledge, and much of this waywardness\nand affectation of singularity has infected interpreters of Scripture.\nBut, after all, there is a truth and reason in every subject, which the\nunderstandings of the generality of men will apprehend and acknowledge\nwhenever it is fully understood and impartially considered; to this in\nall such cases the appeal can only be made, and here it may be made with\nconfidence. Instances of the signal fulfilment of numerous prophecies\nare scattered through various articles in this volume; so that it is not\nnecessary to repeat them here. A few words on the _double sense_ of\nprophecy may, however, be added.\n\nFor want of a right apprehension of the true meaning of this somewhat\nunfortunate term which has obtained in theology, an objection of another\nkind has been raised, as though no definite meaning could be assigned to\nthe prophecies of Scripture. Nothing can be more unfounded. The double\nsense of many prophecies in the Old Testament, says an able writer, has\nbeen made a pretext by ill disposed men, for representing them as of\nuncertain meaning, and resembling the ambiguity of the Pagan oracles.\nBut whoever considers the subject with due attention, will perceive how\nlittle ground there is for such an accusation. The equivocations of the\nHeathen oracles manifestly arose from their ignorance of future events,\nand from their endeavours to conceal that ignorance by such indefinite\nexpressions, as might be equally applicable to two or more events of a\n_contrary_ description. But the double sense of the Scripture\nprophecies, far from originating in any doubt or uncertainty, as to the\nfulfilment of them in either sense, springs from a foreknowledge of\ntheir accomplishment in _both_; whence the prediction is purposely so\nframed as to include both events, which, so far from being contrary to\neach other, are typical the one of the other, and are thus connected\ntogether by a mutual dependency or relation. This has often been\nsatisfactorily proved, with respect to those prophecies which referred,\nin their primary sense, to the events of the Old Testament, and, in\ntheir farther and more complex signification, to those of the New: and\non this double accomplishment of some prophecies is grounded our firm\nexpectation of the completion of others, which remain yet unfulfilled in\ntheir secondary sense, but which we justly consider as equally uncertain\nin their issue as those which are already past. So far, then, from any\nvalid objection lying against the credibility of the Scripture\nprophecies, from these seeming ambiguities of meaning, we may urge them\nas additional proofs of their coming from God. For, who but the Being\nthat is infinite in knowledge and in counsel could so construct\npredictions as to give them a twofold application, to events distant\nfrom, and, to human foresight, unconnected with, each other? What power\nless than divine could so frame them as to make the accomplishment of\nthem in one instance a solemn pledge and assurance of their completion\nin another instance, of still higher and more universal importance?\nWhere will the scoffer find any thing like this in the artifices of\nHeathen oracles, to conceal their ignorance, and to impose on the\ncredulity of mankind? See ORACLES.\n\nOn this subject it may be observed, by way of general illustration, that\nthe remarkable personages under the old dispensation were sometimes in\nthe description of their characters, and in the events of their lives,\nthe representatives of the future dispensers of evangelical blessings,\nas Moses and David were unquestionably types of Christ, Ezek. xxxiv, 23;\nMatt. xi, 14; Heb. vi, 20; vii, 1\u20133. Persons likewise were sometimes\ndescriptive of things, as Sarah and Hagar were allegorical figures of\nthe two covenants, Gal. iv, 22\u201331; Rom. ix, 8\u201313. And, on the other\nhand, things were used to symbolize persons, as the brazen serpent and\nthe paschal lamb were signs of our healing and spotless Redeemer, Exodus\nxii, 46; John iii, 14; xix, 36. And so, lastly, ceremonial appointments\nand legal circumstances were pre\u00f6rdained as significant of Gospel\ninstitutions, 1 Cor. x, 1\u201311; Heb. viii, 5; ix, x; 1 Pet. iii, 20, 22.\nHence it was that many of the descriptions of the prophets had a twofold\ncharacter; bearing often an immediate reference to present\ncircumstances, and yet being in their nature predictive of future\noccurrences. What they reported of the type was often in a more signal\nmanner applicable to the thing typified, Psalm xxi, 4\u20136; xl, 1, 7\u201310;\nxii, 4; Lam. xiii, 1\u201330; John xiii, 18; Dan. xi, 36, 37; what they spoke\nliterally of present, was figuratively descriptive of future\nparticulars; and what was applied in a figurative sense to existing\npersons, was often actually characteristic of their distant archetypes,\nPsalm xxii, 16\u201318, &c. Many passages then in the Old Testament, which in\ntheir first aspect appear to be historical, are in fact prophetic, and\nthey are so cited in the New Testament, not by way of ordinary\naccommodation, or casual coincidence, but as intentionally predictive,\nas having a double sense, a literal and a mystical interpretation, Hosea\nxi, 1; Matt. ii, 15.\n\nBeside these historical passages, of which the covert allusions were\nexplained by the interpretation of the Gospel writers, who were\nenlightened by the Spirit to unfold the mysteries of Scripture, the\nprophets often uttered positive predictions which, in consequence of the\ncorrespondence established between the two dispensations, were\ndescriptive of a double event, however they might be themselves ignorant\nof the full extent of those prophecies which they delivered. For\ninstance, their promises of present success and deliverances were often\nsignificant of distant benefits, and secular consolations conveyed\nassurances of evangelical blessings, 2 Sam. vii, 13, 14; Heb. i, 5. Thus\ntheir prophecies received completion in a first and secondary view. As\nbeing in part signs to excite confidence, they had an immediate\naccomplishment, but were afterward fulfilled in a more illustrious\nsense, 1 Kings xiii, 2, 3; Isaiah vii, 14; Matt. i, 22; Dan. ix, 27;\nxii, 7; 1 Macc. i, 54; Matt. xxiv, 15; the prophets being inspired, by\nthe suggestions of the Spirit, to use expressions magnificent enough to\ninclude the substance in the description of the figure. That many of the\nprophecies in the Old Testament were direct, and singly and exclusively\napplicable to, and accomplished in, our Saviour, is certain, Gen. xlix,\n10; Psalm xlii, xlv; Isaiah lii, liii; Daniel vii, 13, 14; Micah v, 2;\nZech. ix, 9; Mal. iii, 1.\n\nIt requires much attention to comprehend the full import and extent of\nthis typical dispensation, and the chief obscurities which prevail in\nthe sacred writings are to be attributed to the double character of\nprophecy. To unravel this is, however, an interesting and instructive\nstudy; though an admiration of the spiritual meaning should never lead\nus to disregard or undervalue the first and evident signification; for\nmany great men have been so dazzled by their discoveries in this mode of\nexplication, as to be hurried into wild and extravagant excess; as is\nevident from the writings of Origen and Jerom; as also from the\nCommentaries of Austin, who acknowledges that he had too far indulged in\nthe fancies of an exuberant imagination, declaring that the other parts\nof Scripture are the best commentaries. The Apostles and the evangelists\nare, indeed, the best expositors; and where those infallible guides have\nled the way, we need not hesitate to follow their steps by the light of\nclear reason and just analogy.\n\nIt is this double character of prophecy which occasions those unexpected\ntransitions and sudden interchanges of circumstance so observable in the\nprophetic books. Hence different predictions are sometimes blended and\nmixed together; temporal and spiritual deliverances are foretold in one\nprophecy; and greater and smaller events are combined in one point of\nview. Hence, likewise, one chain of connected design runs through the\nwhole scheme of prophecy, and a continuation of events successively\nfulfilling, and successively branching out into new predictions,\ncontinued to confirm the faith, and to keep alive the expectations, of\nthe Jews. Hence was it the character of the prophetic spirit to be rapid\nin its description, and regardless of the order of history; to pass with\nquick and unexpected celerity from subject to subject, and from period\nto period. \u201cAnd we must allow,\u201d says Lord Bacon, \u201cfor that latitude that\nis agreeable and familiar to prophecy, which is of the nature of its\nAuthor, with whom a thousand years are but as one day.\u201d The whole of the\ngreat scheme must have been at once present to the divine Mind; but God\ndescribed its parts in detail to mankind, in such measures and in such\nproportions, that the connection of every link was obvious, and its\nrelations apparent in every point of view, till the harmony and entire\nconsistency of the plan were displayed to those who witnessed its\nperfection in the advent of Christ.\n\nPROPHETS. A prophet, in the strict and proper sense, was one to whom the\nknowledge of secret things was revealed, that he might declare them to\nothers, whether they were things past, or present, or to come. The woman\nof Samaria perceived our Saviour was a prophet, by his telling her the\nsecrets of her _past_ life, John iv, 19. The Prophet Elisha had the\n_present_ conduct of his servant Gehazi revealed to him, 2 Kings v, 26.\nAnd most of the prophets had revelations concerning _future_ events;\nabove all, concerning the coming and kingdom of the Messiah: \u201cHe has\nraised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David,\nas he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the\nworld began,\u201d Luke i, 69, 70. Nevertheless, in a more lax or analogical\nsense, the title prophet is sometimes given to persons who had no such\nrevelation, nor were properly inspired. Thus Aaron is said to be Moses\u2019s\nprophet: \u201cThe Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to\nPharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet,\u201d Exod. vii, 1:\nbecause Aaron received the divine messages, which he carried immediately\nfrom Moses; whereas other prophets receive their messages immediately\nfrom God himself. In this respect, as Moses stood in the place of God to\nPharaoh, so Aaron acted in the character of his prophet. The title of\nprophets is given also to the sacred musicians, who sung the praises of\nGod, or who accompanied the song with musical instruments. Thus \u201cthe\nsons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun,\u201d are said to \u201cprophesy\nwith harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals,\u201d 1 Chron. xxv, 1; and\nthey prophesied, it is said, \u201caccording to the order of the king.\u201d\nPerhaps Miriam, the sister of Aaron, may be called a prophetess only on\nthis account, that she led the concert of the women, who sung the song\nof Moses with timbrels and with dances, Exodus xv, 20, 21. Thus the\nHeathen poets, who sung or composed verses in praise of their gods, were\ncalled by the Romans _vates_, or prophets; which is of the same import\nwith the Greek \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, a title which St. Paul gives to Epimenides, a\nCretan poet, Titus i, 12.\n\nGodwin observes, that, for the propagation of learning, colleges and\nschools were in divers places erected for the prophets. The first\nintimation we have in Scripture of these schools is in 1 Sam. x, 5,\nwhere we read of \u201ca company of prophets coming down from the high place\nwith a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp before them, and they did\nprophesy.\u201d They are supposed to be the students in a college of prophets\nat \u05d2\u05db\u05e2\u05ea, or \u201cthe hill,\u201d as we render it, \u201cof God.\u201d Our translators\nelsewhere retain the same Hebrew word, as supposing it to be the proper\nname of a place, \u201cJonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that\nwas in Geba,\u201d 1 Sam. xiii, 3. Some persons have imagined that the ark,\nor at least a synagogue, or some place of public worship, was at this\ntime at Geba, and that this is the reason of its being styled in the\nformer passage \u05d2\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd, the hill of God. We read afterward of such\nanother company of prophets at Naioth in Ramah, \u201cprophesying, and Samuel\nstanding as appointed over them,\u201d 1 Sam. xix, 19, 20. The students in\nthese colleges were called sons of the prophets, who are frequently\nmentioned in after ages, even in the most degenerate times. Thus we read\nof the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel; and of another school\nat Jericho; and of the sons of the prophets at Gilgal, 2 Kings ii, 3, 5;\niv, 38. It should seem, that these sons of the prophets were very\nnumerous; for of this sort were probably the prophets of the Lord, whom\nJezebel cut off; \u201cbut Obadiah took a hundred of them, and hid them by\nfifty in a cave,\u201d 1 Kings xviii, 4. In these schools young men were\neducated under a proper master, who was commonly, if not always, an\ninspired prophet, in the knowledge of religion, and in sacred music, 1\nSam. x, 5; xix, 20, and were thereby qualified to be public preachers,\nwhich seems to have been part of the business of the prophets on the\nSabbath days and festivals, 2 Kings iv, 23. It should seem, that God\ngenerally chose the prophets, whom he inspired, out of these schools.\nAmos, therefore, speaks of it as an extraordinary case, that though he\nwas not one of the sons of the prophets, but a herdsman, \u201cyet the Lord\ntook him as he followed the flock, and said unto him, Go, prophesy unto\nmy people Israel,\u201d Amos vii, 14, 15. That it was usual for some of these\nschools, or at least for their tutors, to be endued with a prophetic\nspirit, appears from the relation of the prophecies concerning the\nascent of Elijah, delivered to Elisha by the sons of the prophets, both\nat Jericho and at Bethel, 2 Kings ii, 3, 5.\n\nThe Hebrew prophets present a succession of men at once the most\nsingular and the most venerable that ever appeared, in so long a line of\ntime, in the world. They had special communion with God; they laid open\nthe scenes of the future; they were ministers of the promised Christ.\nThey upheld religion and piety in the worst times, and at the greatest\nrisks; and their disinterestedness was only equalled by their\npatriotism. The houses in which they lived were generally mean, and of\ntheir own building, 2 Kings vi, 2\u20134. Their food was chiefly pottage of\nherbs, unless when the people sent them some better provision, as bread,\nparched corn, honey, dried fruits, and the like, 1 Kings xiv, 3; 2 Kings\niv, 38, 39, 42. Their dress was plain and coarse, tied about with a\nleathern girdle, Zech. xiii, 4; 2 Kings i, 8. Riches were no temptation\nto them; therefore Elisha not only refused Naaman\u2019s presents, but\npunished his servant Gehazi very severely for clandestinely obtaining a\nsmall share of them, 2 Kings v, 15, &c. To succeeding ages they have\nleft a character consecrated by holiness, and \u201cvisions of the Holy One,\u201d\nwhich still unveil to the church his most glorious attributes, and his\ndeepest designs. \u201cProphecy,\u201d says the Apostle Peter, \u201ccame not of old\ntime by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by\nthe Holy Ghost,\u201d 2 Pet. i, 21. They flourished in a continued succession\nduring a period of more than a thousand years, reckoning from Moses to\nMalachi, all co\u00f6perating in the same designs, uniting in one spirit to\ndeliver the same doctrines, and to predict the same blessings to\nmankind. Their claims to a divine commission were demonstrated by the\nintrinsic excellency of their doctrine; by the disinterested zeal and\nundaunted courage with which they prosecuted their ministry, and\npersevered in their great design, and by the unimpeachable integrity of\ntheir conduct. But even those credentials of a divine mission were still\nfarther confirmed by the exercise of miraculous powers, and by the\ncompletion of many less important predictions which they uttered, Deut.\nxiii, 1\u20133; xviii, 22; Joshua x, 13; 1 Sam. xii, 8; 2 Kings i, 10; Isa.\nxxxviii, 8; xlii, 9; 1 Sam. ix, 6; 1 Kings xiii, 3; Jer. xxviii, 9;\nEzek. xxxiii, 33. When not immediately employed in the discharge of\ntheir sacred office, they lived sequestered from the world, in religious\ncommunities, or wandered \u201cin deserts, in mountains, and in caves of the\nearth;\u201d distinguished by their apparel, and by the general simplicity of\ntheir style of life, 2 Kings i, 8; iv, 10, 38; vi, 1; Isa. xx, 2; Matt.\niii, 4; Heb. xi, 38; Rev. xi, 3. They were the established oracles of\ntheir country, and consulted upon all occasions when it was necessary to\ncollect the divine will on any civil or religious question. These\nillustrious personages were likewise as well the types as the harbingers\nof that greater Prophet whom they foretold; and in the general outline\nof their character, as well as in particular events of their lives, they\nprefigured to the Jews the future Teacher of mankind. Like him, also,\nthey laboured by every exertion to instruct and reclaim; reproving and\nthreatening the sinful, however exalted in rank, or encircled by power,\nwith such fearless confidence and sincerity as often excited respect.\nThe most intemperate princes were sometimes compelled unwillingly to\nhear and to obey their directions, 1 Kings xii, 21\u201324; xiii, 2\u20136; xx,\n42, 43; xxi, 27; 2 Chron. xxviii, 9\u201314; though often so incensed by\ntheir rebuke, as to resent it by the severest persecutions. Then it was\nthat the prophets exhibited the integrity of their characters, by\nzealously encountering oppression, hatred, and death, in the cause of\nreligion. Then it was that they firmly supported \u201ctrial of cruel\nmockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They\nwere stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the\nsword; they wandered about, destitute, afflicted, tormented,\u201d evil\nintreated for those virtues of which the memorial should flourish to\nposterity, and martyred for righteousness, which, whenever resentment\nshould subside, it would be deemed honourable to reverence, Matthew\nxxiii, 27\u201329.\n\nThe manner in which the prophets published their predictions was, either\nby uttering them aloud in some public place, or by affixing them on the\ngates of the temple, Jer. vii, 2; Ezek. iii, 10, where they might be\ngenerally seen and read. Upon some important occasions, when it was\nnecessary to rouse the fears of a disobedient people, and to recall them\nto repentance, the prophets, as objects of universal attention, appear\nto have walked about publicly in sackcloth, and with every external mark\nof humiliation and sorrow. They then adopted extraordinary modes of\nexpressing their convictions of impending wrath, and endeavoured to\nawaken the apprehensions of their country, by the most striking\nillustration of threatened punishment. Thus Jeremiah made bonds and\nyokes, and put them upon his neck, Jer. xxvii, strongly to intimate the\nsubjection that God would bring on the nations whom Nebuchadnezzar\nshould subdue. Isaiah likewise walked naked, that is, without the rough\ngarment of the prophet, and barefoot, as a sign of the distress that\nawaited the Egyptians, Isa. xx. So Jeremiah broke the potter\u2019s vessel,\nJer. xix; and Ezekiel publicly removed his household goods from the\ncity, 2 Kings xxv, 4, 5; Ezek. xii, 7; more forcibly to represent by\nthese actions some correspondent calamities ready to fall on nations\nobnoxious to God\u2019s wrath; this mode of expressing important\ncircumstances by action, being customary and familiar among all eastern\nnations. The great object of prophecy was, as has been before observed,\na description of the Messiah, and of his kingdom, Matt. xxvi, 56; Luke\ni, 70; xviii, 31; xxiv, 44; John i, 45; Acts iii, 18, 24; x, 43; xiii,\n29; xv, 15; xxviii, 23; 1 Pet. i, 10\u201312. These were gradually unfolded\nby successive prophets in predictions more and more distinct. They were\nat first held forth in general promises; they were afterward described\nby figures, and shadowed out under types and allusive institutions, and\nfinally foretold in the full lustre of descriptive prophecy. The Hebrew\nprophets were chosen of God to testify beforehand of the sufferings of\nChrist, and the glory that should follow. See PROPHECY.\n\nPROPITIATION. To propitiate is to appease, to atone, to turn away the\nwrath of an offended person. In the case before us, the wrath turned\naway is the wrath of God; the person making the propitiation is Christ;\nthe propitiating offering or sacrifice is his blood. All this is\nexpressed in most explicit terms in the following passages: \u201cAnd he is\nthe propitiation for our sins,\u201d 1 John ii, 2. \u201cHerein is love, not that\nwe loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the\npropitiation for our sins,\u201d 1 John iv, 10. \u201cWhom God hath set forth to\nbe a propitiation through faith in his blood,\u201d Rom. iii, 25. The word\nused in the two former passages is \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2; in the last \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03db\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Both\nare from the verb \u1f31\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, so often used by Greek writers to express the\naction of a person who, in some appointed way, turned away the wrath of\na deity; and therefore cannot bear the sense which Socinus would put\nupon it,--the destruction of sin. This is not supported by a single\nexample. With all Greek authorities, whether poets, historians, or\nothers, the word means to _propitiate_, and is, for the most part,\nconstrued with an accusative case, designating the person whose\ndispleasure is averted. As this could not be denied, Crellius comes to\nthe aid of Socinus, and contends that the sense of this word was not to\nbe taken from its common use in the Greek tongue, but from the\nHellenistic use of it in the Greek of the New Testament, the LXX. and\nthe Apocrypha. But this will not serve him; for both by the LXX. and in\nthe Apocrypha, it is used in the same sense as in the Greek classic\nwriters. \u201cHe shall offer his \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd, _sin-offering_, saith the Lord\nGod,\u201d Ezek. xliv, 27. \u201cAnd the priest shall take the blood of the\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, _sin-offering_,\u201d Ezek. xlv, 19. \u039a\u03c1\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u201cThe ram\nof the atonement,\u201d Num. v, 8. To which may be added, out of the\nApocrypha, \u201cNow as the high priest was making \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd, an _atonement_,\u201d\n2 Macc. iii, 33.\n\nThe propitiatory sense of the word \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 being thus fixed, the modern\nSocinians have conceded, in their note on 1 John ii, 2, in their\nImproved Version, that it means the \u201cpacifying of an offended party;\u201d\nbut they subjoin, that Christ is a propitiation, because by his Gospel\nhe brings sinners to repentance, and thus averts the divine displeasure.\nThe concession is important; and the comment cannot weaken it, because\nof its absurdity; for, in that interpretation of propitiation, Moses, or\nany of the Apostles, or any minister of the Gospel now, who succeeds in\nbringing sinners to repentance, is as truly a propitiation for sin as\nChrist himself. On Rom. iii, 25, however, the authors of the Improved\nVersion continue to follow their master Socinus, and translate the\npassage, \u201cwhom God hath set forth a propitiation, through faith in his\nblood,\u201d \u201cwhom God hath set forth _as_ a mercy seat in his own blood,\u201d\nand lay great stress upon this rendering, as removing that countenance\nto the doctrine of atonement by vicarious sufferings which the common\ntranslation affords. The word \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03db\u1f74\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is used in the Septuagint\nversion, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to express the mercy seat or\ncovering of the ark. But so little is to be gained by taking it in this\nsense in this passage, that this rendering is adopted by several\northodox commentators as expressing, by a figure, or rather by\nemphatically supplying a type to the antitype,--the doctrine of our\nLord\u2019s atonement. The mercy seat was so called, because, under the Old\nTestament, it was the place where the high priest, on the feast of\nexpiation, sprinkled the blood of the sin-offerings, in order to make an\natonement for himself and the whole congregation; and, since God\naccepted the offering which was then made, it was, for this reason,\naccounted the medium through which God showed himself propitious to the\npeople. With reference to this, Jesus Christ may be called a mercy seat,\nas being the person in or through whom God shows himself propitious to\nmankind. And as, under the law, God was propitious to those who came to\nhim by appearing before his mercy seat with the blood of their\nsin-offerings; so, under the Gospel dispensation, he is propitious to\nthose who come unto him by Jesus Christ, through faith in that blood\nwhich is elsewhere called \u201cthe blood of sprinkling,\u201d and which he shed\nfor the remission of sins. Some able critics have, however, argued, from\nthe force of the context, that the word ought to be taken actively, and\nnot merely declaratively; not as \u201ca propitiatory,\u201d but as \u201ca\npropitiation,\u201d which, says Grotius, is shown by the mention which is\nafterward made of blood, to which the power of propitiation is ascribed.\nOthers supply \u03b8\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 or \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, and render it _expiatory sacrifice_. But,\nwhichever of these renderings be adopted, the same doctrine is held\nforth to us. The covering of the ark was rendered a propitiatory only by\nthe blood of the victims sprinkled before and upon it; and when the\nApostle says, that God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiatory,\nhe immediately adds, having the ceremonies of the temple in his view,\n\u201cthrough faith in his blood.\u201d The text, therefore, contains no\nexhibition of any means of obtaining mercy but through the blood of\nsacrifice, according to the rule laid down in the Epistle to the\nHebrews, \u201cWithout shedding of blood there is no remission;\u201d and is in\nstrict accordance with Ephesians i, 7, \u201cWe have redemption through his\nblood, the remission of sins.\u201d It is only by his blood that Christ\nreconciles us to God.\n\nUnable as they who deny the vicarious nature of the sufferings of Christ\nare to evade the testimony of the above passages which speak of our Lord\nas \u201ca propitiation,\u201d their next resource often is to deny the existence\nof wrath in God, in the hope of proving that propitiation, in a proper\nsense, cannot be the doctrine of Scripture, whatever may be the force of\nthe mere terms which the sacred writers employ. In order to give\nplausibility to their statement, they pervert the opinion of the\northodox, and argue as though it formed a part of the doctrine of\nChrist\u2019s propitiation and oblation for sin, to represent God as\nnaturally an implacable and vengeful being, and only made placable and\ndisposed to show mercy by satisfaction being made to his displeasure\nthrough our Lord\u2019s sufferings and death. This is as contrary to\nScripture as it is to the opinions of all sober persons who hold the\ndoctrine of Christ\u2019s atonement. God is love; but it is not necessary, in\norder to support this truth, to assume that he is nothing else. He has\nother attributes, which harmonize with this and with each other; though,\nassuredly, that harmony cannot be established by any who deny the\npropitiation for sin made by the death of Christ. It sufficiently proves\nthat there is not only no implacability in God, but a most tender and\nplacable affection toward the sinning human race itself, and that the\nSon of God, by whom the propitiation was made, was the free gift of the\nFather to us. This is the most eminent proof of his love, that, for our\nsakes, and that mercy might be extended to us, \u201cHe spared not his own\nSon; but delivered him up freely for us all.\u201d Thus he is the fountain\nand first moving cause of that scheme of recovery and salvation which\nthe incarnation and death of our Lord brought into full and efficient\noperation. The true questions are, indeed, not whether God is love, or\nwhether he is of a placable nature; but whether God is holy and just;\nwhether we, his creatures, are under law or not; whether this law has\nany penalty, and whether God, in his rectoral character, is bound to\nexecute and uphold that law. As the justice of God is punitive, (and if\nit is not punitive, his laws are a dead letter,) then is there wrath in\nGod; then is God angry with the wicked; then is man, as a sinner,\nobnoxious to this anger; and so a propitiation becomes necessary to turn\nit away from him. Nor are these terms unscriptural; they are used in the\nNew Testament as emphatically as in the Old; though, the former is, in a\nspecial sense, a revelation of the mercy of God to man. John declares\nthat, if any man believeth not on the Son of God, \u201cthe wrath of God\nabideth upon him;\u201d and St. Paul affirms, that \u201cthe wrath of God is\nrevealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of\nmen.\u201d The day of judgment is, with reference to the ungodly, said to be\n\u201cthe day of wrath;\u201d God is called \u201ca consuming fire;\u201d and, as such, is\nthe object of \u201creverence and godly fear.\u201d Nor is this his displeasure\nlight, and the consequences of it a trifling and temporary\ninconvenience. When we only regard the consequences which have followed\nsin in society, from the earliest ages, and in every part of the world,\nand add to these the many direct and fearful inflictions of punishment\nwhich have proceeded from the \u201cJudge of the whole earth,\u201d then, to use\nthe language of Scripture, \u201cour flesh may well tremble because of his\njudgments.\u201d But when we look at the future state of the wicked as\nrepresented in Scripture, though it is expressed generally, and\nsurrounded with the mystery of a place, and a condition of being,\nunknown to us in the present state, all evils which history has crowded\ninto the lot of man appear insignificant in comparison of banishment\nfrom God, separation from good men, public condemnation, torment of\nspirit, \u201cweeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth,\u201d \u201ceverlasting\ndestruction,\u201d \u201ceverlasting fire.\u201d Let men talk ever so much or\neloquently of the pure benevolence of God, they cannot abolish the facts\nrecorded in the history of human suffering in this world as the effects\nof transgression; nor can they discharge these fearful comminations from\nthe pages of the book of God. These cannot be criticised away; and if it\nis \u201cJesus who saves us from this wrath to come,\u201d that is, from those\neffects of the wrath of God which are to come, then, but for him, we\nshould have been liable to them. That principle in God, from which such\neffects follow, the Scriptures call wrath; and they who deny the\nexistence of wrath in God, deny, therefore, the Scriptures.\n\nIt by no means follows, however, that this wrath is a passion in God; or\nthat, though we contend that the awful attribute of his justice requires\nsatisfaction, in order to the forgiveness of the guilty, we afford\nreason to any to charge us with attributing vengeful affections to the\ndivine Being. \u201cOur adversaries,\u201d says Bishop Stillingfleet, \u201cfirst make\nopinions for us, and then show that they are unreasonable. They first\nsuppose that anger in God is to be considered as a passion, and that\npassion a desire of revenge; and then tell us, that if we do not prove\nthat this desire of revenge can be satisfied by the sufferings of\nChrist, then we can never prove the doctrine of satisfaction to be true;\nwhereas, we do not mean by God\u2019s anger, any such passion, but the just\ndeclaration of God\u2019s will to punish, upon our provocation of him by our\nsins; we do not make the design of the satisfaction to be that God may\nplease himself in revenging the sins of the guilty upon the most\ninnocent person, because we make the design of punishment not to be the\nsatisfaction of anger as a desire of revenge, but to be the vindication\nof the honour and rights of the offended person by such a way as he\nhimself shall judge satisfactory to the ends of his government.\u201d See\nATONEMENT and EXPIATION.\n\nPROPITIATORY, among the Jews, was the cover or lid of the ark of the\ncovenant, which was lined both within and without with plates of gold,\ninsomuch that there was no wood to be seen. Some even take it to have\nbeen one piece of massive gold. The cherubims spread their wings over\nthe propitiatory. This propitiatory was a type or figure of Christ. See\nPROPITIATION.\n\nPROSELYTE, \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, signifies _a stranger_, _a foreigner_; the Hebrew\nword \u05d2\u05e8, or \u05e0\u05db\u05e8, also denotes a stranger, one who comes from abroad, or\nfrom another place. In the language \u05e0\u05db\u05e8 of the Jews, those were called\nby this name who came to dwell in their country, or who embraced their\nreligion, being not Jews by birth. In the New Testament they are called\nsometimes proselytes, and sometimes Gentiles, fearing God, Acts ii, 5;\nx, ii, 22; xiii, 16, 50. The Jews distinguish two kinds of proselytes.\nThe first, proselytes of the gate; the others, proselytes of justice or\nrighteousness. The first dwelt in the land of Israel, or even out of\nthat country, and, without obliging themselves to circumcision, or to\nany other ceremony of the law, feared and worshipped the true God,\nobserving the rules imposed on Noah. These were, according to the\nrabbins, 1. To abstain from idolatry; 2. From blasphemy; 3. From murder;\n4. From adultery; 5. From theft; 6. To appoint just and upright judges;\n7. Not to eat the flesh of any animal cut off while it was alive.\nMaimonides says, that the first six of these precepts were given to\nAdam, and the seventh to Noah. The privileges of proselytes of the gate\nwere, first, that through holiness they might have hope of eternal life.\nSecondly, they could dwell in the land of Israel, and share in the\noutward prosperities of it. It is said they did not dwell in the cities,\nbut only in the suburbs and the villages; but it is certain that the\nJews often admitted into their cities, not only proselytes of\nhabitation, but also Gentiles and idolaters, as appears by the\nreproaches on this account, throughout the Scriptures.\n\nProselytes of justice or of righteousness were those converted to\nJudaism, who had engaged themselves to receive circumcision, and to\nobserve the whole law of Moses. Thus were they admitted to all the\nprerogatives of the people of the Lord. The rabbins inform us that,\nbefore circumcision was administered to them, and before they were\nadmitted into the religion of the Hebrews, they were examined about the\nmotives of their conversion; whether the change was voluntary, or\nwhether it proceeded from interest, fear, ambition, &c. When the\nproselyte was well proved and instructed, they gave him circumcision;\nand when the wound of his circumcision healed, they gave him baptism, by\nplunging his whole body into a cistern of water, by only one immersion.\nBoys under twelve years of age, and girls under thirteen, could not\nbecome proselytes till they had obtained the consent of their parents,\nor, in case of refusal, the concurrence of the officers of justice.\nBaptism in respect of girls had the same effect as circumcision in\nrespect of boys. Each of them, by means of this, received, as it were, a\nnew birth, so that those who were their parents before were no longer\nregarded as such after this ceremony, and those who before were slaves\nnow became free.\n\nMany, however, are of opinion that there appears to be no ground\nwhatever in Scripture for this distinction of proselytes of the gate,\nand proselytes of righteousness. \u201cAccording to my idea,\u201d says Dr.\nTomline, \u201cproselytes were those, and those only, who took upon\nthemselves the obligation of the whole Mosaic law, but retained that\nname till they were admitted into the congregation of the Lord as\nadopted children. Gentiles were allowed to worship and offer sacrifices\nto the God of Israel in the outer court of the temple; and some of them,\npersuaded of the sole and universal sovereignty of the Lord Jehovah,\nmight renounce idolatry without embracing the Mosaic law; but such\npersons appear to me never to be called proselytes in Scripture, or in\nany ancient Christian writer.\u201d He also observes that \u201cthe term\n_proselytes of the gate_ is derived from an expression frequent in the\nOld Testament; namely, \u2018the stranger that is within thy gates;\u2019 but I\nthink it evident that the strangers were those Gentiles who were\npermitted to live among the Jews under certain restrictions, and whom\nthe Jews were forbidden \u2018to vex or oppress,\u2019 so long as they live in a\npeaceable manner.\u201d Dr. Lardner says, \u201cI do not believe that the notion\nof two sorts of Jewish proselytes can be found in any Christian writer\nbefore the fourteenth century or later.\u201d Dr. Jennings also observes that\n\u201cthere does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the Scripture\nhistory of the existence of such proselytes of the gate, as the rabbins\nmention; nor, indeed, of any who with propriety can be styled\nproselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion.\u201d\n\nPROSEUCH\u00c6. That the Jews had houses, or places for prayer, called\n\u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76, appears from a variety of passages in Philo; and,\nparticularly in his oration against Flaccus, he complains that their\n\u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 were pulled down, and there was no place left in which they\nmight worship God and pray for C\u00e6sar. Among those who make the\nsynagogues and _proseuch\u00e6_ to be different places, are the learned Mr.\nJoseph Mede and Dr. Prideaux; and they think the difference consists\npartly in the form of the edifice; a synagogue, they say, being roofed\nlike our houses or churches; and a _proseucha_ being only encompassed\nwith a wall, or some other mound or enclosure, and open at the top, like\nour courts. They make them to differ in situation; synagogues being in\ntowns and cities, _proseuch\u00e6_ in the fields, and frequently by the river\nside. Dr. Prideaux mentions another distinction in respect to the\nservice performed in them. In synagogues, he says, the prayers were\noffered up in public forms in common for the whole congregation; but in\nthe _proseuch\u00e6_ they prayed, as in the temple, every one apart for\nhimself. And thus our Saviour prayed in the _proseucha_ into which he\nentered. Yet, after all, the proof in favour of this notion is not so\nstrong, but that it still remains a question with some, whether the\nsynagogues and the _proseuch\u00e6_ were any thing more than two different\nnames for the same place; the one taken from the people\u2019s assembling in\nthem, the other from the service to which they were more immediately\nappropriated, namely, prayer. Nevertheless, the name _proseuch\u00e6_ will\nnot prove that they were appropriated only to prayer, and therefore were\ndifferent from synagogues, in which the Scriptures were also read and\nexpounded; since the temple, in which sacrifices were offered, and all\nthe parts of divine service were performed, is called \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2,\n_a house of prayer_, Matt. xxi, 13.\n\nPROTESTANT. The Emperor Charles V. called a diet at Spire, in 1529, to\nrequest aid from the German princes against the Turks, and to devise the\nmost effectual means for allaying the religious disputes which then\nraged in consequence of Luther\u2019s opposition to the established religion.\nIn this diet it was decreed by Ferdinand, archduke of Austria, and other\npopish princes, that in the countries which had embraced the new\nreligion it should be lawful to continue in it till the meeting of a\ncouncil; but that no Roman Catholic should be allowed to turn Lutheran,\nand that the reformers should deliver nothing in their sermons contrary\nto the received doctrine of the church. Against this decree, six\nLutheran princes, namely, John and George, the electors of Saxony and\nBrandenburg, Ernest and Francis, the two dukes of Lunenburg, the\nlandgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhalt, with the deputies of\nthirteen imperial towns, namely, Strasburg, Ulm, Nuremberg, Constance,\nRottingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Nortlingen, Lindaw, Kempten, Hailbron,\nWissemburg, and St. Gall, formally and solemnly _protested_ and declared\nthat they appealed to a general council; and hence the name of\nProtestants, by which the followers of Luther have ever since been\nknown. Nor was it confined to them; for it soon after included the\nCalvinists, and has now of a long time been applied generally to the\nChristian sects, of whatever denomination, and in whatever country they\nmay be found, which have separated from the see of Rome.\n\nMr. Chillingworth, addressing himself to a writer in favour of the\nchurch of Rome, speaks of the religion of the Protestants in the\nfollowing excellent terms: \u201cKnow then, sir, that when I say the religion\nof Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours, on the one\nside, I do not understand by your religion the doctrine of Bellarmine,\nor Baronius, or any other private man among you, nor the doctrine of the\nSorbonne, of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other\nparticular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess\nto agree, the doctrine of the council of Trent; so, accordingly, on the\nother side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the\ndoctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, nor the confession of\nAugsburg, or Geneva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg, nor the articles\nof the church of England; no, nor the harmony of Protestant confessions;\nbut that in which they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a\ngreater harmony, as a perfect rule of faith and action; that is, the\nBible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.\nWhatsoever else they believe beside it, and the plain, irrefragable,\nindubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of\nopinion; but as a matter of faith and religion, neither can they with\ncoherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require belief\nof it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I,\nfor my part, after a long, and, as I verily believe and hope, impartial,\nsearch of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that I\ncannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I\nsee plainly, and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes,\nand councils against councils; some fathers against other fathers, the\nsame fathers against themselves; a consent of fathers of one age against\na consent of fathers of another age; traditive interpretations of\nScripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found; no\ntradition but that of Scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but\nmay be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age\nafter Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is\nno sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to\nbuild upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe.\nThis I will profess; according to this I will live; and for this, if\nthere be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly, lose my\nlife, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me.\nPropose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe or\nno, and, seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will\nsubscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be\nstronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. In other\nthings, I will take no man\u2019s liberty of judging from him; neither shall\nany man take mine from me.\u201d\n\nUnder such views the Bible is held as the only sure foundation upon\nwhich all true Protestants build every article of the faith which they\nprofess, and every point of doctrine which they teach; and all other\nfoundations, whether they be the decisions of councils, the confessions\nof churches, the prescripts of popes, or the expositions of private men,\nare considered by them as sandy and unsafe, or as in nowise to be\nultimately relied on. Yet, on the other hand, they by no means\nfastidiously reject them as of no use; for while they admit the Bible,\nor the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be the only\ninfallible rule by which we must measure the truth or falsehood of every\nreligious opinion, they are sensible that all men are not equally fitted\nto understand or to apply this rule; and that the wisest men want, on\nmany occasions, all the helps afforded by the learning and research of\nothers to enable them to understand its precise nature, and to define\nits certain extent. These helps are great and numerous, having been\nsupplied, in every age of the church, by the united labours of learned\nmen in every country, and by none in greater abundance than by those in\nProtestant communions.\n\nPROVERBS, short aphorisms, and sententious moral and prudential maxims,\nusually expressed in numbers, or rhythm, or antithesis, as being more\neasily remembered, and of more use, than abstruse and methodical\ndiscourses. This method of instruction appears to be peculiarly suited\nto the disposition and genius of the Asiatics, among whom it has\nprevailed from the earliest ages. The Gymnosophists of India delivered\ntheir philosophy in brief enigmatical sentences; a practice adopted and\ncarried to a great extent by the ancient Egyptians. The mode of\nconveying instruction by compendious maxims obtained among the Jews,\nfrom the first dawn of their literature, to its final extinction in the\neast through the power of the Mohammedan arms; and it was familiar to\nthe inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, as we learn from the testimony\nof St. Jerom. The eloquence of Arabia was mostly exhibited in detached\nand unconnected sentences, which, like so many loose gems, attracted\nattention by the fulness of the periods, the elegance of the\nphraseology, and the acuteness of proverbial sayings. Nor do the\nAsiatics at present differ, in this respect, from their ancestors, as\nnumerous _amth\u00e2l_, or moral sentences, are in circulation throughout the\nregions of the east, some of which have been published by Hottinger,\nErpenius, the younger Schultens, and others who have distinguished\nthemselves by the pursuit of oriental learning. \u201cThe moralists of the\neast,\u201d says Sir William Jones, \u201chave, in general, chosen to deliver\ntheir precepts in short sententious maxims, to illustrate them by\nsprightly comparisons, or to inculcate them in the very ancient forms of\nagreeable apologues: there are, indeed, both in Arabic and Persian,\nphilosophical tracts on ethics, written with sound ratiocination and\nelegant perspicuity; but in every part of the eastern world, from Pekin\nto Damascus, the popular teachers of moral wisdom have immemorially been\npoets; and there would be no end of enumerating their works, which are\nstill extant in the five principal languages of Asia.\u201d The ingenious but\never disputing and loquacious Greeks were indebted to the same means for\ntheir earliest instruction in wisdom. The sayings of the seven wise men,\nthe golden verses of Pythagoras, the remains of Theognis and Phocylides,\nif genuine, and the _gnomai_ of the older poets, testify the prevalence\nof aphorisms in ancient Greece. Had no specimens remained of Hellenic\nproverbs, we might have concluded this to have been the case; for the\nGreeks borrowed the rudiments, if not the principal part, of their\nknowledge from those whom they arrogantly termed barbarians; and it is\nonly through the medium of compendious maxims and brief sentences that\ntraditionary knowledge can be preserved. This mode of communicating\nmoral and practical wisdom accorded with the sedate and deliberative\ncharacter of the Romans; and, in truth, from its influence over the\nmind, and its fitness for popular instruction, proverbial expressions\nexist in all ages and in all languages.\n\nProverbs, in the Hebrew language, are called _meshalim_, which is\nderived from a verb signifying both \u201cto rule,\u201d \u201cto have dominion,\u201d and\n\u201cto compare,\u201d \u201cto liken,\u201d \u201cto assimilate:\u201d hence the term denotes the\nhighly figurative and poetical style in general, and likewise those\ncompendious and authoritative sentences in particular which are commonly\ndenominated proverbs. This term, which our translators have adopted\nafter the Vulgate, denotes, according to our great lexicographer, \u201ca\nshort sentence frequently repeated by the people, a saw, an adage;\u201d and\nno other word can, perhaps, be substituted more accurately expressing\nthe force of the Hebrew; or, if there could, it has been so long\nfamiliarized by constant use, that a change is totally inadmissible.\n\nThe _Meshalim_, or Proverbs of Solomon, on account of their intrinsic\nmerit, as well as of the rank and renown of their author, would be\nreceived with submissive deference; in consequence of which, they would\nrapidly spread through every part of the Jewish territories. The pious\ninstructions of the king would be listened to with the attention and\nrespect they deserve, and, no doubt, would be carefully recorded by a\npeople attached to his person, and holding his wisdom in the highest\nadmiration. These, either preserved in writing, or handed down by oral\ncommunication, were subsequently collected into one volume, and\nconstitute the book in the sacred canon, entitled, \u201cThe Proverbs of\nSolomon, the son of David, king of Israel.\u201d The genuineness and\nauthenticity of this title, and those in chap. x, 1, and xxv, 1, cannot\nbe disputed; not the smallest reason appears for calling them in\nquestion. One portion of the book, from the twenty-fifth chapter to the\nend of the twenty-ninth, was compiled by the men of Hezekiah, as appears\nfrom the title prefixed to it. Eliakim, Shebna, Joah, Isaiah, Hosea, and\nMicah, personages of eminence and worth, were contemporary with\nHezekiah; but whether these or others executed the compilation, it is\nnow impossible to determine. They were persons, however, as we may\nreasonably suppose, well qualified for the undertaking, who collected\nwhat were known to be the genuine proverbs of Solomon from the various\nwritings in which they were dispersed, and arranged them in their\npresent order. Whether the preceding twenty-four chapters, which,\ndoubtless, existed in a combined form previous to the additional\ncollection, were compiled by the author, or some other person, is quite\nuncertain. Both collections, however, being made at so early a period,\nis a satisfactory evidence that the Proverbs are the genuine production\nof Solomon, to whom they are ascribed; for, from the death of Solomon to\nthe reign of Hezekiah, according to the Bible chronology, was a period\nof two hundred and forty-nine years, or, according to Dr. Hales, two\nhundred and sixty-five years; too short a space to admit of any forgery\nor material error, as either must have been immediately detected by the\nworthies who flourished during the virtuous reign of Hezekiah.\n\nPROVIDENCE, the conduct and direction of the several parts of the\nuniverse, by a superior intelligent Being. The notion of a providence is\nfounded upon this truth, that the Creator has not so fixed and\nascertained the laws of nature, nor so connected the chain of second\ncauses, as to leave the world to itself, but that he still preserves the\nreins in his own hands, and occasionally intervenes, alters, restrains,\nenforces, suspends, &c, those laws by a particular providence. Some use\nthe word _providence_ in a more general sense, signifying by it that\npower or action by which the several parts of the creation are\nordinarily directed. Thus Damascenus defines providence to be that\ndivine will by which all things are ordered and directed to the proper\nend: which notion of providence supposes no laws at all fixed by the\nauthor of nature at the creation, but that he reserved it at large, to\nbe governed by himself immediately. The Epicureans denied any divine\nprovidence, as thinking it inconsistent with the ease and repose of the\ndivine nature to meddle at all with human affairs. Simplicius argues\nthus for a providence: If God does not look to the affairs of the world,\nit is either because he cannot or will not; but the first is absurd,\nsince, to govern cannot be difficult where to create was easy; and the\nlatter is both absurd and blasphemous. In Plato\u2019s Tenth Dialogue of\nLaws, he teaches excellently, that (since what is self-moving is, by its\nnature, before that which moves only in consequence of being moved) mind\nmust be prior to matter, and the cause of all its modifications and\nchanges; and that, therefore, there is a universal Mind possessed of all\nperfection, which produced and which actuates all things. After this he\nshows that the Deity exercises a particular providence over the world,\ntaking care of small no less than great things. In proving this he\nobserves \u201cthat a superior nature of such excellence as the divine, which\nhears, sees, and knows all things, cannot, in any instance, be subject\nto negligence or sloth; that the meanest and the greatest part of the\nworld are all equally his work or possession; that great things cannot\nbe rightly taken care of without taking care of small; and that, in all\ncases, the more able and perfect any artist is, (as a physician, an\narchitect, or the ruler of the state,) the more his skill and care\nappear in little as well as great things. Let us not, then,\u201d says he,\n\u201cconceive of God as worse than even mortal artists.\u201d\n\nThe term providence, in its primary signification, simply denotes\nforesight; and if we allow the existence of a supreme Being who formed\nthe universe at first, we must necessarily allow that he has a perfect\nforesight of every event which at any time takes place in the natural or\nmoral world. Matter can have no motion, nor spirit any energy, but what\nis derived from him; nor can he be ignorant of the effects which they\nwill, either separately or conjointly, produce. A common mechanic has\nknowledge of the work of his own hands: when he puts the machine which\nhe has made in motion, he foresees how long it will go, and what will be\nthe state and position of its several parts at any particular point of\ntime; or, if he is not perfectly able to do this, it is because he is\nnot perfectly acquainted with all the powers of the materials which he\nhas used in its construction: they are not of his making, and they may\ntherefore have qualities which he does not understand, and consequently\ncannot regulate. But in the immense machine of the universe there is\nnothing except that which God has made; all the powers and properties,\nrelations and dependencies, which created things have, they have, both\nin kind and degree, from him. Nothing, therefore, it should seem, can\ncome to pass at any time, or in any part of the universe, which its\nincomprehensible Architect did not, from the moment his almighty fiat\ncalled it into existence, clearly foresee. The providence of God is\nimplied in his very existence as an intelligent Creator; and it imports\nnot only an abstract foresight of all possible events, but such a\npredisposition of causes and effects, such an adjustment of means and\nends, as seems to us to exclude that contingency of human actions with\nwhich, as expectants of positive rewards and punishments in another\nworld, we firmly believe it to be altogether consistent.\n\nBy providence we may understand, not merely foresight, but a uniform and\nconstant operation of God subsequent to the act of creation. Thus, in\nevery machine formed by human ingenuity, there is a necessity for the\naction of some extraneous power to put the machine in motion: a proper\nconstruction and disposition of parts not being sufficient to effect the\nend: there must be a spring, or a weight, or an impulse of air or water,\nor some substance or other, on which the motion of the several parts of\nthe machine must depend. In like manner, the machine of the universe\ndepends upon its Creator for the commencement and the conservation of\nthe motion of its several parts. The power by which the insensible\nparticles of matter coalesce into sensible lumps, as well as that by\nwhich the great orbs of the universe are reluctantly, as it were,\nretained in their courses, admits not an explanation from mechanical\ncauses: the effects of both of them are different from such as mere\nmatter and motion can produce; they must ultimately be referred to God.\nVegetable and animal life and increase cannot be accounted for, without\nrecurring to him as the primary cause of both. In all these respects the\nprovidence of God is something more than foresight; it is a continual\ninfluence, a universal agency; \u201cby him all things consist,\u201d and \u201cin him\nwe live, and move, and have our being.\u201d\n\nMuch labour has been employed to account for all the phenomena of nature\nby the powers of mechanism, or the necessary laws of matter and motion.\nBut this, as we imagine, cannot be done. The primary causes of things\nmust certainly be some powers and principles not mechanical, otherwise\nwe shall be reduced to the necessity of maintaining an endless\nprogression of motions communicated from matter to matter, without any\nfirst mover; or of saying that the first impelling matter moved itself.\nThe former is an absurdity too great to be embraced by any one; and\nthere is reason to hope that the essential inactivity of matter is at\npresent so well understood, and so generally allowed, notwithstanding\nsome modern oppugners of this hypothesis, that there can be but few who\nwill care to assert the latter. All our reasonings about bodies, and the\nwhole of natural philosophy, are founded on the three laws of motion\nlaid down by Sir Isaac Newton, at the beginning of the \u201c_Principia_.\u201d\nThese laws express the plainest truths; but they would have neither\nevidence nor meaning, were not inactivity contained in our idea of\nmatter. Should it be said that matter, though naturally inert, may be\nmade to be otherwise by divine power, this would be the same with saying\nthat matter may be made not to be matter. If inactivity belong to it at\nall, it must belong to it as matter, or solid extension, and therefore\nmust be inseparable from it. Matter is figured, movable, discerptable,\ninactive, and capable of communicating motion by impulse to other\nmatter: these are not accidental but primary qualities of matter.\nBeside, matter void of inactivity, if we were to suppose it possible,\ncould produce no effects. The communication of motion, its direction,\nthe resistance it suffers, and its cessation, in a word, the whole\ndoctrine of motion cannot be consistently explained or clearly\nunderstood without supposing the inertia of matter. Self-moving matter\nmust have thought and design, because, whenever matter moves, it must\nmove in some particular direction, and with some precise degree of\nvelocity; and as there is an infinity of these equally possible, it\ncannot move itself without selecting one of these preferably to and\nexclusively of all others, and therefore not without design. Moreover,\nit may be plainly proved that matter cannot be the ultimate cause of the\nphenomena of nature, or the agent which, by any powers inherent in\nitself, produces the general laws of nature, without possessing the\nhighest degree of knowledge and wisdom; which might be easily evinced or\nexemplified by adverting to the particular law of gravitation. \u201cThe\nphilosopher,\u201d says an excellent writer, \u201cwho overlooks the laws of an\nall-governing Deity in nature, contenting himself with the appearance of\nthe material universe only, and the mechanical laws of motion, neglects\nwhat is most excellent, and prefers what is imperfect to what is\nsupremely perfect, finitude to infinity, what is narrow and weak to what\nis unlimited and almighty, and what is perishing to what endures for\never. Sir Isaac Newton thought it most unaccountable to exclude the\nDeity _only_ out of the universe. It appeared to him much more just and\nreasonable to suppose that the whole chain of causes, or the several\nseries of them, should centre in him as their source; and the whole\nsystem appear depending on him the only independent cause.\u201d If, then,\nthe Deity pervades and actuates the material world, and his unremitting\nenergy is the cause to which every effect in it must be traced; the\nspiritual world, which is of greater consequence, cannot be disregarded\nby him. Is there not one atom of matter on which he does not act; and is\nthere one living being about which he has no concern? Does not a stone\nfall without him; and does, then, a man suffer without him? The\ninanimate world is of no consequence, abstracted from its subserviency\nto the animate and reasonable world: the former, therefore, must be\npreserved and governed entirely with a view to the latter. But it is not\nmere energy or the constant exertion of power that is discernible in the\nframe or laws of the universe, in maintaining the succession of men, and\nin producing men and other beings; but wisdom and skill are also\nconspicuous in the structure of every object in the inanimate creation.\nAfter a survey of the beauty and elegance of the works of nature, aided\nby the perusal of Matt. vi, 28, &c, we may ask ourselves, Has God, in\nthe lowest of his works, been lavish of wisdom, beauty, and skill; and\nis he sparing of these in the concerns of reasonable beings? Or does he\nless regard order, propriety, and fitness in the determination of their\nstates? The answer is obvious. Providence also implies a particular\ninterposition of God in administering the affairs of individuals and\nnations, and wholly distinct from that general and incessant exertion of\nhis power, by which he sustains the universe in existence.\n\nThe doctrine of providence may be evinced from the consideration of the\ndivine perfections. The first cause of all things must be regarded as a\nbeing absolutely perfect; and the idea of absolute perfection\ncomprehends infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; hence we deduce the\ndoctrine of providence. The Deity cannot be an indifferent spectator of\nthe series of events in that world to which he has given being. His\ngoodness will as certainly engage him to direct them agreeably to the\nends of goodness, as his wisdom and power enable him to do it in the\nmost effectual manner. This conclusion is conformable to all our ideas\nof those attributes. Could we call that being good who would refuse to\ndo any good which he is able to do without the least labour or\ndifficulty? God is present every where. He sees all that happens, and it\nis in his power, with perfect ease, to order all for the best. Can he\nthen possess goodness, and at the same time not do this? A God without a\nprovidence is undoubtedly a contradiction. Nothing is plainer than that\na being of perfect reason will, in every instance, take such care of the\nuniverse as perfect reason requires. That supreme intelligence and love,\nwhich are present to all things, and from whence all things sprung, must\ngovern all occurrences. These considerations prove what has been called\na _particular_, in opposition to a _general_, providence. We cannot\nconceive of any reasons that can influence the Deity to exercise _any_\nprovidence over the world, which are not likewise reasons for extending\nit to _all_ that happens in the world. As far as it is confined to\ngenerals, or overlooks _any_ individual, or _any_ event, it is\nincomplete, and therefore unsuitable to the idea of a perfect being.\n\nOne common prejudice against this doctrine arises from the apprehension\nthat it is below the dignity of the Deity to watch over, in the manner\nimplied in it, the meanest beings, and the minutest affairs. To which it\nmay be replied, that a great number of minute affairs, if they are each\nof them of some consequence, make up a sum which is of great\nconsequence; and that there is no way of taking care of this sum,\nwithout taking care of each particular. This objection, therefore, under\nthe appearance of honouring God, plainly dishonours him. Nothing is\nabsolutely trifling in which the happiness of any individual, even the\nmost insignificant, is at all concerned; nor is it beneath a wise and\ngood being to interpose in any thing of this kind. To suppose the Deity\nabove this, is to suppose him above acting up to the full extent of\ngoodness and rectitude. The same eternal benevolence that first engaged\nhim to produce beings, must also engage him to exercise a particular\nprovidence over them; and the very lowest beings, as well as the\nhighest, seem to have a kind of right to his superintendence, from the\nact itself of bringing them into existence. Every apprehension that this\nis too great a condescension in him is founded on the poorest ideas;\nfor, surely, whatever it was not too great condescension in him to\ncreate, it cannot be too great a condescension in him to take care of.\nBeside, with regard to God, all distinctions in the creation vanish. All\nbeings are infinitely, that is, equally, inferior to him.\n\nAccident, and chance, and fortune, are words which we often hear\nmentioned, and much is ascribed to them in the life of man. But they are\nwords without meaning; or, as far as they have any signification, they\nare no other than names for the unknown operations of providence; for it\nis certain that in God\u2019s universe nothing comes to pass causelessly, or\nin vain. Every event has its own determined direction. That chaos of\nhuman affairs and intrigues where we can see no light, that mass of\ndisorder and confusion which they often present to our view, is all\nclearness and order in the sight of Him who is governing and directing\nthe whole, and bringing forward every event in its due time and place.\n\u201cThe Lord sitteth on the flood. The Lord maketh the wrath of man to\npraise him,\u201d as he maketh the \u201chail and rain to obey his word. He hath\nprepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. A\nman\u2019s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.\u201d No\nother principle than this, embraced with a steady faith, and attended\nwith a suitable practice, can ever be able to give repose and\ntranquillity to the mind; to animate our hopes, or extinguish our fears;\nto give us any true satisfaction in the enjoyments of life, or to\nminister consolation under its adversities. If we are persuaded that God\ngoverns the world, that he has the superintendence and direction of all\nevents, and that we are the objects of his providential care; whatever\nmay be our distress or our danger, we can never want consolation; we may\nalways have a fund of hope, always a prospect of relief. But take away\nthis hope and this prospect, take away the belief of God and of a\nsuperintending providence, and man would be of all creatures the most\nmiserable; destitute of every comfort, every support, under present\nsufferings, and of every security against future dangers.\n\nPSALMS. The book of Psalms is a collection of hymns, or sacred songs, in\npraise of God, and consists of poems of various kinds. They are the\nproductions of different persons, but are generally called the Psalms of\nDavid, because a great part of them was composed by him, and David\nhimself is distinguished by the name of the Psalmist. We cannot now\nascertain all the Psalms written by David, but their number probably\nexceeds seventy; and much less are we able to discover the authors of\nthe other Psalms, or the occasions upon which they were composed. A few\nof them were written after the return from the Babylonian captivity. The\ntitles prefixed to them are of very questionable authority; and in many\ncases they are not intended to denote the writer but refer only to the\nperson who was appointed to set them to music. David first introduced\nthe practice of singing sacred hymns in the public service of God; and\nit was restored by Ezra. The authority of the Psalms is established not\nonly by their rank among the sacred writings, and by the unvaried\ntestimony of ages, but likewise by many intrinsic proofs of inspiration.\nNot only do they breathe through every part a divine spirit of\neloquence, but they contain numberless illustrious prophecies that were\nremarkably accomplished, and are frequently appealed to by the\nevangelical writers. The sacred character of the whole book is\nestablished by the testimony of our Saviour and his Apostles, who, in\nvarious parts of the New Testament, appropriate the predictions of the\nPsalms as obviously apposite to the circumstances of their lives, and as\nintentionally composed to describe them. The veneration for the Psalms\nhas in all ages of the church been considerable. The fathers assure us,\nthat in the earlier times the whole book of Psalms was generally learned\nby heart; and that the ministers of every gradation were expected to be\nable to repeat them from memory. These invaluable Scriptures are daily\nrepeated without weariness, though their beauties are often overlooked\nin familiar and habitual perusal. As hymns immediately addressed to the\nDeity, they reduce righteousness to practice; and while we acquire the\nsentiments, we perform the offices of piety; while we supplicate for\nblessings, we celebrate the memorial of former mercies; and while in the\nexercise of devotion, faith is enlivened by the display of prophecy.\nJosephus asserts, and most of the ancient writers maintain, that the\nPsalms were composed in metre. They have undoubtedly a peculiar\nconformation of sentences, and a measured distribution of parts. Many of\nthem are elegiac, and most of David\u2019s are of the lyric kind. There is no\nsufficient reason however to believe, as some writers have imagined,\nthat they were written in rhyme, or in any of the Grecian measures. Some\nof them are acrostic; and though the regulations of the Hebrew measure\nare now lost, there can be no doubt, from their harmonious modulation,\nthat they were written with some kind of metrical order; and they must\nhave been composed in accommodation to the measure to which they were\nset. (See _Poetry of the Hebrews_.) The Hebrew copies and the Septuagint\nversion of this book contain the same number of Psalms; only the\nSeptuagint translators have, for some reason which does not appear,\nthrown the ninth and tenth into one, as also the one hundred and\nfourteenth and one hundred and fifteenth, and have divided the one\nhundred and sixteenth and one hundred and forty-seventh each into two.\n\nIt is very justly observed by Dr. Allix, that, \u201calthough the sense of\nnear fifty Psalms be fixed and settled by divine authors, yet Christ and\nhis Apostles did not undertake to quote all the Psalms they could, but\nonly to give a key to their hearers, by which they might apply to the\nsame subjects the Psalms of the same composure and expression.\u201d With\nregard to the Jews, Bishop Chandler very pertinently remarks, that \u201cthey\nmust have understood David, their prince, to have been a figure of\nMessiah. They would not otherwise have made his Psalms part of their\ndaily worship; nor would David have delivered them to the church to be\nso employed, were it not to instruct and support them in the knowledge\nand belief of this fundamental article. Were the Messiah not concerned\nin the Psalms, it would have been absurd to celebrate twice a day, in\ntheir public devotions, the events of one man\u2019s life, who was deceased\nso long ago, as to have no relation now to the Jews and the\ncircumstances of their affairs; or to transcribe whole passages from\nthem into their prayers for the coming of the Messiah.\u201d Upon the same\nprinciple it is easily seen that the objections, which may seem to lie\nagainst the use of Jewish services in Christian congregations, may cease\nat once. Thus it may be said, Are we concerned with the affairs of David\nand of Israel? Have we any thing to do with the ark and the temple? They\nare no more. Are we to go up to Jerusalem, and to worship on Sion? They\nare desolated, and trodden under foot by the Turks. Are we to sacrifice\nyoung bullocks according to the law? The law is abolished, never to be\nobserved again. Do we pray for victory over Moab, Edom, and Philistia;\nor for deliverance from Babylon? There are no such nations, no such\nplaces in the world. What then do we mean, when, taking such expressions\ninto our mouths, we utter them in our own persons, as parts of our\ndevotions, before God? Assuredly we must mean a spiritual Jerusalem and\nSion; a spiritual ark and temple; a spiritual law; spiritual sacrifices;\nand spiritual victories over spiritual enemies; all described under the\nold names, which are still retained, though \u201cold things are passed away,\nand all things are become new,\u201d 2 Cor. v, 17. By substituting Messiah\nfor David, the Gospel for the law, the church Christian for that of\nIsrael, and the enemies of the one for those of the other, the Psalms\nare made our own. Nay, they are with more fulness and propriety applied\nnow to the substance, than they were of old to the \u201cshadow of good\nthings then to come,\u201d Heb. x, 1. For let it not pass unobserved, that\nwhen, upon the first publication of the Gospel, the Apostles had\noccasion to utter their transports of joy, on their being counted worthy\nto suffer for the name of their Lord and Master, which was then opposed\nby Jew and Gentile, they brake forth into an application of the second\nPsalm to the transactions then before their eyes, Acts iv, 25. The\nPsalms, thus applied, have advantages which no fresh compositions,\nhowever finely executed, can possibly have; since, beside their\nincomparable fitness to express our sentiments, they are at the same\ntime memorials of, and appeals to, former mercies and deliverances; they\nare acknowledgments of prophecies accomplished; they point out the\nconnection between the old and new dispensations, thereby teaching us to\nadmire and adore the wisdom of God displayed in both, and furnishing\nwhile we read or sing them, an inexhaustible variety of the noblest\nmatter that can engage the contemplations of man.\n\nVery few of the Psalms, comparatively, appear to be simply prophetical,\nand to belong only to Messiah, without the intervention of any other\nperson. Most of them, it is apprehended, have a double sense, which\nstands upon this ground and foundation, that the ancient patriarchs,\nprophets, priests, and kings, were typical characters, in their several\noffices, and in the more remarkable passages of their lives, their\nextraordinary depressions and miraculous exaltations foreshowing him who\nwas to arise as the head of the holy family, the great prophet, the true\npriest, the everlasting king. The Israelitish polity, and the law of\nMoses, were purposely framed after the example and shadow of things\nspiritual and heavenly; and the events which happened to the ancient\npeople of God were designed to shadow out parallel occurrences, which\nshould afterward take place in the accomplishment of man\u2019s redemption,\nand the rise and progress of the Christian church. (See _Prophecy_.) For\nthis reason, the Psalms composed for the use of Israel, and by them\naccordingly used at the time, do admit of an application to us, who are\nnow \u201cthe Israel of God,\u201d Gal. vi, 16, and to our Redeemer, who is the\nKing of this Israel. It would be an arduous and adventurous undertaking\nto attempt to lay down the rules observed in the conduct of the mystic\nallegory, so diverse are the modes in which the Holy Spirit has thought\nproper to communicate his counsels to different persons on different\noccasions; inspiring and directing the minds of the prophets according\nto his good pleasure; at one time vouchsafing more full and free\ndiscoveries of future events; while, at another, he is more obscure and\nsparing in his intimations. From hence, of course, arises a great\nvariety in the Scripture usage of this kind of allegory as to the manner\nin which the spiritual sense is couched under the other. Sometimes it\ncan hardly break forth and show itself at intervals through the literal,\nwhich meets the eye as the ruling sense, and seems to have taken entire\npossession of the words and phrases. On the contrary, it is much oftener\nthe capital figure in the piece, and stands confessed at once by such\nsplendour of language, that the letter, in its turn, is thrown into\nshade, and almost totally disappears. Sometimes it shines with a\nconstant equable light, and sometimes it darts upon us on a sudden, like\na flash of lightning from the clouds. But a composition is never more\ntruly elegant and beautiful, than when the two senses, alike\nconspicuous, run parallel together through the whole poem, mutually\ncorresponding with and illustrating each other.\n\nThus the establishment of David upon his throne, notwithstanding the\nopposition made to it by his enemies, is the subject of the second\nPsalm. David sustains in it a twofold character, literal and\nallegorical. If we read over the Psalm first with an eye to the literal\nDavid, the meaning is obvious, and put out of all dispute by the sacred\nhistory. There is indeed an uncommon glow in the expression, and\nsublimity in the figures; and the diction is now and then exaggerated,\nas it were, on purpose to intimate and lead us to the contemplation of\nhigher and more important matters concealed within. In compliance with\nthis admonition, if we take another survey of the Psalm, as relative to\nthe person and concerns of the spiritual David, a nobler series of\nevents instantly rises to view, and the meaning becomes more evident, as\nwell as exalted. The colouring, which may perhaps seem too bold and\nglaring for the king of Israel, will no longer appear so, when laid upon\nhis great antitype. After we have thus attentively considered the\nsubject apart, let us look at them together, and we shall behold the\nfull beauty and majesty of this most charming poem. We shall perceive\nthe two senses very distinct from each other, yet conspiring in perfect\nharmony, and bearing a wonderful resemblance in every feature and\nlineament, while the analogy between them is so exactly preserved, that\neither may pass for the original, from whence the other was copied. New\nlight is continually cast upon the phraseology, fresh weight and dignity\nare added to the sentiment, till gradually ascending from things below\nto things above, from human affairs to those which are divine, they bear\nthe great important theme upward with them, and at length place it in\nthe height and brightness of heaven. What has been observed with regard\nto this Psalm, may also be applied to the seventy-second; the subject of\nwhich is of the same kind, and treated in the same manner. Its title\nmight be, \u201cThe Inauguration of Solomon.\u201d The scheme of the allegory is\nalike in both; but a diversity of matter occasions an alteration in the\ndiction. For whereas one is employed in celebrating the magnificent\ntriumphs of victory, it is the design of the other to draw a pleasing\npicture of peace, and of that felicity which is her inseparable\nattendant. The style is therefore of a more even and temperate sort, and\nmore richly ornamented. It abounds not with those sudden changes of the\nperson speaking which dazzle and astonish; but the imagery is borrowed\nfrom the delightful scenes with which creation cheers the sight, and the\npencil of the divine artist is dipped in the softer colours of nature.\nAnd here we may take notice how peculiarly adapted to the genius of this\nkind of allegory the parabolical style is, on account of that great\nvariety of natural images to be found in it. For as these images are\ncapable of being employed in the illustration of things divine and\nhuman, between which there is a certain analogy maintained, so they\neasily afford that ambiguity which is necessary in this species of\ncomposition, where the language is applicable to each sense, and obscure\nin neither; it comprehends both parts of the allegory, and may be\nclearly and distinctly referred to one or the other.\n\nOn this book Bishop Horsley remarks:--These Psalms go, in general, under\nthe name of the Psalms of David. King David gave a regular and noble\nform to the musical part of the Jewish service. He was himself a great\ncomposer, both in poetry and music, and a munificent patron, no doubt,\nof arts in which he himself so much delighted and excelled. The Psalms,\nhowever, appear to be compositions of various authors, in various ages;\nsome much more ancient than the times of King David, some of a much\nlater age. Of many, David himself was undoubtedly the author; and that\nthose of his composition were prophetic, we have David\u2019s own authority,\nwhich may be allowed to overpower a host of modern expositors. For thus\nKing David, at the close of his life, describes himself and his sacred\nsongs: \u201cDavid, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on\nhigh, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of\nIsrael, said, The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in my\ntongue.\u2019 It was the word, therefore, of Jehovah\u2019s Spirit which was\nuttered by David\u2019s tongue. But it should seem, the Spirit of Jehovah\nwould not be wanting to enable a mere man to make complaint of his own\nenemies, to describe his own sufferings just as he felt them, and his\nown escapes just as they happened. But the Spirit of Jehovah described\nby David\u2019s utterance what was known to that Spirit only, and that Spirit\nonly could describe. So that, if David be allowed to have had any\nknowledge of the true subject of his own compositions, it was nothing in\nhis own life, but something put into his mind by the Holy Spirit of God;\nand the misapplication of the Psalms to the literal David has done more\nmischief than the misapplication of any other parts of the Scriptures\namong those who profess the belief of the Christian religion.\n\nThe Psalms are all poems of the lyric kind, that is, adapted to music,\nbut with great variety in the style of composition. Some are simply\nodes. An ode is a dignified sort of song, narrative of the facts, either\nof public history or private life, in a highly adorned and figured\nstyle. But the figure in the Psalms is that which is peculiar to the\nHebrew language, in which the figure gives its meaning with as much\nperspicuity as the plainest speech. Some are of the sort called elegiac,\nwhich are pathetic compositions upon mournful subjects. Some are ethic,\ndelivering grave maxims of life, or the precepts of religion, in solemn,\nbut for the most part simple, strains. Some are enigmatic, delivering\nthe doctrines of religion in enigmata, contrived to strike the\nimagination forcibly, and yet easy to be understood. In all these the\nauthor delivers the whole matter in his own person. But a very great, I\nbelieve the far greater, part are a sort of dramatic ode, consisting of\ndialogues between persons sustaining certain characters. In these\ndialogue Psalms the persons are frequently the psalmist himself, or the\nchorus of priests and Levites, or the leader of the Levitical band,\nopening the ode with a proem declarative of the subject, and very often\nclosing the whole with a solemn admonition drawn from what the other\npersons say. The other persons are Jehovah, sometimes as one, sometimes\nas another, of the three Persons; Christ in his incarnate state,\nsometimes before, sometimes after, his resurrection; the human soul of\nChrist as distinguished from the divine essence. Christ, in his\nincarnate state, is personated sometimes as a priest, sometimes as a\nking, sometimes as a conqueror; and in those Psalms in which he is\nintroduced as a conqueror, the resemblance is very remarkable between\nthis conqueror in the book of Psalms and the warrior on the white horse\nin the book of Revelation, who goes forth with a crown on his head, and\na bow in his hand, conquering and to conquer. And the conquest in the\nPsalms is followed, like the conquest in the Revelation, by the marriage\nof the conqueror. These are circumstances of similitude which, to any\none versed in the prophetic style, prove beyond a doubt that the\nmystical conqueror is the same personage in both.\n\nPSALMODY. The service of the ancient Christian church usually began with\nreading or with the singing of psalms. We are not to understand this as\nif their psalmody was performed in one course of many psalms together,\nwithout intermission, but rather, with some respite, and a mixture of\nother parts of divine service, to make the whole more agreeable and\ndelightful. As to the persons concerned in singing the Psalms publicly\nin the church, they may be considered in four different respects,\naccording to the different ways of psalmody; for sometimes the Psalms\nwere sung by one person alone; and sometimes the whole assembly joined\ntogether, men, women, and children: this was the most ancient and\ngeneral practice. At other times the Psalms were sung alternately; the\ncongregation dividing themselves into two parts, and singing verse for\nverse. Beside all these, there was yet a fourth way of singing, pretty\ncommon in the fourth century, which was, when a single person began the\nverse, and the people joined with him in the close.\n\nPsalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and upon\nthat account was usually performed in the standing posture. As to the\nvoice or pronunciation, used in singing, it was of two sorts, the plain\nsong, and the more artificial; the plain song was only a gentle\ninflexion, or turn of the voice, not very different from the chanting in\nour cathedrals; the artificial song seems to have been a regular musical\ncomposition, like our anthems. It was no objection against the psalmody\nof the church, that she sometimes made use of psalms and hymns of human\ncomposition, beside those of the inspired writers. St. Augustine himself\nmade a psalm of many parts, in imitation of the hundred and nineteenth,\nto preserve his people from the errors of the Donatists. St. Hilary and\nSt. Ambrose likewise made many hymns, which were sung in their\nrespective churches. But two corruptions crept into the psalmody, which\nthe fathers declaim against with great zeal. The first was, the\nintroducing secular music, or an imitation of the light airs of the\ntheatre, in the devotions of the church. The other was, the regarding\nmore the sweetness of the composition than the sense and meaning;\nthereby pleasing the ear, without raising the affections of the soul.\n\nThe use of musical instruments in singing of psalms, seems to be as\nancient as psalmody itself. The first psalm we read of was sung to a\ntimbrel, namely, that which Moses and Miriam sung after the deliverance\nof the children of Israel from Egypt; and afterward, at Jerusalem, when\nthe temple was built, musical instruments were constantly used at their\npublic services. And this has been the common practice in all ages of\nthe church. When the use of organs was first introduced, is not\ncertainly known; but we find, that about A. D. 660, Constantine\nCopronymus, emperor of Constantinople, sent a present of an organ to\nKing Pepin of France.\n\nClement Marot, groom of the bed chamber to Francis I., king of France,\nwas the first who engaged in translating the Psalms into metre. He\nversified the first fifty at the instigation of Vatablus, Hebrew\nprofessor at Paris; and afterward, upon his return to Geneva, he made an\nacquaintance with Beza, who versified the rest, and had tunes set to\nthem; and thus they began to be sung in private houses, and afterward\nwere brought into the churches of the French and other countries. In\nimitation of this version, Sternhold, one of the grooms of the privy\nchamber to our King Edward VI., undertook a translation of the Psalms\ninto metre. He went through but thirty-seven of them, the rest being\nsoon after finished by Hopkins and others. This translation was at first\ndiscountenanced by many of the clergy, who looked upon it as done in\nopposition to the practice of chanting the Psalms in the cathedrals.\n\nEarly in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, metrical psalmody was introduced\ninto this country. The new morning prayer began at St. Antholin\u2019s,\nLondon, when a psalm was sung in the Geneva fashion, all the\ncongregation, men, women, and boys singing together. Bishop Jewel says,\nthat \u201cthe singing of psalms, begun in one church in London, did quickly\nspread itself, not only through the city, but in the neighbouring\nplaces; sometimes at Paul\u2019s Cross six thousand people singing together.\u201d\n\nA curious controversy on this subject arose among the Dissenters in the\nend of the seventeenth century. Whether singing in public worship had\nbeen partially discontinued during the times of persecution to avoid\ninformers, or whether the miserable manner in which it was performed\ngave persons a distaste to it, so it appears, that in 1691, Mr. Benjamin\nKeach published a tract entitled, \u201cThe Breach Repaired in God\u2019s Worship:\nor, Psalms, Hymns, &c, proved to be a Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ.\u201d\nTo us it may appear strange that such a point should be disputed; but\nMr. Keach was obliged to labour earnestly, and with a great deal of\nprudence and caution, to obtain the consent of his people to sing a hymn\nat the conclusion of the Lord\u2019s Supper. After six years more, they\nagreed to sing on the thanksgiving days; but it required still fourteen\nyears more before he could persuade them to sing every Lord\u2019s day; and\nthen it was only after the last prayer, that those who chose it might\nwithdraw without joining in it! Nor did even this satisfy these\nscrupulous consciences; for, after all, a separation took place, and the\ninharmonious seceders formed a new church in May\u2019s Pond, where it was\nabove twenty years longer before singing the praises of God could be\nendured. It is difficult at this period to believe it; but Mr. Ivimey\nquotes Mr. Crosby, as saying, that Mr. Keach\u2019s was the first church in\nwhich psalm singing was introduced. This remark, however, must probably\nbe confined to the Baptist churches. The Presbyterians, it seems, were\nnot quite so unmusical; for the Directory of the Westminster divines\ndistinctly stated, that \u201cit is the duty of Christians to praise God\npublicly by singing of Psalms together in the congregation.\u201d And beside\nthe old Scotch Psalms, Dr. John Patrick, of the Charter house, made a\nversion which was in very general use among Dissenters, Presbyterians,\nand Independents, before it was superseded by the far superior\ncompositions of Dr. Watts. These Psalms, however, like those of the\nEnglish and Scotch establishment, were drawled out in notes of equal\nlength, without accent or variety. Even the introduction of the\ntriple-time tunes, probably about the time of Dr. Watts\u2019s psalms, gave\nalso great offence to some people, because it marked the accent of the\nmeasure. Old Mr. Thomas Bradbury used to call this time \u201ca long leg and\na short one.\u201d The beautiful compositions of Dr. Watts, Mr. C. Wesley,\nand others, have produced a considerable revolution in modern psalmody.\nBetter versions of the Psalms, and many excellent collections of hymns,\nare now in use, and may be considered as highly important gifts bestowed\nupon the modern church of God.\n\nPSALTERY. See MUSIC.\n\nPTOLEMAIS. See ACCHO.\n\nPUBLICAN, a collector or receiver of the Roman revenues. Judea being\nadded to the provinces of the Roman empire, and the taxes paid by the\nJews directly to the emperor, the publicans were the officers appointed\nto collect them. The ordinary taxes which the Romans levied in the\nprovinces were of three sorts: 1. Customs upon goods imported and\nexported; which tribute was therefore called _portorium_, from _portus_,\n\u201ca haven.\u201d 2. A tax upon cattle fed in certain pastures belonging to the\nRoman state, the number of which being kept in writing, this tribute was\ncalled _scriptura_. 3. A tax upon corn, of which the government demanded\na tenth part. This tribute was called _decuma_. These publicans are\ndistinguished by Sigonius into three sorts or degrees,--the farmers of\nthe revenue, their partners, and their securities; in which he follows\nPolybius. These are called the _mancipes_, _socii_, and _pr\u00e6des_, who\nwere all under the _qu\u00e6store s\u00e6rarii_, that presided over the finances\nat Rome. The _mancipes_ farmed the revenue of large districts or\nprovinces, had the oversight of the inferior publicans, received their\naccounts and collections, and transmitted them to the _qu\u00e6stores\n\u00e6rarii_. They often let out their provinces in smaller parcels to the\n_socii_; so called, because they were admitted to a share in the\ncontract, perhaps for the sake of more easily raising the purchase\nmoney; at least to assist in collecting the tribute. Both the _mancipes_\nand _socii_ are therefore properly styled \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, from \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n_tributum_, and \u1f60\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, _emo_. They were obliged to procure _pr\u00e6des_,\nor sureties, who gave security to the government for the fulfilment of\nthe contract. The distribution of Sigonius, therefore, or rather of\nPolybius, is not quite exact, since there were properly but two sorts of\npublicans, the _mancipes_ and the _socii_. The former are, probably,\nthose whom the Greeks call \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, _chiefs of the publicans_; of\nwhich sort was Zaccheus. As they were superior to the common publicans\nin dignity, being mostly of the equestrian order, so they were generally\nin their moral character. But as for the common publicans, the\ncollectors or receivers, as many of the _socii_ were, they are spoken of\nwith great contempt, by Heathens as well as Jews; and particularly by\nTheocritus, who said, that \u201camong the beasts of the wilderness, bears\nand lions are the most cruel; among the beasts of the city, the publican\nand parasite.\u201d The reason of the general hatred to them was, doubtless,\ntheir rapine and extortion. For, having a share in the farm of the\ntribute, at a certain rate, they were apt to oppress the people with\nillegal exactions, to raise as large a fortune as they could for\nthemselves. Beside, publicans were particularly odious to the Jews, who\nlooked upon them to be the instruments of their subjection to the Roman\nemperors, to which they generally held it sinful for them to submit.\nThey considered it as incompatible with their liberty to pay tribute to\nany foreign power, Luke xx, 22, &c; and those of their own nation that\nengaged in this employment they regarded as Heathens, Matthew xviii, 17.\nIt is even said, that they would not allow them to enter into their\ntemple or synagogues, nor to join in prayers, nor even allow their\nevidence in a court of justice on any trial; nor would they accept of\ntheir offerings in the temple.\n\nIt appears by the Gospel that there were many publicans in Judea at the\ntime of our Saviour. Zaccheus, probably, was one of the principal\nreceivers, since he is called the chief of the publicans, Luke xix, 2;\nbut St. Matthew was only an inferior publican. The Jews reproached our\nSaviour for showing kindness to these persons, Luke vii, 34; and he\nhimself ranks them with harlots, Matt. xxi, 31. Some of them, it should\nseem, had humbling views of themselves, Luke xviii, 10. Zaccheus assures\nour Lord, who had honoured him with a visit, that he was ready to give\nthe half of his goods to the poor, Luke xix, 8, and to return fourfold\nof whatever he had unjustly acquired.\n\nPUBLIUS, the governor of Melita, Acts xxviii, 7\u20139. When St. Paul was\nshipwrecked on this island, Publius received him and his company into\nhis house very kindly, and treated them for three days with great\nhumanity.\n\nPUL, king of Assyria. He came into the land of Israel in the time of\nManahem, king of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xv, 19, &c, and invaded the\nkingdom on the other side of Jordan. But Manahem, by a present of one\nthousand talents of silver, prevailed on the king of Assyria, not only\nto withdraw his forces, but to recognize his title to the crown of\nIsrael before he left the kingdom. This is the first time that we find\nany mention made of the kingdom of Assyria since the days of Nimrod; and\nPul is the first monarch of that nation who invaded Israel, and began\ntheir transportation out of their own country.\n\nPULSE, \u05e7\u05dc\u05d9, Lev. xxiii, 14; 1 Sam. xvii, 17; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; a term\napplied to those grains or seeds which grow in pods, as beans, peas,\nvetches, &c, from \u05e4\u05d5\u05dc, _a bean_. The Vulgate renders this _kali_ in 2\nSam. xvii, 28, _frixum cicer_, \u201cparched peas.\u201d In Daniel i, 12, 16, the\nword \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd, rendered _pulse_, may signify seeds in general.\n\nPUNISHMENTS OF THE HEBREWS. There were several sorts of punishments in\nuse among the Jews which are mentioned in the Scripture. 1. The\npunishment of the cross. (See _Cross_.) 2. Suspension, Esther vii, 10;\nJoshua viii, 29; 2 Samuel xxi, 12. 3. Stoning. 4. Fire. This punishment\nwas common, Gen. xxxviii, 24; Leviticus xxi, 9. 5. The rack or tympanum,\nmentioned Heb. xi, 35. Commentators are much divided about the meaning\nof this punishment; but most of them are of opinion that the bastinado,\nor the punishment of the stick, is intended, and that the Apostle\nalludes to the cruelties exercised upon old Eleazar; for, in 2 Mac. vi,\n19, where his martyrdom is spoken of, it is said that he came to the\ntympanum. 6. The precipice, or throwing persons headlong from a rock,\nwith a stone tied about the neck, 2 Chron. xxv, 12. 7. Decapitation,\nGen. xl, 19; Judges ix, 5; 2 Kings x, 7; Matt. xiv, 8. 8. The punishment\nof the saw, or to be cut asunder in the middle, Heb. xi, 37. This\npunishment was not unknown to the Hebrews. Some think it was originally\nfrom the Persians or Chaldeans. 9. Plucking out the eyes, Exod. xxi, 24.\nSome think this punishment was seldom executed, but the offender was\nmade to suffer in his property rather than in his person: yet there are\nsome instances on record, Judges xvi, 21; 1 Sam. xi, 2; 2 Kings xxv, 7.\n10. The cutting off the extremities of the feet and hands, Judges i,\n5\u20137; 2 Sam. iv, 12.\n\nPUR, \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8, \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, signifies _lot_. Pur, Phur, or Purim, was a solemn\nfeast of the Jews, instituted in memory of the lots cast by Haman, the\nenemy of the Jews, Esther iii, 7. These lots were cast in the first\nmonth of the year, and gave the twelfth month of the same year for the\nexecution of Haman\u2019s design, to destroy all the Jews in Persia. Thus the\nsuperstition of Haman, in crediting these lots, caused his own ruin, and\nthe preservation of the Jews, who, by means of Esther, had time to avert\nthis blow. The Jews have exactly kept this feast down to our times. See\nHAMAN, ESTHER, and MORDECAI.\n\nPURGATORY, a place in which, according to the church of Rome, the just,\nwho depart out of this life, are supposed to expiate certain offences\nwhich do not merit eternal damnation. Broughton has endeavoured to prove\nthat this notion has been held by Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, as well\nas by Christians; and that in the days of the Maccabees, the Jews\nbelieved that sin might be expiated by sacrifice after the death of the\nsinner. The arguments advanced for purgatory by the papists are these:\nEvery sin, how slight soever, though no more than an idle word, as it is\nan offence to God, deserves punishment from him, and will be punished by\nhim hereafter, if not cancelled by repentance here. 2. Such small sins\ndo not deserve eternal punishment. 3. Few depart this life so pure as to\nbe totally exempt from spots of this nature, and from every kind of debt\ndue to God\u2019s justice. 4. Therefore, few will escape without suffering\nsomething from his justice for such debts as they have carried with them\nout of this world, according to the rule of divine justice, by which he\ntreats every soul hereafter according to his works, and according to the\nstate in which he finds it in death. From these positions, which the\npapist considers as so many self-evident truths, he infers that there\nmust be some third place of punishment; for since the infinite holiness\nof God can admit nothing into heaven that is not clean and pure from all\nsin, both great and small, and his infinite justice can permit none to\nreceive the reward of bliss, who as yet are not out of debt, but have\nsomething in justice to suffer, there must, of necessity, be some place\nor state, where souls departing this life, pardoned as to the eternal\nguilt of sin, yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty, or with the guilt\nof some venial faults, are purged and purified before their admittance\ninto heaven. And this is what he is taught concerning purgatory; though\nhe know not where it is, of what nature the pains are, or how long each\nsoul is detained there, yet he believes that those who are in this place\nare relieved by the prayers of their fellow members here on earth, as\nalso by alms and masses offered up to God for their souls. And as for\nsuch as have no relations or friends to pray for them, or give alms to\nprocure masses for their relief, they are not neglected by the church,\nwhich makes a general commemoration of all the faithful departed, in\nevery mass, and in every one of the canonical hours of the divine\noffice. Beside the above arguments, the following passages are alleged\nas proofs: 2 Macc. xii, 43\u201345; Matt. xii, 31, 32; 1 Cor. iii, 15; 1\nPeter iii, 19. But it may be observed, 1. That the books of Maccabees\nhave no evidence of inspiration, therefore quotations from them are not\nto be regarded. 2. If they were, the texts referred to would rather\nprove that there is no such place as purgatory, since Judas did not\nexpect the souls departed to reap any benefit from the sin-offering till\nthe resurrection. The texts quoted from the Scriptures have no reference\nto the doctrine, as may be seen by consulting the context, and any just\ncommentator upon it. 3. The Scriptures, in general, speak of departed\nsouls going immediately, at death, to a fixed state of happiness or\nmisery, and give us no idea of purgatory, Isaiah lvii, 2; Rev. xiv, 13;\nLuke xvi, 22; 2 Cor. v, 8. 4. It is derogatory from the doctrine of the\nsatisfaction of Christ. If Christ died for us, and redeemed us from sin\nand hell, as the Scripture speaks, then the idea of farther meritorious\nsuffering detracts from the perfection of his sacrifice, and places\nmerit still in the creature; a doctrine exactly opposite to the\nScriptures.\n\nPURITANS. In England, the term Puritans was applied to those who wished\nfor a farther degree of reformation in the church than was adopted by\nQueen Elizabeth; and a purer form, not of faith, but of discipline and\nworship. It was a common name given to all who, from conscientious\nmotives, though on different grounds, disapproved of the established\nreligion, from the reformation under Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity\nin 1662. From that time to the revolution in 1688, as many as refused to\ncomply with the established worship, (among whom were about two thousand\nclergymen, and perhaps five hundred thousand people,) were denominated\nNonconformists. From the passing of the Act of Toleration on the\naccession of William and Mary, the name of Nonconformists was changed to\nthat of Protestant Dissenters. Prior to the grand rebellion in 1640, the\nPuritans were, almost without exception, Episcopalians; but after the\nfamous \u201cLeague and Covenant\u201d of those turbulent times the greater part\nof them became Presbyterians. Some, however, were Independents, and some\nBaptists. The objections of the latter were more fundamental; they\ndisapproved of all national churches, as such, and disavowed the\nauthority of human legislation in matters of faith and worship. The\npersecutions carried on against the Puritans during the reigns of\nElizabeth and the Stuarts served to lay the foundation of a new empire,\nand eventually a vast republic, in the western world. Thither, as into a\nwilderness, they fled from the face of their persecutors; and, being\nprotected in the free exercise of their religion, continued to increase,\nuntil at length they became an independent nation. The different\nprinciples, however, on which they had originally divided from the\nchurch establishment at home, operated in a way that might have been\nexpected, when they came to the possession of the civil power abroad.\nThose who formed the colony of Massachusetts having never relinquished\nthe principle of a national church, and of the power of the civil\nmagistrate in matters of faith and worship, were less tolerant than\nthose who settled at New Plymouth, at Rhode Island, and Providence\nPlantations. The very men who had just escaped the persecutions of the\nEnglish prelates, now, in their turn, persecuted others who dissented\nfrom them; until, at length, the liberal system of toleration\nestablished in the parent country at the revolution, extended to the\ncolonies, and in a good measure put an end to these censurable\nproceedings.\n\nPURPLE, \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05df, Exodus xxv, 4, &c; \u03d6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1, Mark xv, 17, 20; Luke xvi,\n19; John xix, 2, 5; Rev. xvii, 4; xviii, 12, 16. This is supposed to be\nthe very precious colour extracted from the _purpura_ or _murex_, a\nspecies of shell fish; and the same with the famous Tyrian dye, so\ncostly, and so much celebrated in antiquity. The purple dye is called in\n1 Macc. iv, 23, \u201cpurple of the sea,\u201d or sea purple; it being the blood\nor juice of a turbinated shell fish, which the Jews call \u05d7\u05dc\u05d6\u05d5\u05df. (See\n_Scarlet_.) Among the blessings pronounced by Moses upon the tribes of\nIsrael, those of Zebulun and Issachar are, \u201cThey shall suck of the\nabundance of the seas, and of the treasures hid in the sand,\u201d Deut.\nxxxiii, 19. Jonathan Ben Uzziel explains the latter clause thus: \u201cFrom\nthe sand are produced looking glasses, and glass in general; the\ntreasures, the method of finding and working which, was revealed to\nthese tribes.\u201d Several ancient writers inform us, that there were havens\nin the coasts of the Zebulunites, in which the sand proper for making\nglass was found. The words of Tacitus are remarkable: \u201c_Et Belus amnis\nJudaico mari illabitur, circa ejus os lect\u00e6 aren\u00e6 admixto nitro in\nvitrum excoquuntur_.\u201d \u201cThe river Belus falls into the Jewish sea, about\nwhose mouth those sands mixed with nitre are collected, out of which\nglass is formed.\u201d But it seems much more natural to explain \u201cthe\ntreasures hid in the sand,\u201d of those highly valuable _murices_ and\n_purpur\u00e6_ which were found on the sea coast, near the country of Zebulun\nand Issachar, and of which those tribes partook in common with their\nHeathen neighbours of Tyre, who rendered the curious dyes made from\nthose shell fish so famous among the Romans by the names of _Sarranum\nostrum_, _Tyrii colores_. In reference to the purple vestment, Luke xvi,\n19, it may be observed that this was not appropriately a royal robe. In\nthe earlier times it was the dress of any of high rank. Thus all the\ncourtiers were styled by the historians _purpurati_. This colour is more\nproperly crimson than purple; for the LXX., Josephus, and Philo,\nconstantly use \u03d6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd to express the Hebrew \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05df, by which the\nTalmudists understood crimson; and that this Hebrew word expressed, not\nthe Tyrian purple, but that brought to the city from another country,\nappears from Ezek. xxvii, 7. The purple robe put on our Saviour, John\nxix, 2, 5, is explained by a Roman custom, the dressing of a person in\nthe robes of state, as the investiture of office. Hence the robe brought\nby Herod\u2019s or the Roman soldiers, scoffingly, was as though it had been\nthe _pict\u00e6 vestes_ usually sent by the Roman senate. In Acts xvi, 14,\nLydia is said to be \u201ca seller of purple.\u201d Mr. Harmer styles purple the\nmost sublime of all earthly colours, having the gaudiness of red, of\nwhich it retains a shade, softened with the gravity of blue.\n\nPUTEOLI, so called from its baths of hot water, a city of Campania, in\nItaly; now called Pozzuoli, in a province of the kingdom of Naples,\ncalled Terra di Lavoro, and about eight miles from Naples. St. Paul\nstayed a week with the Christians of this place, in his journey as a\nprisoner to Rome, Acts xxviii, 13. The Alexandrian merchant vessels\npreferred Puteoli to all the harbours in Italy, and here they deposited\ntheir rich freights. They conducted the ships adorned with wreaths and\nfestive garments, in the form of a fleet, one after another, into the\nharbour, where they were received with the greatest demonstrations of\nfriendship. Such was the case with the sale of Alexandrian commodities\nthroughout Italy. According to the course then pursued, the vessel in\nwhich St. Paul sailed went direct into this harbour.\n\n\nQUAIL, \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5, Exod. xvi, 13; Num. xi, 31, 32; Psalm cv, 10; a bird of the\ngallinaceous kind. Hasselquist, mentioning the quail of the larger kind,\nsays, \u201cIt is of the size of the turtle dove. I have met with it in the\nwilderness of Palestine, near the shores of the Dead Sea and the Jordan,\nbetween Jordan and Jericho, and in the deserts of Arabia Petrea. If the\nfood of the Israelites was a bird, this is certainly it; being so common\nin the places through which they passed.\u201d It is said that God gave\nquails to his people in the wilderness upon two occasions: first, within\na few days after they had passed the Red Sea, Exod. xvi, 3\u201313. The\nsecond time was at the encampment at the place called in Hebrew,\nKibroth-hataavah, the graves of lust, Num. xi, 32; Psalm cv, 40. Both of\nthese happened in the spring, when the quails passed from Asia into\nEurope. They are then to be found in great quantities upon the coast of\nthe Red Sea and Mediterranean. God caused a wind to arise that drove\nthem within and about the camp of the Israelites; and it is in this that\nthe miracle consists, that they were brought so seasonably to this\nplace, and in so great number as to furnish food for above a million of\npersons for more than a month. The Hebrew word _shalav_ signifies \u201ca\nquail,\u201d by the agreement of the ancient interpreters. And the Chaldee,\nSyriac, and Arabic languages call them nearly by the same name. The\nSeptuagint, Symmachus, and most of commentators, both ancient and\nmodern, understand it in the same manner; and with them agree Philo,\nJosephus, Apollinaris, and the rabbins; but Ludolphus has endeavoured to\nprove that a species of locust is spoken of by Moses. Dr. Shaw answers,\nthat the holy psalmist, in describing this particular food of the\nIsraelites, by calling the animals feathered fowls, entirely confutes\nthis supposition. And it should be recollected, that this miracle was\nperformed in compliance with the wish of the people that they might have\nflesh to eat.\n\nQUAKERS. See FRIENDS.\n\nQUESTIONS. Among the ancients no pastime was more common than that of\nproposing and answering difficult questions. The person who solved the\nquestion was honoured with a reward; he who failed in the attempt\nsuffered a certain punishment; both the rewards and penalties were\nvaried according to the disposition of the company. That the custom of\nproposing riddles was very ancient, and derived from the eastern\nnations, appears from the story of Samson, in the book of Judges, who\nproposed one to the Philistines at his nuptial feast. Nor were these\nquestions confined to entertainments, but, in the primitive times, were\nproposed on other occasions, by those who desired to make proof of\nanother\u2019s wisdom and learning. Agreeably to this custom, the queen of\nSheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions, 1 Kings x, 1.\n\nQUIETISTS, the disciples of Michael de Molinos, a Spanish priest, who\nflourished in the seventeenth century, and wrote a book called \u201cThe\nSpiritual Guide.\u201d He had many disciples in Spain, Italy, France, and the\nNetherlands. Some pretend that he borrowed his principles from the\nSpanish Illuminati; and M. Gregoire will have it that they came\noriginally from the Persian Soofees; while others no less confidently\nderive them from the Greek Hesycasts. The Quietists, however, deduce\ntheir principles from the Scriptures. They argue thus: \u201cThe Apostle\ntells us, that \u2018the Spirit makes intercession for\u2019 or _in_ \u2018us.\u2019 Now if\nthe Spirit pray in us, we must resign ourselves to his impulses, by\nremaining in a state of absolute rest, or quietude, till we attain the\nperfection of the unitive life,\u201d a life of union with, and, as it should\nseem, of absorption in, the Deity. They contend, that true religion\nconsists in the present calm and tranquillity of a mind removed from all\nexternal and finite things, and centered in God; and in such a pure love\nof the supreme Being, as is independent of all prospect of interest or\nreward. To prove that our love to the Deity must be disinterested, they\nallege, that the Lord hath made all things for himself, as saith the\nScripture; and it is for his glory that he wills our happiness. To\nconform, therefore, to the great end of our creation, we must prefer God\nto ourselves, and not desire our own happiness but for his glory;\notherwise we shall go contrary to his order. As the perfections of the\nDeity are intrinsically amiable, it is our glory and perfection to go\nout of ourselves, to be lost and absorbed in the pure love of infinite\nbeauty. Madam Guion, a woman of fashion in France, born 1648, becoming\npious, was a warm advocate of these principles. She asserted, that the\nmeans of arriving at this perfect love, are prayer and the self-denial\nenjoined in the Gospel. Prayer she defines to be the entire bent of the\nsoul toward its divine origin. Some of her pious canticles were\ntranslated by the poet Cowper, and represent her sentiments to the best\nadvantage. Fenelon, the amiable archbishop of Cambray, also favoured\nthese sentiments in his celebrated publication, entitled, \u201cThe Maxims of\nthe Saints.\u201d The distinguishing tenet in his theology was the doctrine\nof the disinterested love of God for his own excellencies, independent\nof his relative benevolence: an important feature also in the system of\nMadam Guion, who, with the good archbishop, was persecuted by the pope\nand by Bossuet. See MYSTICS.\n\nRAB. The title rabbi, with several others from the same root, \u05e8\u05d1\u05d1,\n_magnus est, vel multiplicatus est_, began first to be assumed,\naccording to Godwin, as a distinguishing title of honour by men of\nlearning, about the time of the birth of Christ. We find it anciently\ngiven, indeed, to several magistrates and officers of state. In Esther\ni, 8, it is said, the king appointed \u05db\u05dc-\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5, which we render \u201call\nthe officers of his house.\u201d In Jeremiah xli, 1, we read of the \u05d5\u05e8\u05bc\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da, \u201cthe princes of the king.\u201d In Job xxxii, 9, it is said, that the\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, which we render \u201cgreat men, are not always wise;\u201d a rendering\nwhich well expresses the original meaning of the word. It was not\ntherefore in those days properly a title of honour, belonging to any\nparticular office or dignity, in church or state; but all who were of\nsuperior rank, and condition in life were called \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd. We do not find\nthe prophets, or other men of learning in the Old Testament, affecting\nany title beside that which denoted their office; and they were\ncontented to be addressed by their bare names. The first Jewish rabbi,\nsaid to have been distinguished with any title of honour, was Simeon,\nthe son of Hillel, who succeeded his father as president of the\nsanhedrim; and his title was that of rabban. The later rabbies tell us,\nthis title was conferred with a good deal of ceremony. When a person had\ngone through the schools and was thought worthy of the degree of rabbi,\nhe was first placed in a chair somewhat raised above the company; then\nwere delivered to him a key and a table book: the key, as a symbol of\nthe power or authority now conferred upon him, to teach that knowledge\nto others which he had learned himself; and this key he afterward wore\nas a badge of his honour, and when he died it was buried with him: the\ntable book was a symbol of his diligence in his studies, and of his\nendeavouring to make farther improvements in learning. The next ceremony\nin the creation of a rabbi was the imposition of hands on him by the\ndelegates of the sanhedrim, practised in imitation of Moses\u2019s ordaining\nJoshua by this rite, to succeed him in his office, Num. xxvii, 18; Deut.\nxxxiv, 9. And then they proclaimed his title.\n\nAccording to Maimonides, the imposition of hands was not looked upon to\nbe essential; but was sometimes omitted. They did not always, saith he,\nlay their hands on the head of the elder to be ordained; but called him\nrabbi, and said, \u201cBehold thou art ordained, and hast power,\u201d &c. We find\nthis title given to John the Baptist, John iii, 26; and frequently to\nour blessed Saviour; as by John\u2019s disciples, by Nicodemus, and by the\npeople that followed, John i, 38; iii, 2; vi, 20. The reason of our\nSaviour\u2019s prohibiting his disciples to be called rabbi is expressed in\nthese words: \u201cBe not ye called rabbi, for one is your master, even\nChrist,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, your guide and conductor, on whose word and\ninstructions alone you are to depend in matters of religion and\nsalvation. Accordingly the inspired Apostles pretend to nothing more\nthan, as the ambassadors of Christ, to deliver his instructions; and,\nfor their own part, they expressly disclaim all dominion over the faith\nand consciences of men, 2 Cor. i, 24; v, 20. The Jewish writers\ndistinguish between the titles rab, rabbi, rabban. As for rab and rabbi,\nthe only difference between them is, that rab was the title of such as\nhad had their education, and taken their degree, in some foreign Jewish\nschool; suppose at Babylon, where there was a school or academy of\nconsiderable note; rabbi was the title of such as were educated in the\nland of Judea, who were accounted more honourable than the others. But\nas for rabban, it was the highest title; which, they say, was never\nconferred on more than seven persons, namely, on R. Simeon, five of his\ndescendants, and on R. Jochanan, who was of a different family. It was\non this account, it should seem, that the blind man gave this title to\nChrist, Mark x, 51; being convinced that he was possessed of divine\npower, and worthy of the most honourable distinctions. And Mary\nMagdalene, when she saw Christ after his resurrection, \u201csaid unto him,\nRabboni,\u201d John xx, 16, that is, my rabban, like _my lord_ in English;\nfor rabbon is the same with rabban, only pronounced according to the\nSyriac dialect.\n\nThere were several gradations among the Jews before the dignity of\nrabbin, as among us, before the degree of doctor. The head of a school\nwas called _chacham_, or wise. He had the head seat in the assemblies\nand in the synagogues. He reprimanded the disobedient, and could\nexcommunicate them; and this procured him great respect. In their\nschools they sat upon raised chairs, and their scholars were seated at\ntheir feet. Hence St. Paul is said to have studied at the feet of Rabbi\nGamaliel, Acts xxii, 3. The studies of the rabbins are employed either\non the text of the law, or the traditions, or the cabbala; these three\nobjects form so many different schools and different sorts of rabbins.\nThose who chiefly apply to the letter of Scripture are called Caraites,\nLiteralists. Those who chiefly study the traditions and oral laws of the\nTalmud are called Rabbanists. Those who give themselves to their secret\nand mysterious divinity, letters and numbers, are called Cabbalists,\nTraditionaries. The rabbins are generally very ignorant in history,\nchronology, philology, antiquity, and geography. They understand the\nholy language but imperfectly. They know not the true signification of a\nmultitude of words in the sacred text. They are prodigiously conceited\nabout their traditions, so that there is very little profit in reading\nthem; and experience shows that most who have applied themselves to\nperuse their books, have been but little benefited by them, and have\nentertained a perfect contempt of their understanding and their works.\nThe chief function of the rabbins is to preach in the synagogue, to make\npublic prayers there, and to interpret the law; they have the power of\nbinding and loosing, that is, of declaring what is forbidden, and what\nallowed. When the synagogue is poor and small, there is but one rabbin,\nwho at the same time discharges the office of a judge and a teacher. But\nwhen the Jews are numerous and powerful, they appoint three pastors, and\na house of judgment, where all their civil affairs are determined. Then\nthe rabbin applies himself to instruction only, unless it be thought\nproper to call him into the council to give his advice, in which case he\ntakes the chief place.\n\nRABBATH, or RABBAT-AMMON, the capital city of the Ammonites, situated\nbeyond Jordan. See AMMON.\n\nRABBATH-MOAB, the capital city of the Moabites, called otherwise Ar, or\nAreopolis. See MOAB.\n\nRABBI. See RAB.\n\nRABSHAKEH, a chief butler, or cupbearer. This is a term of dignity, and\nnot a proper name. Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib, king of Assyria,\nto summon Hezekiah to surrender Jerusalem, 2 Kings xviii, 17, 18; xix,\n4; Isaiah xxxvi.\n\nRACA, a Syriac word which properly signifies _empty_, _vain_,\n_beggarly_, _foolish_, and which includes in it a strong idea of\ncontempt. Our Saviour pronounces a censure on every person using this\nterm to his neighbour, Matt. v, 22. Lightfoot assures us that, in the\nwritings of the Jews, the word _raca_ is a term of the utmost contempt,\nand that it was usual to pronounce it with marked signs of indignation.\n\nRACHEL, the daughter of Laban, and sister of Leah. The Prophet Jeremiah,\nxxxi, 15, and St. Matthew, ii, 18, have put Rachel for the tribes of\nEphraim and Manasseh, the children of Joseph, the son of Rachel. This\nprophecy was completed when these two tribes were carried into captivity\nbeyond the Euphrates; and St. Matthew made application of it to what\nhappened at Bethlehem, when Herod put to death the children of two years\nold and under. Then Rachel, who was buried there, might be said to make\nher lamentations for the death of so many innocent children sacrificed\nto the jealousy of a wicked monarch.\n\nRAHAB was a hostess of the city of Jericho, who received and concealed\nthe spies sent by Joshua. The Hebrew calls her Zona, Joshua ii, 1, which\nJerom and many others understand of a prostitute. Others think she was\nonly a hostess or innkeeper, and that this is the true signification of\nthe original word. Had she been a woman of ill fame, would Salmon, a\nprince of the tribe of Judah, have taken her to wife? Or could he have\ndone it by the law? Beside, the spies of Joshua would hardly have gone\nto lodge with a common harlot, they who were charged with so nice and\ndangerous a commission. Those who maintain that she was a harlot,\npretend that she was perhaps one of those women who prostituted\nthemselves in honour of the Pagan deities; as if this could extenuate\nher crime, or the scandal of her profession if she was a public woman.\nIt is also observable that such women are called _kadeshah_, not _zona_,\nin the Hebrew. Rahab married Salmon, a prince of Judah, by whom she had\nBoaz, from whom descended Obed, Jesse, and David. Thus Jesus Christ\ncondescended to reckon this Canaanitish woman among his ancestors. St.\nPaul magnifies the faith of Rahab, Heb. xi, 31.\n\nRahab is also a name of Egypt, Isa. xxx, 7; li, 9.\n\nRAIMENT. In addition to what occurs under the article _Habits_, it may\nbe observed that to make presents of changes of raiment, Gen. xlv, 22,\nhas always been common among all ranks of orientals. The perfuming of\nraiment with sweet-scented spices or extracts is also still a custom,\nwhich explains the smell of Jacob\u2019s raiment. A coat or robe of many\ncolours, such as Jacob gave to Joseph, is also a mark of distinction.\nThe Turks at Aleppo thus array their sons; and, in the time of Sisera, a\ncoat of divers colours is mentioned among the rich spoils which fell to\nthe conquerors. A frequent change of garments is also very common both\nto show respect and to display opulence. Is there an allusion to this in\nPsalm cii, 26: \u201cAs a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be\nchanged?\u201d If so, it conveys the magnificent idea of the almighty Creator\ninvesting himself with the whole creation as with a robe, and having\nlaid that aside, by new creations, or the successive production of\nbeings, clothing himself with others, at his pleasure.\n\nRAIN, the vapours exhaled by the sun, which descend from the clouds to\nwater the earth, Eccles. xi, 3. The sacred writers often speak of the\nrain of the former and latter season, Deut. xi, 14; Hosea vi, 3. Twice\nin the year there generally fell plenty of rain in Judea; in the\nbeginning of the civil year, about September or October; and half a year\nafter, in the month of Abib, or March, which was the first month in the\necclesiastical or sacred year, whence it is called the latter rain in\nthe first month, Joel ii, 23. (See _Canaan_.) The ancient Hebrews\ncompared elocution, and even learning or doctrine, to rain: \u201cMy doctrine\nshall drop as the rain,\u201d Deut. xxxii, 2.\n\nRAMESES, or RAAMSES, a city supposed to have been situated in the\neastern part of Egypt, called the land of Goshen, which was also hence\ntermed the land of Rameses. It was one of the cities built by the\nIsraelites as a treasure city, as it is translated in our Bibles;\nprobably a store city, or, as others interpret it, a fortress. Its\nposition may be fixed about six or eight miles above the modern Cairo, a\nlittle to the south of the Babylon of the Persians, the ancient\nLetopolis; as Josephus says that the children of Israel, after quitting\nthis place, in their first march to Succoth, passed by the latter city.\n\nRAMOTH, a famous city in the mountains of Gilead, 1 Kings iv, 13. It is\noften called Ramoth-Gilead. Josephus calls it Ramathan, or Aramatha. The\ncity belonged to the tribe of Gad, Deut. iv, 43. It was assigned for a\ndwelling of the Levites, and was one of the cities of refuge beyond\nJordan, Joshua xx, 8; xxi, 38. It became famous during the reigns of the\nlatter kings of Israel, and was the occasion of several wars between\nthem and the kings of Damascus, who had made a conquest of it, which the\nsovereigns of Israel endeavoured to regain, 1 Kings xxii, 3\u20135. Eusebius\nsays, that Ramoth was fifteen miles from Philadelphia toward the east.\nSt. Jerom places it in the neighbourhood of Jabbok, and consequently to\nthe north of Philadelphia.\n\nRAVEN, \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1, in Chaldee, _orba_, in Syriac, _croac_, in Latin, _corvus_,\nGen. viii, 7; Lev. xi, 15; Deut. xiv, 14; 1 Kings xvii, 4, 6; Job\nxxxviii, 41; Psalm cxlvii, 9; Prov. xxx, 17; Cant. v, 11; Isa. xxxiv,\n11; \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03be, Luke xii, 24; a well known bird of prey. All the interpreters\nagree that _oreb_ signifies the raven, from _oreb_, \u201cevening,\u201d on\naccount of its colour. Micha\u00eblis, in proposing a question respecting\ncertain birds, says of the _oreb_, \u201c_Il est decid\u00e9, que c\u2019est le\ncorbeau; il seroit donc superflu de le demander. Mais je desirerois plus\nde certitude sur le nom Syriaque des corbeaux_.\u201d [It is settled that\nthis is the raven; it would therefore be superfluous to investigate it.\nBut I could wish more certainty respecting the Syriac name of ravens.]\nOne can hardly doubt that it is taken from the note of this bird. On the\ndecrease of the waters of the flood, so that the tops of the mountains\nbecame visible, Noah sent forth out of one of the windows of the ark a\nraven, a bold and adventurous bird, by way of experiment, to see whether\nthe waters were sunk or abated. Forty days the violent rain had\ncontinued; and he might think this, therefore, a likely time for the\nwaters to run off again. In the original text, in the Samaritan, in the\nChaldee and Arabic, it is said that the raven \u201creturned\u201d to the ark; but\nthe Greek interpreters, the Syriac, the Latin, and most of the eminent\nfathers and commentators, say that it did not return any more. Here are\ngreat authorities on both sides, but the latter reading, though so\ncontrary in sense to the other, yet in the Hebrew is not very different\nin the form of the letters, and appears to be the better reading of the\ntwo. For if the raven had returned, what occasion had Noah to send forth\na dove? Or why did he not take the raven in unto him into the ark, as he\ndid afterward the dove? Or why did he not send forth the same raven\nagain, as he did afterward the same dove again? It is not improperly\nexpressed in our translation, that \u201cthe raven went forth to and fro,\u201d\nflying hither and thither, \u201cuntil the waters were dried up from off the\nface of the earth.\u201d He found, perhaps, in the higher grounds, some of\nthe carcasses of those who had perished in the deluge.\n\nThe Prophet Elijah was in his retirement fed by this bird. A writer,\nindeed, in the Memoirs of Literature, for April, 1710, endeavours to\nshow, from many authors, that there was in the country of Bethschan, in\nDecapolis, by the brook Cherith or Carith, a little town called Aorabi\nor Orbo, Judges vii, 25; Isa. x, 6; and he therefore explains the word\n_orebim_, which, in 1 Kings xvii, 4, we translate \u201cravens,\u201d of the\ninhabitants of that village, some of whom, he contends, daily carried\nbread and flesh to Elijah, who had retired to and lay in a cave in the\nneighbourhood. On the other hand, Scheuchzer ably vindicates the\ncommonly received opinion. The editor of Calmet, also, in the appendix,\nunder the article _Elijah_, has some pertinent observations on this\nsubject. \u201cWe ought to consider,\u201d says he, \u201c1. That Ahab sought Elijah\nwith avidity, and took an oath of every people, no doubt, also, in his\ndominions, that he was not concealed among its inhabitants; his\nsituation, therefore, required the utmost privacy, even to solitude. 2.\nThat when the brook Cherith was dried up, the prophet was obliged to\nquit his asylum, which he needed not to have done, had a people been his\nsuppliers, for they could have brought him water as well as food.\u201d\n\nIn Psalm cxlvii, 9, it is said, \u201cThe Lord giveth to the beast his food,\nand to the young ravens which cry.\u201d And in Job xxxviii, 41, \u201cWho\nprovideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto God,\nwandering for want of meat?\u201d Job and the psalmist may allude to what is\nsaid by some naturalists, that the ravens drive out their young ones\nearly from their nests, and oblige them to seek food for their own\nsustenance. The same kind Providence which furnishes support to his\nintelligent offspring is not unmindful of the wants, or inattentive to\nthe desires, of the meanest of his creatures.\n\n         Lo, the young ravens, from their nest exiled,\n         On hunger\u2019s wing attempt the aerial wild!\n         Who leads their wanderings, and their feast supplies?\n         To God ascend their importuning cries.\n\nChrist instructs his disciples, from the same circumstance, to trust in\nthe care and kindness of Heaven: \u201cConsider the ravens; for they neither\nsow nor reap, neither have storehouse, nor barn; and God feedeth them.\nHow much better are ye than the fowls!\u201d Luke xii, 24. Solomon, speaking\nof the peculiar regard and veneration due to the worthy persons and\nsalutary instructions of parents, observes, that an untimely fate, and\nthe want of decent interment, may be expected from contrary conduct; and\nthat the leering eye, which throws wicked contempt on a good father, and\ninsolent disdain on a tender mother, shall be dug out of the unburied\nexposed corpse by the ravens of the valley, and eaten up by the young\neagles, Prov. xxx, 17. It was a common punishment in the east, and one\nwhich the orientals dreaded above all others, to expose in the open\nfields the bodies of evil doers that had suffered by the laws of their\noffended country, to be devoured by the beasts of the field, and the\nfowls of heaven. The wise man insinuates that the raven makes his first\nand keenest attack on the eye, which perfectly corresponds with his\nhabits, for he always begins his banquet with that part. Isiodore says\nof him, _Primo in cadaveribus occulum petit_; [he attacks first the eye\nof the dead;] and Epictetus, \u1f49\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cthe ravens devour the eyes of the dead.\u201d Many\nother testimonies might be adduced, but these are sufficient to justify\nthe allusion in the proverb.\n\nThe raven, it is well known, delights in solitude. He frequents the\nruined tower or the deserted habitation. In Isaiah, xxxiv, 11, it is\naccordingly foretold that the raven, with other birds of similar\ndispositions, should fix his abode in the desolate houses of Edom. In\nthe Septuagint and other versions the Hebrew word for _desolation_ is\nrendered _raven_. The meaning is, that in those splendid palaces, where\nthe voice of joy and gladness was heard, and every sound which could\nravish the ear and subdue the heart, silence was, for the wickedness of\ntheir inhabitants, to hold her reign for ever, interrupted only by the\nscream of the cormorant and the croaking of the raven.\n\nREADING. In the countries of the Levant the people never read silently,\nbut go on in a kind of singing voice, aloud. The eunuch was probably\nthus reading when Philip overheard him, and finding that he was reading\nthe Scriptures, said, \u201cUnderstandest thou what thou readest?\u201d\n\nREASON, USE OF, IN RELIGION. The sublime, incomprehensible nature of\nsome of the Christian doctrines has so completely subdued the\nunderstanding of many pious men, as to make them think it presumptuous\nto apply reason in any way to the revelations of God; and the many\ninstances in which the simplicity of truth has been corrupted by an\nalliance with philosophy confirm them in the belief that it is safer, as\nwell as more respectable, to resign their minds to devout impressions,\nthan to exercise their understandings in any speculations upon sacred\nsubjects. Enthusiasts and fanatics of all different names and sects\nagree in decrying the use of reason, because it is the very essence of\nfanaticism to substitute, in place of the sober deductions of reason,\nthe extravagant fancies of a disordered imagination, and to consider\nthese fancies as the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God.\nInsidious writers in the deistical controversy have pretended to adopt\nthose sentiments of humility and reverence, which are inseparable from\ntrue Christians, and even that total subjection of reason to faith which\ncharacterizes enthusiasts. A pamphlet was published about the middle of\nthe last century that made a noise in its day, although it is now\nforgotten, entitled, \u201cChristianity not founded on Argument,\u201d which,\nwhile to a careless reader it may seem to magnify the Gospel, does in\nreality tend to undermine our faith, by separating it from a rational\nassent; and Mr. Hume, in the spirit of this pamphlet, concludes his\nEssay on Miracles with calling those dangerous friends or disguised\nenemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to defend it by\nthe principles of human reason: \u201cOur most holy religion,\u201d he says, with\na disingenuity very unbecoming his respectable talents, \u201cis founded on\nfaith, not on reason;\u201d and, \u201cmere reason is insufficient to convince us\nof its veracity.\u201d The church of Rome, in order to subject the minds of\nher votaries to her authority, has reprobated the use of reason in\nmatters of religion. She has revived an ancient position, that things\nmay be true in theology which are false in philosophy; and she has, in\nsome instances, made the merit of faith to consist in the absurdity of\nthat which was believed.\n\nThe extravagance of these positions has produced, since the Reformation,\nan opposite extreme. While those who deny the truth of revelation\nconsider reason as in all respects a sufficient guide, the Socinians,\nwho admit that a revelation has been made, employ reason as the supreme\njudge of its doctrines, and boldly strike out of their creed every\narticle that is not altogether conformable to those notions which may be\nderived from the exercise of reason. These controversies concerning the\nuse of reason in matters of religion are disputes, not about words, but\nabout the essence of Christianity. But a few plain observations are\nsufficient to ascertain where the truth lies in this subject.\n\nThe first use of reason in matters of religion is to examine the\nevidences of revelation. For, the more entire the submission which we\nconsider as due to every thing that is revealed, we have the more need\nto be satisfied that any system which professes to be a divine\nrevelation does really come from God.\n\nAfter the exercise of reason has established in our minds a firm belief\nthat Christianity is of divine original, the second use of reason is to\nlearn what are the truths revealed. As these truths are not in our days\ncommunicated to any by immediate inspiration, the knowledge of them is\nto be acquired only from books transmitted to us with satisfying\nevidence that they were written above seventeen hundred years ago, in a\nremote country and foreign language, under the direction of the Spirit\nof God. In order to attain the meaning of these books we must study the\nlanguage in which they were written; and we must study also the manners\nof the times, and the state of the countries, in which the writers\nlived; because these are circumstances to which an original author is\noften alluding, and by which his phraseology is generally affected; we\nmust lay together different passages in which the same word or phrase\noccurs, because without this labour we cannot ascertain its precise\nsignification; and we must mark the difference of style and manner which\ncharacterizes different writers, because a right apprehension of their\nmeaning often depends upon attention to this difference. All this\nsupposes the application of grammar, history, geography, chronology, and\ncriticism in matters of religion; that is, it supposes that the reason\nof man had been previously exercised in pursuing these different\nbranches of knowledge, and that our success in attaining the true sense\nof Scripture depends upon the diligence with which we avail ourselves of\nthe progress that has been made in them. It is obvious that every\nChristian is not capable of making this application. But this is no\nargument against the use of reason, of which we are now speaking. For\nthey who use translations and commentaries rely only upon the reason of\nothers, instead of exercising their own. The several branches of\nknowledge have been applied in every age by some persons for the benefit\nof others; and the progress in sacred criticism, which distinguishes the\npresent times, is nothing else but the continued application, in\nelucidating the Scripture, of reason enlightened by every kind of\nsubsidiary knowledge, and very much improved in this kind of exercise by\nthe employment which the ancient classics have given it since the\nrevival of letters.\n\nAfter the two uses of reason that have been illustrated, a third comes\nto be mentioned, which may be considered as compounded of both. Reason\nis of eminent use in repelling the attacks of the adversaries of\nChristianity. When men of erudition, of philosophical acuteness, and of\naccomplished taste, direct their talents against our religion, the cause\nis very much hurt by an unskilful defender. He cannot unravel their\nsophistry; he does not see the amount and the effect of the concessions\nwhich he makes to them; he is bewildered by their quotations, and he is\noften led by their artifice upon dangerous ground. In all ages of the\nchurch there have been weak defenders of Christianity; and the only\ntriumphs of the enemies of our religion have arisen from their being\nable to expose the defects of those methods of defending the truth which\nsome of its advocates had unwarily chosen. A mind trained to accurate\nand philosophical views of the nature and the amount of evidence,\nenriched with historical knowledge, accustomed to throw out of a subject\nall that is minute and irrelative, to collect what is of importance\nwithin a short compass, and to form the comprehension of a whole, is the\nmind qualified to contend with the learning, the wit, and the sophistry\nof infidelity. Many such minds have appeared in this honourable\ncontroversy during the course of this and the last century; and the\nsuccess has corresponded to the completeness of the furniture with which\nthey engaged in the combat. The Christian doctrine has been vindicated\nby their masterly exposition from various misrepresentations; the\narguments for its divine original have been placed in their true light;\nand the attempts to confound the miracles and prophecies upon which\nChristianity rests its claim, with the delusions of imposture, have been\neffectually repelled. Christianity has, in this way, received the most\nimportant advantages from the attacks of its enemies; and it is not\nimprobable that its doctrines would never have been so thoroughly\ncleared from all the corruptions and subtleties which had attached to\nthem in the progress of ages, nor the evidences of its truths have been\nso accurately understood, nor its peculiar character been so perfectly\ndiscriminated, had not the zeal and abilities which have been employed\nagainst it called forth in its defence some of the most distinguished\nmasters of reason. They brought into the service of Christianity the\nsame weapons which had been drawn for her destruction, and, wielding\nthem with confidence and skill in a good cause, became the successful\nchampions of the truth.\n\nThe fourth use of reason consists in judging of the truths of religion.\nEvery thing which is revealed by God comes to his creatures from so high\nan authority, that it may be rested in with perfect assurance as true.\nNothing can be received by us as true which is contrary to the dictates\nof reason, because it is impossible for us to receive at the same time\nthe truth and the falsehood of a proposition. But many things are true\nwhich we do not fully comprehend; and many propositions, which appear\nincredible when they are first enunciated, are found, upon examination,\nsuch as our understandings can readily admit. These principles embrace\nthe whole of the subject, and they mark out the steps by which reason is\nto proceed in judging of the truths of religion. We first examine the\nevidences of revelation. If these satisfy our understandings, we are\ncertain that there can be no contradiction between the doctrines of this\ntrue religion, and the dictates of right reason. If any such\ncontradiction appear, there must be some mistake; by not making a proper\nuse of our reason in the interpretation of the Gospel, we suppose that\nit contains doctrines which it does not teach; or we give the name of\nright reason to some narrow prejudices which deeper reflection, and more\nenlarged knowledge, will dissipate; or we consider a proposition as\nimplying a contradiction, when, in truth, it is only imperfectly\nunderstood. Here, as in every other case, mistakes are to be corrected\nby measuring back our steps. We must examine closely and impartially the\nmeaning of those passages which appear to contain the doctrine; we must\ncompare them with one another; we must endeavour to derive light from\nthe general phraseology of Scripture and the analogy of faith; and we\nshall generally be able, in this way, to separate the doctrine from all\nthose adventitious circumstances which give it the appearance of\nabsurdity. If a doctrine which, upon the closest examination, appears\nunquestionably to be taught in Scripture, still does not approve itself\nto our understanding, we must consider carefully what it is that\nprevents us from receiving it. There may be preconceived notions hastily\ntaken up which that doctrine opposes; there may be pride of\nunderstanding that does not readily submit to the views which it\ncommunicates; or reason may need to be reminded, that we must expect to\nfind in religion many things which we are not able to comprehend. One of\nthe most important offices of reason is to recognize her own limits. She\nnever can be moved, by any authority, to receive as true what she\nperceives to be absurd. But, if she has formed a just estimate of human\nknowledge, she will not shelter her presumption in rejecting the truths\nof revelation under the pretence of contradictions that do not really\nexist; she will readily admit that there may be in a subject some points\nwhich she knows, and others of which she is ignorant; she will not allow\nher ignorance of the latter to shake the evidence of the former, but\nwill yield a firm assent to that which she does understand, without\npresuming to deny what is beyond her comprehension. And thus, availing\nherself of all the light which she now has, she will wait in humble hope\nfor the time when a larger measure shall be imparted.\n\nREBEKAH, the wife of Isaac. See ISAAC.\n\nRECEIPT OF CUSTOM. Matthew, when called, was sitting at the receipt of\ncustom, or dues on merchandise. He was a publican or tax-gatherer, or,\nas we should say, a custom house officer. The publicans had houses or\nbooths built for them at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, by\nthe sea shore, and the parts of the lake of Gennesareth, or sea of\nTiberias, to collect the taxes on passengers and merchandise. See\nPUBLICAN.\n\nRECHABITES. The Rechabites, though they dwelt among the Israelites, did\nnot belong to any of their tribes; for they were Kenites, as appears\nfrom 1 Chron. ii, 55, where the Kenites are said to have come of\n\u201cHemath, the father of the house of Rechab.\u201d These Kenites, afterward\nstyled Rechabites, were of the family of Jethro, otherwise called Hobab,\nwhose daughter Moses married; for \u201cthe children of the Kenite, Moses\u2019s\nfather-in-law,\u201d it is said, \u201cwent up out of the city of palm trees with\nthe children of Judah, and dwelt among the people,\u201d Judges i, 16; and we\nread of \u201cHeber the Kenite, who was of the children of Hobab, the\nfather-in-law of Moses, who had severed himself from the Kenites,\u201d or\nfrom the bulk of them who settled in the tribe of Judah, \u201cand pitched\nhis tent in the plain of Zaanaim,\u201d Judges iv, 11. They appear to have\nsprung from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. xxv, 2; for\nJethro, from whom they are descended, is called a Midianite, Num. x, 23.\nOf this family was Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, a man of eminent zeal\nfor the pure worship of God against idolatry, who assisted King Jehu in\ndestroying the house of Ahab, and the worshippers of Baal, 2 Kings x,\n15, 16, 23, &c. It was he who gave that rule of life to his children and\nposterity which we read of in Jer. xxxv, 6, 7. It consisted of these\nthree articles: that they should drink no wine; that they should neither\npossess nor occupy any houses, fields, or vineyards; that they should\ndwell in tents. This was the institution of the children of Rechab; and\nthis they continued to observe for upward of three hundred years, from\nthe time of Jehu to that of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, when\nNebuchadnezzar coming to besiege Jerusalem, the Rechabites were obliged\nto leave the country and take refuge in the city. In Jer. xxxv, there is\na promise made to this people, that Jonadab, the son of Rechab, should\nnot want a man to stand before the Lord; that is, that his posterity\nshould not fail: and to this day this tribe is found among the Arabians\nof the desert, distinct, free, and practising exactly the institutions\nof Jonadab, whose name they bear, and of whose institutions they boast.\nThis is a remarkable instance of the exact fulfilment of a minute and\nisolated prophecy. See BENI KHAIBIR.\n\nRECONCILIATION. The expressions \u201creconciliation\u201d and \u201cmaking peace\u201d\nnecessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man,\nwhich is reciprocal. This is sometimes called enmity, a term, as it\nrespects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our\nlanguage to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of this, the\noppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to\nargue, that as there can be no such affection in the divine nature,\ntherefore, reconciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation\nof God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching\nof Christ, they tell us, is very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a\nsad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians in their discussions\non the natural innocence of man are not willing to admit, that by the\ninfection of sin \u201cthe carnal mind is enmity to God,\u201d that human nature\nis malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law; but this is\nfar from expressing the whole of that relation of man in which, in\nScripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a\nreconciliation, the making of peace between God and him. That relation\nis a legal one, as that of a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a\ncriminal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority,\nand who is, therefore, treated as an enemy. The word \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is used in\nthis passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Testament.\nSo, in Romans xi, 28, the Jews, rejected and punished for refusing the\nGospel, are said by the Apostle, \u201cas concerning the Gospel,\u201d to be\n\u201cenemies for your sakes;\u201d treated and accounted such; \u201cbut, as touching\nthe election, they are beloved for the fathers\u2019 sakes.\u201d In the same\nepistle, v, 10, the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that\nwith reference to the reconciliation by Christ: \u201cFor if when we were\nenemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;\u201d that is,\nwhen we were objects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as\nenemies, and liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, in the\nsense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred, is added to this\nrelation in the case of man; but it is no part of the relation itself;\nit is rather a cause of it, as it is one of the actings of a corrupt\nnature which render man obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and the\npenalty of his law, and place him in the condition of an enemy. It is\nthis judicial variance and opposition between God and man which is\nreferred to in the term reconciliation, and in the phrase \u201cmaking\npeace,\u201d in the New Testament; and the hostility is, therefore, in its\nown nature, mutual.\n\nBut that there is no truth in the notion, that reconciliation means no\nmore than our laying aside our enmity to God, may also be shown from\nseveral express passages. The first is the passage we have above cited:\n\u201cFor if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God,\u201d Rom. v, 10.\nHere the act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to us; but if\nthis reconciliation consisted in the laying aside of our own enmity, the\nact would be ours alone: and, farther, that it could not be the laying\naside of our enmity, is clear from the text, which speaks of\nreconciliation while we were yet enemies. The reconciliation spoken of\nhere is not, as Socinus and his followers have said, our conversion. For\nthat the Apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to\nour conversion, appears evident from the opposite members of the two\nsentences, \u201cmuch more, being justified, we shall be saved from wrath\nthrough him,\u201d \u201cmuch more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his\nlife.\u201d The Apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were so\nbenign to us before our conversion, what may we not expect from him now\nwe are converted? To reconcile here cannot mean to convert; for the\nApostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of\nChrist; but to convert sinners is nothing remarkable, since none but\nsinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing\nfor Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners to God by his\ndeath, when there have been but very few good men who have died for\ntheir friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly\nto his glorious life, than to his shameful death; but this\nreconciliation is attributed to his death, as contradistinguished from\nhis glorious life, as is evident from the antithesis contained in the\ntwo verses. Beside, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the\nnature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted,\nconsists of the peace of God, and salvation from wrath, Rom. v, 9, 10.\nThis the Apostle afterward calls receiving the reconciliation. And what\nis it to receive the reconciliation, but to receive the remission of\nsins? Acts x, 43. To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely\nunknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the\nremission of sins, and in effect to be delivered from wrath or\npunishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.\n\n\u201cGod was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their\ntrespasses unto them,\u201d 2 Cor. v, 19. Here the manner of this\nreconciliation is expressly said to be, not our laying aside our enmity,\nbut the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God; in other words,\nthe pardoning of our offences and restoring us to favour. The promise,\non God\u2019s part, to do this, is expressive of his previous reconciliation\nto the world by the death of Christ; for our actual reconciliation is\ndistinguished from this by what follows, \u201cand hath committed to us the\nministry of reconciliation,\u201d by virtue of which all men were, by the\nApostles, entreated and besought to be reconciled to God. The reason,\ntoo, of this reconciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which he\npromises not to impute sin, is grounded by the Apostle, in the last\nverse of the chapter, not upon the laying aside of enmity by men, but\nupon the sacrifice of Christ: \u201cFor he hath made him to be sin,\u201d a\nsin-offering, \u201cfor us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the\nrighteousness of God in him.\u201d \u201cAnd that he might reconcile both unto God\nin one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,\u201d Eph. ii, 16.\nHere the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not spoken\nof as reconciling himself to God; but Christ is said to reconcile Jews\nand Gentiles together, and both to God, \u201cby his cross.\u201d Thus, says the\nApostle, \u201che is our peace;\u201d but in what manner is the peace effected?\nNot, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of man\u2019s heart, but\nby removing the enmity of \u201cthe law.\u201d \u201cHaving abolished in\u201d or by \u201chis\nflesh the enmity, even the law of commandments.\u201d The ceremonial law only\nis here, probably meant; for by its abolition, through its fulfilment in\nChrist, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away; but still\nit was not only necessary to reconcile Jew and Gentile together, but to\n\u201creconcile both unto God.\u201d This he did by the same act; abolishing the\nceremonial law by becoming the antitype of all its sacrifices, and thus,\nby the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconciliation of all to God,\n\u201cslaying the enmity by his cross,\u201d taking away whatever hindered the\nreconciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we have seen, was not\nenmity and hatred to God in the human mind only, but that judicial\nhostility and variance which separated God and man as Judge and\ncriminal. The feeble criticism of Socinus, on this passage, in which he\nhas been followed by his adherents to this day, is thus answered by\nGrotius: \u201cIn this passage the dative \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7, _to God_, can only be governed\nby the verb \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1fc3, _that he might reconcile_; for the\ninterpretation of Socinus, which makes _to God_ stand by itself, or that\nto reconcile to God is to reconcile them among themselves, that they\nmight serve God, is distorted and without example. Nor is the argument\nvalid which is drawn from thence, that in this place St. Paul properly\ntreats of the peace made between Jews and Gentiles; for neither does it\nfollow from this argument, that it was beside his purpose to mention the\npeace made for each with God. For the two opposites which are joined,\nare so joined among themselves, that they should be primarily and\nchiefly joined by that bond; for they are not united among themselves,\nexcept by and for that bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made\nfriends among themselves by friendship with God.\u201d\n\nHere also a critical remark will be appropriate. The above passages will\nshow how falsely it has been asserted that God is no where in Scripture\nsaid to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are\nreconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of _our being\nreconciled to God_ imports the turning away of his wrath from us. Whitby\nobserves, on the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u1f74, \u201cthat they naturally\nimport the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us,\nboth in profane and Jewish writers.\u201d When the Philistines suspected that\nDavid would appease the anger of Saul, by becoming their adversary, they\nsaid, \u201cWherewith should he _reconcile_ himself to his master? Should it\nnot be with the heads of these men?\u201d not, surely, How shall he remove\nhis own anger against his master? but, how shall he remove his master\u2019s\nanger against him? How shall he restore himself to his master\u2019s favour?\n\u201cIf thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy\nbrother hath aught against thee,\u201d not, that thou hast aught against thy\nbrother, \u201cfirst be reconciled to thy brother;\u201d that is, appease and\nconciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import, \u201cSee that thy\nbrother be reconciled to thee,\u201d since that which goes before is, not\nthat he hath done thee an injury, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be\nreconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger\nof God toward us is to be appeased, which the New Testament expressly\ndeclares to be meritoriously \u201cthe sin-offering\u201d of Him \u201cwho knew no\nsin,\u201d and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, \u201cfaith in\nhis blood.\u201d See PROPITIATION.\n\nREDEEMER. The Hebrew _goel_ is thus rendered, and the title is applied\nto Christ, as he is the Avenger of man upon his spiritual enemy, and\ndelivers man from death and the power of the grave, which the human\navenger could not do. The right of the institution of _goel_ was only in\na relative, one of the same blood; and hence our Saviour\u2019s assumption of\nour nature is alluded to and implied under this term. There was also the\nright of buying back the family inheritance when alienated; and this\nalso applies to Christ, our _Goel_, who has purchased back the heavenly\ninheritance into the human family. Under these views Job joyfully\nexclaims, \u201cI know that my Redeemer,\u201d my _Goel_, \u201cliveth,\u201d &c. See GOEL,\nMEDIATOR, and JESUS CHRIST.\n\nREDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and\nsacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called the Redeemer.\n\u201cBeing justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in\nChrist Jesus,\u201d Rom. iii, 24. \u201cChrist hath redeemed us from the curse of\nthe law, being made a curse for us,\u201d Gal. iii, 13. \u201cIn whom we have\nredemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the\nriches of his grace,\u201d Eph. i, 7. \u201cForasmuch as ye know that ye were not\nredeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain\nconversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the\nprecious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without\nspot,\u201d 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. \u201cAnd ye are not your own, for ye are bought\nwith a price,\u201d 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20.\n\nBy redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to\nunderstand _deliverance_ merely, regarding only the effect, and\nstudiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the\nvery terms used in the above cited passages, \u201cto redeem,\u201d and \u201cto be\nbought with a price,\u201d will each be found to refute this notion of a\ngratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our\nEnglish word, _to redeem_, literally means \u201cto buy back;\u201d and \u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9,\n_to redeem_, and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _redemption_, are, both in Greek writers\nand in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by\npaying \u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, _a ransom_ or _redemption price_. But, as Grotius has\nfully shown, by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and\nprofane writers, redemption signifies not merely \u201cthe liberation of\ncaptives,\u201d but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from\nwhich we may be freed; and \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd signifies every thing which satisfies\nanother, so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption\nor purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will\npresently appear,) is, therefore, to be ascertained by the circumstances\nof those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us\nare sinful men. They are under guilt, under \u201cthe curse of the law,\u201d the\nservants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and \u201ctaken\ncaptive by him at his will,\u201d liable to the death of the body and to\neternal punishment. To the whole of this case, the redemption, the\npurchased deliverance of man, as proclaimed in the Gospel, applies\nitself. Hence, in the above cited and other passages, it is said, \u201cWe\nhave redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,\u201d in\nopposition to guilt; redemption from \u201cthe curse of the law;\u201d deliverance\nfrom sin, that \u201cwe should be set free from sin;\u201d deliverance from the\npower of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future \u201cwrath,\u201d\nby the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious\ndoctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is,\nhowever, in the New Testament, a constant reference to the \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, _the\nredemption price_, which \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd is as constantly declared to be the\ndeath of Christ, which he endured in our stead. \u201cThe Son of man came to\ngive his life a _ransom_ for many,\u201d Matt. xx, 28. \u201cWho gave himself a\n_ransom_ for all,\u201d 1 Tim. ii, 6. \u201cIn whom we have _redemption_ through\nhis blood,\u201d Eph. i, 7. \u201cYe were not _redeemed_ with corruptible things,\nas silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,\u201d 1 Pet. i,\n18, 19. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal\nevils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ,\nis not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a\nconsideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom, the redemption\nprice, was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another, the\nprecious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same\nimport are those passages which represent us as having been \u201cbought,\u201d or\n\u201cpurchased\u201d by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those \u201cwho denied the Lord\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, that bought them;\u201d and St. Paul, in the passage\nabove cited, says, \u201cYe are bought with a price, \u1f20\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5;\u201d which price\nis expressly said by St. John to be the blood of Christ: \u201cThou wast\nslain, and hast redeemed us to God (\u1f20\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, hast purchased us) by thy\nblood,\u201d Rev. v, 9.\n\nRED SEA, celebrated chiefly for the miraculous passage of the Israelites\nthrough its waters. They were thrust out of Egypt, says Dr. Hales, on\nthe fifteenth day of the first month; \u201cabout six hundred thousand men on\nfoot, beside women and children. And a mixed multitude went up also with\nthem; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle,\u201d Exod. xii, 37\u201339;\nNum. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3. After they set out from Rameses, in the land of\nGoshen, in the neighbourhood of Cairo, their first encampment was at\nSuccoth, signifying \u201cbooths,\u201d or an \u201cenclosure for cattle,\u201d after a\nstage of about thirty miles; their second, at Etham, or Adsjerud, on the\nedge of the wilderness, about sixty miles farther; \u201cfor the Lord led\nthem not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was\nnear; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see\nwar, and they return to Egypt: but God led the people about by the way\nof the wilderness of the Red Sea,\u201d or by a circuitous rout to the land\nof promise, in order to train them and instruct them, in the solitudes\nof Arabia Petr\u00e6a, Exodus xiii, 17\u201320; Deut. xxxii, 10. Instead of\nproceeding from Etham, round the head of the Red Sea, and coasting along\nits eastern shore, the Lord made them turn southward along its western\nshore, and, after a stage of about twenty or thirty miles, to encamp in\nthe valley of Bedea, where there was an opening in the great chain of\nmountains that line the western coast, called Pi-hahiroth, the mouth of\nthe ridge between Migdol westward, and the sea eastward, \u201cover against\nBaal-zephon,\u201d on the eastern coast; to tempt Pharaoh, whose heart he\nfinally hardened, to pursue them when they were \u201centangled in the land,\u201d\nand shut in by the wilderness on their rear and flanks, and by the sea\nin their front. The leading motive with Pharaoh and his servants was to\nbring back the Israelites to bondage, and of the Egyptians in general,\nto recover the treasures of which they had been spoiled, Exod. xiv, 1\u20135.\nSo Pharaoh pursued the Israelites by the direct way of Migdol, with six\nhundred chariots, his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them\nencamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon. When\ntheir destruction, or their return to bondage, seemed to be inevitable,\nthe Lord interposed and fought for Israel. He opened for them a passage\nacross the Red Sea, where it was about twelve miles wide, and brought\nthem through in safety; while he drowned the Egyptians, who blindly\nfollowed them to their own destruction, Psalm lxxvii, 18, &c.\n\nOn this memorable deliverance Moses composed a thanksgiving, which he\nand the Israelites sung unto the Lord. It is also a sublime prophecy,\nforetelling the powerful effect of this tremendous judgment on the\nneighbouring nations of Edom, Moab, Palestine, and Canaan, the future\nsettlement of the Israelites in the promised land; and the erection of\nthe temple and sanctuary on Mount Zion, and the perpetuity of the\ndominion and worship of God.\n\nThe precise place of this passage has been much contested. Some place it\nnear Suez, at the head of the gulf; others, with more probability, about\nten hours\u2019 journey lower down, at Clysma, or the vale of Bedea. The day\nbefore the passage, by the divine command, the Israelites encamped\nbeside Pi-hahiroth, \u201cbetween Migdol and the sea, over against\nBaal-zephon,\u201d Exodus xiv, 2; Num. xxxiii, 7. Pi-hahiroth signifies \u201cthe\nmouth of the ridge,\u201d or chain of mountains, which line the western coast\nof the Red Sea, called Attaka, \u201cdeliverance,\u201d in which was a gap, which\nformed the extremity of the valley of Bedea, ending at the sea eastward,\nand running westward to some distance, toward Cairo; Migdol, signifying\n\u201ca tower,\u201d probably lay in that direction; and Baal-zephon, signifying\n\u201cthe northern Baal,\u201d was probably a temple on the opposite promontory,\nbuilt on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. And the modern names of\nplaces in the vicinity tend to confirm these expositions of the ancient.\nBeside Attaka, on the eastern coast opposite, is a head land, called\n_Ras Musa_, or \u201cthe Cape of Moses;\u201d somewhat lower, _Hamam Faraun_,\n\u201cPharaoh\u2019s Springs;\u201d below Girondel, a reach of the gulf, called _Birket\nFaraun_; and the general name of the gulf is _Bahr al Kolsum_, \u201cthe Bay\nof Submersion.\u201d These names indicate that the passage was considerably\nbelow Suez, according to the tradition of the natives. The depth and\nbreadth of the gulf, from Suez downward, is thus described by Niebuhr:\n\u201cI have not found in this sea, from Suez southward, any bank or isthmus\nunder water. When we departed from Suez, we sailed as far as Girondel,\nwithout fear of encountering any such. We had in the first place, the\nroad of Suez, four fathom and half; at three German leagues from Suez,\nin the middle of the gulf, four fathoms; and about Girondel, near the\nshore, even to ten fathoms.\u201d Bruce, also, describing the place of\npassage opposite Ras Musa, or a little below it, says, \u201cThere is here\nabout fourteen fathom of water in the channel, and about nine in the\nsides, and good anchorage every where. The farthest side, the eastern,\nis a low sandy coast, and a very easy landing place.\u201d Shaw reckons the\nbreadth of the gulf at this place about ten miles; Neibuhr, three\nleagues and more; Bruce, something less than four leagues: we may\ntherefore estimate it about twelve miles, from their joint reports. But\nthis space the host of the Israelites could easily have passed in the\ncourse of a night, from the evening to the ensuing morning watch, or\ndawn of day, according to the Mosaical account. And surely the depth of\nthe sea was no impediment, when the Lord divided it by \u201ca strong east\nwind,\u201d which blew across the sea all that night, and made the bottom of\nthe sea dry land; \u201cand the children of Israel went into the midst of the\nsea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them, on their\nright hand and on their left,\u201d Exodus xiv, 21, 22.\n\nIn the queries of Micha\u00eblis, sent to Niebuhr, when in Egypt, it was\nproposed to him to inquire upon the spot, whether there were not some\nridges of rocks where the water was shallow, so that an army at\nparticular times may pass over; secondly, whether the Etesian winds,\nwhich blow strongly all summer from the north-west, could not blow so\nviolently against the sea as to keep it back on a heap, so that the\nIsraelites might have passed without a miracle. And a copy of these\nqueries was left, also, for Bruce, to join his inquiries likewise; his\nobservations on which are excellent: \u201cI must confess, however learned\nthe gentlemen were who proposed these doubts, I did not think they\nmerited any attention to solve them. This passage is told us by\nScripture to be a miraculous one; and if so, we have nothing to do with\nnatural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we need not believe the\ntransaction at all, seeing that it is from his authority alone we derive\nit. If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we must believe he could\ndivide it when he sees proper reason; and of that he must be the only\njudge. It is no greater miracle to divide the Red Sea than to divide the\nriver Jordan. If the Etesian wind, blowing from the north-west in\nsummer, could keep up the sea as a wall on the right, or to the south,\nof fifty feet high, still the difficulty would remain of building the\nwall on the left hand, or to the north. Beside, water standing in that\nposition for a day must have lost the nature of fluid. Whence came that\ncohesion of particles which hindered that wall to escape at the sides?\nThis is as great a miracle as that of Moses. If the Etesian winds had\ndone this once, they must have repeated it many a time before and since,\nfrom the same causes. Yet Diodorus Siculus says the Troglodytes, the\nindigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had a tradition from father to\nson, from their very earliest ages, that \u2018once this division of the sea\ndid happen there; and that, after leaving its bottom some time dry, the\nsea again came back, and covered it with great fury.\u2019 The words of this\nauthor are of the most remarkable kind: we cannot think this Heathen is\nwriting in favour of revelation: he knew not Moses, nor says a word\nabout Pharaoh and his host; but records the miracle of the division of\nthe sea in words nearly as strong as those of Moses, from the mouths of\nunbiassed, undesigning Pagans.\u201d Still skeptical queries have their use;\nthey lead to a stricter investigation of facts, and thereby tend\nstrongly to confirm the veracity of the history they mean to impeach.\nThus it appears from the accurate observations of Niebuhr and Bruce,\nthat there is no ledge of rocks running across the gulf any where, to\nafford a shallow passage. And the second query, about the Etesian or\nnortherly wind, is refuted by the express mention of a strong easterly\nwind blowing across, and scooping out a dry passage; not that it was\nnecessary for Omnipotence to employ it there as an instrument, any more\nthan at Jordan; but it seems to be introduced in the sacred history by\nway of anticipation, to exclude the natural agency that might in after\ntimes be employed for solving the miracle; and it is remarkable that the\nmonsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer half of the year from the north,\nthe winter half from the south, neither of which therefore, even if wind\ncould be supposed to operate so violently upon the waters, could produce\nthe miracle in question.\n\nWishing to diminish, though not to deny, the miracle, Niebuhr adopts the\nopinion of those who contend for a higher passage near Suez. \u201cFor,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cthe miracle would be less if they crossed the sea there than near\nBedea. But whosoever should suppose that the multitude of the Israelites\ncould be able to cross it here without a prodigy would deceive himself;\nfor, even in our days, no caravan passes that way to go from Cairo to\nMount Sinai, although it would considerably shorten the journey. The\npassage would have been naturally more difficult for the Israelites some\nthousands of years back, when the gulf was probably larger, deeper, and\nmore extended toward the north; for, in all appearance, the water has\nretired, and the ground near this end has been raised by the sands of\nthe neighbouring desert.\u201d But it sufficiently appears, even from\nNiebuhr\u2019s own statement, that the passage of the Israelites could not\nhave been taken near Suez; for, 1. He evidently confounded the town of\nKolsum, the ruins of which he places near Suez, and where he supposed\nthe passage to be made, with the bay of Kolsum, which began about\nforty-five miles lower down; as Bryant has satisfactorily proved, from\nthe astronomical observations of Ptolemy and of Ulug Beigh, made at\nHeroum, the ancient head of the gulf. 2. Instead of crossing the sea at\nor near Ethan, their second station, the Israelites turned southward,\nalong the western shore; and their third station at Pi-hahiroth, or\nBedea, was at least a full day\u2019s journey below Ethan, as Bryant has\nsatisfactorily proved from Scripture, Exodus xiv, 2. And it was this\nunexpected change in the direction of their march, and the apparently\ndisadvantageous situation in which they were then placed, entangled in\nthe land, and shut in by the wilderness, with a deep sea in front, the\nmountains of Attaka on the sides, and the enemy in their rear, that\ntempted the Egyptians to pursue them through the valley of Bedea, by the\ndirect route from Cairo, who overtook them encamping by the sea, beside\nPi-hahiroth, opposite to Ball-zephon, Exod. xiv, 2\u20139.\n\nNiebuhr wonders how the Israelites could suffer themselves to be brought\ninto such a disadvantageous situation, or be led blindfold by Moses to\ntheir apparent destruction. \u201cOne need only travel with a caravan,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cwhich meets with the least obstacle, namely, a small torrent, to be\nconvinced that the orientals do not let themselves be led, like fools,\nby their caravan _baschi_,\u201d or leader of the caravan. But the Israelites\nwent out of Egypt with \u201ca high hand,\u201d though led by Moses, yet under the\nvisible guidance and protection of \u201cthe Lord God of the Hebrews,\u201d who\n\u201cwent before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a\npillar of fire;\u201d and who, for their encouragement, to enter the passage\nof the sea miraculously prepared for them, removed the cloud which went\nbefore the camp of Israel hitherto, and placed it behind them. \u201cAnd it\ncame between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it\nwas a cloud and darkness to the one, but gave light by night to the\nother: so that the one came not near the other all the night,\u201d Exod.\nxiv, 8\u201320.\n\nNiebuhr wonders, also, how Pharaoh and the Egyptians could be led to\nfollow the Israelites. \u201cPharaoh must have wanted prudence, if, after\nhaving seen so many prodigies in Egypt, he had entered into a sea of\nmore than three leagues wide: all the Egyptians, too, must have been\nbereft of understanding, in wishing to pursue the Israelites into such a\nsea. Doubtless they knew their own country well enough to distinguish\nthe bottom of a large sea, which bounds Egypt on that side, from a\ndesert.\u201d But Pharaoh and the Egyptians probably did not know their\nsituation. The cloud which separated them from the Israelites increased\nthe darkness of the night; and they probably did not enter into the sea\ntill about midnight, by which time the van of the Israelites might have\nreached the eastern shore. Meanwhile, the bed of the sea, now beaten by\nthe feet of the immense multitude of men and cattle that had gone\nbefore, might not have been easily distinguishable from the desert. If\nwe ask, Why did the Egyptians venture to pursue the Israelites by night?\nWhy did they not wait till day light, when they could see whither they\nwere going? Niebuhr himself has unwittingly answered the question:\nPharaoh wanted \u201cprudence,\u201d indeed, and the Egyptians were \u201cbereft of\nunderstanding.\u201d And this is the Scriptural solution; for God hardened\nthe heart of Pharaoh to follow after them, that he might be honoured\nupon Pharaoh and all his host; and that, by their miraculous\ndestruction, the Egyptians might know that he was the Lord supreme,\nExod. xiv, 4\u201318. The Egyptians did not find out their mistake till the\n\u201cmorning appeared,\u201d or till day-break, when the rear of the Israelites\nhad gained the shore, and the Egyptians had reached the middle of the\nsea, and their whole host had entered into it: then, indeed, they\nattempted to fly back, but in vain; for \u201ctheir chariot wheels were\nbroken off, so that they drave them heavily, and their host was\ntroubled\u201d by the Lord, who looked or frowned upon them through the\ncloudy pillar of fire, and overwhelmed all their host in the midst of\nthe sea; when the sea suddenly returned to his strength at the signal of\nMoses stretching forth his hand over it, Exod. xiv, 24\u201328.\n\nThe particulars of this transaction demonstrate, that neither the host\nof the Israelites, nor the host of Pharaoh, could possibly have passed\nat the head of the gulf near Suez; where the sea was only half a league\nbroad, according to Niebuhr\u2019s own supposition, and consequently too\nnarrow to contain the whole host of Pharaoh at once; whose six hundred\nchariots alone, exclusive of his cavalry and infantry, must have\noccupied more ground. Manetho, and the Egyptian writers, have passed\nover in silence this tremendous visitation of their nation. An ancient\nwriter, however, Artapanus, who wrote a history of the Jews, about B. C.\n130, has preserved the following curious Egyptian traditions:--\u201cThe\nMemphites relate, that Moses, being well acquainted with the country,\nwatched the influx of the tide, and made the multitude pass through the\ndry bed of the sea. But the Heliopolitans relate, that the king, with a\ngreat army, accompanied by the sacred animals, pursued after the Jews,\nwho had carried off with them the substance of the Egyptians; and that\nMoses, having been directed by a divine voice to strike the sea with his\nrod, when he heard it, touched the water with his rod; and so the fluid\ndivided, and the host passed over through a dry way. But when the\nEgyptians entered along with them, and pursued them, it is said, that\nfire flashed against them in front, and the sea, returning back,\noverwhelmed the passage. Thus the Egyptians perished, both by the fire,\nand by the reflux of the tide.\u201c\n\nThe latter account is extremely curious: it not only confirms Scripture,\nbut it notices three additional circumstances: 1. That for their\nprotection against the God of Israel, the Egyptians brought with them\nthe sacred animals; and by this means God executed judgment upon all the\nbestial gods of Egypt, as foretold, Exod. xii, 12, that perished with\ntheir infatuated votaries; completing the destruction of both, which\nbegan with smiting the first-born both of man and beast. 2. That the\nrecovery of the jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, which\nthey asked and obtained of the Egyptians, according to the divine\ncommand, Exod. xii, 35, 36, was a leading motive with the Egyptians to\npursue them; as the bringing back the Israelites to slavery had been\nwith Pharaoh and his servants, or officers. 3. That the destruction of\nthe Egyptians was partly occasioned by lightning and thunderbolts from\nthe presence of the Lord; exactly corresponding to the psalmist\u2019s\nsublime description: \u201cThe waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee;\nthey were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out\nwater, the air thundered, thine arrows also went abroad. Yea, he sent\nout his arrows, and scattered them; he shot forth lightnings, hail\nstones, and coals of fire, and discomfited them. Then the channels of\nwaters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered, at\nthy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils,\u201d Psalm\nlxxvii, 16, 17; xviii, 13\u201315.\n\nThe Red Sea derived its name from Edom, signifying \u201cred,\u201d a title of\nEsau, to whom the bordering country of Edom, or Idum\u00e6a, belonged, Gen.\nxxv, 30; xxxvi, 31\u201340. It was also called _Yam Suph_, \u201cthe weedy sea,\u201d\nin several passages, Num. xxxiii, 10; Psalm cvi, 9, &c, which are\nimproperly rendered \u201cthe Red Sea.\u201d Some learned authors have supposed\nthat it was so named from the quantity of weeds in it. \u201cBut in\ncontradiction to this,\u201d says Bruce, \u201cI must confess, that I never in my\nlife, and I have seen the whole extent of it, saw a weed of any sort in\nit. And indeed, upon the slightest consideration, it will appear to any\none, that a narrow gulf, under the immediate influence of monsoons,\nblowing from contrary points six months each year, would have too much\nagitation to produce such vegetables, seldom found but in stagnant\nwater, and seldomer, if ever, found in salt ones. My opinion then is,\nthat it is from the large trees, or plants, of white coral, perfectly in\nimitation of plants on land, that the sea has taken the name \u2018weedy.\u2019 I\nsaw one of these, which, from a root nearly central, threw out\nramifications in a nearly central form, measuring twenty-six feet\ndiameter every way.\u201d This seems to be the most probable solution that\nhas been hitherto proposed of the name. The tides in this sea are but\nmoderate. At Suez the difference between high and low water did not\nexceed from three to four feet, according to Niebuhr\u2019s observations on\nthe tides in that gulf, during the years 1762 and 1763.\n\nREED, \u05d0\u05d2\u05de\u05d5\u05df, Job xl, 21; xli, 2, 20; Isaiah ix, 14; xix, 15; lviii, 5;\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. xi, 7; a plant growing in fenny and watery places; very\nweak and slender, and bending with the least breath of wind, Matt. xi,\n7; Luke vii, 24. Thus it is threatened, \u201cThe Lord shall smite Israel as\na reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of the\ngood land which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond\nthe river, because they have made their idol groves, provoking him to\nanger,\u201d 1 Kings xiv, 15. The slenderness and fragility of the reed is\nmentioned in 2 Kings xviii, 21; Isaiah xxxvi, 6; and is referred to in\nMatt. xii, 20, where the remark, illustrating the gentleness of our\nSaviour, is quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, xlii, 3. The Hebrew word\nin these places is \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4, as also in Job xl, 21; Isaiah xix, 6; xxxv, 7;\nEzek. xxix, 6. See CANE.\n\nREFORMATION, usually spoken of the great Reformation in the church,\nbegun by Luther in 1517. The sad departure from the standard of holiness\nwhich the Romish hierarchy should have placed before them, combined with\nthe indecency and arrogance with which they trampled upon the rights of\nsovereigns, and upon the property and the comfort of all classes of men,\nhad, for a considerable period, produced a general conviction, that a\nreformation of the church in its head and members, to use the expression\nwhich was then prevalent, was absolutely requisite: and some steps to\naccomplish this had been actually taken. The celebrated council of\nConstance, while, in its efforts to heal the schism which had so long\ngrieved and scandalized the Catholic world, it set aside the rival\npontiffs who claimed to be the successors of St. Peter, laid down the\nimportant maxim, that a general council was superior to a pope, and that\nits decisions can restrain his power; and this doctrine, which might\notherwise have appeared to arise out of the extraordinary circumstances\nunder which it was declared, was fully confirmed by the council of\nBasil, which met several years after, and which decided the point upon\ngrounds that might at all times be urged. The popes, indeed,\nremonstrated against this, but still they were compelled to lower their\ntone; and they were often reminded, even within the precincts of their\nown court, that the period was fast approaching when the fallacy of many\nof their pretensions would be ascertained and exposed. It had become\ncommon, before the election of a new pontiff, to frame certain articles\nof reformation, which the successful candidate was required to swear\nthat he would carry into effect; and although the oath was uniformly\ndisregarded or violated, the views which led to the imposition of it\nindicated the existence of a spirit which could not be eradicated, and\nwhich might, from events that could not be foreseen, and could not be\ncontrolled, acquire a vigour which no exertion of power could resist.\nSuch, under the beneficent arrangement of Providence, was soon actually\nthe case. In the progress of the opposition made to some of the worst\nabuses of Rome, they who conducted that opposition were guided to the\nword of life; they studied it with avidity and with delight; and they\nfound themselves furnished by it with sufficient armour for the mighty\ncontest in which they were to engage. They discovered in the New\nTestament what Christianity really was; their representations of it were\nreceived with wonder, and read with avidity; the secession from the\nchurch of Rome became much more rapid and much more extensive than it\nhad previously been, and all possibility of reconciliation with that\nchurch was done away. Of this the popes were fully aware; and as the\nonly way of counteracting that which was to them so formidable, they\nattempted, by various devices, to fetter the press, to prevent the\ncirculation of the Bible, and thus again to plunge the world into that\nintellectual darkness from which it had been happily delivered. The\nscheme was impracticable. The \u201c_Indices Expurgatorii_,\u201d in which they\npointed out the works that they condemned, and which they declared it to\nbe heresy and pollution to peruse, increased the desire to become\nacquainted with them; and although some who indulged that curiosity\nsuffered the punishment denounced by the inquisition against the enemies\nof papal superstition, there was an immense proportion which even\nspiritual tyranny could not reach; so that the light which had been\nkindled daily brightened, till it shone with unclouded lustre through\nmany of the most powerful and the most refined nations of Europe.\n\nIt is worthy of careful observation, that the resistance which\nultimately proved so successful, was first occasioned by practices that\nhad been devised for establishing the monstrous despotism of the popes;\nthat when it commenced, it was directed against what was conceived to be\nan abuse of power, without the slightest suspicion being entertained\nthat the power itself was unchristian; that the reformers gradually\nadvanced; every additional inquiry to which they were conducted\nenlarging their views, and bringing them acquainted with fresh proofs of\nthat daring usurpation to which men had long submitted, till at length\nthe foundation upon which the whole system, venerated through ages,\nrested, was disclosed to them, and perceived to be a foundation of sand.\nThe consequence was, that the supremacy of the pope was by multitudes\nabjured; that he was branded as antichrist; that communion with the\npopish church was avoided as sinful, and that the form of ecclesiastical\npolity, the essential principle of which was the infallibility of the\nbishop of Rome, was for ever renounced. The wonderful manner in which\nthis signal revolution, so fraught with blessings to mankind, was\naccomplished, the various events which mark its history, and the\ncharacters and exertions of the men by whose agency it was effected,\ncannot be too often surveyed, or too deeply fixed in the memory. The\nwhole, even with reference to the illumination of the human mind and the\nimprovement of the social state of the world, is in a high degree\ninteresting; and that interest is unspeakably increased by our\ndiscerning the most striking evidence of the gracious interposition of\nProvidence dissipating the cloud which obscured divine truth, and\nrestoring to mankind that sacred treasure which is sufficient to make\nall who seriously examine it wise unto salvation. It does not, however,\ncome within the province of this work to give a minute history of the\norigin and progress of the Reformation, to trace the steps of Zuinglius\nand of Luther, and to detail the circumstances which advanced or\nretarded them in the glorious career upon which they had entered. Much\ndiscussion has taken place with respect to the motives by which Luther\nwas actuated. This point, in reference to what he accomplished, is\nreally of little moment; but there cannot be a doubt that although he\nmight, throughout his arduous struggle, be guided occasionally by\ninferior considerations, he was eventually, at least, chiefly animated\nby the noble and disinterested wish to emancipate his fellow creatures\nfrom what he was convinced was the direct and most infatuated spiritual\noppression; that he looked to Heaven for support, and that such support\nhe largely received.\n\nREFUGE, CITIES OF. In order to provide for the security of those who,\nwithout design, might happen to kill a person in whatever manner it\nshould be, the Lord commanded Moses to appoint six cities of refuge,\nExod. xxi, 18; Num. xxxv, 11, &c, that whoever should undesignedly spill\nthe blood of a fellow creature, might retire thither, and have time to\nprepare for his defence before the judges; so that the relatives of the\ndeceased might not pursue and kill him. Of these cities there were three\non each side Jordan. Those on this side Jordan were Kedesh of Naphtali,\nHebron, and Shechem; those beyond Jordan were Bezer, Golan, and\nRamoth-Gilead, Joshua xx, 7, 8. They served not only for the Hebrews,\nbut for strangers also that should dwell in their country. These cities\nwere to be of easy access, and to have good roads to them, and bridges\nwherever there should be occasion. The width of these roads was, at\nleast, to be two-and-thirty cubits, or eight-and-forty feet. When there\nwere any cross roads, they were careful to erect posts with an\ninscription pointing to the city of refuge. Every year, on the fifteenth\nof the month Adar, which answers to our February moon, the magistrates\nof the city visited the roads, to see if they were in good condition.\nThe city was to be well supplied with water and provisions. It was not\nallowed to make any weapons there, lest the relatives of the deceased\nshould be furnished with arms for the gratifying of their revenge.\nLastly, it was necessary that whoever took refuge there, should\nunderstand a trade or calling, that he might not be chargeable to the\ninhabitants. They were wont to send some prudent persons to meet those\nwho were pursuing their revenge for the relations, that they might\ndispose them to clemency, and persuade them to wait the decision of\njustice.\n\nThough the man-slayer had fled to the city of refuge, yet he was not on\nthis account exempted from the pursuit of justice. An information was\npreferred against him, Num. xxxv, 12; he was summoned before the judges,\nand before the people, to clear himself, and to prove that the murder\nwas merely casual and involuntary. If he was found innocent, he dwelt\nsafely in the city to which he had retired; if otherwise, he was put to\ndeath according to the severity of the law. The following texts of\nScripture are not very explicit whether the affair was under the\ncognizance of the judges of the place where the murder was committed, or\nof the judges of the city of refuge to which the murderer had fled,\nDeut. xix, 11, 12; Joshua xx, 4\u20136; Num. xxxv, 25; and the commentators\nare at variance in this matter. But it appears, from a passage of\nJoshua, that the man-slayer was to undergo two trials; first, in the\ncity of refuge, where the judges summarily examined the affair, and\nheard his allegations at his first arrival; secondly, when he was taken\nback to his own city, to be judged by the magistrates of the place, who\ntook the cause under a more strict and scrupulous examination. If the\nlatter judges declared him innocent, they had him reconducted, under a\nstrong guard, to the city of refuge to which he had before fled. He was\nnot, however, immediately liberated; but, to inspire the greater horror\neven of involuntary murder, it seems as if the law would punish it by a\nkind of banishment; for he was obliged to dwell in the city, without\ngoing out of it, till the death of the high priest; and if before that\ntime he was imprudent enough to leave the city, the avenger of blood\nmight safely kill him; but after the death of the high priest, he was at\nliberty to go whither he pleased without molestation.\n\nIt is a curious fact, that the North American Indian nations have most\nof them either a house or town of refuge, which is a sure asylum to\nprotect a man-slayer, or the unfortunate captive, if they can once enter\nit. \u201cIn almost every Indian nation,\u201d says Adair, \u201cthere are several\npeaceable towns which are called old, beloved, ancient, holy, or white\ntowns: (white being their fixed emblem of peace, friendship, prosperity,\nhappiness, purity, &c:) they seem to have been formerly towns of refuge;\nfor it is not in the memory of their oldest people that ever human blood\nwas shed in them, although they often force persons from thence, and put\nthem to death elsewhere.\u201d Sanctuaries affording security for criminals\nare still known in the east, and anciently were established in Europe.\n\nREGENERATION, a new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which we\nexperience a change of heart. It is expressed in Scripture by being born\nagain, John iii, 7; born from above; being quickened, Eph. ii, 1; by\nChrist being formed in the heart, Gal. iv, 19; by our partaking of the\ndivine nature, 2 Peter i, 4. The efficient cause of regeneration is the\ndivine Spirit. That man is not the author of it, is evident from John i,\n12, 13; iii, 4; Eph. ii, 8, 10. The instrumental cause is the word of\nGod, James i, 18; 1 Peter i, 23; 1 Cor. iv, 15. The change in\nregeneration consists in the recovery of the moral image of God upon the\nheart; that is to say, so as to love him supremely and serve him\nultimately as our highest end, and to delight in him superlatively as\nour chief good. The sum of the moral law is to love the Lord our God\nwith all our heart, and soul, and strength, and mind. This is the duty\nof every rational creature; and in order to obey it perfectly, no part\nof our inward affection or actual service ought to be, at any time, or\nin the least degree, misapplied. Regeneration consists in the principle\nbeing implanted, obtaining the ascendancy, and habitually prevailing\nover its opposite. It may be remarked, that though the inspired writers\nuse various terms and modes of speech in order to describe this change\nof mind, sometimes terming it conversion, regeneration, a new creation,\nor the new creature, putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting\non the new man, walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, &c;\nyet it is all effected by the word of truth, or the Gospel of salvation,\ngaining an entrance into the mind, through divine teaching, so as to\npossess the understanding, subdue the will, and reign in the affections.\nIn a word, it is faith working by love that constitutes the new\ncreature, the regenerate man, Gal. v, 6; 1 John v, 1\u20135. Regeneration is\nto be distinguished from our justification, although it is connected\nwith it. Every one who is justified, is also regenerated; but the one\nplaces us in a new _relation_, and the other in a new moral _state_. Our\nLord, in one instance, uses the term regeneration for the resurrection\nstate: \u201cYe which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of\nman shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve\nthrones, judging,\u201d Matt. xix, 28. And, accordingly, Dr. Campbell\ntranslates the passage thus: \u201cAt the renovation, when the Son of man\nshall be seated on the glorious throne, ye, my followers, sitting also\nupon twelve thrones, shall judge.\u201d We are accustomed, says he, to apply\nthe term solely to the conversion of individuals; whereas its relation\nhere is to the general state of things. The principal completion will be\nat the general resurrection, when there will be, in the most important\nsense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven and earth, when all things\nshall become new.\n\nREHOBOAM, the son and successor of Solomon; his mother was Naamah, an\nAmmonitish woman, whom Solomon had married, 1 Kings xiv, 20, 21. He was\nforty-one years of age when he began to reign, and, consequently, was\nborn in the first year of his father\u2019s reign, A. M. 2990, or the year\nbefore. This prince reigned seventeen years at Jerusalem, and died A. M.\n3046. After the death of Solomon, Rehoboam came to Shechem, because all\nIsrael was there assembled to make him king, 1 Kings xii. Jeroboam, the\nson of Nebat, who had headed a sedition against Solomon, and had been\ncompelled, toward the close of his reign, to take refuge in Egypt, as\nsoon as he heard that this prince was dead, returned into Judea, and\ncame to the assembly of the people of Shechem. The Israelites would have\nmade terms with Rehoboam; but, being a poor politician, and following\nthe advice of some junior counsellors, he managed his business so\nimprudently that he lost the whole house of Israel, save the tribes of\nJudah and Benjamin.\n\nRELIGION. See CHRISTIANITY.\n\nREMONSTRANTS have obtained this name, particularly on the continent,\nbecause, in 1610, they presented to the states of Holland a petition,\nentitled their Remonstrance, in which they stated their grievances, and\nprayed for relief. They are also called Arminians, because they\nmaintained the doctrines respecting predestination and grace, which were\nembraced and defended by James Harmenson or Arminius, an eminent\nProtestant divine, and a native of Holland, who was born in 1560, and\ndied in 1609. He first studied at Leyden, and then at Geneva. While at\nthe university of Geneva, he studied under Beza, by whom he was\ninstructed in the doctrines of Calvin; and having been judged by Martin\nLydius, professor of divinity at Franeker, a proper person to refute a\nwork in which the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination had been\nattacked by some ministers of Delft, he undertook the task. On a strict\nexamination of the reasons on both sides, however, he became a convert\nto the opinions which he was employed to refute. The result of his\ninquiries on this, and other subjects connected with it, was, that,\nthinking the doctrine of Calvin with respect to free will,\npredestination, and grace, too severe, he expressed his doubts\nrespecting them in the year 1591, and at length adopted the religious\nsystem of those who extend the love of God, and the merits of his Son,\nto all mankind. After his appointment to the theological chair of\nLeyden, in 1603, he avowed and vindicated the principles which he had\nembraced; but the prudence and caution with which he published and\ndefended them could not screen him from the resentment of those who\nadhered to the theological system of Calvin, and in particular from the\nopposition of Gomar his colleague. After the death of Arminius, the\ncontroversy, thus begun, became more general, and threatened to involve\nthe United Provinces in civil discord. However, the Arminian tenets\ngained ground, and were adopted by several persons of merit and\ndistinction. The Calvinists or Gomarists as they were now called,\nappealed to a national synod. Accordingly, a synod was at length\nconvened at Dordrecht or Dort, and was composed of ecclesiastical and\nlay deputies from the United Provinces, and also of ecclesiastical\ndeputies from the reformed churches of England, Switzerland, Bremen,\nHesse, and the Palatinate. This synod sat from the first of November,\n1618, to the twenty-sixth of April, 1619. The principal advocate in\nfavour of the Arminians was Episcopius, who was at that time professor\nof divinity at Leyden. The religious principles of the Arminians have\ninsinuated themselves more or less into the established church in\nHolland, and imbued the theological system of many of those pastors who\nare appointed to maintain the doctrine and authority of the synod of\nDort. The principles of Arminius were early introduced into various\nother countries, as Great Britain, France, Geneva, and many parts of\nSwitzerland; but their progress is said to have been rather retarded of\nlate, especially in Germany and several parts of Switzerland, by the\nprevalence of the Leibnitzian and Wolfian philosophy, which is more\nfavourable to Calvinism. The distinguishing tenets of the Remonstrants\nmay be said to consist chiefly in the different light in which they view\nthe subjects of the five points, or in the different explanation which\nthey give to them, and comprised in the five following articles:\npredestination, universal redemption, the operation of grace, the\nfreedom of the will, and perseverance. They believe that God, having an\nequal regard for all his creatures, sent his Son to die for the sins not\nof the elect only, but of the whole world; that no mortal is rendered\nfinally unhappy by an eternal and invincible decree, but that the misery\nof those who perish arises from themselves; and that, in this present\nimperfect state, believers, if not vigilant, may, through the force of\ntemptation, and the influence of Satan, fall from grace, and sink into\nfinal perdition. See ARMINIANISM.\n\nREMPHAN, \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u1fec\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u1f70, signifies _an idol_, according to the Septuagint.\nAmos, v, 26, upbraids the Hebrews with having carried, during their\nwanderings in the wilderness, the tabernacle of their Moloch and Chiun,\ntheir images, the star of their god, which they made to themselves,\naccording to our version of the Bible. St. Stephen, quoting this passage\nof Amos, says, \u201cYe took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of\nyour god Remphan,\u201d Acts vii, 43, which has given occasion to a variety\nof conjectures. Grotius thinks it to have been some deity, as Rimmon;\nand Capellus and Hammond take this Remphan to be a king of Egypt,\ndeified by his subjects; a late writer is of opinion, that God here\nrefers to the idolatries to which in succeeding ages the Jews were\ngradually given up, after having begun to revolt in the wilderness by\nthe sin of the golden calf.\n\nREPENTANCE is sometimes used generally for a change of mind, and an\nearnest wishing that something were undone that has been done. Esau\nfound no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears;\nhe could not move his father Isaac to repent of what he had done, or to\nrecall the blessing from Jacob and confer it on himself, Heb. xii, 17;\nMatt. iii, 2; iv, 17. Taken in a religious sense it signifies conviction\nof sin and sorrow for it. But there is, 1. A partial or worldly\nrepentance, wherein one is grieved for and turns from his sin, merely on\naccount of the hurt it has done, or is likely to do, him: so a\nmalefactor, who still loves his sin, repents of doing it, because it\nbrings him to punishment. 2. An evangelical repentance, which is a godly\nsorrow wrought in the heart of a sinful person by the word and Spirit of\nGod, whereby, from a sense of his sin, as offensive to God, and defiling\nand endangering to his own soul, and from an apprehension of the mercy\nof God in Christ, he, with grief and hatred of all his known sins, turns\nfrom them to God, as his Saviour and Lord. This is called \u201crepentance\ntoward God,\u201d as therein we turn from sin to him; and \u201crepentance unto\nlife,\u201d as it leads to spiritual life, and is the first step to eternal\nlife, Matt. iii, 2; Acts iii, 19; xi, 18; xx, 12. God himself is said to\nrepent, but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct\ntoward his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or the infliction\nof evil: which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in\nhis creatures; and thus, speaking after the manner of men, God is said\nto repent.\n\nREPETITIONS IN PRAYER. These are forbidden by our Lord, and were well\nstyled \u201cvain,\u201d if they consisted, as among the Mohammedans, in the\nrepetition of words and phrases. Richardson mentions an old man who\ntravelled with him, who was thought to be of peculiar sanctity, and most\ndevout in prayer: \u201cCertainly he did not pray in secret, communing with\nhis heart, but called aloud with all his might, and repeated the words\nas fast as his tongue could give them utterance. The form and words of\nhis prayer were the same with those of the others; but this good man had\nmade a vow to repeat certain words of the prayer a given number of\ntimes, both night and morning. The word rabboni, for example, answering\nto our word Lord, he would bind himself to repeat a hundred or two\nhundred times, twice a day; and, accordingly, went on in the hearing of\nall the party; and, on his knees sometimes with his face directed\nsteadily to heaven, and at other times bowing down to the ground, and\ncalling out rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, &c, as fast as\nhe could articulate the words after each other, like a school boy going\nthrough his task, not like a man who, praying with the heart and the\nunderstanding also, continues longer on his knees, in the rapture of\ndevotion, whose soul is a flame of fire, enkindled by his Maker, and\nfixing upon his God, like Jacob, will not let him go until he bless him.\nHaving settled his accounts with the word rabboni, which the telling of\nhis beads enabled him to know when he had done, he proceeded to dispose\nof his other vows in a similar manner. _Allah houakbar_, perhaps, came\nnext, \u2018God most great;\u2019 and he would go on, as with the other, _Allah\nhouakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, &c,\nrepeating them as fast as he could frame his organs to pronounce them.\u201d\n\nREPHAIM. The Rephaim were the ancient giants of the land of Canaan.\nThere were anciently several families of them in this country. It is\ncommonly thought that they were descended from one called Rephah or\nRapha; but others imagine that the word Rephaim properly signifies\ngiants, in the ancient language of this people. There were some of the\nRephaim beyond Jordan, at Ashteroth Karnaim, in the time of Abraham,\nwhen Chedorlaomer made war against them, Gen. xiv, 5. There were also\nsome of them in the country in the days of Moses. Og, king of Bashan,\nwas one of the posterity of the Rephaim, Joshua xii, 4. Also in the time\nof Joshua there were some of their descendants in the land of Canaan,\nJoshua xvii, 15. Lastly, we hear of them still in David\u2019s time, in the\ncity of Gath, 1 Chron. xx, 4\u20136. The giants Goliah, Sippai, Lahmi, and\nothers, were some remains of the Rephaim; their magnitude and strength\nare known from Scripture. See GIANTS.\n\nREPHIDIM, a station or encampment of the Israelites, Exod. xvii, 1. At\nthis station, adjoining to Mount Horeb, the people again murmured for\nwant of water; and they chid Moses, saying, \u201cGive us water that we may\ndrink.\u201d And \u201cthey tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or\nnot?\u201d Moses, therefore, to convince them that he was, by a more obvious\nmiracle than at Marah, smote the rock with his rod, by the divine\ncommand, and brought water out of it for the people to drink: wherefore,\nhe called the place Meribah, \u201cchiding,\u201d and the rock Massah,\n\u201ctemptation.\u201d On their way to Rephidim, the Amalekites, the original\ninhabitants of the country, who are noticed in Abraham\u2019s days, Gen. xiv,\n7, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the\njudgments recently inflicted on the Egyptians, attacked the rear of the\nIsraelites when they were faint and weary; but were defeated by a chosen\nparty, under the command of Joshua, the faithful lieutenant of Moses,\nwho is first noticed on this occasion, and even then pointed out by the\nLord as his successor. This victory was miraculous; for while Moses held\nup his hand Israel prevailed, but when he let it down Amalek prevailed.\nSo Aaron and Hur (the husband of Miriam, according to Josephus) held up\nboth his hands steadily till sunset, and thereby gave a decided victory\nto Israel. This unprovoked aggression of the Amalekites drew down upon\nthem from the Lord the sentence of \u201cwar from generation to generation,\u201d\nbetween them and the Israelites, and of final extermination, which was\ncommanded to be written or registered in a book, for a memorial to\nJoshua and his successors, the judges and kings of Israel, and was\ncarried into execution by Saul, 1 Sam. xv, 8, by David, 1 Sam. xxx, 17,\nand finally accomplished by the Simeonites in Hezekiah\u2019s reign, Exod.\nxvii, 8\u201313; Deut. xxv, 17; 1 Chron. iv, 43. While the Israelites were\nencamped at Rephidim, on the western side of Horeb, the mount of God,\nJethro, the father-in-law of Moses, who lived in that neighbourhood, and\nwas priest and prince of Midian, came to visit him, with his wife\nZipporah, and his two sons, Eleazar and Gershom, who had accompanied him\npart of the way to Egypt, but returned home again; and they rejoiced\nwith him \u201cfor all the goodness which the Lord had done for Israel, whom\nhe had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians;\u201d and upon this\noccasion, Jethro, as \u201ca priest of the most high God,\u201d of the order of\nMelchizedek, \u201coffered a burnt-offering and sacrifices of thanksgiving to\nGod, at which Aaron and all the elders of Israel ate bread with Jethro\nbefore God,\u201d by a repetition of the eucharistic feast upon a sacrifice\nwhich Melchizedek formerly administered to Abraham, Gen. xiv, 18; Exod.\nxviii, 1\u201312. Thus was fulfilled the prophetic sign which the Lord had\ngiven to Moses when he first appeared to him in the burning bush: \u201cThis\nshall be a token unto thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought\nforth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain,\u201d\nExod, iii, 12. The speedy accomplishment, therefore, of this sign, at\nthe beginning of their journey, was well calculated to strengthen their\nfaith or reliance on the divine protection throughout. Jethro appears to\nhave been distinguished not only for his piety, but also for his\npolitical wisdom. By his advice, which also was approved by the Lord,\nMoses, to relieve himself from the fatigue of administering justice to\nthe people, the whole day, from morning until evening, instituted\ninferior judges or magistrates over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and\ntens, as his deputies, who were to relieve him from the burden of\njudging the smaller causes, but to refer the greater or more difficult\nto Moses, for his decision.\n\nREPROBATION is equivalent to rejection. Rejection always implies a\ncause: \u201cReprobate silver shall men call them, insomuch that the Lord\nhath rejected them,\u201d Jer. vi, 30; that is, they are base metal, which\nwill not bear the proof. Conditional reprobation, or rejecting men from\nthe divine mercy, because of their impenitence or refusal of salvation,\nis a Scriptural doctrine; but to the unconditional, absolute reprobation\nof the rigid Calvinists, the following objections may be urged:--\n\n1. It cannot be reconciled to the love of God. \u201cGod is love.\u201d \u201cHe is\nloving to every man, and his tender mercies are over all his works.\u201d\n\n2. Nor to the wisdom of God; for the bringing into being a vast number\nof intelligent creatures under a necessity of sinning, and of being\neternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the world; and contradicts\nall those notions of wisdom in the ends and processes of government,\nwhich we are taught to look for, not only from natural reason, but from\nthe Scriptures.\n\n3. Nor to the grace of God, which is so often magnified in the\nScriptures; for doth it argue any sovereign or high strain, any\nsuperabounding richness of grace or mercy in any man, when ten thousand\nhave equally offended him, only to pardon one or two of them? Or in what\nsense has \u201cthe grace of God appeared unto all men,\u201d or even to\none-millionth part of them?\n\n4. Nor can this merciless reprobation be reconciled to any of those\nnumerous passages in which almighty God is represented as tenderly\ncompassionate and pitiful to the worst and most unworthy of his\ncreatures, even them who finally perish. \u201cI have no pleasure in the\ndeath of him that dieth.\u201d \u201cBeing grieved at the hardness of their\nhearts.\u201d \u201cHow often would I have gathered thy children together, as a\nhen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!\u201d \u201cThe Lord\nis long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish.\u201d \u201cOr\ndespisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and\nlong-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to\nrepentance?\u201d\n\n5. It is as manifestly contrary to his justice. Here, indeed, we would\nnot assume to measure this attribute of God by unauthorized human\nconceptions; but when God himself has appealed to those established\nnotions of justice and equity which have been received among all\nenlightened persons, in all ages, as the measure and rule of his own, we\ncannot be charged with this presumption. \u201cShall not the Judge of all the\nearth do right?\u201d \u201cAre not my ways equal? saith the Lord.\u201d We may then be\nbold to affirm that justice and equity in God are what they are taken to\nbe among reasonable men; and if all men every where would condemn it, as\nmost contrary to justice and right, that a sovereign should condemn to\ndeath one or more of his subjects for not obeying laws which it is\nabsolutely impossible for them, under any circumstances which they can\npossibly avail themselves of, to obey, and much more the greater part of\nhis subjects; and to require them, on pain of aggravated punishment, to\ndo something in order to the pardon and remission of their offences,\nwhich he knows they cannot do, say to stop the tide or to remove a\nmountain; it implies a charge as obviously unjust against God, who is\n\u201cjust in the judgments which he executeth,\u201d to suppose him to act\nprecisely in the same manner in regard to those whom he has passed by\nand rejected, without any avoidable fault of their own; to destroy them\nby the simple rule of his own sovereignty, or, in other words, to show\nthat he has power to do it. In whatever light the subject be viewed, no\nfault, in any right construction, can be chargeable upon the persons so\npunished, or, as we may rather say, destroyed, since punishment supposes\na judicial proceeding, which this act shuts out. For either the\nreprobates are destroyed for a pure reason of sovereignty without any\nreference to their sinfulness, and thus all criminality is left out of\nthe consideration; or they are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to which\nthey were not consenting; or for personal faults resulting from a\ncorruption of nature which they brought into the world with them, and\nwhich God wills not to correct, and which they have no power to correct\nthemselves. Every received notion of justice is thus violated. We grant,\nindeed, that some proceedings of the Almighty may appear at first\nirreconcilable with justice, which are not so; as that we should suffer\npain and death, and be infected with a morally corrupt nature, in\nconsequence of the transgression of our first progenitors; that children\nshould suffer for their parents\u2019 faults in the ordinary course of\nprovidence; and that in general calamities the comparatively innocent\nshould suffer the same evils as the guilty. But none of these are\nparallel cases. For the \u201cfree gift\u201d has come upon all men, \u201cto\njustification of life,\u201d through \u201cthe righteousness\u201d of the second Adam,\nso that the terms of our probation are but changed. None are doomed to\ninevitable ruin, or the above words of the Apostle would have no\nmeaning; and pain and death, as to all who avail themselves of the\nremedy, are made the instruments of a higher life, and of a\nsuperabounding of grace through Christ. The same observation may be made\nas to children who suffer evils for their parents\u2019 faults. This\ncircumstance alters the terms of their probation; but if every condition\nof probation leaves to men the possibility and the hope of eternal life,\nand the circumstances of all are balanced and weighed by Him who\nadministers the affairs of individuals on principles, the end of which\nis to turn all the evils of life into spiritual and higher blessings,\nthere is, obviously, no impeachment of justice in the circumstances of\nthe probation assigned to any person whatever. As to the innocent\nsuffering equally with the guilty in general calamities, the persons so\nsuffering are but comparatively innocent, and their personal\ntransgressions against God deserve a higher punishment than any which\nthis life witnesses; this may also as to them be overruled for merciful\npurposes, and a future life presents its manifold compensations. But as\nto the non-elect, the whole case, in this scheme of sovereign\nreprobation, or sovereign preterition, is supposed to be before us.\nTheir state is fixed, their afflictions in this life will not in any\ninstance be overruled for ends of edification and salvation; they are\nleft under a necessity of sinning in every condition; and a future life\npresents no compensation, but a fearful looking for of fiery and\nquenchless indignation. It is surely not possible for the ingenuity of\nman to reconcile this to any notion of just government which has ever\nobtained; and by the established notions of justice and equity in human\naffairs, we are taught by the Scriptures themselves to judge of the\ndivine proceedings in all completely stated and comprehensible cases.\n\n6. Equally impossible is it to reconcile this notion to the sincerity of\nGod in offering salvation by Christ to all who hear the Gospel, of whom\nthis scheme supposes the majority, or at least great numbers to be\namong, the reprobate. The Gospel, as we have seen, is commanded to be\npreached to every creature; which publication of good news to every\ncreature is an offer of salvation to every creature, accompanied with\nearnest invitations to embrace it, and admonitory comminations lest any\nshould neglect and despise it. But does it not involve a serious\nreflection upon the truth and sincerity of God which men ought to\nshudder at, to assume, that at the very time the Gospel is thus\npreached, no part of this good news was ever designed to benefit the\nmajority, or any great part, of those to whom it is addressed? that they\nto whom this love of God in Christ is proclaimed were never loved by\nGod? that he has decreed that many to whom he offers salvation, and whom\nhe invites to receive it, shall never be saved? and that he will\nconsider their sins aggravated by rejecting that which they never could\nreceive, and which he never designed them to receive? It is no answer to\nthis to say that we also admit that the offers of mercy are made by God\nto many whom he, by virtue of his prescience, knows will never receive\nthem. We grant this; but it is enough to reply, that in this case there\nis no insincerity. On the Calvinian scheme the offer of salvation is\nmade to those for whose sins Christ made no atonement; on the other, he\nmade atonement for the sins of all. On the former, the offer is made to\nthose whom God never designed to embrace it; on the latter to none but\nthose whom God seriously and in truth wills that they should avail\nthemselves of it; on one theory, the bar to the salvation of the\nnonelect lies in the want of a provided sacrifice for sin; on the other,\nit rests solely in men themselves; one consists, therefore, with a\nperfect sincerity of offer, the other cannot be maintained without\nbringing the sincerity of God into question, and fixing a stigma upon\nhis moral truth.\n\n7. Unconditional reprobation cannot be reconciled with that frequent\ndeclaration of Scripture, that \u201cGod is no respecter of persons.\u201d This\nphrase, we grant, is not to be interpreted as though the bounties of the\nAlmighty were dispensed in equal measures to his creatures. In the\nadministration of favour, there is place for the exercise of that\nprerogative which, in a just sense, is called the sovereignty of God;\nbut justice knows but of one rule; it is, in its nature, settled and\nfixed, and looks not at the _person_, but the _case_. To have respect of\npersons is a phrase, therefore, in Scripture, which sometimes refers to\njudicial proceedings, and signifies to judge from partiality and\naffection, and not upon the merits of the question. It is also used by\nSt. Peter with reference to the acceptance of Cornelius: \u201cOf a truth I\nperceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he\nthat feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.\u201d Here\nit is clear, that to respect persons, would be to reject or accept them\nwithout regard to their moral qualities, and on some national and other\nprejudice or partiality which forms no moral rule of any kind. But, if\nthe doctrine of absolute election and reprobation be true; if we are to\nunderstand that men like Jacob and Esau, in the Calvinistic construction\nof the passage, while in the womb of their mother, nay, from eternity,\nare loved and hated, elected or reprobated, before they have done \u201cgood\nor evil,\u201d then it necessarily follows, that there is precisely this kind\nof respect of persons with God; for his acceptance or rejection of men\nstands on some ground of aversion or dislike, which cannot be resolved\ninto any moral rule, and has no respect to the merits of the case\nitself; and if the Scripture affirms that there is no such respect of\npersons with God, then the doctrine which implies it is contradicted by\ninspired authority.\n\n8. The doctrine of which we are showing the difficulties, brings with it\nthe repulsive and shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of infants.\nSome Calvinists have, indeed, to get rid of the difficulty, or rather to\nput it out of sight, consigned them to annihilation; but of the\nannihilation of any human being there is no intimation in the word of\nGod. In order, therefore, to avoid the fearful consequence of admitting\nthe punishment of beings innocent as to all actual sin, there is no\nother way than to suppose all children, dying in infancy, to be an\nelected portion of mankind, which, however, would be a mere hypothesis\nbrought in to serve a theory without any evidence. That some of those\nwho, as they suppose, are under this sentence of reprobation, die in\ntheir infancy, is, probably, what most Calvinists allow; and, if their\ndoctrine be received, cannot be denied; and it follows, therefore, that\nall such infants are eternally lost. Now, we know that infants are not\nlost, because our Lord gave it as a reason why little children ought not\nto be hindered from coming unto him, that \u201cof such is the kingdom of\nheaven.\u201d On which Calvin himself remarks, \u201cIn this word, \u2018for of such is\nthe kingdom of heaven,\u2019 Christ comprehends as well little children\nthemselves, as those who in disposition resemble them. _Hac voce, tam\nparvulos, quam eorum similes, comprehendit._\u201d We are assured of the\nsalvation of infants, also, because \u201cthe free gift has come upon all men\nto,\u201d in order to, \u201cjustification of life,\u201d and because children are not\ncapable of rejecting that blessing, and must, therefore, derive benefit\nfrom it. The point, also, on which we have just now touched, that \u201cthere\nis no respect of persons with God,\u201d demonstrates it. For, as it will be\nacknowledged, that some children, dying in infancy, are saved, it must\nfollow, from this principle and axiom in the divine government, that all\ninfants are saved; for the case of all infants, as to innocence or\nguilt, sin or righteousness, being the same, and God as a judge, being\n\u201cno respecter of persons,\u201d but regarding only the merits of the case, he\ncannot make this awful distinction as to them, that one part shall be\neternally saved and the other eternally lost. That doctrine, therefore,\nwhich implies the perdition of infants, cannot be congruous to the\nScriptures of truth, but is utterly abhorrent to them.\n\nFinally, not to multiply these instances of the difficulties which\naccompany the doctrine of absolute reprobation, or of preterition, (to\nuse the milder term, though the argument is not in the least changed by\nit,) it destroys the end of punitive justice. That end can only be, to\ndeter men from offence, and to add strength to the law of God. But if\nthe whole body of the reprobate are left to the influence of their\nfallen nature without remedy, they cannot be deterred from sin by\nthreats of inevitable punishment; nor can they ever submit to the\ndominion of the law of God: their doom is fixed, and threats and\nexamples can avail nothing.\n\nRESTITUTION, that act of justice by which we restore to our neighbour\nwhatever we have unjustly deprived him of, Exod. xxii, 1; Luke xix, 8.\nMoralists observe, respecting restitution, 1. That where it can be made\nin kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the\nthing or the value. 2. We are bound to restore the thing with the\nnatural increase of it, that is, to satisfy for the loss sustained in\nthe mean time, and the gain hindered. 3. When the thing cannot be\nrestored, and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable\nsatisfaction, according to a liberal estimation. 4. We are at least to\ngive, by way of restitution, what the law would give; for that is\ngenerally equal, and in most cases rather favourable than rigorous. 5. A\nman is not only bound to make restitution for the injury he did, but for\nall that directly follows upon the injurious act: for the first injury\nbeing wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it.\n\nRESURRECTION. The belief of a general resurrection of the dead, which\nwill come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an\nimmortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in\ncommon to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the\nOld and New Testaments, Psalm xvi, 10; Job xix, 25, &c; Ezek. xxxvii, 1,\n&c; Isaiah xxvi, 19; John v, 28, 29; and to these may be added, Wisdom\niii, 1, &c; iv, 15; 2 Macc. vii, 14, 23, 29, &c. At the time when our\nSaviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received\nas one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole\nbody of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matt. xxii, 23; Luke xx, 28;\nMark xii, 18; John xi, 23, 24; Acts xxiii, 6, 8. Our Saviour arose\nhimself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge,\nand a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his\nepistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or\nopposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom.\nvi, 5; 1 Cor. xv, 12\u201315; Phil. iii, 10, 11; Heb. xi, 35; 1 Thess. iv,\n13\u201317, &c.\n\nOn this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises\namong those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in\nwhich the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be\nunderstood;--whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be\nmeant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory\nhas been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed\ndifficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader\nof the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there\ntaught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a\nmiraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the\ngrave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power\nof Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died,\nand his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours;\nand the Apostle Paul expressly says, \u201cWho shall change _our vile\nbody_, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.\u201d The only\npassage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising\nof the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1 Cor. xv, 35,\n&c: \u201cBut some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what\nbody do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened\nexcept it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body\nthat shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some\nother grain,\u201d &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the\nApostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the\ndoctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of\nconceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up\nin substance, we might have expected him to correct this\nmisapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian\ndoctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as\nlittle proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant,\nwould be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the\nresurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the\nobjector of the differences which exist between material bodies as\nthey now exist; between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between\none plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes,\nand of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between\nthe lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther\nhe proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body\nto be raised, and the _body_ given at the resurrection; but between\n_the body itself_, understood popularly, which dies, and the body\nwhich shall be raised. \u201cIt is sown in corruption, it is raised in\nincorruption,\u201d which would not be true of the supposed _incorruptible_\nand imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of\nthe body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state,\ncorruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,--\u201cHow are the\ndead raised up?\u201d does not refer to the _modus agendi_ of the\nresurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be\neffected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume.\nThis is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on\nimmediately to state, not in what _manner_ the resurrection is to be\neffected, but what shall be the _state_ or _condition_ of the\nresurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be\ntaken in that sense.\n\nThus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the\npossibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified\nstate; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be\neffected, as being out of the line of the objector\u2019s questions, and in\nitself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however,\nclear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this\nwondrous \u201cchange,\u201d he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in\nsubstance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be\nimpressed upon it. Great _general_ changes it will experience, as from\ncorruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great\nchanges of a _particular_ kind will also take place, as its being\nfreed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties\nproduced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is\nalso laid down by our Lord, that \u201cin the resurrection they shall\nneither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of\nGod;\u201d and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may\ngather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though \u201cthe stomach\u201d\nis now adapted \u201cto meats, and meats to the stomach,\u201d yet God will\n\u201cdestroy both it and them;\u201d that the animal appetite for food will be\nremoved, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place\nin the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form\nwill be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord\u2019s\n\u201cglorious body,\u201d and the substance of the matter of which it is\ncomposed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was\nlaid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of\nthe Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an\noriginal and unchangeable _stamen_, out of which a new and glorious\nbody, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed\nfrom the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this\nhypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how\nthe scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming\nintegral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of\nProvidence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those\nindividual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with\neach other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same\nquality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle\nwhich composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it\nshall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with\nanother human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this\nquality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from\nassimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present\nto all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the\nexecution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then,\nif the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of\ninfinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing\nthat his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily\nas to a hundred particles of matter. This is, in fact, the true and\nrational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may\nhappen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men\nfeeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon\none another. The question here is one which simply respects the\nfrustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature.\nTo suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to\nsuppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his\nown designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to\nassume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of\ncontrol, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation\nof the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be\nattributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence,\nor to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the\nbody has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the\nanswer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the\nsubstance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take\nplace, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the\nbody which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are\ntold, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes\nduring life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed\nrewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as\nthose which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that\nrewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much\nas it is the _subject_ but as it is the _instrument_ of reward and\npunishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure,\nwhich suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable\n_subject_. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as\nare assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our\naccountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being,\nas Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: \u201cBy this\nevery one is to himself what he calls _self_, without considering\nwhether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It\nwas by the same _self_ which reflects on an action done many years\nago, that the action was performed.\u201d If there were indeed any weight\nin this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal\ncourts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time;\nbut it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common\nconsciousness and experience, of mankind.\n\nOur Lord has assured us, that \u201cthe hour is coming in which all that are\nin their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have\ndone good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil,\nunto the resurrection of damnation.\u201d Then we shall \u201call be changed, in a\nmoment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,\u201d and \u201cthe dead\nshall be raised incorruptible.\u201d It is probable that the bodies of the\nrighteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same\nas before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some\nchange conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his\nfuture state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly\nteaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is\nsaid, \u201cWhen Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with\nhim in glory,\u201d \u201cwe shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like\nhis glorious body;\u201d yet, notwithstanding this, \u201cit doth not yet fully\nappear what we shall be,\u201d Col. iii, 4; 1 John iii, 2; Phil. iii, 21.\nThis has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends\nupon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which\nsubsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future\nworld; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses\nare necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language\nis suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows\nthat the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few\nor many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects,\nthat language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render\nthose matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and\npleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle:\n\u201cAll flesh,\u201d says he, \u201cis not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of\nmen, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;\u201d and\nyet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere\ninert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal\nbody; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties,\nand propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate\nnutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised\na spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the\norgans and senses required only in its former state, and probably\npossessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new\nand more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence\nand enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs\nand senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind,\nhave a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing,\nfor example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and\nglorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the\nobjects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous,\ninteresting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and\nsenses, be proportionally refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating?\nHuman industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds;\nwhat, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the\ngrandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial\nregions to which Christians are invited? There the senses will no longer\ndegrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the\nmagnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give\na glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never\ntire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now\nconstituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul,\nmay visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may\n\u201cdrink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal,\nproceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;\u201d and dwell for\never in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though \u201ceye hath not\nseen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to\nconceive,\u201d we are assured \u201cGod hath prepared for them that love him,\u201d 1\nCor. ii, 9.\n\nREUBEN, TRIBE OF. This tribe, having much cattle, solicited and obtained\nfrom Moses possessions east of the Jordan; by which river it was\nseparated from the main body of Israel: it was, in consequence, exposed\nto various inroads and oppressions from which the western tribes were\nfree; and it was among the first carried into captivity by Tiglath\npileser, 1 Chron. v, 26.\n\nREVELATION, or APOCALYPSIS, is the name given to a canonical book of the\nNew Testament. See APOCALYPSE.\n\nRHODES, an island lying south of the province of Caria, in Lesser Asia,\nand, among the Asiatic islands, is accounted for dignity next to Cyprus\nand Lesbos. It is pleasant and healthful, and was anciently celebrated\nfor the skill of its inhabitants in navigation, but most, for its\nprodigious statue of brass consecrated to the sun, and called the\nColossus. This statue was seventy cubits high, and bestrode the mouth of\nthe harbour, so that ships could sail between its legs, and it was\naccounted one of the seven wonders of the world. St. Paul, on his way to\nJerusalem, A. D. 58, went from Miletus to Coos, from Coos to Rhodes, and\nfrom thence to Patara, in Lycia, Acts xxi, 1.\n\nRIGHTEOUSNESS, justice, holiness. The righteousness of God is the\nessential perfection of his nature; sometimes it is put for his justice.\nThe righteousness of Christ denotes, not only his absolute perfection,\nbut, is taken for his perfect obedience unto death, and his suffering\nthe penalty of the law in our stead. The righteousness of the law is\nthat obedience which the law requires. The righteousness of faith is the\njustification which is received by faith.\n\nRIMMON. See NAAMAN.\n\nRINGS. The antiquity of rings appears from Scripture and from profane\nauthors. Judah left his ring with Tamar, Gen. xxxviii, 18. When Pharaoh\ncommitted the government of Egypt to Joseph, he took his ring from his\nfinger and gave it to Joseph, Gen. xli, 42. After the victory of the\nIsraelites over the Midianites, they offered to the Lord the rings, the\nbracelets, and the golden necklaces, taken from the enemy, Num. xxxi,\n50. The Israelitish women wore rings, not only on their fingers, but\nalso in their nostrils and their ears. St. James distinguishes a man of\nwealth and dignity by the ring of gold on his finger, James ii, 2. At\nthe return of the prodigal son, his father orders him to be dressed in a\nnew suit of clothes, and to have a ring put on his finger, Luke xv, 22.\nWhen God threatened Jeconiah with the utmost effects of his anger, he\ntells him, that though he were the signet or ring on his finger, yet he\nshould be torn off, Jer. xxii, 24. The ring was used chiefly to seal\nwith, and Scripture generally assigns it to princes and great persons;\nas the king of Egypt, Joseph, Ahaz, Jezebel, King Ahasuerus, his\nfavourite Haman, Mordecai, King Darius, 1 Kings xxi, 8; Esther iii, 10,\n&c; Dan. vi, 17. The patents and orders of these princes were sealed\nwith their rings or signets, an impression from which was their\nconfirmation. The ring was one mark of sovereign authority. Pharaoh gave\nhis ring to Joseph, as a token of authority. When Alexander the Great\ngave his ring to Perdiccas, this was understood as nominating him his\nsuccessor.\n\nRIVER. The Hebrews give the name of \u201cthe river,\u201d without any addition,\nsometimes to the Nile, sometimes to the Euphrates, and sometimes to\nJordan. It is the tenor of the discourse that must determine the sense\nof this vague and uncertain way of speaking. They give also the name of\nriver to brooks and rivulets that are not considerable. The name of\nriver is sometimes given to the sea, Hab. iii, 8; Psalm lxxviii, 16. It\nis also used as a symbol for plenty, Job xxix, 6; Psalm xxxvi, 8.\n\nROCK. Palestine, being a mountainous country, had also many rocks, which\nformed a part of the country\u2019s defence; for in time of danger the people\nretired to them, and found a refuge against any sudden irruption of the\nenemy. The Benjamites took shelter in the rock Rimmon, Judges xx, 47.\nSamson kept garrison in the rock of Etham, Judges xv, 8. David found\nshelter in the rocks of Maon, Engedi, &c, 1 Sam. xxii, 1; xxiii, 25, 28;\nxxiv, 2\u20135. Jerom says that the southern parts of Judea were full of\ncaves under ground, and of caverns in the mountains, to which the people\nretired in time of danger. The Kenites dwelt in the hollow places of the\nrocks, Num. xxiv, 21. Even at this day the villages of this country are\nsubterraneous, or in the rocks. Josephus in several places speaks of\nhollow rocks, where thieves and robbers had their haunts; and travellers\nstill find a great number of them in Palestine, and in the adjoining\nprovinces. Toward Lebanon, the mountains are high, but covered in many\nplaces with as much earth as fits them for cultivation. Among the crags\nof the rocks, the beautiful and far-famed cedar waves its lofty top, and\nextends its powerful arms, surrounded by the fir and the oak, the fig\nand the vine. On the road to Jerusalem, the mountains are not so lofty\nnor so rugged, but become fitter for tillage. They rise again to the\nsouth-east of Mount Carmel; are covered with woods, and afford very\npicturesque views; but advancing toward Judea, they lose their verdure,\nthe valleys become narrow, dry, and stony, and terminate at the Dead Sea\nin a pile of desolate rocks, precipices, and caverns. These vast\nexcavations, some of which will contain fifteen hundred men, are the\ngrottoes of Engedi, which have been a refuge to the oppressed or the\ndiscontented in all ages. Westward of Jordan and the lake Asphaltites,\nanother chain of rocks, still loftier and more rugged, presents a yet\nmore gloomy aspect, and announces the distant entrance of the desert,\nand the termination of the habitable regions.\n\nThe name of rock is also given to God, by way of metaphor, because God\nis the strength, the refuge, and defence of Israel, as those places were\nto the people who resided among them, Psalm xviii, 2, 31; xxxi, 2, 3;\nDeut. xxxii, 15, 18, 30, 31; Psalm lxi, 2, &c.\n\nROD. This word is used sometimes for the branches of a tree: \u201cAnd Jacob\ntook him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree,\u201d Gen.\nxxx, 37; sometimes for a staff or wand: \u201cAnd thou shalt take this rod in\nthine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. And Moses took the rod of God\nin his hand,\u201d Exod. iv, 17, 20; or for a shepherd\u2019s crook: \u201cAnd\nconcerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever\npasseth under the rod; the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord,\u201d Lev.\nxxvii, 32; or for a rod, properly so called, which God makes use of to\ncorrect men: \u201cIf he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of\nmen, and with the stripes of the children of men,\u201d 2 Sam. vii, 14. \u201cLet\nhim take his rod away from me,\u201d Job ix, 34. The empire of the Messiah is\nsometimes represented by a rod of iron, to show its power and its might,\nPsalm ii, 9; Rev. ii, 27; xii, 5; xix, 15. Rod is sometimes put to\nsignify a tribe or a people: \u201cRemember thy congregation which thou hast\npurchased of old, the rod of thine inheritance which thou hast\nredeemed,\u201d Psalm lxxiv, 2. \u201cIsrael is the rod of his inheritance,\u201d Jer.\nx, 16. The rod of Aaron is the staff commonly used by the high priest.\nThis is the rod that budded and blossomed like an almond tree, Num.\nxvii. See AARON.\n\nROMAN CATHOLICS, or members of the church of Rome, otherwise called\npapists, from the pope being considered by them as the supreme head of\nthe universal church, the successor of St. Peter, and the fountain of\ntheological truth and ecclesiastical honours. He keeps his court in\ngreat state at the palace of the Vatican, and is attended by seventy\ncardinals as his privy counsellors, in imitation of the seventy\ndisciples of our Lord. The pope\u2019s authority in other kingdoms is merely\nspiritual, but in Italy he is a temporal sovereign, Louis XVIII. and the\nallies having, in 1814, restored him to his throne, and to those\ntemporalities of which he was deprived by Buonaparte and the French\nrevolution. On resuming his government, Pope Pius VII. soon restored the\norder of Jesuits and the inquisition; so that the Roman Catholic\nreligion is now reinstated in its ancient splendour and authority. The\nprincipal dogmas of this religion are as follows: 1. That St. Peter was\ndeputed by Christ to be his vicar, and the head of the catholic church;\nand that the bishops of Rome, being his successors, have the same\napostolical authority; for our Saviour declares, in Matt. xvi, 18, \u201cThou\nart Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church;\u201d by which rock\nthey understand St. Peter himself, as the name signifies, and not his\nconfession, as the Protestants explain it. And a succession in the\nchurch being now supposed necessary under the New Testament, as Aaron\nhad his succession under the old dispensation, which was a figure of the\nnew, this succession can now, they contend, be shown only in the chair\nof St. Peter at Rome, where it is asserted he presided twenty-five years\nprevious to his death; therefore, the bishops of Rome are his true\nsuccessors. 2. That the Roman Catholic church is the mother and mistress\nof all churches, and cannot possibly err in matters of faith; for the\nchurch has the promise of the Spirit of God to lead it into all truth,\nJohn xvi, 13; \u201cand the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,\u201d\nMatt. xvi, 18. Christ also, who is himself the truth, has promised to\nthe pastors and teachers of the church to be with them \u201calways, even to\nthe end of the world,\u201d Matt. xxviii, 20. \u201cIt is from the testimony and\nauthority of the church, therefore,\u201d say they, \u201cthat we receive the\nScriptures as the word of God.\u201d 3. That the Scriptures thus received on\nthe authority of the church are not sufficient to our faith without\napostolical traditions, which are of equal authority with the\nScriptures; for St. Peter assures us, that in St. Paul\u2019s epistles there\n\u201care some things hard to be understood, which they who are unlearned and\nunstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own\ndestruction,\u201d 2 Peter iii, 16. We are directed by St. Paul to \u201cstand\nfast, and hold the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word\nor by epistle,\u201d 2 Thess. ii, 15. 4. That seven sacraments were\ninstituted by Jesus Christ, namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist,\npenance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and that they confer\ngrace. To prove that confirmation, or imposition of hands, is a\nsacrament, they quote Acts viii, 17: \u201cThey,\u201d the Apostles, \u201claid their\nhands on them,\u201d believers, \u201cand they received the Holy Ghost.\u201d Penance\nis a sacrament in which the sins we commit after baptism, duly repented\nof, and confessed to a priest, are forgiven; and which they think was\ninstituted by Christ himself when he breathed upon his Apostles after\nhis resurrection, and said, \u201cReceive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye\nremit, are remitted; and whose sins ye retain, are retained,\u201d John xx,\n23. In favour of extreme unction, or anointing the sick with oil, they\nargue from James i, 14, 15, which is thus rendered in the Vulgate: \u201cIs\nany sick among you? Let him call for the priests of the church, and let\nthem pray over him, anointing him with oil,\u201d &c. The sacrament of holy\norders is inferred from 1 Tim. iv, 14: \u201cNeglect not the gift that is in\nthee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of\nthe presbytery,\u201d or priesthood, as they render it. That marriage is a\nsacrament, they think evident from Ephes. v, 32: \u201cThis is a great\nmystery,\u201d representing the mystical union of Christ and his church.\n\u201cMatrimony,\u201d say they, \u201cis here the sign of a holy thing, and therefore\nit is a sacrament.\u201d Notwithstanding this, they enjoin celibacy upon the\nclergy, because they do not think it proper that those who, by their\noffice and function, ought to be wholly devoted to God, should be\ndiverted from those duties by the distractions of a married life, 1 Cor.\nvii, 32, 33. 5. That in the mass, or public service, there is offered\nunto God a true and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead; and\nthat in the sacrament of the eucharist, under the forms of bread and\nwine, are really and substantially present the body and blood, together\nwith the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is\na conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and\nof the wine into his blood, which is called transubstantiation;\naccording to our Lord\u2019s words to his disciples, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d &c,\nMatt. xxvi, 26; wherefore it becomes with them an object of adoration.\nFarther: it is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, in the Roman\nchurch, that the laity receive the eucharist in one kind, that is, in\nbread only. This sacrifice of the mass was, they think, predicted by the\nProphet Malachi, i, 11, who says, \u201cIn every place incense shall be\noffered unto my name, and a pure offering.\u201d 6. That there is a\npurgatory; and that souls kept prisoners there do receive help by the\nsuffrages of the faithful. For it is said, in 1 Cor. iii, 15, \u201cIf any\nman\u2019s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall\nbe saved, yet so as by fire;\u201d which they understand of the flames of\npurgatory. They also believe that souls are released from purgatory by\nthe prayers and alms which are offered for them, principally by the holy\nsacrifice of the mass. They call purgatory a middle state of souls, into\nwhich those enter who depart this life in God\u2019s grace; yet not without\nsome less stains of guilt, which retard them from entering heaven, where\nnothing unclean can enter. 7. That the saints reigning with Christ (and\nespecially the blessed virgin) are to be honoured and invoked; that they\noffer prayers unto God for us; and that their relics are to be had in\nveneration. These honours, however, are not divine, but relative, and\nredound to the divine glory, Rev. v, 8; viii, 4, &c. 8. That the image\nof Christ, of the blessed virgin, the mother of God, and of other\nsaints, ought to be retained in churches, and honour and veneration\nought to be given unto them. And as the images of cherubims were allowed\nin the temples, so images should be placed in churches, and had in\nveneration. 9. That the power of indulgences was left by Christ to the\nchurch, and that the use of them is very beneficial to Christian people;\naccording to Matt. xvi, 19: \u201cI will give thee the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven.\u201d By indulgences they do not mean leave to commit sin, nor pardon\nfor sins to come; but only releasing, by the power of the keys committed\nto the church, the debt of temporal punishment which may remain due upon\naccount of our sins, after the sins themselves, as to their guilt and\neternal punishment, have been already remitted through repentance and\nconfession, and by virtue of the merit of Christ, and of all the saints.\nBy their indulgences they assert that they apply to their souls the\nmerits of Christ, and of the saints and martyrs through him.\n\nThe ceremonies of this church are numerous and splendid, as, 1. They\nmake use of the sign of the cross in all their sacraments, to give us to\nunderstand, that they have their whole force and efficacy from the\ncross. 2. Sprinkling of the holy water by the priest on solemn days is\nused likewise by every one going in or coming out of church. 3. The\nceremony of blessing bells is, by the Catholics, called christening\nthem; because the name of some saint is ascribed to them, by virtue of\nwhose invocation they are presented, in order that they may obtain his\nfavour and protection. 4. They always bow at the name of Jesus, (which\nis also done as regularly in the church of England,) and they found the\npractice on Phil. ii, 10: \u201cThat at the name of Jesus every knee should\nbow.\u201d 5. They keep a number of lamps and wax candles continually burning\nbefore the shrines and images of the saints. 6. They make use of\nincense, and have lighted candles upon the altar at the celebration of\nthe mass. 7. The practice of washing the poor\u2019s feet, in imitation of\nour Lord\u2019s washing the feet of his disciples, is solemnized on Holy\nThursday by all the princes of the Romish religion in Europe. The church\nof Rome also professes to keep the fast of Lent with great strictness,\nand observes a much greater number both of feasts and festivals than the\nchurch of England.\n\nThe church of Rome assumes the title of Catholic, or universal, as\nanswering to that article in the Apostles\u2019 Creed, \u201cI believe in the holy\nCatholic church.\u201d The above is perhaps a sufficient account of the Roman\nCatholic faith; but as the creed of Pope Pius IV. is universally\nadmitted to be the true standard of that faith, it would be decidedly\nwrong to conclude without inserting it. Mr. Butler says it contains a\nsuccinct and explicit summary of the canons of the council of Trent, and\nwas published in the form of a papal bull, in 1564. He adds, \u201cIt is\nreceived throughout the whole Roman Catholic church; every one who is\nadmitted into that church, publicly reads and professes his assent to\nit.\u201d This document commences with reciting the Nicene Creed, which, as\nit is admitted by the Protestant church of England, and inserted in the\nCommon Prayer Book, need not be here repeated. It then proceeds with the\ntwelve following articles, in addition to those of the Apostles\u2019 Creed,\nwhich they also reckon twelve: \u201c13. I most firmly admit and embrace\napostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions\nand observances of the same church. I also admit the sacred Scriptures\naccording to the sense which the holy mother church has held, and does\nhold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation\nof the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take and interpret them\notherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. 14. I\nprofess also that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the\nnew law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of\nmankind, (though all are not necessary for every one,) namely, baptism,\nconfirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony;\nand that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and\norder cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. 15. I also receive and\nadmit the ceremonies of the Catholic church, received and approved in\nthe solemn administration of all the above said sacraments. 16. I\nreceive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been\ndefined and declared in the holy council of Trent, concerning original\nsin and justification. 17. I profess, likewise, that in the mass, is\noffered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living\nand the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there\nis truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with\nthe soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made\na conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of\nthe whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the\nCatholic church calls transubstantiation. 18. I confess, also, that\nunder either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and a true sacrament,\nis received. 19. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that\nthe souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.\n20. Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be\nhonoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us, and that\ntheir relics are to be venerated. 21. I most firmly assert, that the\nimages of Christ, and of the mother of Christ, ever a virgin, and also\nof the other saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honour and\nveneration are to be given to them. 22. I also affirm, that the power of\nindulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them\nis most wholesome to Christian people. 23. I acknowledge the holy\nCatholic and apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all\nchurches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome,\nthe successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus\nChrist. 24. I also profess, and undoubtedly receive, all other things,\ndelivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general\ncouncils, and particularly by the holy council of Trent; and likewise, I\nalso condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto; and\nall heresies whatsoever, condemned and anathematized by the church. This\ntrue catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely\nprofess, and truly hold, I, _N._, promise, vow, and swear most\nconstantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God\u2019s\nassistance, to the end of my life. Amen.\u201d\n\nSuch is the avowed and accredited faith of the church of Rome; but it\nseems a most extraordinary circumstance, that, while this church has so\nenlarged the creed, it has reduced the number of the commandments,\nomitting altogether the second, \u201cThou shalt not make unto thee a graven\nimage,\u201d &c, Exod. xx, 3\u20136; as if the Catholics were conscious it could\nby no means be reconciled with the twenty-first article of the above\nrecited creed. And then, to prevent alarm, as every body must know there\nshould be ten commandments, the last is divided into two, to make up the\nnumber. This is said to have been done, even before the Reformation. It\nwas done in the French National Catechism, published in 1806, and\nsanctioned by Pope Pius VII., by the archbishop of Paris, and by the\nEmperor Napoleon. It is remarkable, also, that in Dr. Chalenor\u2019s \u201cGarden\nof the Soul,\u201d printed in London by Coglan, in 1787, in a form of\nself-examination for the penitent upon each commandment, there is no\nreference to the one omitted; nor is there any reference to it in\nBossuet\u2019s famous \u201cExposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church,\u201d\nwhen treating upon images, and the manner in which they are directed to\nbe honoured. Lastly, in Butler\u2019s Catechism, the eighth edition, printed\nat Dublin in 1811, and sanctioned by four Roman Catholic archbishops,\nthe commandments stand literally as follows: \u201c1. I am the Lord thy God;\nthou shalt have no strange gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the\nname of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keep holy the\nSabbath day. 4. Honour thy father and thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not\nkill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8.\nThou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 9. Thou shalt\nnot covet thy neighbour\u2019s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour\u2019s\ngoods.\u201d Here it may be added, that by omitting the second command, the\nothers are numbered differently from what they are by us. Thus, the\nthird is brought in for the second, the fourth is made the third, &c,\ntill they come to the last which is divided in two, for the purpose\nabove mentioned. The gross and antiscriptural errors, leading to\nsuperstition, idolatry, and many other evils, which are contained in the\npeculiarities of the papistical faith, are abundantly pointed out and\nrefuted by the leading Protestant writers.\n\nROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. This epistle was written from Corinth, A. D. 58,\nbeing the fourth year of the Emperor Nero, just before St. Paul set out\nfor Jerusalem with the contributions which the Christians of Macedonia\nand Achaia had made for the relief of their poor brethren in Judea, Acts\nxx, 1; Rom. xv, 25, 26. It was transcribed or written as St. Paul\ndictated it, by Tertius; and the person who conveyed it to Rome was\nPh\u0153be, a deaconess of the church of Cenchrea, which was the eastern\nport of the city of Corinth, Rom. xvi, 1, 22. It is addressed to the\nchurch at Rome, which consisted partly of Jewish and partly of Heathen\nconverts; and throughout the epistle it is evident that the Apostle has\nregard to both these descriptions of Christians. St. Paul, when he wrote\nthis epistle had not been at Rome, Rom. i, 13; xv, 23; but he had heard\nan account of the state of the church in that city from Aquila and\nPriscilla, two Christians who were banished from thence by the edict of\nClaudius, and with whom he lived during his first visit to Corinth.\nWhether any other Apostle had at this time preached the Gospel at Rome,\ncannot now be ascertained. Among those who witnessed the effect of the\nfirst effusion of the Holy Ghost are mentioned \u201cstrangers of Rome, Jews\nand proselytes,\u201d Acts ii, 10; that is, persons of the Jewish religion,\nwho usually resided at Rome, but who had come to Jerusalem to be present\nat the feast of pentecost. It is highly probable that these men, upon\ntheir return home, proclaimed the Gospel of Christ; and we may farther\nsuppose that many Christians who had been converted at other places\nafterward settled at Rome, and were the cause of others embracing the\nGospel. But, by whatever means Christianity had been introduced into\nRome, it seems to have flourished there in great purity; for we learn\nfrom the beginning of this epistle that the faith of the Roman\nChristians was at this time much celebrated, Rom. i, 8. To confirm them\nin that faith, and to guard them against the errors of Judaizing\nChristians, was the object of this letter, in which St. Paul takes\noccasion to enlarge upon the nature of the Mosaic institution; to\nexplain the fundamental principles and doctrines of Christianity; and to\nshow that the whole human race, formerly divided into Jews and Gentiles,\nwere now to be admitted into the religion of Jesus, indiscriminately,\nand free from every other obligation. The Apostle, after expressing his\naffection to the Roman Christians, and asserting that the Gospel is the\npower of God unto salvation to all who believe, takes a comprehensive\nview of the conduct and condition of men under the different\ndispensations of Providence; he shows that all mankind, both Jews and\nGentiles, were equally \u201cunder sin,\u201d and liable to the wrath and\npunishment of God; that therefore there was a necessity for a universal\npropitiation and redemption, which were now offered to the whole race of\nmen, without any preference or exception, by the mercy of him who is the\nGod of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews; that faith in Jesus Christ,\nthe universal Redeemer, was the only means of obtaining this salvation,\nwhich the deeds of the law were wholly incompetent to procure; that as\nthe sins of the whole world originated from the disobedience of Adam, so\nthe justification from those sins was to be derived from the obedience\nof Christ; that all distinction between Jew and Gentile was now\nabolished, and the ceremonial law entirely abrogated; that the\nunbelieving Jews would be excluded from the benefits of the Gospel,\nwhile the believing Gentiles would be partakers of them; and that this\nrejection of the Jews, and call of the Gentiles, were predicted by the\nJewish Prophets Hosea and Isaiah. He then points out the superiority of\nthe Christian over the Jewish religion, and earnestly exhorts the Romans\nto abandon every species of wickedness, and to practise the duties of\nrighteousness and holiness, which were now enjoined upon higher\nsanctions, and enforced by more powerful motives. In the latter part of\nthe epistle, St. Paul gives some practical instructions, and recommends\nsome particular virtues; and he concludes with a salutation and a\ndoxology. This epistle is most valuable, on account of the arguments and\ntruths which it contains, relative to the necessity, nature, and\nuniversality of the Gospel dispensation.\n\nROOFS. The letting down of the paralytic through the roof of the house\nwhere Jesus was, is satisfactorily explained by the following extract\nfrom Shaw\u2019s Travels: \u201cThe houses throughout the east are low, having\ngenerally a ground floor only, or one upper story, and flat-roofed, the\nroof being covered with a strong coat of plaster of terrace. They are\nbuilt round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is\nthrough a gateway or passage room furnished with benches, and\nsufficiently large to be used for receiving visits or transacting\nbusiness. The stairs which lead to the roof are never placed on the\noutside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway, or\npassage room to the court, sometimes at the entrance within the court.\nThis court is now called, in Arabic, _el woost_, or \u2018the middle of the\nhouse,\u2019 literally answering to \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd of St. Luke, v, 19. It is\ncustomary to fix cords from the parapet walls, Deut. xxii, 8, of the\nflat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or\ncovering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our\nSaviour taught. The paralytic was brought on to the roof by making a way\nthrough the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of\nthe adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man\ndown over the parapet of the roof into the area or court of the house,\nbefore Jesus.\u201d The windows of the eastern houses being chiefly within,\nfacing the court, in order to see what was going on without in the\nstreets of the city, the only way was to run up to the flat roof. Hence\nthe frequent expression in Scripture, when allusion is made to sudden\ntumults and calamities, to get up to \u201cthe house top.\u201d See HOUSES.\n\nROSE, \u05d4\u05d1\u05e6\u05dc\u05ea, Cant., ii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 1. The rose, so much and so\noften sung by the poets of Persia, Arabia, Greece, and Rome, is, indeed,\nthe pride of the garden for elegance of form, for glow of colour, and\nfragrance of smell. Tournefort mentions fifty-three kinds, of which the\nDamascus rose, and the rose of Sharon, are the finest. The beauty of\nthese flowers is too well known to be insisted on; and they are at this\nday much admired in the east, where they are extremely fragrant. In what\nesteem the rose was among the Greeks, may be learned from the fifth and\nfifty-third odes of Anacreon. Among the ancients it occupied a\nconspicuous place in every chaplet; it was a principal ornament in every\nfestive meeting, and at every solemn sacrifice; and the comparisons in\nEcclesiasticus xxiv, 14, and l, 8, show that the Jews were likewise much\ndelighted with it. The rose bud, or opening rose, seems in particular a\nfavourite ornament. The Jewish sensualists, in Wisdom ii, 8, are\nintroduced saying, \u201cLet us fill ourselves with costly wine and\nointments; and let no flower of the spring pass by us. Let us crown\nourselves with rose buds before they are withered.\u201d\n\nROSH. The Hebrew speaks of a people called Rosh, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 3.\n\u201cThe orientals hold,\u201d says D\u2019Herbelot, \u201cthat Japheth had a son called\nRous, not mentioned by Moses, who peopled Russia, that is, Muscovy.\u201d We\nquestion not but Rosh, or Ros, signifies Russia, or the people that\ndwell on the Araxes, called Rosch by the inhabitants; which was the\nhabitation of the Scythians. It deserves notice, that the LXX. render\nthe passage in Ezekiel, \u0393\u1f7c\u03b3, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fec\u1f7c\u03c2, \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u1f78\u03c7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03bf\u03b2\u1f72\u03bb, _Gog, the\nchief of Ros, Mesoch, and Thobel_; and Jerom, not absolutely to reject\nthis name, inserts both renderings: _Gog, terram Magog, principem\ncapitis_ (_sive_ Ros) _Mosoch, et Thubal_. Symmachus and Theodotion also\nperceived Ros to be in this place the name of a people; and this is now\nthe prevailing judgment of interpreters. Bochart, about A. D. 1640,\ncontended that Russia was the nation meant by the term Ros; and this\nopinion is supported by the testimony of various Greek writers, who\ndescribe \u201cthe Ros as a Scythian nation, bordering on the northern\nTaurus.\u201d Mosok, or Mesech, appears to be the same as the Moskwa, or\nMoscow, of the moderns; and we know, that not only is this the name of\nthe city, but also of the river on which it stands. See Gog.\n\nRUBY, a beautiful gem, whose colour is red, with an admixture of purple,\nand is, in its most perfect state, a gem of extreme value. In hardness\nit is equal to the sapphire, and second only to the diamond. It is\nmentioned in Job xxviii, 18, and Prov. viii, 11, &c.\n\nRUE, \u03d6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Luke xi, 42, a small shrubby plant, common in gardens. It\nhas a strong, unpleasant smell, and a bitterish, penetrating taste.\n\nRUSH, \u05d2\u05de\u05d0, Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7; a plant\ngrowing in the water at the sides of rivers, and in marshy grounds.\n\nRUSSIAN CHURCH. The Russians, like other nations, were originally\nPagans, and worshipped fire, which they considered as the cause of\nthunder, under the name of _Perun_, and the earth under the name\n_Volata_; at the same time having some notions of a future state of\nrewards and punishments. Christianity was first professed by the\nPrincess Olga, who was baptized at Constantinople. She recommended it to\nher grandson Vladimir, on whose baptism, in 988, it was adopted by the\nnation generally; and from that time the Greek church has been the\nestablished religion throughout Russia, and Greek literature greatly\nencouraged. During the middle ages, however, the doctrine of\ntransubstantiation, and some other popish peculiarities, were covertly\nintroduced; and, by the irruption of the Mongol Tartars, in the\nfifteenth century, a stop was put to learning and civilization for full\ntwo centuries; but, on the accession of the present dynasty in 1613,\ncivilization and Christianity were restored, and schools established for\nthe education of the clergy. The Russian clergy are divided into regular\nand secular; the former are all monks, and the latter are the parochial\nclergy. The superior clergy are called archires; but the title of\nmetropolitan, or bishop, is personal, and not properly attached to the\nsee, as in the western church. Next after the archires rank the black\nclergy, including the chiefs of monasteries and convents, and after them\nthe monks. The secular priests are called the white clergy, including\nthe protoires, or proto-popes, priests, and deacons, together with the\nreaders and sacristans. These amounted, in 1805, throughout the empire,\nto ninety-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty-six. The white clergy\nmust be married before they can be ordained, but must not marry a second\ntime; they are at liberty then to enter among the black clergy, and a\nway is thus opened for their accession to the higher orders. The whole\nempire is divided into thirty-six diocesses, or eparchies, in which are\nfour hundred and eighty-three cathedrals, and twenty-six thousand, five\nhundred and ninety-eight churches. The churches are divided into three\nparts. 1. The altar, where stands the holy table, crucifix, &c, which is\nseparated from the body of the church by a large screen, on which are\npainted our Saviour, the virgin, the Apostles, and other saints. Upon a\nplatform before this are placed the readers and singers, and here the\npreacher generally stands behind a movable desk. 2. The nave, or body of\nthe church, which may be called the inner court. 3. The trapeza, or\nouter court. The two last are designed for the congregation, but neither\nhave any seats. The walls of the church are highly embellished with\nScripture paintings, ornamented with gold, silver, and precious stones,\nbut no images.\n\nThe church service is contained in twenty-four volumes, folio, in the\nSlavonian language, which is not well understood by the common people.\nParts of the Scriptures are read in the service; but few, even of the\necclesiastics, possess a complete Bible. The patriarch of Russia was\nformerly almost equal in authority with the czar himself; but Peter the\nGreat, on the death of the patriarch in 1700, abolished his office, and\nappointed an exarch. In 1721 he abolished this office also, and\nappointed a \u201choly legislative synod\u201d for the government of the church,\nat the head of which is always placed a layman of rank and eminence. The\nmonastic life was once so prevalent in this country, that there were\nfour hundred and seventy-nine convents for men, and seventy-four for\nwomen, in which there were about seventy thousand monks and nuns, &c;\nbut this kind of life was so much discouraged by Peter the Great and the\nEmpress Catherine, that the religious are now reduced to about five\nthousand monks and seventeen hundred nuns. Great part of their revenues\nhas also been alienated, and appropriated to the support of hospitals\nand houses for the poor.\n\nRUTH. The book of Ruth is so called from the name of the person, a\nnative of Moab, whose history it contains. It may be considered as a\nsupplement to the book of Judges, to which it was joined in the Hebrew\ncanon, and the latter part of which it greatly resembles, being a\ndetached story belonging to the same period. Ruth had a son called Obed,\nwho was the grandfather of David, which circumstance probably occasioned\nher history to be written, as the genealogy of David, from Pharez, the\nson of Judah, from whom the Messiah was to spring, is here given; and\nsome commentators have thought, that the descent of our Saviour from\nRuth, a Gentile woman, was an intimation of the comprehensive nature of\nthe Christian dispensation. We are no where informed when Ruth lived;\nbut as King David was her great-grandson, we may place her history about\nB. C. 1250. This book was certainly written after the birth of David,\nand probably by the Prophet Samuel, though some have attributed it to\nHezekiah, and others to Ezra. The story related in this book is\nextremely interesting; the widowed distress of Naomi, her affectionate\nconcern for her daughters, the reluctant departure of Orpah, the dutiful\nattachment of Ruth, and the sorrowful return to Bethlehem, are very\nbeautifully told. The simplicity of manners, likewise, which is shown in\nRuth\u2019s industry and attention to Naomi; the elegant charity of Boaz; and\nhis acknowledgment of his kindred with Ruth, afford a pleasing contrast\nto the turbulent scenes described in the book of the Judges. The\nrespect, likewise, which the Israelites paid to the law of Moses, and\ntheir observance of ancient customs, are represented in a very lively\nand animated manner, Ruth iv. It is a pleasing digression from the\ngeneral thread of the sacred history.\n\n\nSABAOTH, or rather Zabaoth, a Hebrew word, signifying _hosts_ or\n_armies_, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea, _Jehovah Sabaoth, The Lord of Hosts_. By this\nphrase we may understand the host of heaven, or the angels and ministers\nof the Lord; or the stars and planets, which, as an army ranged in\nbattle array, perform the will of God; or, lastly, the people of the\nLord, both of the old and new covenant, which is truly a great army, of\nwhich God is the Lord and commander.\n\nSABBATH. The obligation of a sabbatical institution upon Christians, as\nwell as the extent of it, have been the subjects of much controversy.\nChristian churches themselves have differed; and the theologians of the\nsame church. Much has been written upon the subject on each side, and\nmuch research and learning employed, sometimes to darken a very plain\nsubject. The question respects the will of God as to this particular\npoint,--Whether one day in seven is to be wholly devoted to religion,\nexclusive of worldly business and worldly pleasures. Now, there are but\ntwo ways in which the will of God can be collected from his word; either\nby some explicit injunction upon all, or by incidental circumstances.\nLet us then allow, for a moment, that we have no such explicit\ninjunction; yet we have certainly none to the contrary: let us allow\nthat we have only for our guidance, in inferring the will of God in this\nparticular, certain circumstances declarative of his will; yet this\nimportant conclusion is inevitable, that all such indicative\ncircumstances are in favour of a sabbatical institution, and that there\nis not one which exhibits any thing contrary to it. The seventh day was\nhallowed at the close of the creation; its sanctity was afterward marked\nby the withholding of the manna on that day, and the provision of a\ndouble supply on the sixth, and that previous to the giving of the law\nfrom Sinai: it was then made a part of that great epitome of religious\nand moral duty, which God wrote with his own finger on tables of stone;\nit was a part of the public political law of the only people to whom\nalmighty God ever made himself a political Head and Ruler; its\nobservance is connected throughout the prophetic age with the highest\npromises, its violations with the severest maledictions; it was among\nthe Jews in our Lord\u2019s time a day of solemn religious assembling, and\nwas so observed by him; when changed to the first day of the week, it\nwas the day on which the first Christians assembled; it was called, by\nway of eminence, \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day;\u201d and we have inspired authority to\nsay, that both under the Old and New Testament dispensations, it is used\nas an expressive type of the heavenly and eternal rest. Now, against all\nthese circumstances so strongly declarative of the will of God, as to\nthe observance of a sabbatical institution, what circumstance or passage\nof Scripture can be opposed, as bearing upon it a contrary indication?\nCertainly, not one; for those passages in St. Paul, in which he speaks\nof Jewish Sabbaths, with their Levitical rites, and of a distinction of\ndays, the observance of which marked a weak or a criminal adherence to\nthe abolished ceremonial dispensation; touch not the Sabbath as a branch\nof the moral law, or as it was changed, by the authority of the\nApostles, to the first day of the week. If, then, we were left to\ndetermine the point by inference, the conclusion must be irresistibly in\nfavour of the institution.\n\nIt may also be observed, that those who will so strenuously insist upon\nthe absence of an express command as to the Sabbath in the writings of\nthe evangelists and Apostles, as explicit as that of the decalogue,\nassume, that the will of God is only obligatory when manifested in some\none mode, which they judge to be most fit. But this is a dangerous\nhypothesis; for, however the will of God may be manifested, if it is\nwith such clearness as to exclude all reasonable doubt, it is equally\nobligatory as when it assumes the formality of legal promulgation. Thus\nthe Bible is not all in the form of express and authoritative command;\nit teaches by examples, by proverbs, by songs, by incidental allusions\nand occurrences; and yet is, throughout, a manifestation of the will of\nGod as to morals and religion in their various branches, and, if\ndisregarded, it will be so at every man\u2019s peril. But strong as this\nground is, we quit it for a still stronger. It is wholly a mistake, that\nthe Sabbath, because not re\u00ebnacted with the formality of the decalogue,\nis not explicitly enjoined upon Christians, and that the testimony of\nScripture to such an injunction is not unequivocal and irrefragible. The\nSabbath was appointed at the creation of the world, and sanctified, or\nset apart for holy purposes, \u201cfor man,\u201d for all men, and therefore for\nChristians; since there was never any repeal of the original\ninstitution. To this we add, that if the moral law be the law of\nChristians, then is the Sabbath as explicitly enjoined upon them as upon\nthe Jews. But that the moral law is our law, as well as the law of the\nJews, all but Antinomians must acknowledge; and few, we suppose, will be\ninclined to run into the fearful mazes of that error, in order to\nsupport lax notions as to the obligation of the Sabbath; into which,\nhowever, they must be plunged, if they deny the law of the decalogue to\nbe binding. That it is so bound upon us, a few passages of Scripture\nwill prove as well as many. Our Lord declares, that he \u201ccame not to\ndestroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil.\u201d Take it, that by \u201cthe\nlaw,\u201d he meant both the moral and the ceremonial; ceremonial law could\nonly be fulfilled in him, by realizing its types; and moral law, by\nupholding its authority. For \u201cthe prophets,\u201d they admit of a similar\ndistinction; they either enjoin morality, or utter prophecies of Christ;\nthe latter of which were fulfilled in the sense of accomplishment, the\nformer by being sanctioned and enforced. That the observance of the\nSabbath is a part of the moral law, is clear from its being found in the\ndecalogue, the doctrine of which our Lord sums up in the moral duties of\nloving God and our neighbour; and for this reason the injunctions of the\nprophets, on the subject of the Sabbath, are to be regarded as a part of\ntheir moral teaching. Some divines have, it is true, called the\nobservance of the Sabbath a positive, and not a moral precept. If it\nwere so, its obligation is precisely the same, in all cases where God\nhimself has not relaxed it; and if a positive precept only, it has\nsurely a special eminence given to it, by being placed in the list of\nthe ten commandments, and being capable, with them, of an epitome which\nresolves them into the love of God and our neighbour. The truth seems to\nbe, that it is a mixed precept, and not wholly positive, but intimately,\nperhaps essentially connected with several moral principles of homage to\nGod, and mercy to men; with the obligation of religious _worship_, of\n_public_ religious worship, and of _undistracted_ public worship: and\nthis will account for its collocation in the decalogue with the highest\nduties of religion, and the leading rules of personal and social\nmorality. The passage from our Lord\u2019s sermon on the mount, with its\ncontext, is a sufficiently explicit enforcement of the moral law,\ngenerally, upon his followers; but when he says, \u201cThe Sabbath was made\nfor man,\u201d he clearly refers to its original institution, as a universal\nlaw, and not to its obligation upon the Jews only, in consequence of the\nenactments of the law of Moses. It \u201cwas made for man,\u201d not as he may be\na Jew, or a Christian; but as man, a creature bound to love, worship,\nand obey his God and Maker, and on his trial for eternity.\n\nAnother explicit proof that the law of the ten commandments, and,\nconsequently, the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is\nfound in the answer of the Apostle to an objection to the doctrine of\njustification by faith: \u201cDo we then make void the law through faith?\u201d\nRom. iii, 31; which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach\nthat the law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches\nthat no man can be justified by it? To this he answers, in the most\nsolemn form of expression, \u201cGod forbid; yea, we establish the law.\u201d Now,\nthe sense in which the Apostle uses the term, \u201cthe law,\u201d in this\nargument, is indubitably marked in Rom. vii, 7: \u201cI had not known sin but\nby the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou\nshalt not covet:\u201d which, being a plain reference to the tenth command of\nthe decalogue, as plainly shows that the decalogue is \u201cthe law\u201d of which\nhe speaks. This, then, is the law which is established by the Gospel;\nand this can mean nothing else but the establishment and confirmation of\nits authority, as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever,\ntherefore, denies the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies\nthe obligation of the whole decalogue; and there is no real medium\nbetween the acknowledgment of the divine authority of this sacred\ninstitution, as a universal law, and that gross corruption of\nChristianity, generally designated Antinomianism.\n\nNor is there any force in the dilemma into which the anti-sabbatarians\nwould push us, when they argue, that, if the case be so, then are we\nbound to the same circumstantial exactitude of obedience with regard to\nthis command, as to the other precepts of the decalogue; and, therefore,\nthat we are bound to observe the seventh day, reckoning from Saturday,\nas the Sabbath day. But, as the command is partly positive, and partly\nmoral, it may have circumstances which are capable of being altered in\nperfect accordance with the moral principles on which it rests, and the\nmoral ends which it proposes. Such circumstances are not indeed to be\njudged of on our own authority. We must either have such general\nprinciples for our guidance as have been revealed by God, and cannot\ntherefore be questioned, or some special authority from which there can\nbe no just appeal. Now, though there is not on record any divine command\nissued to the Apostles, to change the Sabbath from the day on which it\nwas held by the Jews, to the first day of the week; yet, when we see\nthat this was done in the apostolic age, and that St. Paul speaks of the\nJewish Sabbaths as not being obligatory upon Christians, while he yet\ncontends that the whole moral law is obligatory upon them; the fair\ninference is, that this change of the day was made by divine direction.\nIt is indeed more than inference that the change was made under the\nsanction of inspired men; and those men, the appointed rulers in the\nchurch of Christ; whose business it was to \u201cset all things in order,\u201d\nwhich pertained to its worship and moral government. We may therefore\nrest well enough satisfied with this,--that as a Sabbath is obligatory\nupon us, we act under apostolic authority for observing it on the first\nday of the week, and thus commemorate at once the creation and the\nredemption of the world.\n\nThus, even if it were conceded, that the change of the day was made by\nthe agreement of the Apostles, without express directions from Christ,\nwhich is not probable, it is certain that it was not done without that\ngeneral authority which was confided to them by Christ; but it would not\nfollow even from this change, that they did in reality make any\nalteration in the law of the Sabbath, either as it stood at the time of\nits original institution at the close of the creation, or in the\ndecalogue of Moses. The same portion of time which constituted the\nseventh day from the creation could not be observed in all parts of the\nearth; and it is not probable, therefore, that the original law\nexpresses more, than that a seventh day, or one day in seven, the\nseventh day after six days of labour, should be thus appropriated, from\nwhatever point the enumeration might set out, or the hebdomadal cycle\nbegin. For if more had been intended, then it would have been necessary\nto establish a rule for the reckoning of days themselves, which has been\ndifferent in different nations; some reckoning from evening to evening,\nas the Jews now do, others from midnight to midnight, &c. So that those\npersons in this country and in America, who hold their Sabbath on\nSaturday, under the notion of exactly conforming to the Old Testament,\nand yet calculate the days from midnight to midnight, have no assurance\nat all that they do not desecrate a part of the original Sabbath, which\nmight begin, as the Jewish Sabbath now, on Friday evening, and, on the\ncontrary, hallow a portion of a common day, by extending the Sabbath\nbeyond Saturday evening. Even if this were ascertained, the differences\nof latitude and longitude would throw the whole into disorder; and it is\nnot probable that a universal law should have been fettered with that\ncircumstantial exactness, which would have rendered difficult, and\nsometimes doubtful, astronomical calculations necessary in order to its\nbeing obeyed according to the intention of the lawgiver. Accordingly we\nfind, says Mr. Holden, that in the original institution it is stated in\ngeneral terms, that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, which\nmust undoubtedly imply the sanctity of every seventh day; but not that\nit is to be subsequently reckoned from the first demiurgic day. Had this\nbeen included in the command of the Almighty, something, it is probable,\nwould have been added declaratory of the intention; whereas expressions\nthe most undefined are employed; not a syllable is uttered concerning\nthe order and number of the days; and it cannot reasonably be disputed\nthat the command is truly obeyed by the separation of every seventh day,\nfrom common to sacred purposes, at whatever given time the cycle may\ncommence. The difference in the mode of expression here, from that which\nthe sacred historian has used in the first chapter, is very remarkable.\nAt the conclusion of each division of the work of creation, he says,\n\u201cThe evening and the morning were the first day,\u201d and so on; but at the\ntermination of the whole, he merely calls it the seventh day; a\ndiversity of phrase, which, as it would be inconsistent with every idea\nof inspiration to suppose it undesigned, must have been intended to\ndenote a day, leaving it to each people as to what manner it is to be\nreckoned. The term obviously imports the period of the earth\u2019s rotation\nround its axis, while it is left undetermined, whether it shall be\ncounted from evening or morning, from noon or midnight. The terms of the\nlaw are, \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou\nlabour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the\nLord thy God. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,\nand all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord\nblessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d With respect to time, it is\nhere mentioned in the same indefinite manner as at its primeval\ninstitution, nothing more being expressly required than to observe a day\nof sacred rest after every six days of labour. The seventh day is to be\nkept holy; but not a word is said as to what epoch the commencement of\nthe series is to be referred; nor could the Hebrews have determined from\nthe decalogue what day of the week was to be kept as their Sabbath. The\nprecept is not, Remember the seventh day of the week, to keep _it_ holy,\nbut, \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;\u201d and in the following\nexplication of these expressions, it is not said that the seventh day of\nthe week is the Sabbath, but without restriction, \u201cThe seventh day is\nthe Sabbath of the Lord thy God;\u201d not the seventh according to any\nparticular method of computing the septenary cycle, but, in reference to\nthe six before mentioned, every seventh day in rotation after six of\nlabour.\n\nThus that part of the Jewish law, the decalogue, which, on the authority\nof the New Testament, we have shown to be obligatory upon Christians,\nleaves the computation of the hebdomadal cycle undetermined; and, after\nsix days of labour, enjoins the seventh as the Sabbath, to which the\nChristian practice as exactly conforms as the Jewish. It is not,\nhowever, left to every individual to determine which day should be his\nSabbath, though he should fulfil the law so far as to abstract the\nseventh part of his time from labour. It was ordained for worship, for\n_public_ worship; and it is therefore necessary that the Sabbath should\nbe uniformly observed by a whole community at the same time. The divine\nLegislator of the Jews interposed for this end, by special direction, as\nto his people. The first Sabbath kept in the wilderness was calculated\nfrom the first day in which the manna fell; and with no apparent\nreference to the creation of the world. By apostolic authority, it is\nnow fixed to be held on the first day of the week; and thus one of the\ngreat ends for which it was established, that it should be a day of\n\u201choly convocation,\u201d is secured.\n\nTraces of the original appointment of the Sabbath, and of its observance\nprior to the giving forth of the law of Moses, have been found by the\nlearned in the tradition which universally prevailed of the sacredness\nof the number seven, and the fixing of the first period of time to the\nrevolution of seven days. The measuring of time by a day and night is\npointed out to the common sense of mankind by the diurnal course of the\nsun. Lunar months and solar years are equally obvious to all rational\ncreatures; so that the reason why time has been computed by days,\nmonths, and years, is readily given; but how the division of time into\nweeks of seven days, and this from the beginning, came to obtain\nuniversally among mankind, no man can account for, without having\nrespect to some impressions on the minds of men from the constitution\nand law of nature, with the tradition of a sabbatical rest from the\nfoundation of the world. Yet plain intimations of this weekly revolution\nof time are to be found in the earliest Greek poets: Hesiod, Homer,\nLinus, as well as among the nations of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Greeks,\nand Romans. It deserves consideration, too, on this subject, that Noah,\nin sending forth the dove out of the ark, observed the septenary\nrevolution of days, Gen. viii, 10, 12; and at a subsequent period, in\nthe days of the Patriarch Jacob, a week is spoken of as a well known\nperiod of time, Gen. xxix, 27; Judges xiv, 12, 15, 17. These\nconsiderations are surely sufficient to evince the futility of the\narguments which are sometimes plausibly urged for the first institution\nof the Sabbath under the law; and the design of which, in most cases is,\nto set aside the moral obligation of appropriating one day in seven to\nthe purposes of the public worship of God, and the observation of divine\nordinances. But the truth is, that the seventh day was set apart from\nthe beginning as a day of rest; and it was also strictly enjoined upon\nthe Israelites in their law, both on the ground of its original\ninstitution, Exod. xx, 8\u201311, and also to commemorate their deliverance\nfrom the bondage of Egypt, Deut. v, 15.\n\n\u201cA Sabbath day\u2019s journey\u201d was reckoned to be two thousand cubits, or one\nmile, Acts i, 12. The sabbatical year was celebrated among the Jews\nevery seventh year when the land was left without culture, Exod. xxii,\n10. God appointed the observation of the sabbatical year, to preserve\nthe remembrance of the creation of the world, to enforce the\nacknowledgment of his sovereign authority over all things, and in\nparticular over the land of Canaan, which he had given to the\nIsraelites, by delivering up the fruits to the poor and the stranger. It\nwas a sort of tribute, or small rent, by which they held the possession.\nBeside, he intended to inculcate humanity upon his people, by commanding\nthat they should resign to the slaves, the poor, and the strangers, and\nto the brutes, the produce of their fields, of their vineyards, and of\ntheir gardens. In the sabbatical year all debts were remitted, and the\nslaves were liberated, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 2.\n\nSABEANS, or \u201cmen of stature,\u201d Isa. xlv, 14. These men were probably the\nSabeans of Arabia Felix, or of Asia. They submitted to Cyrus. The\nSabeans of Arabia were descended from Saba; but as there are several of\nthis name, who were all heads of peoples, or of tribes, we must\ndistinguish several kinds of Sabeans. 1. Those Sabeans who seized the\nflocks of Job, i, 15, were, probably, a people of Arabia Deserta, about\nBozra; or, perhaps, a flying troop of Sabeans which infested that\ncountry. 2. Sabeans, descendants from Sheba, son of Cush, Gen. x, 7, are\nprobably of Arabia Felix: they were famous for spices; the poets gave\nthem the epithet of soft and effeminate, and say they were governed by\nwomen:\n\n                        _Medis, levibusque Sab\u00e6is\n                      Imperat hic sexus._\n\n[This sex governs the Medes, and the gentle Sabeans.]\n\nSeveral are of opinion, that from them came the queen of Sheba, 1 Kings\nx, 1, 2; and that of these Sabeans the psalmist speaks, Psalm lxxii, 10,\n\u201cThe kings of Arabia and Sheba shall give gifts;\u201d and Jeremiah, vi, 20:\n\u201cWhat are the perfumes of Sheba to me?\u201d and Isaiah, lx, 6: \u201cAll who come\nfrom Sheba shall offer gold and perfumes.\u201d 3. Sabeans, sons of Shebah,\nson of Reumah, Gen. x, 7, probably dwelt in Arabia Felix. Probably it is\nof these Ezekiel speaks, xxvii, 22, who came with their merchandise to\nthe fairs of Tyre: and Joel, iii, 8: \u201cI will deliver up your children to\nthe tribe of Judah, who shall sell them to the Sabeans, a very distant\nnation.\u201d 4. Sabeans, descendants from Joktan, may very well be those\nmentioned by Ezekiel, xxvii, 23: \u201cSaba, Assur, and Chelmad, thy\ndealers.\u201d They are thought to have inhabited beyond the Euphrates;\nwhence they are connected with Asshur and Chilmad, Gen. x, 28; 1 Chron.\ni, 22. 5. Sabeans are also placed in Africa, in the isle of Mero\u00eb.\nJosephus brings the queen of Sheba from thence, and pretends that it had\nthe name of Shebah, or Saba, before that of Mero\u00eb.\n\nSABELLIANS were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to\nothers, a bishop, of Upper Egypt, who was the founder of the sect. As,\nfrom their doctrine, it follows that God the Father suffered, they were\nhence called by their adversaries, Patripassians; and, as their idea of\nthe trinity was by some called a modal trinity, they have likewise been\ncalled Modalists. Sabellius having been a disciple of No\u00ebtus, No\u00ebtians\nis another name by which his followers have sometimes been known; and\nas, from their fears of infringing on the fundamental doctrine of all\ntrue religion, the unity of God, they neglected all distinctions of\npersons, and taught the notion of one God with three names, they may\nhence be also considered as a species of Unitarians. Sabellius\nflourished about the middle of the third century, and his doctrine seems\nto have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was\nsoon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of\nAlexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author\nby Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263. Sabellius\ntaught that there is but one person in the Godhead; and, in confirmation\nof this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: As man, though\ncomposed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians\nreduced the three persons in the trinity to three characters or\nrelations, and maintained that the Word and Holy Spirit are only\nvirtues, emanations, or functions, of the Deity; that he who is in\nheaven is the Father of all things; that he descended into the virgin,\nbecame a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having\naccomplished the mystery of our redemption, he effused himself upon the\nApostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost.\nThis they explain by resembling God to the sun, the illuminative virtue\nor quality of which was the word, and its quickening virtue the Holy\nSpirit. The word, according to their doctrine, was darted, like a divine\nray, to accomplish the work of redemption; and having re\u00e4scended to\nheaven, the influences of the Father were communicated, after a like\nmanner, to the Apostles. They also attempted to illustrate this mystery,\nby one light kindled by another; by the fountain and stream, and by the\nstock and branch. With respect to the sentiments of Sabellius himself,\nthe accounts are various. According to some, he taught that the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, were one subsistence, and one person, with three\nnames; and that, in the Old Testament, the Deity delivered the law as\nthe Father; in the New Testament dwelt among men as the Son; and\ndescended on the Apostles as the Holy Spirit. According to Mosheim, his\nsentiments differed from those of No\u00ebtus, in this, that the latter was\nof opinion, that the person of the Father had assumed the human nature\nof Christ; whereas Sabellius maintained, that a certain energy only\nproceeded from the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine\nnature was united to the Son of God, the man Jesus; and he considered,\nin the same manner, the Holy Ghost as a portion of the everlasting\nFather.\n\nBetween the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling\nscheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not\nprecisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is\nchiefly founded on that passage in the New Testament, where the Apostle\nspeaking of Christ says, \u201cIn him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead\nbodily.\u201d Dr. Watts, toward the close of his life, adopted this opinion,\nand wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the trinity\nappear to have been, that the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally\ndistinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus; in\nconsequence of which union or indwelling of the Godhead, he became\nproperly God. Mr. Palmer observes, that Dr. Watts conceived this union\nto have subsisted before the Saviour\u2019s appearance in the flesh, and that\nthe human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the\nfoundation of the world: on which ground he maintains the real descent\nof Christ from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation,\nwhich he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him.\n\nSACKCLOTH, a sort of mourning worn at the death of a friend or relation.\nIn great calamities, in penitence, in trouble also, they wore sackcloth\nabout their bodies: \u201cGird yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn for\nAbner,\u201d 2 Sam. iii, 31. \u201cLet us gird ourselves with sackcloth; and let\nus go and implore the clemency of the king of Israel,\u201d 1 Kings xx, 31.\nAhab rent his clothes, put on a shirt of haircloth next to his skin,\nfasted, and lay upon sackcloth, 1 Kings xxi, 27. When Mordecai was\ninformed of the destruction threatened to his nation, he put on\nsackcloth, and covered his head with ashes, Esther iv. On the contrary,\nin time of joy, or on hearing good news, those who were clad in\nsackcloth tore it from their bodies, and cast it from them, Psalm xxx,\n11. The prophets were often clothed in sackcloth, and generally in\ncoarse clothing. The Lord bids Isaiah to put off the sackcloth from\nabout his body, and to go naked, that is, without his upper garment,\nIsaiah xx, 2. Zechariah says that false prophets shall no longer\nprophesy in sackcloth, to deceive the simple, Zech. xiii, 4.\n\nSACRAMENT. There is no word in the Bible which corresponds to the word\nsacrament. It is a Latin word; and, agreeably to its derivation, it was\napplied by the early writers of the western church to any ceremony of\nour holy religion, especially if it were figurative or mystical. But a\nmore confined signification of this word by degrees prevailed, and in\nthat stricter sense it has been always used by the divines of modern\ntimes. Sacraments, says Dr. Hill, are conceived in the church of Rome to\nconsist of matter, deriving, from the action of the priest in\npronouncing certain words, a divine virtue, by which grace is conveyed\nto the soul of every person who receives them. It is supposed to be\nnecessary that the priest, in pronouncing the words, has the intention\nof giving to the matter that divine virtue; otherwise it remains in its\noriginal state. On the part of those who receive the sacrament, it is\nrequired that they be free from any of those sins, called in the church\nof Rome mortal; but it is not required of them to exercise any good\ndisposition, to possess faith, or to resolve that they shall amend their\nlives; for such is conceived to be the physical virtue of a sacrament\nadministered by a priest with a good intention, that, unless when it is\nopposed by the obstacle of a mortal sin, the very act of receiving it is\nsufficient. This act was called, in the language of the schools, _opus\noperatum_, the work done independently of any disposition of mind\nattending the deed; and the superiority of the sacraments of the New\nTestament over the sacraments of the Old was thus expressed, that the\nsacraments of the Old Testament were effectual _ex opere operantis_,\nfrom the piety and faith of the persons to whom they were administered;\nwhile the sacraments of the New Testament convey grace, _ex opere\noperato_, from their own intrinsic virtue, and an immediate physical\ninfluence upon the mind of him who receives them. This notion represents\nthe sacraments as a mere charm, the use of which, being totally\ndisjoined from every mental exercise, cannot be regarded as a reasonable\nservice. It gives men the hope of receiving, by the use of a charm, the\nfull participation of the grace of God, although they continue to\nindulge that very large class of sins, to which the accommodating\nmorality of the church of Rome extends the name of venial; and yet it\nmakes this high privilege entirely dependent upon the intention of\nanother, who, although he performs all the outward acts which belong to\nthe sacrament, may, if he chooses, withhold the communication of that\nphysical virtue, without which the sacrament is of none avail.\n\nThe Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of the sacraments is founded\nupon a sense of the absurdity and danger of the popish doctrine, and a\nsolicitude to avoid any approach to it, and runs into the opposite\nextreme. It is conceived that the sacraments are not essentially\ndistinct from any other rites or ceremonies; that, as they consist of a\nsymbolical action, in which something external and material is employed\nto represent what is spiritual and invisible, they may by this address\nto the senses be of use in reviving the remembrance of past events, and\nin cherishing pious sentiments; but that their effect is purely moral,\nand that they contribute, by that moral effect, to the improvement of\nthe individual in the same manner with reading the Scriptures, and many\nother exercises of religion. It is admitted, indeed, by the Socinians,\nthat the sacraments are of farther advantage to the whole society of\nChristians, as being the solemn badges by which the disciples of Jesus\nare discriminated from other men, and the appointed method of declaring\nthat faith in Christ, by the public profession of which Christians\nminister to the improvement of one another. But in these two points, the\nmoral effect upon the individual, and the advantage to society, is\ncontained all that a Socinian holds concerning the general nature of the\nsacraments. This doctrine, like all other parts of the Socinian system,\nrepresents religion in the simple view of being a lesson of\nrighteousness, and loses sight of that character of the Gospel, which is\nmeant to be implied in calling it a covenant of grace. The greater part\nof Protestants, therefore, following an expression of the Apostle, Rom.\niv, 11, when he is speaking of circumcision, consider the sacraments as\nnot only signs, but also seals, of the covenant of grace. Those who\napply this phrase to the sacraments of the New Testament, admit every\npart of the Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of sacraments, and\nare accustomed to employ that doctrine to correct those popish errors\nupon this subject which are not yet eradicated from the minds of many of\nthe people. But although they admit that the Socinian doctrine is true\nas far as it goes, they consider it as incomplete. For, while they hold\nthat the sacraments yield no benefit to those upon whom the signs\nemployed in them do not produce the proper moral effect, they regard\nthese signs as intended to represent an inward invisible grace, which\nproceeds from him by whom they are appointed, and as pledges that that\ngrace will be conveyed to all in whom the moral effect is produced. The\nsacraments, therefore, in their opinion, constitute federal acts, in\nwhich the persons who receive them with proper dispositions, solemnly\nengage to fulfil their part of the covenant, and God confirms his\npromise to them in a sensible manner; not as if the promise of God were\nof itself insufficient to render any event certain, but because this\nmanner of exhibiting the blessings promised gives a stronger impression\nof the truth of the promise, and conveys to the mind an assurance that\nit will be fulfilled. According to this account of the sacraments, the\nexpress institution of God is essentially requisite to constitute their\nnature; and in this respect sacraments are distinguished from what may\nbe called the ceremonies of religion. Ceremonies are in their nature\narbitrary; and different means may be employed by different persons with\nsuccess, according to their constitution, their education, and their\ncircumstances, to cherish the sentiments of devotion, and to confirm\ngood purposes. But no rite which is not ordained by God can be conceived\nto be a seal of his promise, or the pledge of any event that depends\nupon his good pleasure. Hence, that any rite may come up to our idea of\na sacrament, we require in it, not merely a vague and general\nresemblance between the external matter which is the visible substance\nof the rite, and the thing thereby signified, but also words of\ninstitution, and a promise by which the two are connected together; and\nhence we reject five of the seven sacraments that are numbered in the\nchurch of Rome, because in some of the five we do not find any matter\nwithout which there is not that sign which enters into our definition of\na sacrament; and in others we do not find any promise connecting the\nmatter used with the grace said to be thereby signified, although upon\nthis connection the essence of a sacrament depends.\n\nSACRIFICE, properly so called, is the solemn infliction of death on a\nliving creature, generally by the effusion of its blood, in a way of\nreligious worship; and the presenting of this act to God, as a\nsupplication for the pardon of sin, and a supposed means of compensation\nfor the insult and injury thereby offered to his majesty and government.\nSacrifices have, in all ages, and by almost every nation, been regarded\nas necessary to placate the divine anger, and render the Deity\npropitious. Though the Gentiles had lost the knowledge of the true God,\nthey still retained such a dread of him, that they sometimes sacrificed\ntheir own offspring for the purpose of averting his anger. Unhappy and\nbewildered mortals, seeking relief from their guilty fears, hoped to\natone for past crimes by committing others still more awful; they gave\ntheir first-born for their transgression, the fruit of their body for\nthe sin of their soul. The Scriptures sufficiently indicate that\nsacrifices were instituted by divine appointment, immediately after the\nentrance of sin, to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ. Accordingly, we\nfind Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and others, offering sacrifices in the\nfaith of the Messiah; and the divine acceptance of their sacrifices is\nparticularly recorded. But, in religious institutions, the Most High has\never been jealous of his prerogative. He alone prescribes his own\nworship; and he regards as vain and presumptuous every pretence of\nhonouring him which he has not commanded. The sacrifice of blood and\ndeath could not have been offered to him without impiety, nor would he\nhave accepted it, had not his high authority pointed the way by an\nexplicit prescription.\n\nUnder the law, sacrifices of various kinds were appointed for the\nchildren of Israel; the paschal lamb, Exod. xii, 3; the holocaust, or\nwhole burnt-offering, Lev. vii, 8; the sin-offering, or sacrifice of\nexpiation, Lev. iv, 3, 4; and the peace-offering, or sacrifice of\nthanksgiving, Lev. vii, 11, 12; all of which emblematically set forth\nthe sacrifice of Christ, being the instituted types and shadows of it,\nHeb. ix, 9\u201315; x, 1. Accordingly, Christ abolished the whole of them\nwhen he offered his own sacrifice. \u201cAbove, when he said, Sacrifice, and\noffering, and burnt-offerings, and offering for sin, thou wouldest not,\nneither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said\nhe, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he\nmay establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through\nthe offering of the body of Christ once for all,\u201d Heb. x, 8\u201310; 1 Cor.\nv, 7. In illustrating this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the\nApostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, sets forth the excellency\nof the sacrifice of our great High Priest above those of the law in\nvarious particulars. The legal sacrifices were only brute animals, such\nas bullocks, heifers, goats, lambs, &c; but the sacrifice of Christ was\nhimself, a person of infinite dignity and worth, Heb. ix, 12, 13; i, 3;\nix, 14, 26; x, 10. The former, though they cleansed from ceremonial\nuncleanness, could not possibly expiate sin, or purify the conscience\nfrom the guilt of it; and so it is said that God was not well pleased in\nthem, Heb. x, 4, 5, 8, 11. But Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, hath\neffectually, and for ever, put away sin, having made an adequate\natonement unto God for it, and by means of faith in it he also purges\nthe conscience from dead works to serve the living God, Heb. ix, 10\u201326;\nEphes. v, 2. The legal sacrifices were statedly offered, year after\nyear, by which their insufficiency was indicated, and an intimation\ngiven that God was still calling sins to his remembrance, Heb. x, 3; but\nthe last required no repetition, because it fully and at once answered\nall the ends of sacrifice, on which account God hath declared that he\nwill remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more.\n\nThe term sacrifice is often used in a secondary or metaphorical sense,\nand applied to the good works of believers, and to the duties of prayer\nand praise, as in the following passages: \u201cBut to do good, and to\ncommunicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased,\u201d\nHeb. xiii, 16. \u201cHaving received of Epaphroditus the things which ye\nsent, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing\nto God,\u201d Phil. iv, 18. \u201cYe are built up a spiritual house, a holy\npriesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus\nChrist,\u201d 1 Peter ii, 5. \u201cBy him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice\nof praise to God continually; that is, the fruit of our lips, giving\nthanks to his name,\u201d Heb. xiii, 15. \u201cI beseech you, by the mercies of\nGod, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable\nunto God, which is your reasonable service,\u201d Rom. xii, 1. \u201cThere is a\npeculiar reason,\u201d says Dr. Owen, \u201cfor assigning this appellation to\nmoral duties; for in every sacrifice there was a presentation of\nsomething unto God. The worshipper was not to offer that which cost him\nnothing; part of his substance was to be transferred from himself unto\nGod. So it is in these duties; they cannot be properly observed without\nthe alienation of something that was our own,--our time, ease, property,\n&c, and a dedication of it to the Lord. Hence they have the general\nnature of sacrifices.\u201d The ceremonies used in offering the Jewish\nsacrifices require to be noticed as illustrative of many texts of\nScripture, and some points of important doctrine. See ATONEMENT,\nOFFERINGS, EXPIATION, PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION, and REDEMPTION.\n\nSADDUCEES, a sect among the Jews. It is said that the principles of the\nSadducees were derived from Antigonus Soch\u00e6us, president of the\nsanhedrim, about B. C. 250, who, rejecting the traditionary doctrines of\nthe scribes, taught that man ought to serve God out of pure love, and\nnot from hope of reward, or fear of punishment; and that they derived\ntheir name from Sadoc, one of his followers, who, mistaking or\nperverting this doctrine, maintained that there was no future state of\nrewards and punishments. Whatever foundation there may be for this\naccount of the origin of the sect, it is certain, that in the time of\nour Saviour the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, Acts\nxxiii, 8, and the existence of angels and spirits, or souls of departed\nmen; though, as Mr. Hume observes, it is not easy to comprehend how they\ncould at the same time admit the authority of the law of Moses. They\ncarried their ideas of human freedom so far as to assert that men were\nabsolutely masters of their own actions, and at full liberty to do\neither good or evil. Josephus even says that they denied the essential\ndifference between good and evil; and, though they believed that God\ncreated and preserved the world, they seem to have denied his particular\nprovidence. These tenets, which resemble the Epicurean philosophy, led,\nas might be expected, to great profligacy of life; and we find the\nlicentious wickedness of the Sadducees frequently condemned in the New\nTestament; yet they professed themselves obliged to observe the Mosaic\nlaw, because of the temporal rewards and punishments annexed to such\nobservance; and hence they were always severe in their punishment of any\ncrimes which tended to disturb the public tranquillity. The Sadducees\nrejected all tradition, and some authors have contended that they\nadmitted only the books of Moses; but there seems no ground for that\nopinion, either in the Scriptures or in any ancient writer. Even\nJosephus, who was himself a Pharisee, and took every opportunity of\nreproaching the Sadducees, does not mention that they rejected any part\nof the Scriptures; he only says that \u201cthe Pharisees have delivered to\nthe people many institutions as received from the fathers, which are not\nwritten in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject these\nthings, asserting that those things are binding which are written, but\nthat the things received by tradition from the fathers are not to be\nobserved.\u201d Beside, it is generally believed that the Sadducees expected\nthe Messiah with great impatience, which seems to imply their belief in\nthe prophecies, though they misinterpreted their meaning. Confining all\ntheir hopes to this present world, enjoying its riches, and devoting\nthemselves to its pleasures, they might well be particularly anxious\nthat their lot of life should be cast in the splendid reign of this\nexpected temporal king, with the hope of sharing in his conquests and\nglory; but this expectation was so contrary to the lowly appearance of\nour Saviour, that they joined their inveterate enemies, the Pharisees,\nin persecuting him and his religion. Josephus says, that the Sadducees\nwere able to draw over to them the rich only, the people not following\nthem; and he elsewhere mentions that this sect spread chiefly among the\nyoung. The Sadducees were far less numerous than the Pharisees, but they\nwere in general persons of greater opulence and dignity. The council\nbefore whom our Saviour and St. Paul were carried consisted partly of\nPharisees and partly of Sadducees.\n\nSALAMIS, once a famous city in the isle of Cyprus, opposite to Seleucia,\non the Syrian coast; and as it was the first place where the Gospel was\npreached, it was in the primitive times made the see of the primate of\nthe whole island. It was destroyed by the Saracens, and from the ruins\nwas built Famagusta, which was taken by the Turks in 1570. Here St. Paul\npreached, A. D. 44, Acts xiii, 5.\n\nSALMON, son of Nahshon: he married Rahab, by whom he had Boaz, 1 Chron.\nii, 11, 51, 54; Ruth iv, 20, 21; Matt. i, 4. He is named the father of\nBethlehem, because his descendants peopled Bethlehem.\n\nSALOME, the wife of Zebedee, and mother of St. James the greater, and\nSt. John the evangelist, Matthew xxvii, 56; and one of those holy women\nwho used to attend upon our Saviour in his journeyings, and to minister\nto him. She was the person who requested of Jesus Christ, that her two\nsons, James and John, might sit on his right and left hand when he\nshould enter upon his kingdom, having then but the same obscure views as\nthe rest of the disciples; but she gave proof of her faith when she\nfollowed Christ to Calvary, and did not forsake him even at the cross,\nMark xv, 40; Matt. xxvii, 55, 56. She was also one of the women that\nbrought perfumes to embalm him, and who came, for this purpose, to the\nsepulchre \u201cearly in the morning,\u201d Mark xvi, 1, 2. At the tomb they saw\ntwo angels, who informed them that Jesus was risen. Returning to\nJerusalem, Jesus appeared to them on the way, and said to them, \u201cBe not\nafraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall\nthey see me.\u201d\n\nSALT. God appointed that salt should be used in all the sacrifices that\nwere offered to him, Leviticus ii, 13. Salt is esteemed the symbol of\nwisdom and grace, Colossians iv, 6; Mark ix, 50; also of perpetuity and\nincorruption, Numbers xviii, 19; 2 Chronicles xiii, 5. The orientals\nwere accustomed also to ratify their federal engagements by salt. This\nsubstance was, among the ancients, the emblem of friendship and\nfidelity, and therefore used in all their sacrifices and covenants. It\nwas a sacred pledge of hospitality which they never ventured to violate.\nNumerous instances occur of travellers in Arabia, after being plundered\nand stripped by the wandering tribes of the desert, claiming the\nprotection of some civilized Arab, who, after receiving them into his\ntent, and giving them salt, instantly relieves their distress, and never\nforsakes them till he has placed them in safety. An agreement, thus\nratified, is called, in Scripture, \u201ca covenant of salt.\u201d The obligation\nwhich this symbol imposes on the mind of an oriental, is well\nillustrated by the Baron du Tott in the following anecdote: One who was\ndesirous of his acquaintance promised in a short time to return. The\nbaron had already attended him half way down the staircase, when\nstopping, and turning briskly to one of his domestics, \u201cBring me\ndirectly,\u201d said he, \u201csome bread and salt.\u201d What he requested was\nbrought; when, taking a little salt between his fingers, and putting it\nwith a mysterious air on a bit of bread, he ate it with a devout\ngravity, assuring du Tott he might now rely on him.\n\nAlthough salt, in small quantities, may contribute to the communicating\nand fertilizing of some kinds of stubborn soil, yet, according to the\nobservations of Pliny, \u201call places in which salt is found are barren and\nproduce nothing.\u201d The effect of salt, where it abounds, on vegetation,\nis described by burning, in Deut. xxix, 23, \u201cThe whole land thereof is\nbrimstone, and salt of burning.\u201d Thus Volney, speaking of the borders of\nthe Asphaltic lake, or Dead Sea, says, \u201cThe true cause of the absence of\nvegetables and animals is the acrid saltness of its waters, which is\ninfinitely greater than that of the sea. The land surrounding the lake,\nbeing equally impregnated with that saltness, refuses to produce plants;\nthe air itself, which is by evaporation loaded with it, and which\nmoreover receives vapours of sulphur and bitumen, cannot suit\nvegetation; whence that dead appearance which reigns around the lake.\u201d\nSo a salt land, Jer. xvii, 6, is the same as the \u201cparched places of the\nwilderness,\u201d and is descriptive of barrenness, as saltness also is, Job\nxxxix, 6; Psalm cvii, 34; Ezek. xlvii, 11; Zech. ii, 9. Hence the\nancient custom of sowing an enemy\u2019s city, when taken,with salt, in token\nof perpetual desolation, Judges iv, 45; and thus in after times the city\nof Milan was burned, razed, sown with salt, and ploughed by the\nexasperated emperor, Frederic Barbarossa. The salt used by the ancients\nwas what we call rock or fossil salt; and also that left by the\nevaporation of salt lakes. Both these kinds were impure, being mixed\nwith earth, sand, &c, and lost their strength by deliquescence.\nMaundrell, describing the valley of salt, says, \u201cOn the side toward\nGibul there is a small precipice, occasioned by the continual taking\naway of the salt; and in this you may see how the veins of it lie. I\nbroke a piece of it, of which that part that was exposed to the sun,\nrain, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, yet it\nhad perfectly lost its savour; the inner part, which was connected with\nthe rock, retained its savour, as I found by proof.\u201d Christ reminds his\ndisciples, Matt. v, 13, \u201cYe are the salt of the earth; but if the salt\nhave lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth\ngood for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of\nmen.\u201d This is spoken of the mineral salt as mentioned by Maundrell, a\ngreat deal of which was made use of in offerings at the temple; such of\nit as had become insipid was thrown out to repair the road. The\nexistence of such a salt, and its application to such a use,\nSchoetgenius has largely proved in his \u201c_Hor\u00e6 Hebraic\u00e6_.\u201d The salt unfit\nfor the land, Luke xvi, 34, Le Clerc conjectures to be that made of wood\nashes, which easily loses its savour, and becomes no longer serviceable.\n\n            _Eff\u0153tos cinerem immundum jactare per agros._\n                                     VIRGIL. Georg. i, 81.\n\n            \u201cBut blush not fattening dung to cast around,\n            Or sordid ashes o\u2019er th\u2019 exhausted ground.\u201d\n                                               WARTON.\n\nSALUTATIONS at meeting are not less common in the east than in the\ncountries of Europe, but are generally confined to those of their own\nnation or religious party. When the Arabs salute each other, it is\ngenerally in these terms: _Salum aleikum_, \u201cPeace be with you;\u201d laying,\nas they utter the words, the right hand on the heart. The answer is,\n_Aleikum essalum_, \u201cWith you be peace;\u201d to which aged people are\ninclined to add, \u201cand the mercy and blessing of God.\u201d The Mohammedans of\nEgypt and Syria never salute a Christian in these terms: they content\nthemselves with saying to them, \u201cGood day to you;\u201d or, \u201cFriend, how do\nyou do?\u201d Niebuhr\u2019s statement is confirmed by Mr. Bruce, who says that\nsome Arabs, to whom he gave the _salam_, or salutation of peace, either\nmade no reply, or expressed their astonishment at his impudence in using\nsuch freedom. Thus it appears that the orientals have two kinds of\nsalutations; one for strangers, and the other for their own countrymen,\nor persons of their own religious profession. The Jews in the days of\nour Lord seem to have generally observed the same custom; they would not\naddress the usual compliment of, \u201cPeace be with you,\u201d to either Heathens\nor publicans; the publicans of the Jewish nation would use it to their\ncountrymen who were publicans, but not to Heathens, though the more\nrigid Jews refused to do it either to publicans or Heathens. Our Lord\nrequired his disciples to lay aside the moroseness of Jews, and cherish\na benevolent disposition toward all around them: \u201cIf ye salute your\nbrethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans\nso?\u201d They were bound by the same authority to embrace their brethren in\nChrist with a special affection, yet they were to look upon every man as\na brother, to feel a sincere and cordial interest in his welfare, and at\nmeeting to express their benevolence, in language corresponding with the\nfeelings of their hearts. This precept is not inconsistent with the\ncharge which the Prophet Elisha gave to his servant Gehazi, not to\nsalute any man he met, nor return his salutation; for he wished him to\nmake all the haste in his power to restore the child of the Shunamite,\nwho had laid him under so many obligations. The manners of the country\nrendered Elisha\u2019s precautions particularly proper and necessary, as the\nsalutations of the east often take up a long time. For a similar reason\nour Lord himself commanded his disciples on one occasion to salute no\nman by the way: it is not to be supposed that he would require his\nfollowers to violate or neglect an innocent custom, still less one of\nhis own precepts; he only directed them to make the best use of their\ntime in executing his work. This precaution was rendered necessary by\nthe length of time which their tedious forms of salutation required.\nThey begin their salutations at a considerable distance, by bringing the\nhand down to the knees, and then carrying it to the stomach. They\nexpress their devotedness to a person by holding down the hand, as they\ndo their affection by raising it afterward to the heart. When they come\nclose together, they take each other by the hand in token of friendship.\nThe country people at meeting clap each other\u2019s hands very smartly\ntwenty or thirty times together, without saying any thing more than,\n\u201cHow do ye do? I wish you good health.\u201d After this first compliment,\nmany other friendly questions about the health of the family, mentioning\neach of the children distinctly, whose names they know. To avoid this\nuseless waste of time, our Lord commanded them to avoid the customary\nsalutations of those whom they might happen to meet by the way. All the\nforms of salutation now observed appear to have been in general use in\nthe days of our Lord; for he represents a servant as falling down at the\nfeet of his master, when he had a favour to ask; and an inferior\nservant, as paying the same compliment to the first, who belonged, it\nwould seem, to a higher class; \u201cThe servant, therefore, fell down and\nworshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee\nall. And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him,\nsaying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all,\u201d Matt. xviii,\n26, 29. When Jairus solicited the Saviour to go and heal his daughter,\nhe fell down at his feet: the Apostle Peter, on another occasion, seems\nto have fallen down at his knees, in the same manner as the modern Arabs\nfall down at the knees of a superior. The woman who was afflicted with\nan issue of blood touched the hem of his garment, and the Syro-Phenician\nwoman fell down at his feet. In Persia, the salutation among intimate\nfriends is made by inclining the neck over each other\u2019s neck, and then\ninclining cheek to cheek; which Mr. Morier thinks is most likely the\nfalling upon the neck and kissing, so frequently mentioned in Scripture,\nGen. xxxiii, 4; xlv, 14; Luke xv, 20.\n\nSALVATION imports, in general, some great deliverance from any evil or\ndanger. Thus, the conducting the Israelites through the Red Sea, and\ndelivering them out of the hands of the Egyptians, is called a great\nsalvation. But salvation by way of eminence, is applied to that\nwonderful deliverance which our blessed Saviour procured for mankind, by\nsaving them from the punishment of their sins; and in the New Testament\nis the same as our redemption by Christ. This is that salvation referred\nto by St. Paul: \u201cHow shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?\u201d\nThe salvation which Christ purchased, and the Gospel tenders to every\ncreature, comprehends the greatest blessings which God can bestow; a\ndeliverance from the most dreadful evils that mankind can suffer. It\ncontains all that can make the nature of man perfect or his life happy,\nand secures him from whatever can render his condition miserable. The\nblessings of it are inexpressible, and beyond imagination. \u201cEye hath not\nseen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the\nthings which God hath prepared for them that love him.\u201d For, to be saved\nas Christ saves, is to have all our innumerable sins and transgressions\nforgiven and blotted out; all those heavy loads of guilt which oppressed\nour souls perfectly removed from our minds. It is to be reconciled to\nGod, and restored to his favour, so that he will be no longer angry,\nterrible, and retributive, but a most kind, compassionate, and tender\nFather. It is to be at peace with him and with our consciences; to have\na title to his peculiar love, care, and protection, all our days; to be\nrescued from the bondage and dominion of sin, and the tyranny of the\ndevil. It is to be translated from the power of darkness, into the\nkingdom of Christ; so that sin shall reign no longer in our mortal\nbodies, but we shall be enabled to serve God in newness of life. It is\nto be placed in a state of true freedom and liberty, to be no longer\nunder the control of blind passions, and hurried on by our impetuous\nlusts to do what our reason condemns. It is to have a new principle of\nlife infused into our souls; to have the Holy Spirit resident in our\nhearts, whose comfortable influence must ever cheer and refresh us, and\nby whose counsels we may be always advised, directed, and governed. It\nis to be transformed into the image of God; and to be made like him in\nwisdom, righteousness, and all other perfections of which man\u2019s nature\nis capable.\n\nFinally, to be saved as Christ came to save mankind, is to be\ntranslated, after this life is ended, into a state of eternal felicity,\nnever more to die or suffer, never more to know pain and sickness, grief\nand sorrow, labour and weariness, disquiet, or vexation, but to live in\nperfect peace, freedom, and liberty, and to enjoy the greatest good\nafter the most perfect manner for ever. It is to have our bodies raised\nagain, and re\u00fcnited to our souls; so that they shall be no longer gross,\nearthly, corruptible bodies, but spiritual, heavenly, immortal ones,\nfashioned like unto Christ\u2019s glorious body, in which he now sits at the\nright hand of God. It is to live in the city of the great King, the\nheavenly Jerusalem, where the glory of the Lord fills the place with\nperpetual light and bliss. It is to spend eternity in the most noble and\nhallowed employments, in viewing and contemplating the wonderful works\nof God, admiring the wisdom of his providence, adoring his infinite love\nto the sons of men, reflecting on our own inexpressible happiness, and\nsinging everlasting hymns of praise, joy, and triumph to God and our\nLord Jesus Christ for vouchsafing all these blessings. It is to dwell\nfor ever in a place, where no objects of pity or compassion, of anger or\nenvy, of hatred or distrust, are to be found; but where all will\nincrease the happiness of each other, by mutual love and kindness. It is\nto converse with the most perfect society, to be restored to the\nfellowship of our friends and relations who have died in the faith of\nChrist, and to be with Jesus Christ, to behold his glory, to live for\never in seeing and enjoying the great God, in \u201cwhose presence is fulness\nof joy, and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore.\u201d This is the\nsalvation that Christ has purchased for us; and which his Gospel offers\nto all mankind.\n\nSAMARIA, one of the three divisions of the Holy Land, having Galilee on\nthe north, Judea on the south, the river Jordan on the east, and the\nMediterranean Sea on the west. It took its name from its capital city,\nSamaria; and formed, together with Galilee and some cantons on the east\nof Jordan, during the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, the\nkingdom of the former. The general aspect and produce of the country are\nnearly the same as those of Judea. But Mr. Buckingham observes, that\n\u201cwhile in Judea the hills are mostly as bare as the imagination can\npaint them, and a few of the narrow valleys only are fertile, in\nSamaria, the very summits of the eminences are as well clothed as the\nsides of them. These, with the luxuriant valleys which they enclose,\npresent scenes of unbroken verdure in almost every point of view, which\nare delightfully variegated by the picturesque forms of the hills and\nvales themselves, enriched by the occasional sight of wood and water, in\nclusters of olive and other trees, and rills and torrents running among\nthem.\u201d\n\n2. SAMARIA, the capital city of the kingdom of the ten tribes that\nrevolted from the house of David. It was built by Omri, king of Israel,\nwho began to reign A. M. 3079, and who died 3086. He bought the hill\nSamaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, or for the sum of 684l.\n7_s._ 6_d._ It took the name of Samaria from Shemer, the owner of the\nhill, 1 Kings xvi, 24. Some think, however, that there were before this\nsome beginnings of a city in that place, because, antecedent to the\nreign of Omri, there is mention made of Samaria, 1 Kings xiii, 32, A. M.\n3030. But others take this for a prolepsis, or an anticipation, in the\ndiscourse of the man of God. However this may be, it is certain that\nSamaria was no considerable place, and did not become the capital of the\nkingdom, till after the reign of Omri. Before him, the kings of Israel\ndwelt at Shechem or at Tirzah. Samaria was advantageously situated upon\nan agreeable and fruitful hill, twelve miles from Dothaim, twelve from\nMerrom, and four from Atharath. Josephus says it was a day\u2019s journey\nfrom Jerusalem. The kings of Samaria omitted nothing to make this city\nthe strongest, the finest, and the richest that was possible. Ahab built\nthere a palace of ivory, 1 Kings xxii, 39; that is, in which there were\nmany ivory ornaments; and, according to Amos, iii, 15; iv, 1, 2, it\nbecame the seat of luxury and effeminacy. Benhadad, king of Syria, built\npublic places, called \u201cstreets,\u201d in Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 34; probably\nbazaars for trade, and quarters where his people dwelt to pursue\ncommerce. His son Benhadad besieged this place under the reign of Ahab,\n1 Kings xx, A. M. 3103. It was besieged by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria,\nin the ninth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, 2 Kings xvii,\n6, &c, which was the fourth of Hezekiah, king of Judah. It was taken\nthree years after, A. M. 3283. The Prophet Hosea, x, 4, 8, 9, speaks of\nthe cruelties exercised by Shalmaneser against the besieged; and Micah,\ni, 6, says that the city was reduced to a heap of stones. The Cuthites\nthat were sent by Esar-haddon to inhabit the country of Samaria did not\nthink it worth their while to repair the ruined city: they dwelt at\nShechem, which they made the capital city of their state. They were in\nthis condition when Alexander the Great came into Phenicia and Judea.\nHowever, the Cuthites had rebuilt some of the houses of Samaria, even\nfrom the time of the return of the Jews from the captivity, since the\ninhabitants of Samaria are spoken of, Ezra iv, 17; Neh. iv, 2. And the\nSamaritans, being jealous of the Jews, on account of the favours that\nAlexander the Great had conferred on them, revolted from him, while he\nwas in Egypt, and burned Andromachus alive, whom he had left governor of\nSyria. Alexander soon marched against them, took Samaria, and appointed\nMacedonians to inhabit it, giving the country round it to the Jews; and\nto encourage them in the cultivation, he exempted them from tribute. The\nkings of Egypt and Syria, who succeeded Alexander, deprived them of the\nproperty of this country. But Alexander Balas, king of Syria, restored\nto Jonathan Maccab\u00e6us the cities of Lydda, Ephrem, and Ramatha, which he\ncut off from the country of Samaria, 1 Macc. x, 30, 38; xi, 28, 34.\nLastly, the Jews re\u00ebntered into the full possession of this whole\ncountry under John Hircanus, the Asmonean, who took Samaria, and,\naccording to Josephus, made the river run through its ruins. It\ncontinued in this state till A. M. 3947, when Aulus Gabinius, the\nproconsul of Syria, rebuilt it, and gave it the name of Gabiniana. Yet\nit remained very inconsiderable till Herod the Great restored it to its\nancient splendour.\n\nThe sacred authors of the New Testament speak but little of Samaria; and\nwhen they do mention it, the country is rather to be understood than the\ncity, Luke xvii, 11; John iv, 4, 5. After the death of Stephen, Acts\nviii, 1, 2, 3, when the disciples were dispersed through the cities of\nJudea and Samaria, Philip made several converts in this city. There it\nwas that Simon Magus resided, and thither Peter and John went to\ncommunicate the gifts of the Holy Spirit.\n\nTravellers give the following account of its present state:--Sebaste is\nthe name which Herod gave to the name of the ancient Samaria, the\nimperial city of the ten tribes, in honour of Augustus (Sebastos) C\u00e6sar,\nwhen he rebuilt and fortified it, converting the greater part of it into\na citadel, and erecting here a noble temple. \u201cThe situation,\u201d says Dr.\nRichardson, \u201cis extremely beautiful, and strong by nature; more so, I\nthink, than Jerusalem. It stands on a fine, large, insulated hill,\ncompassed all around by a broad deep valley; and when fortified, as it\nis stated to have been by Herod, one would have imagined that, in the\nancient system of warfare, nothing but famine could have reduced such a\nplace. The valley is surrounded by four hills, one on each side, which\nare cultivated in terraces up to the top, sown with grain, and planted\nwith fig and olive trees, as is also the valley. The hill of Samaria\nlikewise rises in terraces to a height equal to any of the adjoining\nmountains. The present village is small and poor, and, after passing the\nvalley, the ascent to it is very steep. Viewed from the station of our\ntents, it is extremely interesting, both from its natural situation, and\nfrom the picturesque remains of a ruined convent, of good Gothic\narchitecture. Having passed the village, toward the middle of the first\nterrace, there is a number of columns still standing. I counted twelve\nin one row, beside several that stood apart, the brotherless remains of\nother rows. The situation is extremely delightful, and my guide informed\nme, that they belonged to the serai, or palace. On the next terrace\nthere are no remains of solid building, but heaps of stone and lime and\nrubbish mixed with the soil in great profusion. Ascending to the third\nor highest terrace, the traces of former building were not so numerous,\nbut we enjoyed a delightful view of the surrounding country. The eye\npassed over the deep valley that encompasses the hill of Sebaste, and\nrested on the mountains beyond, that retreated as they rose with a\ngentle slope, and met the view in every direction, like a book laid out\nfor perusal on a reading desk. This was the seat of the capital of the\nshort-lived and wicked kingdom of Israel; and on the face of these\nmountains the eye surveys the scene of many bloody conflicts and many\nmemorable events. Here those holy men of God, Elijah and Elisha, spoke\ntheir tremendous warnings in the ears of their incorrigible rulers, and\nwrought their miracles in the sight of all the people. From this lofty\neminence we descended to the south side of the hill, where we saw the\nremains of a stately colonnade that stretches along this beautiful\nexposure from east to west. Sixty columns are still standing in one row.\nThe shafts are plain; and fragments of Ionic volutes, that lie scattered\nabout, testify the order to which they belonged. These are probably the\nrelics of some of the magnificent structures with which Herod the Great\nadorned Samaria. None of the walls remain.\u201d Mr. Buckingham mentions a\ncurrent tradition, that the avenue of columns formed a part of Herod\u2019s\npalace. According to his account, there were eighty-three of these\ncolumns erect in 1816, beside others prostrate; all without capitals.\nJosephus states, that, about the middle of the city, Herod built \u201ca\nsacred place, of a furlong and a half in circuit, and adorned it with\nall sorts of decorations; and therein erected a temple, illustrious for\nboth its largeness and beauty.\u201d It is probable that these columns\nbelonged to it. On the eastern side of the same summit are the remains,\nMr. Buckingham states, of another building, \u201cof which eight large and\neight small columns are still standing, with many others fallen near\nthem. These also are without capitals, and are of a smaller size and of\nan inferior stone to the others.\u201d \u201cIn the walls of the humble dwellings\nforming the modern village, portions of sculptured blocks of stone are\nperceived, and even fragments of granite pillars have been worked into\nthe masonry.\u201d\n\nSAMARITANS, an ancient sect among the Jews, still subsisting in some\nparts of the Levant, under the same name. Its origin was in the time of\nRehoboam, under whose reign a division was made of the people of Israel\ninto two distinct kingdoms. One of these kingdoms, called Judah,\nconsisted of such as adhered to Rehoboam and the house of David; the\nother retained the ancient name of Israelites, under the command of\nJeroboam. The capital of the state of these latter was Samaria; and\nhence it was that they were denominated Samaritans. Some affirm that\nSalmanazar, king of Assyria, having conquered Samaria, led the whole\npeople captive into the remotest parts of his empire, and filled their\nplaces with colonies of Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters.\nThese finding themselves daily destroyed by wild beasts, it is said,\ndesired an Israelitish priest to instruct them in the ancient laws and\ncustoms of the land they inhabited. This was granted them; and they\nthenceforth ceased to be incommoded with any beasts. However, with the\nlaw of Moses, they still retained somewhat of their ancient idolatry.\nThe rabbins say, they adored the figure of a dove on Mount Gerizim. As\nthe revolted tribes had no more of the Scriptures than the five books of\nMoses, so the priest could bring no others with him beside those books\nwritten in the old Phenician letters.\n\nUpon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and the\nrebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, the religion of the Samaritans\nreceived another alteration on the following occasion: one of the sons\nof Jehoiada, the high priest, whom Josephus calls Manasseh, married the\ndaughter of Sanballat the Horonite; but the law of God having forbidden\nthe intermarriages of the Israelites with any other nation, Nehemiah set\nhimself to reform this corruption, which had spread into many Jewish\nfamilies, and obliged all that had taken strange wives immediately to\npart with them, Neh. xiii, 23\u201330. Manasseh, unwilling to surrender his\nwife, fled to Samaria; and many others in the same circumstances, and\nwith similar disposition, went and settled under the protection of\nSanballat, governor of Samaria. Manasseh brought with him some other\napostate priests, with many other Jews, who disliked the regulations\nmade by Nehemiah at Jerusalem; and now the Samaritans, having obtained a\nhigh priest, and other priests of the descendants from Aaron, were soon\nbrought off from the worship of the false gods, and became as much\nenemies to idolatry as the best of the Jews. However, Manasseh gave them\nno other Scriptures beside the Pentateuch, lest, if they had the other\nScriptures, they should then find that Jerusalem was the only place\nwhere they should offer their sacrifices. From that time the worship of\nthe Samaritans came much nearer to that of the Jews, and they afterward\nobtained leave of Alexander the Great to build a temple on Mount\nGerizim, near the city of Samaria, in imitation of the temple at\nJerusalem, where they practised the same forms of worship. To this\nmountain and temple the Samaritan woman of Sychar refers in her\ndiscourse with our Saviour, John iv, 20. The Samaritans soon after\nrevolted from Alexander, who drove them out of Samaria, introduced\nMacedonians in their room, and gave the province of Samaria to the Jews.\nThis circumstance contributed in no small degree to increase the hatred\nand animosity between those two people. When any Israelite deserved\npunishment on account of the violation of some important point of the\nlaw, he presently took refuge in Samaria or Shechem, and embraced the\nworship at the temple of Gerizim. When the affairs of the Jews were\nprosperous, the Samaritans did not fail to call themselves Hebrews, and\nof the race of Abraham. But when the Jews suffered persecution, the\nSamaritans disowned them, and alleged that they were Phenicians\noriginally, or descended from Joseph, or Manasseh his son. This was\ntheir practice in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is certain, the\nmodern Samaritans are far from idolatry; some of the most learned among\nthe Jewish doctors own, that they observe the law of Moses more rigidly\nthan the Jews themselves. They have a Hebrew copy of the Pentateuch,\ndiffering in some respects from that of the Jews; and written in\ndifferent characters, commonly called Samaritan characters; which\nOrigen, Jerom, and other fathers and critics, ancient and modern, take\nto be the primitive character of the ancient Hebrews, though others\nmaintain the contrary. The point of preference, as to purity, antiquity,\n&c, of the two Pentateuchs, is also much disputed by modern critics.\n\nThe Samaritans are now few in number; though it is not very long since\nthey pretended to have priests descended directly from the family of\nAaron. They were chiefly found at Gaza, Neapolis or Shechem, (the\nancient Sichem or Naplouse,) Damascus, Cairo, &c. They had a temple, or\nchapel, on Mount Gerizim, where they performed their sacrifices. They\nhave also synagogues in other parts of Palestine, and also in Egypt.\nJoseph Scaliger, being curious to know their usages, wrote to the\nSamaritans of Egypt, and to the high priest of the whole sect, who\nresided at Neapolis. They returned two answers, dated in the year 998 of\nthe Hegira of Mohammed. These answers never came to the hands of\nScaliger. They are now in the library at Paris, and have been translated\ninto Latin by Father Morin, priest of the oratory; and printed in the\ncollection of letters of that father in England, 1662, under the title\nof \u201c_Antiquitates Ecclesi\u00e6 Orientalis_.\u201d M. Simon has inserted a French\ntranslation in the first edition of \u201c_Ceremonies et Coutumes des\nJuifs_,\u201d in the manner of a supplement to Leo de Modena. In the first of\nthese answers, written in the name of the assembly of Israel, in Egypt,\nthey declare that they celebrate the passover every year, on the\nfourteenth day of the first month, on Mount Gerizim, and that he who\nthen did the office of high priest was called Eleazar, a descendant of\nPhinehas, son of Aaron. In the second answer, which is in the name of\nthe high priest Eleazar, and the synagogue of Shechem, they declare,\nthat they keep the Sabbath in all the rigour with which it is enjoined\nin the book of Exodus; none among them stirring out of doors, but to the\nsynagogue. They add, that they begin the feast of the passover with the\nsacrifice appointed for that purpose in Exodus; that they sacrifice no\nwhere else but on Mount Gerizim; that they observe the feasts of\nharvest, the expiation, the tabernacles, &c. They add farther, that they\nnever defer circumcision beyond the eighth day; never marry their\nnieces, as the Jews do; have but one wife; and, in fine, do nothing but\nwhat is commanded in the law: whereas the Jews frequently abandon the\nlaw to follow the inventions of their rabbins. At the time when they\nwrote to Scaliger, they reckoned one hundred and twenty-two high\npriests; affirmed that the Jews had no high priests of the race of\nPhinehas; and that the Jews belied them in calling them Cutheans; for\nthat they are descended from the tribe of Joseph by Ephraim.\n\nSAMSON, son of Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, Judges xiii, 2, &c. We are\nno where acquainted with the name of his mother. He was born, A. M.\n2849, and was a Nazarite from his infancy, by the divine command. He was\nbrought up in a place called the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Estaol,\nJudges xiii, 25. His extraordinary achievements are particularly\nrecorded in Judges xiv-xvi. \u201cFaith\u201d is attributed to him by St. Paul,\nthough whether he retained it to the end of his life may be doubted. He\nis not inaptly called by an old writer, \u201ca rough believer.\u201d\n\nSAMUEL, the son of Elkanah and of Hannah, of the tribe of Levi, and\nfamily of Kohath, was born, A. M. 2848. He was an eminent inspired\nprophet, historian, and the seventeenth and last Judge of Israel; and\ndied in the ninety-eighth year of his age, two years before Saul, A. M.\n2947, 1 Sam. xxv. To Samuel are ascribed the book of Judges, that of\nRuth, and the first book of Samuel. There is, indeed, great probability\nthat he composed the first twenty-four chapters of the first book of\nSamuel; since they contain nothing but what he might have written, and\nsuch transactions as he was chiefly concerned in. However, in these\nchapters there are some small additions, which seem to have been\ninserted after his death. Samuel began the order of the prophets, which\nwas never discontinued till the death of Zechariah and Malachi, Acts\niii, 24. From early youth to hoary years, the character of Samuel is one\non which the mind rests with veneration and delight.\n\nSANBALLAT, the governor of the Cuthites or Samaritans, and an enemy to\nthe Jews. He was a native of Horon, a city beyond Jordan, in the country\nof the Moabites, Neh. ii, 10, 19; iv, vi.\n\nSANCTIFICATION, that work of God\u2019s grace by which we are renewed after\nthe image of God, set apart for his service, and enabled to die unto sin\nand live unto righteousness. Sanctification is either of nature, whereby\nwe are renewed after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and\ntrue holiness, Eph. iv, 24; Col. iii, 19, or of practice, whereby we die\nunto sin, have its power destroyed in us, cease from the love and\npractice of it, hate it as abominable, and live unto righteousness,\nloving and studying good works, Tit. ii, 11, 12. Sanctification\ncomprehends all the graces of knowledge, faith, repentance, love,\nhumility, zeal, patience, &c, and the exercise of them in our conduct\ntoward God or man, Gal. v, 22\u201324; 1 Peter i, 15, 16; Matt. v, vi, vii.\nSanctification in this world must be complete; the whole nature must be\nsanctified, all sin must be utterly abolished, or the soul can never be\nadmitted into the glorious presence of God, Heb. xii, 14; 1 Peter i, 15;\nRev. xxi, 27; yet the saints, while here, are in a state of spiritual\nwarfare with Satan and his temptations, with the world and its\ninfluence, 2 Cor. ii, 11; Gal. v, 17, 24; Rom. vii, 23; 1 John ii, 15,\n16.\n\nSANCTIFY. In the Old Testament, to sanctify often denotes to separate\nfrom a common to a holy purpose; to set apart or consecrate to God as\nhis special property, and for his service. Our Lord also uses this term,\nwhen he says, \u201cFor their sakes I sanctify myself,\u201d John xvii, 19; that\nis, I separate and dedicate myself to be a sacrifice to God for them,\n\u201cthat they also may be sanctified through the truth;\u201d that is, that they\nmay be cleansed from the guilt of sin. Under the law of Moses, there was\na church purity, or ceremonial sanctification, which might be obtained\nby the observance of external rites and ordinances, while persons were\ndestitute of internal purity or holiness. Every defiled person was made\n\u201ccommon,\u201d and excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh to God\nin his solemn worship; but in his purification he was again separated to\nhim, and restored to his sacred right. Hence St. Paul speaks of \u201cthe\nblood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the\nunclean, as sanctifying unto the purifying of the flesh,\u201d Heb. ix, 13.\nThese things were in reality of no moral worth or value; they were\nmerely typical institutions, intended to represent the blessings of the\nnew and better covenant, those \u201cgood things that were to come;\u201d and\ntherefore God is frequently spoken of in the prophets as despising them,\nnamely, in any other view than that for which his wisdom had ordained\nthem, Isaiah i, 11\u201315; Psalm 1, 8, 9; li, 16. But that dispensation is\nnow at an end; under the New Testament, the state of things is changed,\nfor now \u201cneither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision,\nbut a new creature.\u201d The thing signified, namely, internal purity and\nholiness, is no less necessary to a right to the privileges of the\nGospel, than the observance of those external rites was unto the\nprivileges of the law.\n\nSANCTUARY. See TEMPLE.\n\nSANDALS, at first, were only soles tied to the feet with strings or\nthongs; afterward they were covered; and at last they called even shoes\nsandals. When Judith went to the camp of Holofernes, she put sandals on\nher feet; and her sandals ravished his eyes, Judith x, 4; xvi, 9. They\nwere a magnificent kind of buskins proper only to ladies of condition,\nand such as dressed themselves for admiration. But there were sandals\nalso belonging to men, and of mean value. We read, \u201cIf the man like not\nto take his brother\u2019s wife, then let his brother\u2019s wife go up to the\ngate unto the elders, and say, My husband\u2019s brother will not perform the\nduty of a husband\u2019s brother; then shall his brother\u2019s wife come unto\nhim, in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his\nfoot, and spit in his face; and shall say, So shall it be done unto that\nman that will not build up his brother\u2019s house. And his name shall be\ncalled in Israel, The house of him who hath had his shoe loosed,\u201d\nDeuteronomy xxv, 7. A late writer observes that the word rendered\n\u201cshoe,\u201d usually means \u201csandal,\u201d that is, a mere sole fastened on the\nfoot in a very simple manner; and that the primary and radical meaning\nof the word rendered _face_, is surface, the superficies of any thing.\nHence he would submit, that the passage may be to the following purpose:\nThe brother\u2019s wife shall loose the sandal from off the foot of her\nhusband\u2019s brother; and shall spit upon its face or surface, (that is, of\nthe shoe,) and shall say, &c. This ceremony is coincident with certain\ncustoms among the Turks. We are told that in a complaint against her own\nhusband, for withholding himself from her intimacy, the wife when before\nthe judge takes off her own shoe, and spits upon it; but in case of\ncomplaint against her husband\u2019s brother, she takes off his shoe and\nspits upon it.\n\nThe business of untying and carrying the sandals being that of a\nservant, the expressions of the Baptist, \u201cwhose shoes I am not worthy to\nbear,\u201d \u201cwhose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose,\u201d was an\nacknowledgment of his great inferiority to Christ, and that Christ was\nhis Lord. To pull off the sandals on entering a sacred place, or the\nhouse of a person of distinction, was the usual mark of respect. They\nwere taken care of by the attendant servant. At the doors of an Indian\npagoda, there are as many sandals and slippers hung up, as there are\nhats in our places of worship.\n\nSANHEDRIM, SANHEDRIN, or SYNEDRIUM, among the ancient Jews, the supreme\ncouncil, or court of judicature, of that republic; in which were\ndespatched all the great affairs both of religion and policy. The word\nis derived from the Greek \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a council, assembly, or company of\npeople sitting together; from \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd, _together_, and h\u03ae\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1, _a seat_. Many\nof the learned agree, that it was instituted by Moses, Numbers xi; and\nconsisted at first of seventy elders, who judged finally of all causes\nand affairs; and that they subsisted, without intermission, from Moses\nto Ezra, Deut. xxvii, 1; xxxi, 9; Josh. xxiv, 1, 31; Judg. ii, 7; 2\nChron. xix, 8; Ezek. viii, 11. Others will have it, that the council of\nseventy elders, established by Moses, was temporary, and did not hold\nafter his death; adding, that we find no sign of any such perpetual and\ninfallible tribunal throughout the whole Old Testament; and that the\nsanhedrim was first set up in the time when the Maccabees, or Asmoneans,\ntook upon themselves the administration of the government under the\ntitle of high priests, and afterward of kings, that is, after the\npersecution of Antiochus. This is by far the most probable opinion. The\nJews, however, contend strenuously for the antiquity of their great\nsanhedrim: M. Simon strengthens and defends their proofs, and M. Le\nClerc attacks them. Whatever may be the origin and establishment of the\nsanhedrim, it is certain that it was subsisting in the time of our\nSaviour, since it is spoken of in the Gospels, Matt. v, 21; Mark xiii,\n9; xiv, 55; xv, 1; and since Jesus Christ himself was arraigned and\ncondemned by it; that it was held at Jerusalem; and that the decision of\nall the most important affairs among the Jews belonged to it. The\npresident of this assembly was called _nasi_, or prince; his deputy was\ncalled _abbeth-din_, father of the house of judgment; and the sub-deputy\nwas called _chacan_, the wise: the rest were denominated _tzekanim_,\nelders or senators. The room in which they sat was a rotunda, half of\nwhich was built without the temple, and half within; that is, one\nsemicircle of the room was within the compass of the temple; and as it\nwas never allowed to sit down in the temple, they tell us this part was\nfor those who stood up; the other half, or semicircle, extended without\nthe holy place, and here the judges sat. The nasi, or prince, sat on a\nthrone at the end of the hall, having his deputy at his right hand, and\nhis sub-deputy at his left; the other senators were ranged in order on\neach side.\n\nThe sanhedrim subsisted until the destruction of Jerusalem, but its\nauthority was almost reduced to nothing, from the time in which the\nJewish nation became subject to the Roman empire. The rabbins pretend,\nthat the sanhedrim has always subsisted in their nation from the time of\nMoses to the destruction of the temple by the Romans; and they maintain\nthat it consisted of seventy counsellors, six out of each tribe, and\nMoses as president; and thus the number was seventy-one: but six\nsenators out of each tribe make the number seventy-two, which, with the\npresident, constitute a council of seventy-three persons, and therefore\nit has been the opinion of some authors that this was the number of the\nmembers of the sanhedrim. As to the personal qualifications of the\njudges of this court, it was required that they should be of untainted\nbirth; and they were often of the race of the priests or Levites, or of\nthe number of inferior judges, or of the lesser sanhedrim, which\nconsisted of twenty-three judges. They were to be skilful in the written\nand traditional law; and they were obliged to study magic, divination,\nfortune telling, physic, astrology, arithmetic, and languages. It was\nalso required, that none of them should be eunuchs, usurers, decrepid or\ndeformed, or gamesters; and that they should be of mature age, rich, and\nof good countenance and body. Thus say the rabbins.\n\nThe authority of the sanhedrim was very extensive. This council decided\ncauses brought before it by appeal from inferior courts. The king, high\npriest, and prophets were subject to its jurisdiction. The general\nofficers of the nation were brought before the sanhedrim. How far their\nright of judging in capital cases extended, and how long it continued,\nhave been subjects of controversy. Among the rabbins it has been a\ngenerally received opinion, that about forty years before the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, their nation had been deprived of the power of\nlife and death. And most authors assert, that this privilege was taken\nfrom them ever since Judea was made a province of the Roman empire, that\nis, after the banishment of Archelaus. Others, however, maintain that\nthe Jews had still the power of life and death; but that this privilege\nwas restricted to crimes committed against their law, and depended upon\nthe governor\u2019s will and pleasure. In the time of Moses, this council was\nheld at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony. As soon as the\npeople were in possession of the land of promise, the sanhedrim followed\nthe tabernacle, and it continued at Jerusalem, whither it was removed,\ntill the captivity. During the captivity it was kept at Babylon. After\nthe return from Babylon, it remained at Jerusalem, as it is said, to the\ntime of the sicarii or assassins; afterward it was removed to Jamnia,\nthence to Jericho, to Uzzah, to Sepharvaim, to Bethsamia, to Sephoris,\nand last of all to Tiberias, where it continued till its utter\nextinction. Such is the account which the Jews give of their sanhedrim.\nBut, as stated above, much of this is disputed. Petau fixes the\nbeginning of the sanhedrim to the period when Gabinius was governor of\nJudea, by whom were erected tribunals in the five cities of Judea,\nnamely, Jerusalem, Gadara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sephoris. Grotius\nagrees in the date of its commencement with the rabbins, but he fixes\nits termination at the beginning of Herod\u2019s reign. Basnage places it\nunder Judas Maccab\u00e6us and his brother Jonathan. Upon the whole, it may\nbe observed, that the origin of the sanhedrim has not been\nsatisfactorily ascertained; and that the council of the seventy elders,\nestablished by Moses, was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of\nsanhedrim.\n\nBefore the death of our Saviour, two very famous rabbins had been\npresidents of the sanhedrim, namely Hillel and Schammai, who entertained\nvery different opinions on several subjects, and particularly that of\ndivorce. This gave occasion to the question which the Pharisees put to\nJesus Christ upon that head, Matt. xix, 3. (See _Divorce_.) Hillel had\nMenahem for his associate in the presidency of the sanhedrim. But the\nlatter afterward deserted that honourable post, and joined himself with\na great number of his disciples, to the party of Herod Antipas, who\npromoted the levying of taxes for the use of the Roman emperors with all\nhis might. These were probably the Herodians mentioned in the Gospel,\nMatt. xxii, 16. To Hillel succeeded Simeon his son, who by some is\nsupposed to have been the person who took Jesus Christ in his arms, Luke\nii, 28, and publicly acknowledged him to be the Messiah. If this be the\ncase, the Jewish sanhedrim had for president a person that was entirely\ndisposed to embrace Christianity. Gamaliel, the son and successor of\nSimeon, seems to have been also of a candid disposition and character.\nThere were several inferior sanhedrims in Palestine, all depending on\nthe great sanhedrim at Jerusalem. The inferior sanhedrim consisted each\nof twenty-three persons; and there was one in each city and town. Some\nsay, that to have a right to hold a sanhedrim, it was requisite there\nshould be one hundred and twenty inhabitants in the place. Where the\ninhabitants came short of the number of one hundred and twenty, they\nonly established three judges. In the great as well as the inferior\nsanhedrim were two scribes; the one to write down the suffrages of those\nwho were for condemnation, the other to take down the suffrages of those\nwho were for absolution.\n\nSAPPHIRE, \u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8, Exod. xxiv, 10; xxviii, 18; Job xxviii, 6, 16; Cantic.\nv, 14; Isa. liv, 11; Ezek. i, 26; x, 1; xxviii, 13, \u03c3\u03ac\u03d6\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Rev. xxi,\n19, only. That this is the sapphire, there can be no doubt. The\nSeptuagint, the Vulgate, and the general run of commentators, ancient\nand modern, agree in this. The sapphire is a pellucid gem. In its finest\nstate it is extremely beautiful and valuable, and second only to the\ndiamond in lustre, hardness, and value. Its proper colour is pure blue;\nin the choicest specimens it is of the deepest azure; and in others\nvaries into paleness, in shades of all degrees between that and a pure\ncrystal brightness, without the least tinge of colour, but with a lustre\nmuch superior to the crystal. The oriental sapphire is the most\nbeautiful and valuable. It is transparent, of a fine sky colour,\nsometimes variegated with veins of a white sparry substance, and\ndistinct separate spots of a gold colour. Whence it is that the prophets\ndescribe the throne of God like unto sapphire, Ezek. i, 26; x, 1.\nIsaiah, liv, 11, 12, prophesying the future grandeur of Jerusalem, says,\n\n    \u201cBehold, I lay thy stones in cement of vermilion,\n    And thy foundations with sapphires:\n    And I will make thy battlements of rubies,\n    And thy gates of carbuncles;\n    And the whole circuit of thy walls shall be of precious stones.\u201d\n\n\u201cThese seem,\u201d says Bishop Lowth, \u201cto be general images to express\nbeauty, magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the\nideas of the eastern nations; and to have never been intended to be\nstrictly scrutinized, or minutely and particularly explained, as if they\nhad each of them some precise moral or spiritual meaning.\u201d Tobit, xiii,\n16, 17, in his prophecy of the final restoration of Israel, describes\nthe New Jerusalem in the same oriental manner: \u201cFor Jerusalem shall be\nbuilt up with sapphires, and emeralds, and precious stones; thy walls,\nand towers, and battlements, with pure gold. And the streets of\nJerusalem shall be paved with the beryl and carbuncle, and with stones\nof Ophir,\u201d Rev. xxi, 18\u201321.\n\nSARAH, the wife of Abraham, and his sister, as he himself informs us, by\nthe same father, but not the same mother, Gen. xx, 12. See ABRAHAM.\n\nSARDIS, a city of Asia Minor, and formerly the capital of Cr\u0153sus,\nking of the Lydians. The church of Sardis was one of the seven churches\nof Asia, to which the writer of the Apocalypse was directed to send an\nepistle, Rev. iii, 1\u20133.\n\nSARDIUS, \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd, so called from its redness, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10;\nEzek. xxviii, 13; \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Rev. xxi, 20; a precious stone of a blood-red\ncolour. It took its Greek name from Sardis, where the best of them were\nfound.\n\nSARDONYX, \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03be, Rev. xxi, 20. A precious stone which seems to have\nits name from its resemblance partly to the sardius and partly to the\nonyx. It is generally tinged with black and blood colour, which are\ndistinguished from each other by circles or rows, so distinct that they\nappear to be the effect of art.\n\nSATAN signifies an adversary or enemy, and is commonly applied in the\nScriptures to the devil, or the chief of the fallen angels. By\ncollecting the passages where Satan, or the devil, is mentioned, it may\nbe concluded, that he fell from heaven with his company; that God cast\nhim down from thence for the punishment of his pride; that by his envy\nand malice, sin, death, and all other evils came into the world; that,\nby the permission of God he exercises a sort of government in the world\nover subordinate apostate angels like himself; that God makes use of him\nto prove good men, and chastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in\nthe mouth of false prophets and seducers; that it is he, or his agents,\nthat torment or possess men, and inspire them with evil designs, as when\nhe suggested to David, the numbering of the people, to Judas to betray\nhis Lord and Master, and to Ananias and Sapphira to conceal the price of\ntheir field; that he is full of rage like a roaring lion, and of\nsubtlety like a serpent, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve\nus in guilt and wickedness; that his power and malice are restrained\nwithin certain limits, and controlled by the will of God; in a word,\nthat he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost endeavours to\nrob God of his glory, and men of their souls. See DEVIL and DEMONIACS.\n\nSAUL, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, the first king of the\nIsraelites, 1 Sam. ix, 1, 2, &c. Saul\u2019s fruitless journey when seeking\nhis father\u2019s asses; (See _Ass_;) his meeting the Prophet Samuel; the\nparticulars foretold to him, with his being anointed as king, about A.\nM. 2909; his prophesying along with the young prophets; his appointment\nby the lot; his modesty in hiding himself; his first victory over the\nAmmonites; his rash sacrifice in the absence of Samuel; his equally rash\ncurse; his victories over the Philistines and Amalekites; his sparing of\nKing Agag with the judgment denounced against him for it; his jealousy\nand persecution of David; his barbarous massacre of the priests and\npeople of Nob; his repeated confessions of his injustice to David, &c,\nare recorded in 1 Sam. ix-xxxi. He reigned forty years, but exhibited to\nposterity a melancholy example of a monarch, elevated to the summit of\nworldly grandeur, who, having cast off the fear of God, gradually became\nthe slave of jealousy, duplicity, treachery, and the most malignant and\ndiabolical tempers. His behaviour toward David shows him to have been\ndestitute of every generous and noble sentiment that can dignify human\nnature; and it is not an easy task to speak with any moderation of the\natrocity and baseness which uniformly mark it. His character is that of\na wicked man, \u201cwaxing worse and worse;\u201d but while we are shocked at its\ndeformity, it should be our study to profit by it, which we can only do\nby using it as a beacon to warn us, \u201clest we also be hardened through\nthe deceitfulness of sin.\u201d\n\nSCARLET, \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05ea, Gen. xxxviii, 28; Exod. xxv, 4. This tincture or colour\nexpressed by a word which signifies worm colour, was produced from a\nworm or insect which grew in a coccus, or excrescence of a shrub of the\nilex kind, which Pliny calls \u201ccoccus scolecius,\u201d the wormy berry, and\nDioscorides terms \u201ca small dry twig, to which the grains adhere like\nlentiles:\u201d but these grains, as a great author observes on Solinus, \u201care\nwithin full of little worms or maggots, whose juice is remarkable for\ndying scarlet, and making that famous colour which we admire, and with\nwhich the ancients were enraptured.\u201d We retain the name in the\ncochineal, from the opuntia of America; but we improperly call a mineral\ncolour \u201cvermilion,\u201d which is derived from _vermiculus_, a little worm.\nThe shrub on which the cochineal insect is found is sometimes called the\n\u201ckermez oak,\u201d from _kermez_, the Arabic word both for the worm and the\ncolour; whence \u201ccarmasinus,\u201d the French \u201ccramoisi,\u201d and the English\n\u201ccrimson.\u201d\n\nSCEPTRE, a word derived from the Greek, properly signifies, a rod of\ncommand, a staff of authority, which is supposed to be in the hands of\nkings, governors of a province, or of the chief of a people, Gen. xlix,\n10; Numb. xxiv, 17; Isa. xiv, 5. The sceptre is put for the rod of\ncorrection, and for the sovereign authority that punishes and humbles,\nPsalm ii, 9; Prov. xxii, 15. The term sceptre is frequently used for a\ntribe, probably because the prince of each tribe carried a sceptre, or a\nwand of command, to show his dignity.\n\nSCEVA, a Jew, and chief of the priests, Acts xix, 14, 15, 16. He was\nprobably a person of authority in the synagogue at Ephesus, and had\nseven sons.\n\nSCHISM, from \u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, a rent or fissure. In its general meaning, it\nsignifies division or separation; and in particular, on account of\nreligion. Schism, is properly a division among those who stand in one\nconnection or fellowship; but when the difference is carried so far that\nthe parties concerned entirely break off all communion and intercourse\none with another, and form distinct connections for obtaining the\ngeneral ends of that religious fellowship which they once cultivated; it\nis undeniable there is something different from the schism spoken of in\nthe New Testament. This is a separation from the body. Dr. Campbell\nshows that the word schism in Scripture does not usually signify an open\nseparation, but that men may be guilty of schism by such an alienation\nof affection from their brethren as violates the internal union in the\nhearts of Christians, though there be no error in doctrine, nor\nseparation from communion.\n\nSCORPION, \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1, Deut. viii, 15; 1 Kings xii, 11, 14; 2 Chron. x, 11, 14;\nEzek. ii, 6, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03d6\u03af\u03bf\u03c2, Luke x, 19; xi, 12; Rev. ix, 3; Ecclus. xxvi, 7;\nxxxix, 30. Parkhurst derives the name from \u05e2\u05e7, to _press_, _squeeze_,\nand \u05e8\u05d1, _much_, _greatly_, or \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1, _near_, _close_. Calmet remarks, that\n\u201cit fixes so violently on such persons as it seizes upon, that it cannot\nbe plucked off without difficulty;\u201d and Martinius declares: _Habent\nscorpii forfices seu furcas tanquam brachia, quibus retinent quod\napprehendunt, postquam caud\u00e6 aculeo punxerunt_: \u201cScorpions have pincers\nor nippers, with which they keep hold of what they seize after they have\nwounded it with their sting.\u201d\n\nThe scorpion, _el-akerb_, is generally two inches in length, and\nresembles so much the lobster in form, that the latter is called by the\nArabs _akerb d\u2019elbahar_, the \u201csea scorpion.\u201d It has several joints or\ndivisions in its tail, which are supposed to be indicative of its age;\nthus, if it have five, it is considered to be five years old. The poison\nof this animal is in its tail, at the end of which is a small, curved,\nsharp-pointed sting, similar to the prickle of a buckthorn tree; the\ncurve being downward, it turns its tail upward when it strikes a blow.\nThe scorpion delights in stony places and in old ruins. Some are of a\nyellow colour, others brown, and some black. The yellow possess the\nstrongest poison, but the venom of each affects the part wounded, with\nfrigidity, which takes place soon after the sting has been inflicted.\nDioscorides thus describes the effect produced: \u201cWhere the scorpion has\nstung, the place becomes inflamed and hardened; it reddens by tension,\nand is painful by intervals, being now chilly, now burning. The pain\nsoon rises high, and rages, sometimes more, sometimes less. A sweating\nsucceeds, attended by a shivering and trembling; the extremities of the\nbody become cold; the groin swells; the hair stands on end; the visage\nbecomes pale; and the skin feels, throughout it, the sensation of\nperpetual prickling, as if by needles.\u201d This description strikingly\nillustrates Revelation ix, 3\u20135, 10, in its mention of \u201cthe torment of a\nscorpion, when he striketh a man.\u201d\n\nSome writers consider the scorpion as a species of serpent, because the\npoison of it is equally powerful: so the sacred writers commonly join\nthe scorpion and serpent together in their descriptions. Thus Moses, in\nhis farewell address to Israel, Deut. viii, 15, reminds them, that God\n\u201cled them through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery\nserpents and scorpions.\u201d We find them again united in the commission of\nour Lord to his disciples, Luke x, 19, \u201cI give you power to tread upon\nserpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy;\u201d and in his\ndirections concerning the duty of prayer, Luke xi, 11, 12, \u201cIf a son\nshall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a\nstone? or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?\u201d\n\nThe scorpion is contrasted with an _egg_, on account of the oval shape\nof its body. The body of the scorpion, says Lamy, is very like an egg,\nas its head can scarcely be distinguished; especially if it be a\nscorpion of the white kind, which is the first species mentioned by\n\u00c6lian, Avicenna, and others. Bochart has produced testimonies to prove\nthat the scorpions in Judea were about the bigness of an egg. So the\nsimilitude is preserved between the thing asked and given. The Greeks\nhave a proverb, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03d6\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, _instead of a perch_, or fish, _a\nscorpion_.\n\nSCOURGE or WHIP. This punishment was very common among the Jews, Deut.\nxxv, 1\u20133. There were two ways of giving the lash; one with thongs, or\nwhips, made of ropes\u2019 ends, or straps of leather; the other with rods,\nor twigs. St. Paul informs us, that at five different times he received\nthirty-nine stripes from the Jews, 2 Cor. xi, 24, namely, in their\nsynagogues, and before their courts of judgment. For, according to the\nlaw, punishment by stripes was restricted to forty at one beating, Deut.\nxxv, 3. But the whip, with which these stripes were given, consisting of\nthree separate cords, and each stroke being accounted as three stripes,\nthirteen strokes made thirty-nine stripes, beyond which they never went.\nHe adds, that he had been thrice beaten with rods, namely, by the Roman\nlictors, or beadles, at the command of the superior magistrates.\n\nSCRIBES. The scribes are mentioned very early in the sacred history, and\nmany authors suppose that they were of two descriptions, the one\necclesiastical, the other civil. It is said, \u201cOut of Zebulon come they\nthat handle the pen of the writer,\u201d Judges v, 14; and the rabbins state,\nthat the scribes were chiefly of the tribe of Simeon; but it is thought\nthat only those of the tribe of Levi were allowed to transcribe the Holy\nScriptures. These scribes are very frequently called wise men, and\ncounsellors; and those of them who were remarkable for writing well were\nheld in great esteem. In the reign of David, Seraiah, 2 Sam. viii, 17,\nin the reign of Hezekiah, Shebna, 2 Kings xviii, 18, and in the reign of\nJosiah, Shaphan, 2 Kings xxii, 3, are called scribes, and are ranked\nwith the chief officers of the kingdom; and Elishama the scribe, Jer.\nxxxvi, 12, in the reign of Jehoiakim, is mentioned among the princes. We\nread also of the \u201cprincipal scribe of the host,\u201d or army, Jer. lii, 25;\nand it is probable that there were scribes in other departments of the\nstate. Previous to the Babylonian captivity, the word scribe seems to\nhave been applied to any person who was concerned in writing, in the\nsame manner as the word secretary is with us. The civil scribes are not\nmentioned in the New Testament.\n\nIt appears that the office of the ecclesiastical scribes, if this\ndistinction be allowed, was originally confined to writing copies of the\nlaw, as their name imports; but the knowledge, thus necessarily\nacquired, soon led them to become instructers of the people in the\nwritten law, which, it is believed, they publicly read. Baruch was an\namanuensis or scribe to Jeremiah; and Ezra is called \u201ca ready scribe in\nthe law of Moses, having prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord,\nand to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments,\u201d Ezra vii,\n6, 10; but there is no mention of the scribes being formed into a\ndistinct body of men till after the cessation of prophecy. When,\nhowever, there were no inspired teachers in Israel, no divine oracle in\nthe temple, the scribes presumed to interpret, expound, and comment upon\nthe law and the prophets in the schools and in the synagogues. Hence\narose those numberless glosses, and interpretations, and opinions, which\nso much perplexed and perverted the text instead of explaining it; and\nhence arose that unauthorized maxim, which was the principal source of\nall the Jewish sects, that the oral or traditionary law was of Divine\norigin, as well as the written law of Moses. Ezra had examined the\nvarious traditions concerning the ancient and approved usages of the\nJewish church, which had been in practice before the captivity, and were\nremembered by the chief and most aged of the elders of the people; and\nhe had given to some of these traditionary customs and opinions the\nsanction of his authority. The scribes, therefore, who lived after the\ntime of Simon the Just, in order to give weight to their various\ninterpretations of the law, at first pretended that they also were\nfounded upon tradition, and added them to the opinions which Ezra had\nestablished as authentic; and in process of time it came to be asserted,\nthat when Moses was forty days on Mount Sinai, he received from God two\nlaws, the one in writing, the other oral; that this oral law was\ncommunicated by Moses to Aaron and Joshua, and that it passed unimpaired\nand uncorrupted from generation to generation, by the tradition of the\nelders, or great national council, established in the time of Moses; and\nthat this oral law was to be considered as supplemental and explanatory\nof the written law, which was represented as being in many places\nobscure, scanty, and defective. In some cases they were led to expound\nthe law by the traditions, in direct opposition to its true intent and\nmeaning; and it may be supposed that the intercourse of the Jews with\nthe Greeks, after the death of Alexander, contributed much to increase\nthose vain subtleties with which they had perplexed and burdened the\ndoctrines of religion. During our Saviour\u2019s ministry, the scribes were\nthose who made the law of Moses their particular study, and who were\nemployed in instructing the people. Their reputed skill in the\nScriptures induced Herod, Matt. ii, 4, to consult them concerning the\ntime at which the Messiah was to be born. And our Saviour speaks of them\nas sitting in Moses\u2019s seat, Matt. xxiii, 2, which implies that they\ntaught the law; and he foretold that he should be betrayed unto the\nchief priests and unto the scribes, Matt. xvi, 21, and that they should\nput him to death, which shows that they were men of great power and\nauthority among the Jews. Scribes, doctors of law, and lawyers, were\nonly different names for the same class of persons. Those who in Luke v,\nare called Pharisees and doctors of the law, are soon afterward called\nPharisees and scribes; and he who, in Matt. xxii, 35, is called a\nlawyer, is, in Mark xii, 28, called one of the scribes. They had\nscholars under their care, whom they taught the knowledge of the law,\nand who, in their schools, sat on low stools just beneath their seats;\nwhich explains St. Paul\u2019s expression that he was \u201cbrought up at the feet\nof Gamaliel,\u201d Acts xxii, 3. We find that our Saviour\u2019s manner of\nteaching was contrasted with that of those vain disputers; for it is\nsaid, when he had ended his sermon upon the mount, \u201cthe people were\nastonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority,\nand not as the scribes,\u201d Matt. vii, 29. By the time of our Saviour, the\nscribes had, indeed, in a manner, laid aside the written law, having no\nfarther regard to that than as it agreed with their traditionary\nexpositions of it; and thus, by their additions, corruptions, and\nmisinterpretations, they had made \u201cthe word of God of none effect\nthrough their traditions,\u201d Matt. xv, 6. It may be observed, that this in\na great measure accounts for the extreme blindness of the Jews with\nrespect to their Messiah, whom they had been taught by these\ncommentators upon the prophecies to expect as a temporal prince. Thus,\nwhen our Saviour asserts his divine nature, and appeals to \u201cMoses and\nthe prophets who spake of him, the people sought to slay him,\u201d John v;\nand he expresses no surprise at their intention. But when he converses\nwith Nicodemus, John iii, who appears to have been convinced by his\nmiracles that he was \u201ca teacher sent from God,\u201d when he \u201ccame to Jesus\nby night,\u201d anxious to obtain farther information concerning his nature\nand his doctrine, our Lord, after intimating the necessity of laying\naside all prejudices against the spiritual nature of his kingdom, asks,\n\u201cArt thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?\u201d that is,\nknowest not that Moses and the prophets describe the Messiah as the Son\nof God? and he then proceeds to explain in very clear language the\ndignity of his person and office, and the purpose for which he came into\nthe world, referring to the predictions of the ancient Scriptures. And\nStephen, Acts vii, just before his death, addresses the multitude by an\nappeal to the law and the prophets, and reprobates in the most severe\nterms the teachers who misled the people. Our Lord, when speaking of\n\u201cthem of old time,\u201d classed the \u201cprophets, and wise men, and scribes,\u201d\ntogether, Matt. xxiii, 34; but of the later scribes he uniformly speaks\nwith censure and indignation, and usually joins them with the Pharisees,\nto which sect they in general belonged. St. Paul asks, 1 Cor. i, 20,\n\u201cWhere is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this\nworld?\u201d with evident contempt for such as, \u201cprofessing themselves wise\nabove what was written, became fools.\u201d\n\nSCRIPTURE, a term most commonly used to denote the writings of the Old\nand New Testament, which are sometimes called The Scriptures, sometimes\nthe sacred or holy writings, and sometimes canonical scripture. See\nBIBLE.\n\nSEA. The Hebrews gave the name of sea to all great collections of water,\nto great lakes or pools. Thus the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, or of\nCinnereth, is no other than the lake of Tiberias, or Gennesareth, in\nGalilee. The Dead Sea, the sea of the Wilderness, the sea of the East,\nthe sea of Sodom, the sea of Salt, or the Salt Sea, the sea of\nAsphaltites, or of bitumen, is no other than the lake of Sodom. The\nArabians and orientals in general frequently gave the name of sea to\ngreat rivers, as the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris, and others, which,\nby their magnitude, and by the extent of their overflowings, seemed as\nlittle seas, or great lakes. In Isa. xi, 15, these words particularly\napply to the Nile at the Delta.\n\nSEAL. The ancient Hebrews wore their seals or signets, in rings on their\nfingers, or in bracelets on their arms, as is now the custom in the\neast. Haman sealed the decree of King Ahasuerus against the Jews with\nthe king\u2019s seal, Esther iii, 12. The priests of Bel desired the king to\nseal the door of their temple with his own seal. The spouse in the\nCanticles, viii, 6, wishes that his spouse would wear him as a signet on\nher arm. Pliny observes, that the use of seals or signets was rare at\nthe time of the Trojan war, and that they were under the necessity of\nclosing their letters with several knots. But among the Hebrews they are\nmuch more ancient. Judah left his seal as a pledge with Tamar, Gen.\nxxxviii, 25. Moses says, Deut. xxxii, 34, that God keeps sealed up in\nhis treasuries, under his own seal, the instruments of his vengeance.\nJob says, ix, 7, that he keeps the stars as under his seal, and allows\nthem to appear when he thinks proper. He says also, \u201cMy transgression is\nsealed up in a bag,\u201d Job xiv, 7. When they intended to seal up a letter,\nor a book, they wrapped it round with flax, or thread, then applied the\nwax to it, and afterward the seal. The Lord commanded Isaiah to tie up\nor wrap up the book in which his prophecies were written, and to seal\nthem till the time he should bid him publish them, Isaiah viii, 16, 17.\nHe gives the same command to Daniel, xii, 4. The book that was shown to\nSt. John the evangelist, Rev. v, 1; vi, 1, 2, &c, was sealed with seven\nseals. It was a rare thing to affix such a number of seals; but this\ninsinuated the great importance and secrecy of the matter. In civil\ncontracts they generally made two originals: one continued open, and was\nkept by him for whose interest the contract was made; the other was\nsealed and deposited in some public office.\n\nSECEDERS, a numerous body of Presbyterians in Scotland, who, in the last\ncentury, seceded from the Scotch establishment. They did not, as they\nhave uniformly declared, secede from the principles of the church of\nScotland, as they are represented in her confession of faith,\ncatechisms, longer and shorter, directory for worship, and form of\nPresbyterian government; but only from her present judicatories, that,\nthey suppose, have departed from her true principles. A sermon preached\nby Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, of Stirling, at the opening of the synod of\nPerth and Sterling, in 1732, gave rise to this party. In this discourse,\nfounded on Psalm cxviii, 22, \u201cThe stone which the builders refused,\u201d &c,\nhe boldly testified against what he supposed corruptions in the national\nchurch; for which freedom the synod voted him censurable, and ordered\nhim to be rebuked at their bar. He, and three other ministers, protested\nagainst this sentence, and appealed to the next assembly. The assembly,\nwhich met in May, 1733, approved of the proceedings of the synod, and\nordered Mr. Erskine to be rebuked at their bar. He refused to submit to\nthe rebuke; whence he and his brethren were, by the sentence of the\nassembly, suspended from the ministry. Against this, he and his friends\nprotested; and, being joined by many others, both ministers and elders,\ndeclaring their secession from the national church, they did, in 1736,\nconstitute themselves into an ecclesiastical court, which they called\nthe Associate Presbytery, and published a defence of their proceedings.\nThey admit that the people have a right to choose their own pastors;\nthat the Scriptures are the supreme judge by which all controversies\nmust be determined; and that Jesus Christ is the only Head of his\nchurch, and the only King in Zion.\n\nIn 1745, the seceding ministers were become so numerous, that they were\nerected into three different presbyteries, under one synod. In 1747,\nthrough a difference in civil matters, they were divided into Burghers\nand Anti-Burghers. Of these two classes, the latter were the most rigid\nin their sentiments, and associated, therefore, the least with any other\nbody of Christians. But this difference has been lately healed, and no\nlonger subsists, either in Scotland or America.\n\nSECHEM, SICHEM, SYCHEM, or SHECHEM, called also Sychar in the New\nTestament, afterward Neapolis, and in the present day Nablous, Naplous,\nNapolose, and Naplosa, (for it is thus variously written,) a city of\nSamaria, near the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of Hamor, the\nfather of Shechem, and gave to his son Joseph. Here Joseph\u2019s bones were\nbrought out of Egypt to be interred; and on the same piece of ground was\nthe well called Jacob\u2019s well, at which our Saviour sat down when he had\nthe memorable conversation with the woman of Samaria, John iv, which\ncaused her, and many other inhabitants of Sechem, or Sychar, as it is\nthere called, to receive him as the Messiah. On contemplating this place\nand its vicinity, Dr. E. D. Clarke says, \u201cThe traveller directing his\nfootsteps toward its ancient sepulchres, as everlasting as the rocks in\nwhich they are hewn, is permitted, upon the authority of sacred and\nindisputable record, to contemplate the spot where the remains of\nJoseph, of Eleazer, and of Joshua, were severally deposited. If any\nthing connected with the memory of past ages be calculated to awaken\nlocal enthusiasm, the land around this city is pre\u00ebminently entitled to\nconsideration. The sacred story of events transacted in the field of\nSichem, from our earliest years, is remembered with delight; but with\nthe territory before our eyes where those events took place, and in the\nview of objects existing as they were described above three thousand\nyears ago, the grateful impression kindles into ecstacy. Along the\nvalley, we beheld \u2018a company of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead,\u2019 as in\nthe days of Reuben and Judah, \u2018with their camels bearing spicery, and\nbalm, and myrrh,\u2019 who would gladly have purchased another Joseph of his\nbrethren, and conveyed him as a slave to some Potiphar in Egypt. Upon\nthe hills around flocks and herds were feeding, as of old; nor in the\nsimple garb of the shepherds of Samaria was there any thing repugnant to\nthe notions we may entertain of the appearance presented by the sons of\nJacob.\u201d The celebrated well called Jacob\u2019s well, but which, with the\ninhabitants of Sechem, is known by the name of _Bir Samaria_, or the\n\u201cWell of Samaria,\u201d is situated about half an hour\u2019s walk east of the\ntown.\n\nSEEING. To see, in Scripture, is often used to express the sense of\nvision, knowledge of spiritual things, and even the supernatural\nknowledge of hidden things, of prophecy, of visions, of ecstacies.\nWhence it is that formerly those were called seers who afterward were\ntermed, _nabi_, or prophets; and that prophecies were called visions.\nMoreover, to see, is used for expressing all kinds of sensations. It is\nsaid in Exodus, xx, 18, that the Israelites saw voices, thunder,\nlightning, the sounding of the trumpet, and the whole mountain of Sinai\ncovered with clouds, or smoke. And St. Austin observes, that the verb,\nto see, is applied to all the five natural senses; to see, to hear, to\nsmell, to taste, to touch. \u201cTo see goodness,\u201d is to enjoy it. \u201cTo see\nthe goodness of the Lord,\u201d Psalm xxvii, 13; that is, to enjoy the mercy\nor blessing which God hath promised. \u201cBlessed are the pure in heart, for\nthey shall see God;\u201d that is, they shall have the perfect and immediate\nfruition of the glorious presence of God in heaven; or they shall\nunderstand the mysteries of salvation; they shall perceive the loving\nkindness of God toward them in this life, and shall at length perfectly\nenjoy him in heaven.\n\nSEIR, the Horite, whose dwelling was to the east and south of the Dead\nSea, in the mountains of Seir, Genesis xiv, 6; xxxvi, 20; Deuteronomy\nii, 12; where at first reigned the descendants of Seir the Horite, of\nwhom Moses gives us a list in Genesis xxxvi, 20, 21\u201330; 1 Chron. 38, 39,\n&c. The posterity of Esau afterward were in possession of the mountains\nof Seir, and Esau himself dwelt there when Jacob returned from\nMesopotamia, Gen. xxxiii, 3; xxxiii, 14; xxxvi, 8, 9.\n\nSEIR, MOUNT, a mountainous tract, extending from the southern extremity\nof the Dead Sea, to the gulf of Acaba, or Ezion-Geber. The whole of this\ntract was probably before called Mount Hor, and was inhabited by the\nHorites, the descendants, as it is thought, of Hor, who is no otherwise\nknown, and whose name is now only retained in that part of the plain\nwhere Aaron died. These people were driven out from their country by the\nEdomites, or the children of Esau, who dwelt there in their stead, and\nwere in possession of this region when the Israelites passed by in their\npassage from Egypt to the land of Canaan. The country had, however, been\npreviously overrun, and no doubt very much depopulated, by the invasion\nof Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. At what time the name of Hor was changed\nto that of Seir cannot be ascertained. Mount Seir rises abruptly on its\nwestern side from the valleys of El Ghor and El Araba; presenting an\nimpregnable front to the strong country of the Edomite mountaineers,\nwhich compelled the Israelites, who were unable (if permitted by their\nleader) to force a passage through this mountain barrier, to skirt its\nwestern base, along the great valley of the Ghor and Araba, and so to\n\u201ccompass the land of Edom by the way of the Red Sea,\u201d that is, to\ndescend to its southern extremity at Ezion-Geber, as they could not\npenetrate it higher up. To the southward of this place Burckhardt\nobserved an opening in the mountains, where he supposed the Israelites\nto have passed. This passage brought them into the high plains on the\neast of Mount Seir, which are so much higher than the valley on the\nwest, that the mountainous territory of the Edomites was every where\nmore accessible: a circumstance which perhaps contributed to make them\nmore afraid of the Israelites on this border, whom they had set at\ndefiance on the opposite one. The mean elevation of this chain cannot be\nestimated at less than four thousand feet. In the summer it produces\nmost of the European fruits, namely, apricots, figs, pomegranates,\nolives, apples, and peaches; while in winter deep snows occasionally\nfall, with frosts, to the middle of March. The inhabitants, like those\nof most mountainous regions, are very healthy. Burckhardt says, that\nthere was no part of Syria in which he saw so few invalids: a\ncircumstance which did not escape the observation of the ancients, who\ndenominated it, _Pal\u00e6stina tertia sive salutaris_. [Palestine the third\nor the healthy.]\n\nSELAH. This expression is found in the Psalms seventy-four times, and\nthrice in the Prophet Habakkuk. The interpreters Symmachus and\nTheodotion generally translate _selah_ by _diapsalma_, which signifies\n\u201ca rest\u201d or \u201cpause\u201d in singing. Jerom and Aquila translate it \u201cfor\never.\u201d Some moderns pretend that _selah_ has no signification, and that\nit is only a note of the ancient music, whose use is no longer known;\nand, indeed, _selah_ may be taken away from all the places where it is\nfound without interrupting the sense of the psalm. Calmet says it\nintimates the end, or a pause, and that is its proper signification; but\nas it is not always found at the conclusion of the sense, or of the\npsalm or song, so it is highly probable the ancient musicians put\n_selah_ in the margin of their psalters, to show where a musical pause\nwas to be made, or where the tune ended.\n\nSELEUCIA, a city of Syria, situated upon the Mediterranean, near the\nplace where the Orontes discharges itself into the sea. St. Paul and\nBarnabas were at this place when they embarked for Cyprus, Acts xiii, 4.\nThe same city is mentioned in 1 Mac. xi, 8.\n\nSENNACHERIB, king of Assyria, son and successor of Shalmaneser. He began\nhis reign A. M. 3290, and reigned only four years. Hezekiah, king of\nJudah, having refused to pay him tribute, though he afterward submitted,\nhe invaded Judea with a great army, took several forts, and after\nrepeated, insolent, and blasphemous messages, besieged Jerusalem; but\nhis army being suddenly smitten with a pestilence, which cut off a\nhundred and eighty-five thousand in a single night, he returned to\nNineveh, where he was murdered in the temple of Nisroch by his sons\nAdrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded by his other son,\nEsar-haddon, 2 Kings xix, 7, 13, 37.\n\nSEPHARVAIM, a country of Assyria, 2 Kings xvii, 24, 31. This province\ncannot now be exactly delineated in respect to its situation. The\nScripture speaks of the king of the city of Sepharvaim, which probably\nwas the capital of the people of this name, 2 Kings xix, 13; Isaiah\nxxxvii, 13.\n\nSEPTUAGINT. Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, says Mr.\nHorne, the Alexandrian or Septuagint is the most ancient and valuable,\nand was held in so much esteem both by the Jews as well as by the first\nChristians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches.\nHence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or\nLatin; and from this version all the translations into other languages\nwhich were anciently approved by the Christian church were executed,\nwith the exception of the Syriac; as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic,\nGothic, and old Italic or the Latin version in use before the time of\nJerom; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek\nand most other oriental churches. This version has derived its name\neither from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been\nemployed to make it, or from its having received the approbation of the\nsanhedrim or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or,\nmore correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty, however, has\nprevailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; and while\nsome have strenuously advocated its miraculous and Divine origin, other\neminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must have been\nexecuted by several persons and at different times. According to one\naccount, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, caused this translation to\nbe made for the use of the library which he had founded at Alexandria,\nat the request and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius\nPhalereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose, it is reported,\nthat he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his\ncourt, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then high priest of the\nJews, to request of the latter a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that\nthere might also be sent to him seventy-two persons, six chosen out of\neach of the twelve tribes, who were equally well skilled in the Hebrew\nand Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly shut up in the\nisland of Pharos; where, having agreed in a translation of each period\nafter a mutual conference, Demetrius wrote down their version as they\ndictated it to him; and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the\nwhole was accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed\nto Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly\ndisputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this\npiece is a forgery, it was made at a very early period; for it was in\nexistence in the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish\nAntiquities. The veracity of Aristeas\u2019s narrative was not questioned\nuntil the seventeenth or eighteenth century, at which time, indeed,\nBiblical criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy, Vives, Scaliger,\nVan Dale, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody, were the principal\nwriters in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked the\ngenuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas; and though it was\nably vindicated by Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston, Brett, and\nother modern writers, the majority of the learned of our own time are\nfully agreed in considering it as fictitious. Philo, the Jew, who also\nnotices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the\ncircumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear\nnot less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to\nPalestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not specify; and\nthese, going over to the island of Pharos, there executed so many\ndistinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in\nsense, phrases, and words, as proved them to have been not common\ninterpreters, but men prophetically inspired and divinely directed, who\nhad every word dictated to them by the Spirit of God throughout the\nentire translation. He adds, that an annual festival was celebrated by\nthe Alexandrian Jews in the isle of Pharos, where the version was made,\nuntil his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so\ngreat a benefit.\n\nIt is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in\nfavour of their version of the Pentateuch, equally extravagant with\nthese preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan chronicle of Abul Phatach,\nwhich was compiled in the fourteenth century from ancient and modern\nauthors, both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following\neffect: that Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign,\ndirected his attention to the difference subsisting between the\nSamaritans and Jews concerning the law, the former receiving only the\nPentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by\nthe Jews. In order to determine this difference, he commanded the two\nnations to send deputies to Alexandria. The Jews entrusted this mission\nto Osar, the Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were\nadded. Separate apartments in a particular quarter of Alexandria were\nassigned to each of these strangers, who were prohibited from having any\npersonal intercourse, and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his\nversion. Thus were the law and other Scriptures translated by the\nSamaritans; whose version being most carefully examined, the king was\nconvinced that their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such\nis the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested, however, of numerous\nmarvellous circumstances with which it has been decorated by the\nSamaritans, who are not surpassed, even by the Jews, in their partiality\nfor idle legends.\n\nA fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of the\nSeptuagint has been by the historians who have pretended to record it,\nnecessarily loses all its historical character, which, indeed, we are\nfully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is no doubt\nbut that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, yet it is by\nno means an easy task to discern the truth from what is false: the\nfollowing, however, is the result of our researches concerning this\ncelebrated version:--\n\nIt is probable that the seventy interpreters, as they are called,\nexecuted their version of the Pentateuch during the joint reigns of\nPtolemy Lagus and his son Philadelphus. The pseudo Aristeas, Josephus,\nPhilo, and many other writers whom it were tedious to enumerate, relate\nthat this version was made during the reign of Ptolemy II., or\nPhiladelphus; Joseph Ben Gorion, however, among the rabbins, Theodoret,\nand many other Christian writers, refer its date to the time of Ptolemy\nLagus. Now, these two traditions can be reconciled only by supposing the\nversion to have been performed during the two years when Ptolemy\nPhiladelphus shared the throne with his father; which date coincides\nwith the third and fourth years of the hundred and twenty-third\nOlympiad, that is, about B. C. 286 and 285. Farther, this version was\nneither made by the command of Ptolemy, nor at the request nor under the\nsuperintendence of Demetrius Phalereus; but was voluntarily undertaken\nby the Jews for the use of their countrymen. It is well known, that, at\nthe period above noticed, there was a great number of Jews settled in\nEgypt, particularly at Alexandria: these, being most strictly observant\nof the religious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their\nsanhedrim or grand council composed of seventy or seventy-two members,\nand very numerous synagogues, in which the law was read to them on every\nSabbath; and as the bulk of the common people were no longer acquainted\nwith Biblical Hebrew, the Greek language alone being used in their\nordinary intercourse, it became necessary to translate the Pentateuch\ninto Greek for their use. This is a far more probable account of the\norigin of the Alexandrian version than the traditions above stated. If\nthis translation had been made by public authority, it would\nunquestionably have been performed under the direction of the sanhedrim,\nwho would have examined and perhaps corrected it, if it had been the\nwork of a single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of their\napprobation, and introducing it into their synagogues. In either case\nthe translation would probably be denominated the Septuagint, because\nthe sanhedrim was composed of seventy or seventy-two members. It is even\npossible that the sanhedrim, in order to ascertain the fidelity of the\nwork, might have sent to Palestine for some learned men, of whose\nassistance and advice they would have availed themselves in examining\nthe version. This fact, if it could be proved, for it is offered as a\nmere conjecture, would account for the story of the king of Egypt\u2019s\nsending an embassy to Jerusalem: there is, however, one circumstance\nwhich proves that, in executing this translation, the synagogues were\noriginally in contemplation, namely, that all the ancient writers\nunanimously concur in saying that the Pentateuch was first translated.\nThe five books of Moses, indeed, were the only books read in the\nsynagogues until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria; who\nhaving forbidden that practice in Palestine, the Jews evaded his\ncommands by substituting for the Pentateuch the reading of the prophetic\nbooks. When, afterward, the Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the\nkings of Syria, they read the law and the prophets alternately in the\nsynagogues; and the same custom was adopted by the Hellenistic or\nGr\u00e6cising Jews.\n\nBut, whatever was the real number of the authors of the version, their\nintroduction of Coptic words, such as \u03bf\u1f34\u03c6\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c7\u03b9 \u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u1f70\u03bd, &c, as well as\ntheir rendering of ideas purely Hebrew altogether in the Egyptian\nmanner, clearly prove that they were natives of Egypt. Thus, they\nexpress the creation of the world, not by the proper Greek word \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\nbut by \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, a term employed by the philosophers of Alexandria to\nexpress the origin of the universe. The Hebrew word _thummim_, Exodus\nxxviii, 30, which signifies \u201cperfections,\u201d they render \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, _truth_.\nThe difference of style also indicates the version to have been the work\nnot of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at\ndifferent times. The best qualified and most able among them was the\ntranslator of the Pentateuch, who was evidently master of both Greek and\nHebrew: he has religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in various\ninstances introduced the most suitable and best chosen expressions. From\nthe very close resemblance subsisting between the text of the Greek\nversion and the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Louis De Dieu, Selden,\nWhiston, Hassencamp, and Bauer, are of opinion that the author of the\nAlexandrian version made it from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in\nproportion as these two correspond, the Greek differs from the Hebrew.\nThis opinion is farther supported by the declarations of Origen and\nJerom, that the translator found the venerable name of Jehovah, not in\nthe letters in common use, but in very ancient characters; and also by\nthe fact that those consonants in the Septuagint are frequently\nconfounded together, the shapes of which are similar in the Samaritan,\nbut not in the Hebrew, alphabet. This hypothesis, however ingenious and\nplausible, is by no means determinate; and what militates most against\nit is, the inveterate enmity subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans,\nadded to the constant and unvarying testimony of antiquity, that the\nGreek version of the Pentateuch was executed by Jews. There is no other\nway by which to reconcile these conflicting opinions than by supposing\neither that the manuscript used by the Egyptian Jews approximated toward\nthe letters and text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or that the\ntranslators of the Septuagint made use of manuscripts written in ancient\ncharacters. Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of\nexecution, ranks the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author of\nwhich was well skilled in the two languages: Micha\u00eblis is of opinion\nthat, of all the books of the Septuagint, the style of the Proverbs is\nthe best, the translator having clothed the most ingenious thoughts in\nas neat and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to\nexpress his philosophical maxims.\n\nThe Septuagint version, though originally made for the use of the\nEgyptian Jews, gradually acquired the highest authority among the Jews\nof Palestine, who were acquainted with the Greek language, and\nsubsequently also among Christians: it appears, indeed, that the legend\nabove confuted, of the translators having been divinely inspired, was\ninvented in order that the LXX. might be held in the greater estimation.\nPhilo, the Jew, a native of Egypt, has evidently followed it in his\nallegorical expositions of the Mosaic law; and though Dr. Hody was of\nopinion that Josephus, who was a native of Palestine, corroborated his\nwork on Jewish antiquities from the Hebrew text, yet Salmasius, Bochart,\nBauer, and others, have shown that he has adhered to the Septuagint\nthroughout that work. How extensively this version was in use among the\nJews, appears from the solemn sanction given to it by the inspired\nwriters of the New Testament, who have in very many passages quoted the\nGreek version of the Old Testament. Their example was followed by the\nearlier fathers and doctors of the church, who, with the exception of\nOrigen and Jerom, were unacquainted with Hebrew: notwithstanding their\nzeal for the word of God, they did not exert themselves to learn the\noriginal language of the sacred writings, but acquiesced in the Greek\nrepresentation of them, judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for\nall the purposes of their pious labours. The Greek Scriptures were the\nonly Scriptures known to or valued by the Greeks. This was the text\ncommented on by Chrysostom and Theodoret: it was this which furnished\ntopics to Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Basil. From this fountain the\nstream was derived to the Latin church, first by the Italic or Vulgate\ntranslation of the Scriptures, which was made from the Septuagint, and\nnot from the Hebrew; and, secondly, by the study of the Greek fathers.\nIt was by this borrowed light that the Latin fathers illumined the\nwestern hemisphere; and, when the age of Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine,\nand Gregory, successively passed away, this was the light put into the\nhands of the next dynasty of theologists, the schoolmen, who carried on\nthe work of theological disquisition by the aid of this luminary, and\nnone other. So that, either in Greek or in Latin, it was still the\nSeptuagint Scriptures that were read, explained, and quoted as\nauthority, for a period of fifteen hundred years.\n\nSEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY is that which is formed from the dates and periods\nof time mentioned in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. It\nreckons one thousand five hundred years more from the creation to\nAbraham than the Hebrew Bible. Dr. Kennicott, in the dissertation\nprefixed to his Hebrew Bible, has shown it to be very probable, that the\nchronology of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the period just mentioned,\nwas corrupted by the Jews between A. D. 175 and 200; and that the\nchronology of the Septuagint is more agreeable to truth. It is a fact,\nthat, during the second and third centuries, the Hebrew Scriptures were\nalmost entirely in the hands of the Jews, while the Septuagint was\nconfined to the Christians. The Jews had, therefore, a very favourable\nopportunity for this corruption. The following is the reason which is\ngiven by the oriental writers: It being a very ancient tradition that\nMessiah was to come in the sixth chiliad, because he was to come in the\nlast days, founded on a mystical application of the six days of the\ncreation, the contrivance was to shorten the age of the world from about\n5500 to 3760; and thence to prove that Jesus could not be the Messiah.\nDr. Kennicott adds, that some Hebrew copies, having the larger\nchronology, were extant till the time of Eusebius, and some till the\nyear 700.\n\nSEPULCHRES. The descriptions of the eastern sepulchres, by travellers,\nserve to explain several passages of Scripture. Shaw says, \u201cIf we except\na few persons who are buried within the precincts of some sanctuary, the\nrest are carried out at a small distance from their cities and villages,\nwhere a great extent of ground is allotted for that purpose. Each family\nhas a particular portion of it, walled in like a garden, where the bones\nof their ancestors have remained undisturbed for many generations: for\nin these inclosures the graves are all distinct and separate, having\neach of them a stone placed upright, both at the head and feet,\ninscribed with the name of the person who lieth there interred, while\nthe intermediate space is either planted with flowers, bordered round\nwith stone, or paved all over with tiles. The graves of the principal\ncitizens are farther distinguished by some square chambers or cupolas\nthat are built over them, Mark v, 3. Now, as all these different sorts\nof tombs and sepulchres, with the very walls likewise of the inclosures,\nare constantly kept clean, white-washed, and beautified, they continue\nto this day to be an excellent comment upon that expression of our\nSaviour, where he mentions the garnishing of the sepulchres, Matt.\nxxiii, 29; and again, verse 27, where he compares the scribes,\nPharisees, and hypocrites, to whited sepulchres.\u201d With respect to the\ndemoniacs who are said by St. Matthew to come out of the tombs, Light\nobserves, \u201cI trod the ground celebrated for the miracle of the unclean\nspirit, driven by our Saviour among the swine. The tombs still exist in\nthe form of caverns, on the sides of the hills that rise from the shore\nof the lake; and from their wild appearance may well be considered the\nhabitation of men exceeding fierce, possessed by a devil; they extend at\na distance for more than a mile from the present town.\u201d In the account\nwe have of the resurrection of Lazarus, when Mary went suddenly out to\nmeet Jesus, the Jews supposed that she was gone to the grave, \u201cto weep\nthere.\u201d The following extract from Buckingham illustrates this: \u201cNot far\nfrom the spot at which we halted to enjoy this enchanting view, was an\nextensive cemetry, at which we noticed the custom so prevalent among\neastern nations of visiting the tombs of their deceased friends. These\nwere formed with great care, and finished with extraordinary neatness:\nand at the foot of each grave was enclosed a small earthen vessel, in\nwhich was planted a sprig of myrtle, regularly watered every day by the\nmourning friend who visited it. Throughout the whole of this extensive\nplace of burial we did not observe a single grave to which this token of\nrespect and sorrow was not attached; and, scattered among the tombs, in\ndifferent quarters of the cemetry, we saw from twenty to thirty parties\nof females, sitting near the honoured remains of some recently lost and\ndeeply regretted relative or friend, and either watering their myrtle\nplants, or strewing flowers over the green turf that closed upon their\nheads.\u201d See BURIAL.\n\nSERPENT. In Egypt and other oriental countries, a serpent was the common\nsymbol of a powerful monarch; it was embroidered on the robes of\nprinces, and blazoned on their diadem, to signify their absolute power\nand invincible might, and that, as the wound inflicted by the basilisk\nis incurable, so the fatal effects of their displeasure were neither to\nbe avoided nor endured. These are the allusions involved in the address\nof the prophet, to the irreconcilable enemies of his nation: \u201cRejoice\nnot thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is\nbroken; for out of the serpent\u2019s roots shall come forth a cockatrice,\nand his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent,\u201d Isaiah xiv, 29. Uzziah,\nthe king of Judah, had subdued the Philistines; but taking advantage of\nthe weak reign of Ahaz, they again invaded the kingdom of Judea, and\nreduced some cities in the southern part of the country under their\ndominion. On the death of Ahaz, Isaiah delivers this prophecy,\nthreatening them with a more severe chastisement from the hand of\nHezekiah, the grandson of Uzziah, by whose victorious arms they had been\nreduced to sue for peace; which he accomplished, when \u201che smote the\nPhilistines, even unto Gaza and the borders thereof,\u201d 2 Kings xviii, 8.\nUzziah, therefore, must be meant by the rod that smote them, and by the\nserpent from whom should spring the fiery flying serpent, that is,\nHezekiah, a much more terrible enemy than even Uzziah had been. But the\nsymbol of regal power which the oriental kings preferred to all others,\nwas the basilisk. This fact is attested by its Arabian name _melecha_,\nfrom the Hebrew verb _malach_, \u201cto reign;\u201d from its Greek name\n\u03d0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, and its Latin name _regulus_: all of which, it is asserted,\nreferred to the conspicuous place it occupied among the regal ornaments\nof the east. The basilisk is of a reddish colour, and its head is\ndecorated with a crest in the form of a crown; it is not entirely\nprostrate, like other serpents, but moves along with its head and half\nthe body erect; the other parts sweep the ground behind,\n\n             And wind its spacious back in rolling spires.\n\nAll the other species of serpents are said to acknowledge the\nsuperiority of the real or the fabled basilisk, by flying from its\npresence, and hiding themselves in the dust. It is also supposed to live\nlonger than any other serpent; the ancient Heathens therefore pronounced\nit immortal, and placed it in the number of their deities; and because\nit had the dangerous power, in general belief, of killing with its\npestiferous breath the strongest animals, it seemed to then invested\nwith the power of life and death. It became, therefore, the favourite\nsymbol of kings; and was employed by the prophet, to symbolize the great\nand good Hezekiah, with strict propriety.\n\n2. The cerastes, or horned snake. The only allusion to this species of\nserpent in the sacred volume occurs in the valedictory predictions of\nJacob, where he describes the character and actions of Dan and his\nposterity: \u201cDan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder, \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e4\u05d5\u05df, in the\npath, that biteth the horse\u2019s heels, so that his rider shall fall\nbackward,\u201d Gen. xlix, 17. It is indisputably clear, that the patriarch\nintended some kind of serpent; for the circumstances will not apply to a\nfreebooter watching for his prey. It only remains to investigate the\nspecies to which it belongs. The principal care of the Jewish writers is\nto ascertain the etymology of the name, about which their sentiments are\nmuch divided. The Arabian authors quoted by Bochart inform us, that the\n_sephiphon_ is a most pernicious reptile, and very dangerous to man. It\nis of a sandy colour, variegated with black and white spots. The\nparticulars in the character of Dan, however, agree better with the\ncerastes, or horned snake, than with any other species of serpent. It\nlies in wait for passengers in the sand, or in the rut of the wheels on\nthe highway. From its lurking place it treacherously bites the horse\u2019s\nheels, so that the rider falls backward, in consequence of the animal\u2019s\nhinder legs becoming almost immediately torpid by the dreadful activity\nof the poison. The cerastes is equally formidable to man and the lower\nanimals; and the more dangerous, because it is not easy to distinguish\nhim from the sand in which he lies; and he never spares the helpless\ntraveller who unwarily comes within his reach. Like the cerastes, Dan\nwas to excel in cunning and artifice, to prevail against his enemies\nrather by his policy in the cabinet than by his valour in the field.\n\n3. The seraph, or fiery flying serpent, to a Biblical student, is one of\nthe most interesting creatures that has yet been mentioned. It bears the\nname of an order among the hosts of heaven, whom Isaiah beheld in\nvision, placed above the throne of Jehovah in the temple; the brazen\nfigure of this serpent is supposed to be a type of our blessed Redeemer,\nwho was for our salvation lifted up upon the cross, as the serpent was\nelevated in the camp of Israel, for the preservation of that people. It\nis the only species of serpent which the almighty Creator has provided\nwith wings, by means of which, instead of creeping or leaping, it rises\nfrom the ground, and leaning upon the extremity of its tail, moves with\ngreat velocity. It is a native of Egypt, and the deserts of Arabia; and\nreceives its name from the Hebrew verb _seraph_, which signifies to\nburn, in allusion to the violent inflammation which its poison produces,\nor rather to its fiery colour, which the brazen serpent was intended to\nrepresent. Bochart is of opinion, that the seraph is the same as the\nhydrus, or, as Cicero calls it, the serpent of the waters. For, in the\nbook of Isaiah, the land of Egypt is called the region from whence come\nthe viper and flying seraph, or burning serpent. \u00c6lian says, they come\nfrom the deserts of Libya and Arabia, to inhabit the streams of the\nNile; and that they have the form of the hydrus.\n\nThe existence of winged serpents is attested by many writers of modern\ntimes. A kind of snakes were discovered among the Pyrenees, from whose\nsides proceeded cartilages in the form of wings; and Scaliger mentions a\npeasant who killed a serpent of the same species which attacked him, and\npresented it to the king of France. Le Blanc, as quoted by Bochart,\nsays, at the head of lake Chiamay are extensive woods and vast marshes,\nwhich it is very dangerous to approach, because they are infested with\nvery large serpents, which, raised from the ground on wings resembling\nthose of bats, and leaning on the extremity of their tails, move with\ngreat rapidity. They exist, it is reported, about these places in so\ngreat numbers, that they have almost laid waste the neighbouring\nprovince. And, in the same work, Le Blanc affirms that he had seen some\nof them of immense size, which, when hungry, rushed impetuously on sheep\nand other tame animals. But the original term \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05e3 does not always\nsignify flying with wings; it often expresses vibration, swinging\nbackward and forward, a tremulous motion, a fluttering; and this is\nprecisely the motion of a serpent, when he springs from one tree to\nanother. Niebuhr mentions a sort of serpent at Bassorah, which they call\n_heie thiare_. \u201cThey commonly keep upon the date trees; and as it would\nbe laborious for them to come down from a very high tree, in order to\nascend another, they twist themselves by the tail to a branch of the\nformer, which, making a spring by the motion they give it, throws them\nto the branches of the second. Hence it is that the modern Arabs call\nthem flying serpents, _heie thiare_. Admiral Anson also speaks of the\nflying serpents that he met with at the island of Quibo, but which were\nwithout wings.\u201d From this account it may be inferred, that the flying\nserpent mentioned in the prophet was of that species of serpents which,\nfrom their swift darting motion, the Greeks call _aconitias_, and the\nRomans, _jaculus_. The original phrase will bear another interpretation,\nwhich, perhaps, approaches still nearer the truth. The verb \u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\nsometimes means to sparkle, to emit coruscations of light. In this\nsense, the noun \u05ea\u05e2\u05e4\u05d4 frequently occurs in the sacred volume; thus Zophar\nsays: \u201cThe coruscation, \u05ea\u05e2\u05e4\u05d4, shall be as the morning.\u201d The word in the\nverse under consideration may therefore refer to the ruddy colour of\nthat serpent, and express the sparkling of the blazing sunbeams upon its\nscales, which are extremely brilliant.\n\n4. The dragon. In Hebrew, the word \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df signifies either a dragon or a\nwhale. As the name of a serpent, it frequently denotes one of any\nspecies; as when the rod of Moses is said to have been turned into a\nserpent, \u05dc\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df. But, in its more strict and appropriate application, it\nis the proper name of the dragon, which differs from the serpent chiefly\nin its size. \u201cThree kinds of dragons were formerly distinguished in\nIndia. 1. Those of the hills and mountains. 2. Those of the valleys and\ncaves. 3. Those of the fens and marshes. The first is the largest, and\ncovered with scales resplendent as burnished gold. They have a kind of\nbeard hanging from their lower jaw, their aspect is frightful, their cry\nloud and shrill, their crest bright yellow, and they have a protuberance\non their heads, as the colour of a burning coal. Those of the flat\ncountry are of a silver colour, and frequent rivers, to which the former\nnever come. Those of the marshes are black, slow, and have no crest.\nTheir bite is not venomous, though the creatures be dreadful.\u201d This\ndescription agrees in every particular with the boa, which is justly\nconsidered as the proper dragon. But so great is the inconsistency of\nthe human mind, that the creature which is now an object of universal\ndislike was, in early times, honoured with religious worship by every\nnation of the earth. Rites were devised and temples built to its honour;\nand priests were appointed to conduct the ceremonies. These miserable\nidolaters appeared before the altars of their contemptible deity in\ngorgeous vestments, their heads adorned with serpents, or with the\nfigures of serpents embroidered on their tiaras, when the creatures\nthemselves were not to be had; and in their frantic exclamations cried\nout, in evident allusion to the triumph which the old serpent obtained\nover our first mother, Eva, Eva. So completely was Satan permitted to\ninsult our fallen race, that the serpent, his chosen agent in\naccomplishing our ruin, was actually raised to the first place among the\ndeities of the Heathen world, and reverenced by the most solemn acts of\nworship. The figure of the serpent adorned the portals of the proudest\ntemples in the east.\n\nThe serpent was a very common symbol of the sun; and he is represented\nbiting his tail, and with his body formed into a circle, in order to\nindicate the ordinary course of this luminary; and under this form it\nwas an emblem of time and eternity. The serpent was also the symbol of\nmedicine, and of the gods which presided over it, as of Apollo and\n\u00c6sculapius. In most of the ancient rites we find some allusion to the\nserpent, under the several titles of Ob, Ops, Python, &c. This idolatry\nis alluded to by Moses, Lev. xx, 27. The woman of Endor, who had a\nfamiliar spirit, is called Oub, or Ob, and it is interpreted Pythonissa:\nthe place where she resided, says the learned Mr. Bryant, seems to have\nbeen named from the worship then instituted; for Endor is compounded of\nEn-ador, and signifies _fons pithonis_, the \u201cfountain of light,\u201d the\noracle of the god Ador; which oracle was probably founded by the\nCanaanites, and had never been totally suppressed. His pillar was also\ncalled Abbadir, or Abadir, compounded of _ab_ and _adir_, and meaning\nthe serpent deity Addir, the same as Adorus. In the orgies of Bacchus,\nthe persons who partook of the ceremony, used to carry serpents in their\nhands, and with horrid screams call upon Eva! Eva! Eva being, according\nto the writer just mentioned, the same as epha, or opha, which the\nGreeks rendered _ophis_, and by it denoted a serpent, and containing no\nallusion to Eve, as above conjectured. These ceremonies, and this\nsymbolic worship, began among the magi, who were the sons of Chus; and\nby them they were propagated in various parts. Wherever the Ammonians\nfounded any places of worship, and introduced their rites, there was\ngenerally some story of a serpent. There was a legend about a serpent at\nColchis, at Thebes, and at Delphi; and likewise in other places. The\nGreeks called Apollo himself Python, which is the same as Oupis, Opis,\nor Oub. In Egypt there was a serpent named Thermuthis, which was looked\nupon as very sacred; and the natives are said to have made use of it as\na royal tiara, with which they ornamented the statues of Isis. The kings\nof Egypt wore high bonnets, terminating in a round ball, and surrounded\nwith figures of asps; and the priests likewise had the representation of\nserpents upon their bonnets. Abadon, or Abaddon, mentioned in the\nRevelation, ix, 11, is supposed by Mr. Bryant to have been the name of\nthe Ophite god, with whose worship the world had been so long infected.\nThis worship began among the people of Chaldea, who built the city of\nOphis upon the Tigris, and were greatly addicted to divination, and to\nthe worship of the serpent. From Chaldea the worship passed into Egypt,\nwhere the serpent deity was called Canoph, Can-eph, and C\u2019neph; it also\nhad the name of Ob, or Oub, and was the same as the Basiliscus, or royal\nserpent, the same as the Thermuthis, and made use of by way of ornament\nto the statues of their gods. The chief deity of Egypt is said to have\nbeen Vulcan, who was styled Opas; he was the same as Osiris, the sun,\nand hence was often called Ob-el, or Pytho, _sol_; and there were\npillars sacred to him, with curious hieroglyphical inscriptions bearing\nthe same name, whence among the Greeks, who copied from the Egyptians,\nevery thing gradually tapering to a point was styled _obelos_, or\n_obeliscus_. As the worship of the serpent began among the sons of Chus,\nMr. Bryant conjectures that from thence they were denominated Ethiopians\nand Aithiopians, from Ath-ope, or Ath-opes, the god whom they\nworshipped, and not from their complexion: the Ethiopes brought these\nrites into Greece, and called the island where they first established\nthem, Ellopia, _Solis Serpentis insula_, the same with Eub\u0153a, or\nOubaia, that is, the Serpent Island. The same learned writer discovers\ntraces of the serpent worship among the Hyperboreans, at Rhodes, named\nOphiusa, in Phrygia, and upon the Hellespont, in the island Cyprus, in\nCrete, among the Athenians, in the name of Cecrops, among the natives of\nThebes in B\u0153otia, among the Laced\u00e6monians, in Italy, in Syria, &c,\nand in the names of many places, as well as the people where the Ophites\nsettled. One of the most early heresies introduced into the Christian\nchurch was that of the Ophit\u00e6, who introduced serpents emblematically\namong their rites. This is seen in many of the medals, the relics of\nGnosticism which are still preserved.\n\nThe form assumed by the tempter when he seduced our first parents, has\nbeen handed down in the traditions of most ancient nations; and, though\nanimals of the serpent tribe were very generally worshipped by the\nPagans, as symbols of the Agathodemon; they were likewise viewed as\ntypes or figures of the evil principle. 1. One of the most remarkable\naccounts of the primeval tempter under the shape of a serpent occurs in\nthe Zend-Avesta of the ancient Persians. 2. To the dracontian Ahriman of\nthe Persians, the malignant serpent caliya of Hindoo theology appears to\nbe very closely allied. He is represented, at least, as the decided\nenemy of the mediatorial god; whom he persecutes with the utmost\nvirulence, though he is finally vanquished by his celestial adversary.\n3. The serpent typhon of the Egyptians, who is sometimes identified with\nthe ocean, because the deluge was esteemed the work of the evil\nprinciple; and the serpent python of the Greeks, who is evidently the\nsame as the monster typhon; appear to have similarly originated, in the\nfirst instance, from some remembrance of the form which Satan assumed\nwhen in paradise. Perhaps also the notion, that python was oracular,--a\nnotion which caused the so frequent use of serpents in the rites of\ndivination, may have sprung from a recollection of the vocal responses\nwhich the tempter gave to Eve under the borrowed figure of that reptile.\n4. We may still ascribe to the same source that rebellious serpent whose\ntreason seems to have been so well remembered among the inhabitants of\nSyria. Pherecydes, a native of that country, bestows upon him the Greek\nname of _ophioneus_, or the \u201cserpent god;\u201d which, in fact, is a mere\ntranslation of the Syriac or Chaldaic _nachash_. He represents him as\nbeing the prince of those evil spirits who contended with the supreme\ngod Cronus, and who in consequence were ejected from heaven. Their\nhappiness being thus justly forfeited, they were henceforth plunged in\nthe depths of Tartarus, hateful and mutually hating each other. From\nSyria and the east the legend passed into Greece, mingled, however, with\nallusions to the deluge. 5. The same evil being, in the same form,\nappears again in the mythology of the Goths or Scythians. We are told by\nthe ancient Scalds, that the bad principle, whom they denominate _loke_,\nunites great personal beauty with a malignant and inconstant nature: and\nhe is described as surpassing all creatures in the depth of his cunning\nand the artfulness of his perfidy. Here the pristine glory and majesty\nof Satan, before the lineaments of celestial beauty were defaced by his\nrebellious apostasy, seem not obscurely to be alluded to; while the\ncraft and malevolence, which mark his character as a fallen angel, are\ndepicted with sufficient accuracy.\n\nThe most remarkable corroboration, however, of the Mosaic history is to\nbe found in those fables which involve the mythological serpent, and in\nthe worship which was so generally offered to him throughout the world.\nThe worship of the serpent may be traced in almost every religion\nthrough ancient Asia, Europe, Africa, America. But how an object of\nabhorrence could have been exalted into an object of veneration, must be\nreferred to the subtlety of the arch enemy himself, whose constant\nendeavour has been rather to corrupt than obliterate the true faith,\nthat, in the perpetual conflict between truth and error, the mind of man\nmight be more surely confounded and debased. Among other devices, that\nof elevating himself into an object of adoration, has ever been the most\ncherished. It was that which he proposed to our Lord: \u201cAll these things\nwill I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.\u201d We cannot,\ntherefore, wonder that the same being who had the presumption to make\nthis proposal to the Son of God, should have had the address to\ninsinuate himself into the worship of the children of men. In this he\nwas unhappily but too well seconded by the natural tendency of human\ncorruption. The unenlightened Heathen, in obedience to the voice of\nnature, acknowledged his dependence upon a superior being. His reason\nassured him that there must be a God; his conscience assured him that\nGod was good; but he felt and acknowledged the prevalence of evil, and\nattributed it, naturally to an evil agent. But as the evil spirit, to\nhis unillumined mind, seemed as omnipotent as the good agent, he\nworshipped both; the one, that he might propitiate his kindness; the\nother that he might avert his displeasure. The great point of devil\nworship being gained, namely, the acknowledgment of the evil spirit as\nGod, the transition to idolatry became easy. The mind, once darkened by\nthe admission of an allegiance divided between God and Satan, became\ngradually more feeble and superstitious, until at length sensible\nobjects were called in to aid the weakness of degraded intellect; and\nfrom their first form as symbols, passed rapidly through the successive\nstages of apotheosis, until they were elevated into gods. Of these the\nmost remarkable was the serpent; upon the basis of tradition, regarded,\nfirst as the symbol of the malignant being; subsequently considered\ntalismanic and oracular; and lastly, venerated and worshipped as divine.\n\nSERPENT, BRAZEN. This was a figure of a serpent, called above the\n_seraph_, which Moses caused to be put on the top of a pole, Num. xxi,\n9, that all those bitten by the serpent, who should look upon this\nimage, might be healed. Our Saviour, in the Gospel of St. John, iii, 14,\ndeclares, that \u201cas Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even\nso must the Son of man be lifted up,\u201d alluding to his own death which,\nthrough faith, was to give life to the world. The brazen serpent was\npreserved among the Israelites down to the time of Hezekiah; who, being\ninformed that the people paid a superstitious worship to it, had it\nbroken in pieces, and by way of contempt gave it the name of Nehushtan,\nthat is to say, a brazen bauble or trifle, 2 Kings xviii, 4. See TYPE.\n\nSERVANT. This word generally signifies a slave. For formerly among the\nHebrews, and the neighbouring nations, the greater part of servants were\nslaves, that is to say, they belonged absolutely to their masters, who\nhad a right to dispose of their persons, their bodies, goods, and even\nof their lives, in some cases. The Hebrews had two sorts of servants or\nslaves, Leviticus xxv, 44, 45, &c. Some were strangers, either bought,\nor taken in the wars. The others were Hebrew slaves, who, being poor,\nsold themselves, or were sold to pay their debts; or were delivered up\nfor slaves by their parents, in cases of necessity. This sort of Hebrew\nslaves continued in slavery but to the year of jubilee; then they might\nreturn to liberty again, and their masters could not retain them against\ntheir wills. If they would continue voluntarily with their masters, they\nwere brought before the judges; there they made a declaration, that for\nthis time they disclaimed the privilege of the law, had their ears bored\nwith an awl, by applying them to the door-posts of their master, Exod.\nxxi, 2, 5\u20137, &c; and after that they had no longer any power of\nrecovering their liberty, except at the next year of jubilee. Servant is\nalso taken for a man that dedicates himself to the service of another,\nby the choice of his own will and inclination. Thus Joshua was the\nservant of Moses, Elisha of Elijah, Gehazi of Elisha; St. Peter, St.\nAndrew, St. Philip, and the rest, were servants of Jesus Christ.\n\nSETH, son of Adam and of Eve, was born A. M. 130, Gen. v, 3, 6, 10, 11.\nSeth, at the age of one hundred and five years, begat Enos, A. M. 235.\nHe lived after this eight hundred and seven years, in all nine hundred\nand twelve years, and died A. M. 1042. Seth was the chief of \u201cthe\nchildren of God,\u201d as the Scripture calls them, Gen. vi, 2; that is,\nthose who before the flood preserved true religion and piety in the\nworld, while the descendants of Cain gave themselves up to wickedness.\nThe invention of letters and writing is by the rabbins ascribed to this\npatriarch.\n\nSEVEN. The number seven is consecrated, in the holy books and in the\nreligion of the Jews, by a great number of events and mysterious\ncircumstances. God created the world in the space of seven days, and\nconsecrated the seventh day to repose. This rest of the seventh day,\naccording to St. Paul, Heb. iv, 4, intimates eternal rest. And not only\nthe seventh day is honoured among the Jews, by the repose of the\nSabbath, but every seventh year is also consecrated to the rest of the\nearth, by the name of a sabbatical year; as also the seven times seventh\nyear, or forty-ninth year, is the year of jubilee. In the prophetic\nstyle, a week often stands for seven years, Dan. ix, 24\u201326. Jacob served\nhis father-in-law Laban seven years for each of his daughters. Pharaoh\u2019s\nmysterious dream represented to his imagination seven fat oxen, and\nseven lean ones; seven full ears of corn, and as many that were empty\nand shrivelled. These stood for seven years of plenty, and seven of\nscarcity. The number of seven days is observed in the octaves of the\ngreat solemnities of the passover, of tabernacles, and of the dedication\nof the tabernacle and the temple; the seven branches of the golden\ncandlestick, the number of seven sacrifices appointed on several\noccasions, Numbers xxvii, 11; xxix, 17\u201321, &c. Seven trumpets, seven\npriests that sounded them, seven days to surround the walls of Jericho,\nJoshua vi, 4, 6, 8. In the Revelation, are the seven churches, seven\ncandlesticks, seven spirits, seven stars, seven lamps, seven seals,\nseven angels, seven phials, seven plagues, &c. In certain passages, the\nnumber seven is put for a great number. Isaiah, iv, 1, says that seven\nwomen should lay hold on one man, to ask him to marry them. Hannah, the\nmother of Samuel, says, 1 Sam. ii, 5, that she who was barren should\nhave seven children. Jeremiah, xv, 9, makes use of the same expression.\nGod threatens his people to smite them seven times for their\ntransgressions, Lev. xxvi, 24, that is to say several times. The\nPsalmist, speaking of very pure silver, says it is \u201cpurified seven\ntimes,\u201d Psalm xii, 6. And elsewhere, \u201cRender unto our neighbours\nsevenfold into their bosom,\u201d Psalm lxxix, 12; punish them severely, and\nas often as they deserve it. The slayer of Cain was to be punished seven\ntimes; but of Lamech seventy times seven times, Gen. iv, 15, 24. The\nslothful man thinks himself wiser than seven men, that set forth\nproverbs, Prov. xxvi, 16; he thinks himself of more worth than many wise\nmen. St. Peter asks our Saviour, Matthew xviii, 21, 22, How many times\nshould he forgive his brother? till seven times? And Christ answers him,\nI say not only seven times, but seventy times seven; meaning, as often\nas he may offend, however frequent it may be.\n\nSHARON, PLAIN OF, a beautiful and spacious plain, extending from C\u00e6sarea\nto Joppa on the sea coast, and eastward to the mountains of Judea; and\nis celebrated for its wines, its flowers, and its pastures. It still\npreserves some portions of its natural beauty, and is adorned in the\nspring with the white and red rose, the narcissus, the white and orange\nlily, the carnation and other flowers; but for the rest of the year it\nappears little better than a desert, with here and there a ruined\nvillage, and some clumps of olive trees and sycamores. This name was\nalmost become a proverb, to express a place of extraordinary beauty and\nfruitfulness, Isaiah xxxiii, 9; xxxv, 2. But there are three cantons of\nPalestine known by the name of Sharon. The first, according to Eusebius\nand St. Jerom, is a canton between Mount Tabor and the sea of Tiberias.\nThe second, a canton between the city of C\u00e6sarea of Palestine and Joppa.\nAnd the third a canton beyond Jordan, in the country of Basan, and in\nthe division of the tribe of Gad. Modern travellers give this name also\nto the plain that lies between Ecdippe and Ptolemais.\n\nSHAVING. In time of mourning the Jews shaved their heads, and neglected\nto trim their beards. The king of the Ammonites shaved off half the\nbeards of David\u2019s ambassadors, which was the greatest insult he could\noffer. This will appear from the regard which the easterns have ever\npaid to the beard. D\u2019Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab who,\nhaving received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life rather than\nto suffer his surgeon to take off his beard. It was one of the most\ninfamous punishments of cowardice in Sparta, that they who turned their\nbacks in the day of battle were obliged to appear abroad with one half\nof their beard shaved, and the other half unshaved. The easterns\nconsidered the beard as venerable, because it distinguished men from\nwomen, and was the mark of freemen in opposition to slaves. It was\nstill, in times comparatively modern, the greatest indignity that could\nbe offered in Persia. Shah Abbas, king of that country, enraged that the\nemperor of Hindostan had inadvertently addressed him by a title far\ninferior to that of the great shah-in-shah, or king of kings, ordered\nthe beards of the ambassadors to be shaved off, and sent them home to\ntheir master. \u201cOne of the buffoons of the bashaw,\u201d says Belzoni, \u201ctook\nit into his head one day, for a frolic, to shave his beard, which is no\ntrifle among the Turks; for some of them, I really believe, would sooner\nhave their head cut off than their beard. In this state he went home to\nhis women, who actually thrust him out of the door; and such was the\ndisgrace of cutting off his beard, that even his fellow buffoons would\nnot eat with him till it was grown again.\u201d\n\nSHEAF. After the feast of the passover the Jews brought a sheaf into the\ntemple, as the first fruits of the barley harvest, Lev. xxiii, 10, 12;\nand these were the ceremonies that were then performed. On the 16th of\nthe month Nisan, in the evening, when the feast day of the passover was\nended, and the second day was begun, which was a working day, the house\nof judgment deputed three men to go in solemnity, and gather the sheaf\nof barley. The inhabitants of the neighbouring cities came together, to\nbe present at the ceremony. The barley was gathered in the territory of\nJerusalem. The deputies demanded three times successively if the sun was\nset; and were as often answered that it was. Then they demanded three\ntimes if they might be permitted to cut the sheaf, and permission was as\noften granted. They reaped it out of three different fields, with three\ndifferent sickels, and put the ears into three boxes to carry to the\ntemple. This sheaf was threshed in the court; and of the grain they took\na full omer, and after it had been winnowed, parched, and bruised, they\nsprinkled oil over it, and added a handful of incense; then the priest\nwho received the offering, waved it before the Lord to the four quarters\nof the world, crosswise; he cast part of it upon the altar, and the rest\nwas his own. After this every one might begin to reap the harvest.\n\nSHEBA. Of \u201cthe queen of Sheba,\u201d mention is made 1 Kings x, 1, 2, &c; 2\nChron. ix, 1, 2, &c; Matt. xii, 42; Luke xi, 31. She is called \u201cqueen of\nthe south,\u201d and was, according to some, a queen of Arabia; and,\naccording to others, a queen of Ethiopia. Josephus says, that Sheba was\nthe ancient name of the city of Meroe, before Cambyses gave it that of\nhis sister; and that it was from thence the queen came of whom we are\nspeaking. This opinion has much prevailed. The Abyssinians at this day,\nmaintain, that this princess was of their country, and that her\nposterity reigned there a long time. They preserve a catalogue of them,\ntheir names and successions.\n\n\u05e9\u05d7 SHEEP, \u05e9\u05d4, occurs frequently, and \u05e6\u05d0\u05df, a general name for both sheep\nand goats, considered collectively in a flock, Arabic _zain_. The sheep\nis a well known animal. The benefits which mankind owe to it are\nnumerous. Its fleece, its skin, its flesh, its tallow, and even its\nhorns and bowels are articles of great utility to human life and\nhappiness. Its mildness and inoffensiveness of temper, strongly\nrecommend it to human affection and regard; and have designated it the\npattern and emblem of meekness, innocence, patience, and submission. It\nis a social animal. The flock follow the ram as their leader; who\nfrequently displays the most impetuous courage in their defence: dogs,\nand even men, when attempting to molest them, have often suffered from\nhis sagacious and generous valour. There are two varieties of sheep\nfound in Syria. The first, called the \u201cBidoween sheep,\u201d differs little\nfrom the large breed among us, except that the tail is somewhat longer\nand thicker. The second is much more common, and is more valued on\naccount of the extraordinary bulk of its tail, which has been remarked\nby all the eastern travellers. The carcass of one of these sheep,\nwithout including the head, feet, entrails, and skin, weighs from fifty\nto sixty pounds, of which the tail makes up fifteen pounds. Some of a\nlarger size, fattened with care, will sometimes weigh one hundred and\nfifty pounds, the tail alone composing one third of the whole weight. It\nis of a substance between fat and marrow, and is not eaten separately,\nbut mixed with the lean meat in many of their dishes, and often also\nused instead of butter. A reference to this part is made in Exod. xxix,\n22; Lev. iii, 9; where the fat and the tail were to be burnt on the\naltar of sacrifice. Mr. Street considers this precept to have had\nrespect to the health of the Israelites; observing that \u201cbilious\ndisorders are very frequent in hot countries; the eating of fat meat is\na great encouragement and excitement to them; and though the fat of the\ntail is now considered as a delicacy, it is really unwholesome.\u201d The\nconclusion of the seventeenth verse, which is, \u201cYe shall eat neither fat\nnor blood,\u201d justifies this opinion. The prohibition of eating fat, that\nis of fat unmixed with the flesh, the omentum or caul, is given also,\nLev. vii, 23.\n\nSHEKEL, \u05e9\u05e7\u05dc, signifies weight, money, shekel, _siclus_, a Hebrew weight\nand money, Exod. xxx, 23, 24; 2 Sam. xiv, 26. Shekel is used to denote\nthe weight of any thing; as iron, hair, spices, &c. Dr. Arbuthnot makes\nthe weight of the shekel equal to 9 dwt. 2<sup>4</sup>\u2044<sub>7</sub> gr.\nEnglish troy weight; and the value equal to 2s. 3\u215cd. sterling money: but\nthe golden shekel was worth 1_l._ 16_s._ 6_d._ English money. Some are\nof opinion that the Jews had two kinds of shekels, namely, the common\none already noticed, and the shekel of the sanctuary, which last they\nmake double the former. But most authors make them the same, and think\nthat the word sanctuary is added to express a just and exact weight,\naccording to the standards kept in the temple or tabernacle. Moses, Num.\nxviii, 16, and Ezekiel, xlv, 12, say, that the shekel was worth twenty\ngerahs.\n\nSHEM, the son of Noah, Gen. vi, 10. He was born A. M. 1558. It is the\nopinion of the generality of commentators, that Shem was younger than\nJapheth, and the second son of Noah, for reasons given under the article\nJAPHETH. See also Gen. ix, 23\u201325. He lived six hundred years, and died\nA. M. 2158. The posterity of Shem obtained their portion in the best\nparts of Asia. The Jews ascribe to Shem the theological tradition of the\nthings that Noah had learned from the first men. Shem communicated them\nto his children, and by this means the true religion was preserved in\nthe world. Some have thought Shem the same as Melchisedec, and that he\nhimself had been at the school of Methuselah before the deluge: that he\ngave to Abraham the whole tradition, the ceremonies of the sacrifices of\nreligion, according to which this patriarch afterward offered his\nsacrifices. But this opinion has no adequate support. Lastly, the Jews\nsay, that he taught men the law of justice, and the manner of reckoning\nmonths and years, and the intercalations of the months. All that can be\nsaid as to these speculations is, that Noah and all his sons were the\ndepositaries of the knowledge which existed among men before the flood,\nand were perhaps both specially qualified by God first to attain it, and\nthen to transmit it to their descendants. Shem had five sons, Elam,\nAsher, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aran, who peopled the richest provinces of\nAsia.\n\nSHEPHERDS. The patriarchal shepherds, rich in flocks and herds, in\nsilver and gold, and attended by a numerous train of servants purchased\nwith their money, or hired from the neighbouring towns and villages,\nacknowledge no civil superior; they held the rank, and exercised the\nrights, of sovereign princes; they concluded alliances with the kings in\nwhose territories they tended their flocks; they made peace or war with\nthe surrounding states; and, in fine, they wanted nothing of sovereign\nauthority but the name. Unfettered by the cumbrous ceremonies of regal\npower, they led a plain and laborious life, in perfect freedom and\noverflowing abundance. Refusing to confine themselves to any particular\nspot, (for the pastures were not yet appropriated,) they lived in tents,\nand removed from one place to another in search of pasture for their\ncattle. Strangers in the countries where they sojourned, they refused to\nmingle with the permanent settlers, to occupy their towns, and to form\nwith them one people. They were conscious of their strength, and jealous\nof their independence; and although patient and forbearing, their\nconduct proved, on several occasions, that they wanted neither skill nor\ncourage to vindicate their rights and avenge their wrongs. In the\nwealth, the power, and the splendour of patriarchal shepherds, we\ndiscover the rudiments of regal grandeur and authority; and in their\nnumerous and hardy retainers, the germ of potent empires. Hence the\ncustom so prevalent among the ancients, of distinguishing the office and\nduties of their kings and princes, by terms borrowed from the pastoral\nlife: Agamemnon, shepherd of the people, \u0391\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c9\u03bd, is a\nphrase frequently used in the strains of Homer. The sacred writers very\noften speak of kings under the name of shepherds, and compare the royal\nsceptre to the shepherd\u2019s crook: \u201cHe chose David also his servant, and\ntook him from the sheep folds; from following the ewes great with young,\nhe brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So\nhe fed them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by\nthe skilfulness of his hands.\u201d And Jehovah said to David himself: \u201cThou\nshalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.\u201d\nThe royal Psalmist, on the other hand, celebrates under the same\nallusions, the special care and goodness of God toward himself, and also\ntoward his ancient people. \u201cThe Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.\u201d\n\u201cGive ear, O shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock;\nthou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth.\u201d In many other\nplaces of Scripture, the church is compared to a sheep fold, the saints\nto sheep, and the ministers of religion to shepherds, who must render,\nat last, an account of their administration to the Shepherd and Overseer\nto whom they owe their authority.\n\nThe patriarchs did not commit their flocks and herds solely to the care\nof menial servants and strangers; they tended them in person, or placed\nthem under the superintendence of their sons and their daughters, who\nwere bred to the same laborious employment, and taught to perform,\nwithout reluctance, the meanest services. Rebecca, the only daughter of\na shepherd prince, went to a considerable distance to draw water; and it\nis evident, from the readiness and address with which she let down her\npitcher from her shoulder, and gave drink to the servant of Abraham, and\nafterward drew for all his camels, that she had been long accustomed to\nthat humble employment. From the same authority we know that Rachel, the\ndaughter of Laban, kept her father\u2019s flocks, and submitted to the\nvarious privations and hardships of the pastoral life, in the deserts of\nSyria. The patriarch Jacob, though he was the son of a shepherd prince,\nkept the flocks of Laban, his maternal uncle; and his own sons followed\nthe same business, both in Mesopotamia, and after his return to the land\nof Canaan. This primeval simplicity was long retained among the Greeks.\nHomer often sends the daughters of princes and nobles to tend the\nflocks, to wash the clothes of the family at the fountain, or in the\nflowing stream, and to perform many other menial services. Adonis, the\nson of Cinyras, a king of Cyprus, fed his flocks by the streaming\nrivers:\n\n            _Et formosus oves ad flumina pavit Adonis._\n                                        VIR. Ecl. x, l. 18.\n            \u201cAlong the streams his flock Adonis fed.\u201d\n                                        DRYDEN.\n\nAndromache, the wife of Hector, complains that Achilles had slain her\nseven brothers when they were tending their flocks and herds. \u00c6neas\npastured his oxen on Mount Ida, when Achilles seized them, and forced\nthe Trojan hero to flee. Ph\u0153bus himself was a keeper of oxen in the\ngroves and valleys of Mount Ida. This custom has descended to modern\ntimes; for in Syria the daughters of the Turcoman and Arabian shepherds,\nand in India the Brahmin women of distinction, are seen drawing water at\nthe village wells, and tending their cattle to the lakes and rivers.\n\nThe flocks and herds of these shepherds were immensely numerous. The\nsheep of the Bedoween Arabs in Egypt, and probably throughout the east,\nare very fine, black-faced and white-faced, and many of them clothed in\na brown coloured fleece: and of this superior breed the ample flocks of\nthe Syrian shepherds consisted. So great was the stock of Abraham and\nLot, that they were obliged to separate, because \u201cthe land was not able\nto bear them.\u201d From the present which Jacob made to his brother Esau,\nconsisting of five hundred and eighty head of different sorts, we may\nform some idea of the countless numbers of great and small cattle which\nhe had acquired in the service of Laban. In modern times, the numbers of\ncattle in the Turcoman flocks, which feed on the fertile plains of\nSyria, are almost incredible. They sometimes occupy three or four days\nin passing from one part of the country to another. Chardin had an\nopportunity of seeing a clan of Turcoman shepherds on their march, about\ntwo days\u2019 distance from Aleppo. The whole country was covered with them.\nMany of their principal people with whom he conversed on the road,\nassured him, that there were four hundred thousand beasts of carriage,\ncamels, horses, oxen, cows, and asses, and three millions of sheep and\ngoats. This astonishing account of Chardin is confirmed by Dr. Shaw, who\nstates, that several Arabian tribes, who can bring no more than three or\nfour hundred horses into the field, are possessed of more than as many\nthousand camels, and triple the number of sheep and black cattle.\nRussel, in his \u201cHistory of Aleppo,\u201d speaks of vast flocks which pass\nthat city every year, of which many sheep are sold to supply the\ninhabitants. The flocks and herds which belonged to the Jewish\npatriarchs were not more numerous.\n\nThe care of such overgrown flocks, says Paxton, required many shepherds.\nThese were of different kinds; the master of the family and his\nchildren, with a number of herdsmen who were hired to assist them, and\nfelt but little interest in the preservation and increase of their\ncharge. In Hebrew, these persons, so different in station and feeling,\nwere not distinguished by appropriate names; the master, the slave, and\nthe hired servant, were all known by the common appellation of\nshepherds. The distinction, not sufficiently important to require the\ninvention of a particular term, is expressed among every people by a\nperiphrasis. The only instance in the Old Testament, in which the hired\nservant is distinguished from the master, or one of his family, occurs\nin the history of David, where he is said to have left the sheep, \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05e8, \u201cin the hand of a keeper,\u201d while he went down to visit his\nbrethren, and the armies who were fighting against the Philistines under\nthe banners of Saul, 1 Samuel xvii, 20. This word exactly corresponds\nwith the Latin term _custos_, \u201ca keeper,\u201d which Virgil uses to denote a\nhireling shepherd, in his tenth Eclogue:\n\n           _Atque utinam ex vobis unus vestrique fuissem,_\n           _Aut custos gregis, aut matur\u00e6 vinitor uv\u00e6._\n\n           \u201cO that your birth and business had been mine,\n           To feed the flock and prune the spreading vine!\u201d\n                                                     WHARTON.\n\nIn such extensive pastoral concerns, the vigilance and activity of the\nmaster were often insufficient for directing the operations of so many\nshepherds, who were not unfrequently scattered over a considerable\nextent of country. An upper servant was therefore appointed to\nsuperintend their labours, and take care that his master suffered no\ninjury. In the house of Abraham, this honourable station was held by\nEliezer, a native of Damascus, a servant in every respect worthy of so\ngreat and good a master. The numerous flocks of Pharaoh seem to have\nrequired the superintending care of many overseers, Gen. xlvii, 6. Doeg,\nan Edomite, was entrusted with the whole pastoral establishment of Saul,\n1 Sam. xxi, 7. But in the reign of David, the important office of chief\nherdsman was abolished, and the vast flocks and herds of that monarch\nwere entrusted to a number of superintendents; animals of the same\nspecies forming a separate flock, under its proper overseer, 1\nChronicles xxvii, 29. These overseers, in the language of the Hebrews,\nwere called the princes of the flock; they were treated with great\ndistinction, and seem to have been selected in the reign of David from\namong the nobles of his court. Eum\u00e6us, a person of noble birth,\nagreeably to this custom, was charged with the care of the herds of\nswine belonging to Ulysses. The office of chief shepherd is frequently\nmentioned by the classic authors of antiquity. Diodorus relates from\nCtesias, that Simma was overseer of the royal flocks under Ninus, king\nof Assyria. According to Plutarch, one Samo managed the flocks and herds\nof Neoptolemus, the king of the Molossians. The office of chief shepherd\nwas also known among the Latins; for, in the seventh \u00c6neid, Tyrrheus is\nnamed as governor of the royal flocks:\n\n             _Tyrrheusque pater, cui regia parent_\n             _Armenta, et late custodia credita camp._\n\n             \u201cTheir father, Tyrrheus, did his fodder bring;\n             Tyrrheus, chief ranger to the Latian king.\u201d\n                                            DRYDEN.\n\nAnd Livy informs us, that Faustulus held the same office under Numitor,\nking of the Latins. But it is needless to multiply quotations; every\nscholar knows that the Greek and Roman classics abound with allusions to\nthis office, which in those days was one of great importance and\ndignity, on the faithful discharge of which the power and splendour of\nan eastern potentate greatly depended. The office of chief shepherd,\ntherefore, being in pastoral countries one of great trust, of high\nresponsibility, and of distinguished honour, is with great propriety\napplied to our Lord by the Apostle Peter: \u201cAnd when the chief shepherd\nshall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory which fadeth not away,\u201d\n1 Peter v, 4. The same allusion occurs in these words of Paul: \u201cNow the\nGod of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ,\nthat great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting\ncovenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will,\u201d Hebrews\nxiii, 20.\n\nSHIBBOLETH, \u201can ear of corn,\u201d was a word which the Gileadites used as\nthe test of an Ephraimite. For the Ephraimites could not, from disuse,\npronounce the Hebrew letter _shin_; therefore, they said Sibboleth\ninstead of Shibboleth, Judges xii, 6. The Greeks, says Hartley, have not\nthe sound _sh_ in their language: hence they are liable to be detected,\nlike the Ephraimites. I was struck with this circumstance, in learning\nTurkish from a Greek tutor; _pasha_, he pronounced _pasa_; _shimdi_, he\ncalled _simdi_; _Dervish_, _Dervis_, &c. _Shibboleth_ he would, of\ncourse, pronounce _Sibboleth_.\n\nSHIELD. See ARMS.\n\nSHILOH, Gen. xlix, 10. The Hebrew text is, \u201cuntil Shiloh come.\u201d All\nChristian commentators agree, that this word ought to be understood of\nthe Messiah, that is, of Jesus Christ. The LXX. read it, \u201cUntil the\ncoming of him to whom it is reserved.\u201d It must be owned that the\nsignification of the Hebrew word Shiloh is not well known. Some\ntranslate the clause, \u201cThe sceptre shall not depart from Judah, till he\ncomes to whom it belongs;\u201d others, \u201ctill the coming of the peacemaker,\nor the pacific, or prosperity;\u201d and some, \u201cThe sceptre shall not depart\nfrom Judah till its end, its ruin,\u201d till the downfall of the kingdom of\nthe Jews. However, this much is clear, that the ancient Jews are in this\nmatter agreed with the Christians, in acknowledging that the word stands\nfor Messiah, the King. It is thus that the paraphrasts, Onkelos and\nJonathan, and the ancient Hebrew commentaries upon Genesis, and the\nTalmudists explain it. If Jesus Christ and his Apostles did not make use\nof this passage to prove the coming of the Messiah, it was because then\nthe completion of this prophecy was not sufficiently manifest. The\nsceptre still continued among the Jews; they had still kings of their\nown nation, in the persons of the Herods; but soon after the sceptre was\nentirely taken away from them, and a people began to be gathered to\nChrist, out of the Gentile nations.\n\n2. SHILOH, a celebrated city of the tribe of Ephraim, twelve miles from\nShechem, Joshua xviii, xix, xxi. It was in this place that the\ntabernacle of the Lord was set up, when the people were settled in the\ncountry. The ark and the tabernacle of the Lord continued at Shiloh from\nA. M. 2560 till 2888, when it was taken by the Philistines, under the\nadministration of the high priest Eli, 1 Sam. iv. Here the Prophet\nAhijah dwelt, 1 Kings xiv, 2.\n\nSHINAR, a province of Babylonia, where men undertook to build the tower\nof Babel, Genesis xi, 2; x, 10. Calneh was built in this country.\nAmraphel was king of Shinar in the days of Abraham, Genesis xiv, 1. See\nBABYLON.\n\nSHISHAK, king of Egypt, declared war against Rehoboam in the fifth year\nof the reign of that prince, 2 Chron. xii, 2, 3, &c. This Shishak,\naccording to Sir Isaac Newton, was the greatest conqueror, and the most\ncelebrated hero, of all antiquity, being the son of Ammon, or the\nEgyptian Jupiter, and known to the Greeks by the name of Bacchus,\nOsiris, and Hercules; was the Belus of the Chaldeans, and the Mars or\nMavors of the Thracians, &c. He made great conquests in India, Assyria,\nMedia, Scythia, Phenicia, Syria, Judea, &c. His army was at last routed\nin Greece by Perseus; which, with other circumstances, compelled him to\nreturn home.\n\nSHITTIM, SITTIM, SITTAH, \u05e9\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd, Exod. xxv, 5, 10, 13, 23, 28; xxvi, 26,\n32, 37; xxvii, 1, 6; xxx, 5; xxxv, 7, 24; xxxvi, 20, 31, 36; xxxvii, 1,\n4, 10, 15, 25, 28; xxxviii, 1, 6; Deut. x, 3; Isaiah xli, 19. What\nparticular species of wood this is, interpreters are not agreed. The\nLXX. render \u1f04\u03c3\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1, _incorruptible wood_. St. Jerom says, the\nshittim wood grows in the deserts of Arabia, and is like white thorn, as\nto its colour and leaves: but the tree is so large as to furnish very\nlong planks. The wood is hard, tough, smooth, and extremely beautiful.\nIt is thought that this wood is the black acacia, because that, it is\nsaid, is the most common tree growing in the deserts of Arabia; and\nagrees with what the Scriptures say of the shittim wood. The _acacia\nvera_ grows abundantly in Egypt, in places far from the sea; in the\nmountains of Sinai, near the Red Sea, and in the deserts. It is of the\nsize of a large mulberry tree. The spreading branches and larger limbs\nare armed with thorns which grow three together; the bark is rough; the\nleaves are oblong, and stand opposite each other; the flowers, though\nsometimes white, are generally of a bright yellow; and the fruit which\nresembles a bean, is contained in pods like those of the lupin. \u201cThe\nacacia tree,\u201d says Dr. Shaw, \u201cbeing by much the largest and most common\ntree in these deserts, Arabia Petr\u00e6a, we have some reason to conjecture,\nthat the shittim wood was the wood of the acacia; especially as its\nflowers are of an excellent smell, for the shittah tree is, in Isaiah\nxli, 19, joined with the myrtle and other fragrant shrubs.\u201d\n\nSHOES. To put off the shoes from one\u2019s feet, was an act of reverence to\nthe Divine majesty of God, Exod. iii, 5. It was likewise a sign of\nmourning and humiliation. David went up the ascent of Mount Olivet\nbarefoot, 2 Sam. xv, 30; Isa. xx, 2, 4; Ezek. xxiv, 17. See SANDAL.\n\nSHOULDER. To give or lend the shoulder for the bearing of a burden,\nsignifies to submit to servitude. \u201cIssachar bowed his shoulder to bear,\nand became a servant unto tribute,\u201d Gen. xlix, 15. And Isaiah, x, 27,\ncomforting Israel with the promise of deliverance from Assyria, says,\n\u201cHis burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder.\u201d The Scripture\ncalls that a rebellious shoulder, a withdrawing shoulder, which will not\nsubmit to the yoke; and to bear it together with joint consent, is\ntermed \u201cserving with one shoulder.\u201d To bear any thing upon the shoulder,\nis to sustain it, and this is applied to government and authority. Thus\nMessiah was to bear the government upon his shoulder: \u201cFor unto us a\nchild is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon\nhis shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,\u201d &c,\nIsa. ix, 6; and God promises Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, to give him the\nkey of the house of David, and to lay it upon his shoulder; \u201cso he shall\nopen, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open;\u201d that\nis, the sole authority shall rest upon him.\n\nSHUSHAN, or SUSA, the ancient capital of Persia, seated on the river\nUlai, the modern Abzal. After the union of the kingdoms of Media and\nPersia by Cyrus, Susa was made the winter residence of the kings of\nPersia, from its southern position, and the shelter afforded by a range\nof mountains on the north and east, which rendered the heat\ninsupportable in the summer season; while Ecbatana, in Media, from its\ngreater elevation, and more northern situation, was preferred at this\nseason, as being more cool and agreeable. Here the transactions occurred\nrelated in the book of Esther. Here also Daniel had the vision of the\nram with two horns, and the goat with one horn, &c, in the third year of\nBelshazzar\u2019s reign. Susa was situated in the ancient province of Elam,\nor Elymais, called also Susiana, and now forming a part of Kuzestan. It\nhas for several hundred years, like Babylon, been reduced to a heap of\nundistinguished ruins. Mr. Kinneir says, \u201cAbout seven or eight miles to\nthe west of Dezphoul, commence the ruins of Shus, stretching not less,\nperhaps, than twelve miles, from one extremity to the other. They extend\nas far as the eastern bank of the Kerah; occupying an immense space\nbetween that river and the Abzal; and, like the ruins of Ctesiphon,\nBabylon, and Kufa, consist of hillocks of earth and rubbish, covered\nwith broken pieces of brick and coloured tile. The largest and most\nremarkable of these mounds stand at the distance of about two miles from\nthe Kerah. The first is, at the lowest computation, a mile in\ncircumference, and nearly a hundred feet in height; and the other,\nalthough not quite so high, is double the circuit of the former. These\nmounds bear some resemblance to the pyramids of Babylon; with this\ndifference, that instead of being entirely made of brick, they are\nformed of clay and pieces of tile, with irregular layers of brick and\nmortar, five or six feet in thickness, to serve, it should seem, as a\nkind of prop to the mass. Large blocks of marble, covered with\nhieroglyphics, are not unfrequently here discovered by the Arabs when\ndigging in search of hidden treasure; and at the foot of the most\nelevated of the pyramids stands the tomb of Daniel, a small and\napparently a modern building, erected on the spot where the relics of\nthat prophet are believed to rest. The site of the city of Shus is now a\ngloomy wilderness, infested by lions, hy\u00e6nas, and other beasts of prey.\nThe dread of these furious animals compelled Mr. Monteith and myself to\ntake shelter for the night within the walls that encompass Daniel\u2019s\ntomb.\u201d Of this tomb Sir John Malcom observes, that \u201cit is a small\nbuilding, but sufficient to shelter some dervishes who watch the remains\nof the prophet, and are supported by the alms of pious pilgrims who\nvisit the holy sepulchre. These dervishes are now the only inhabitants\nof Susa; and every species of wild beast roams at large over that spot\non which some of the proudest palaces ever raised by human art once\nstood.\u201d He also observes, respecting the authenticity of this tomb, that\n\u201calthough the building at the tomb of Daniel be comparatively modern,\nnothing could have led to its being built where it is, but a belief that\nthis was the real site of the prophet\u2019s sepulchre.\u201d\n\nSIDON, or ZIDON, a celebrated city and port of Phenicia, and one of the\nmost ancient cities in the world; as it is supposed to have been founded\nby Sidon, the eldest son of Canaan, which will carry it up to above two\nthousand years before Christ. But if it was founded by Sidon, his\ndescendants were driven out by a body of Phenician colonists, or Cushim\nfrom the east; who are supposed either to have given it its name, or to\nhave retained the old one in compliment to their god Siton, or Dagon.\nIts inhabitants appear to have early acquired a pre\u00ebminence in arts,\nmanufactures, and commerce; and from their superior skill in hewing\ntimber, by which must be understood their cutting it out and preparing\nit for building, as well as the mere act of felling it, Sidonian workmen\nwere hired by Solomon to prepare the wood for the building of his\ntemple. The Sidonians are said to have been the first manufacturers of\nglass; and Homer often speaks of them as excelling in many useful and\ningenious arts, giving them the title of \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. Add to this, they\nwere, if not the first shipwrights and navigators, the first who\nventured beyond their own coasts, and in those early ages engrossed the\ngreatest part of the then commerce of the world. The natural result of\nthese exclusive advantages to the inhabitants of Sidon was, a high\ndegree of wealth and prosperity; and content with the riches which their\ntrade and manufactures brought them, they lived in ease and luxury,\ntrusting the defence of their city and property, like the Tyrians after\nthem, to hired troops; so that to live in ease and security, is said in\nScripture to be after the manner of the Sidonians. In all these\nrespects, however, Sidon was totally eclipsed by her neighbour and rival\nTyre; whose more enterprising inhabitants pushed their commercial\ndealings to the extremities of the known world, raised their city to a\nrank in power and opulence unknown before, and converted it into a\nluxurious metropolis, and the emporium of the produce of all nations.\nAfter the subversion of the Grecian empire by the Romans, Sidon fell\ninto the hands of the latter; who, to put an end to the frequent revolt\nof the inhabitants, deprived it of its freedom. It then fell\nsuccessively under the power of the Saracens, the Seljukian Turks, and\nthe sultans of Egypt; who, in 1289, that they might never more afford\nshelter to the Christians, destroyed both it and Tyre. But it again\nsomewhat revived, and has ever since been in the possession of the\nOttoman Turks.\n\nSIGN. This word is used in the sense of token and pledge; as, when the\nLord gave to Noah the rainbow, as a sign of his covenant, Gen. ix, 12,\n13; and when he appointed to Abraham the use of circumcision, as the\nseal of the covenant he had made with him and his posterity, Gen. xvii,\n11. Sign is also put for a miracle: \u201cThou shalt do these signs and\nwonders in the midst of Egypt,\u201d Exodus iv, 7\u20139, &c. A sign or token is\noften put for the proof or evidence of a thing: For example, \u201cThis shall\nbe a token or sign unto thee, that I have sent thee,\u201d Exod. iii, 12.\n\u201cShew me a sign, that thou talkest with me,\u201d Judges vi, 17, that is a\nproof. \u201cWhat shall be the sign,\u201d or evidence, \u201cthat the Lord will heal\nme?\u201d 2 Kings xx, 8. This acceptation agrees with the first above\nmentioned; as also what is said in Gen. iv, 15, \u201cAnd the Lord set a mark\nor sign upon Cain;\u201d he gave him a pledge that his life should not be\ntaken away. The signs of heaven, and the signs of the magicians, are the\nphenomena of the heavens, and the impostures of magicians, which they\nmade use of for the purposes of deception: \u201cThe Lord frustrateth the\ntokens or signs of the liars, and maketh diviners mad,\u201d Isaiah xliv, 25.\n\u201cBe not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Heathen are dismayed at\nthem,\u201d Jer. x, 2. To be a sign was farther to be a type, or prediction,\nof what should happen. Thus the Prophet Isaiah, viii, 18, \u201cBehold, I and\nthe children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs and for wonders\nin Israel.\u201d See also Ezek. iv, 3.\n\nSILAS, or SYLVANUS, was, according to St. Luke, Acts xv, 22, one of the\n\u201cchief men among the brethren,\u201d which makes it probable, that he was of\nthe number of the seventy disciples. When a dispute was raised at\nAntioch about the observation of the legal ceremonies, they chose Paul,\nBarnabas, Judas, and Silas, to go to Jerusalem, to advise with the\nApostles concerning this question. He is thought to be the same Silas\nwho is mentioned by the name of Sylvanus, in the title of the two\nepistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. St. Peter sent his first\nepistle by him from Rome, wherein he styles him \u201ca faithful brother.\u201d\nSilas joined himself to St. Paul; and after Saul and Barnabas had\nparted, on account of John Mark, Acts xv, 37\u201341, Silas followed St.\nPaul, and went with him to visit the churches of Syria and Cilicia.\n\nSILENCE. This word not only signifies to refrain from speaking; but also\nin the style of the Hebrews, it is taken for, \u201cto be quiet, to remain\nimmovable.\u201d As for example: \u201cSun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,\u201d in\nHebrew, be silent. \u201cAnd the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,\u201d\nJoshua x, 12, 13, or were silent, at the commandment of Joshua.\n\nSILOAH, the same as Siloam, Neh. iii, 15; Luke xiii, 4; a fountain under\nthe walls of Jerusalem, toward the east, between the city and the brook\nKidron, perhaps the same with Enrogel. Near this was a tower, Luke xiii,\n4.\n\n\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea SILK, \u05de\u05e9\u05d9. As the word which is rendered \u201csilk\u201d in our version\nmore probably meant cotton, or rather muslin, it is doubtful whether\nsilk is mentioned expressly in the Scripture, unless, perhaps, in Isaiah\nxix, 9, where we find the Hebrew word \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea, from \u05e9\u05e8\u05e7, _yellowish_,\n_tawny_; which is generally the natural colour of raw silk; hence the\nLatin sericum: or it may be from the Seres, a nation whence the Greeks\nand Romans first obtained the article silk. Calmet remarks that the\nancient Greeks and Romans had but little knowledge of the nature of\nsilk. The Seres communicated their silk to the Persians, from whom it\npassed to the Greeks, and from them to the Romans. But the Persians and\norientals for a long time kept the secret of manufacturing it among\nthemselves. Silk was first brought into Greece after Alexander\u2019s\nconquest of Persia, and came into Italy during the flourishing times of\nthe Roman empire; but was long so dear in all these parts as to be worth\nits weight in gold. At length the emperor Justinian, who died in the\nyear 365, by means of two monks, whom he sent into India for that\npurpose, procured great quantities of silk worms\u2019 eggs to be brought to\nConstantinople, and from these have sprung all the silk worms and all\nthe silk trade that have been since in Europe, See FLAX.\n\nSILVER, \u05db\u05e1\u05e3, Gen. xx, 16; \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 1 Pet. i, 18; Acts iii, 4; xx, 33; a\nwell known metal, of a white shining colour; next in value to gold. It\ndoes not appear to have been in use before the deluge; at least Moses\nsays nothing of it: he speaks only of the metals brass and iron, Gen.\niv, 22. But in Abraham\u2019s time it was become common, and traffic was\ncarried on with it, Gen. xxiii, 2, 15. Yet it was not then coined, but\nwas only in bars or ingots; and in commerce was always weighed.\n\nSIMEON, son of Jacob and Leah, was born A. M. 2247, Genesis xxix, 33;\nxxxiv, 25. Jacob, on his death bed, showed his indignation against\nSimeon and Levi for their cruelty to the Shechemites, Gen. xlix, 5: \u201cI\nwill divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.\u201d And in effect\nthese two tribes were scattered in Israel. As to Levi, he never had any\nfixed lot or portion; and Simeon received only a canton that was\ndismembered from the tribe of Judah, Joshua xix, 1, &c, and some other\nlands they went to conquer in the mountains of Seir, and the desert of\nGedor, 1 Chronicles iv, 27, 39, 42.\n\n2. SIMEON, a holy man, who was at Jerusalem, full of the Holy Ghost, and\nexpecting the redemption of Israel, Luke ii, 25, 26, &c. The Holy Ghost\nhad assured him, that he should not die before he had seen the Christ of\nthe Lord; he therefore came into the temple, prompted by inspiration,\njust at the time when Joseph and Mary presented Jesus Christ there, in\nobedience to the law. Simeon took the child into his arms, gave thanks\nto God, and then blessed Joseph and Mary. It is believed, with good\nreason, that he died soon after he had given his testimony to Jesus\nChrist. Some have conjectured, that Simeon, who received Jesus Christ\ninto his arms, was the same as Simeon the Just, the son of Hillel, and\nmaster of Gamaliel, whose disciple St. Paul was. See SANHEDRIM.\n\nSIMON MACCAB\u00c6US, surnamed Thossi, son of Mattathias, and brother of\nJudas and Jonathan. He was chief prince and pontiff of the Jews from A.\nM. 3860 to 3869, and was succeeded by John Hyrcanus. For the particulars\nof his life and transactions, see 1 Mac. ii, 65; v, 17; x, 74\u201382; xii,\n33, &c; xiii, 1, &c; xiv, 4, &c; xv, 1, &c.\n\n2. SIMON, the Canaanite, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It is doubtful\nwhether the name of Canaanite was derived to him from the city Cana in\nGalilee, or whether it should not be taken according to its\nsignification in the Hebrew, by deriving it from the root _kana_, \u201cto be\nzealous,\u201d and this is the opinion of some learned men. See Luke vi, 15;\nActs i, 13, where he is surnamed Zelotes; see also Matt. x, 4; Mark iii,\n18.\n\n3. SIMON, brother of our Lord, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3; that is to\nsay, his cousin-german, being son of Mary, sister to the holy virgin. He\nis thought to be the same with Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, and son of\nCleopas.\n\n4. SIMON MAGUS. Of this heretic, or rather father of heresy, Dr. Burton\ngives the following account:--Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, presented\na defence of Christianity to the emperor Antoninus Pius, in which he\nmentions, as a well known fact, that Simon, a native of Gittum, a\nvillage in Samaria, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, was looked\nupon there as a god, and had a statue erected to him, with a Latin\ninscription, in the river Tiber, between the two bridges. Justin adds,\nthat nearly all the Samaritans, and a few also in other nations,\nacknowledged and worshipped him as the supreme God. There is in this\npassage such a minute detail, such a confident appeal to the emperor\u2019s\nown knowledge of what the apologist was saying, that we can hardly\nsuppose the story to be false, when not only the emperor, but every\nperson in Rome would have been able to detect it. I would observe, also,\nthat Justin Martyr was himself a native of Samaria; hence he was able to\nname the very place where Simon was born; and when he says, in his\nsecond defence, which was presented a few years later, \u201cI have despised\nthe impious and false doctrine of Simon which is in my country;\u201d when we\nsee the shame which he felt at the name of Christian being assumed by\nthe followers of that impostor; we can never believe that he would have\ncountenanced the story, if the truth of it had not been notorious, much\nless would he have given to his own country the disgrace of originating\nthe evil.\n\nSimon Magus was a native of Gittum, a town in Samaria; and it is stated\nin a suspicious document of ancient though doubtful date, that he\nstudied for some time at Alexandria. Concerning the time of his birth,\nand of his first rising into notice, little can now be known. The only\ncontemporary document which mentions him is the Acts of the Apostles;\nand we there read, that, when Philip the deacon preached the Gospel in\nSamaria after the death of Stephen, \u201cthere was a certain man, called\nSimon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the\npeople of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one; to whom\nthey all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is\nthe great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long\ntime he had bewitched them with sorceries,\u201d Acts viii, 9\u201311. According\nto my calculation, the death of Stephen happened in the same year with\nthe crucifixion of our Lord; and it appears from the passage now quoted,\nthat Simon\u2019s celebrity had begun some time before. We are then told that\n\u201cSimon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued\nwith Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were\ndone,\u201d Acts viii, 13. I need not mention how he shortly fell away from\nthe faith which he had embraced, and how St. Peter rebuked him for\nthinking that the gift of God might be purchased for money, Acts viii,\n20; but I would observe, that some of those persons who insist upon the\nfact that Simon was not a Christian appear to have forgotten that he was\nactually baptized. For a time, at least, he believed in Jesus Christ;\nand part of this belief he appears always to have retained; that is, he\nalways believed that Jesus Christ was a being more than human, who came\nfrom God. If these events happened, as I have supposed, within a short\ntime of our Lord\u2019s ascension, the fathers had good reason to call Simon\nMagus the parent of all heresies; for he must then have been among the\nfirst persons, beyond the limits of Jerusalem, who embraced the Gospel;\nand we might hope that there was no one before him who perverted the\nfaith which he had professed.\n\nFrom the detailed account which we have of Simon in the Acts of the\nApostles, I should be inclined to infer these two things: 1. That St.\nLuke knew no earlier instance of apostasy from the Gospel; and he\nmentions this because it was the first: and 2. That when St. Luke wrote\nthe Acts of the Apostles the heresy of Simon was widely spread; and\ntherefore he tells his readers how it had begun. Concerning the\nremainder of Simon\u2019s life we know little, and in that little it is\ndifficult to separate truth from fiction. I should be inclined, for the\nreasons given above, to believe the account of Justin Martyr, who says\nthat Simon Magus went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and attracted\nnumerous followers. Eusebius quotes this passage of Justin Martyr; but\nhe adds, upon some other authority, which he does not name, that St.\nPeter came to Rome at the same time; and that, in consequence of his\npreaching, the popularity of the impostor was entirely destroyed. This\nwould be a most interesting and important fact, if we were certain of\nits being true; but Eusebius contradicts himself in his account of Simon\nMagus going to Rome; and later writers have so embellished the story of\nthis meeting, and made the death of Simon so astonishingly miraculous,\nthat criticism is at a loss to know what to believe. The account which\nwe have of Simon\u2019s death is, in a few words, as follows: St. Peter and\nSt. Paul being both at Rome, Simon Magus gave out that he was Christ;\nand, in proof of his assertion, he undertook to raise himself aloft into\nthe air. The attempt at first appeared as if it would succeed; but the\ntwo Apostles addressing themselves in prayer to God, the impostor fell\nto the ground, and his death ensued shortly after. It is difficult to\ngive this marvellous narration, without forgetting that we are treating\nof a grave and sacred subject; and the question for us to consider is,\nwhether we are to look upon the whole as a fiction, or whether, as is\nmost probable, it contains a basis and groundwork of truth. I must\nobserve, in the first place, that Arnobius, who did not write till the\nfourth century, is the first person who says anything of Simon\u2019s death\nat all approaching to this story; nor does he by any means give it all\nthe particulars which later writers have supplied. It will be observed,\nalso, that Eusebius, who wrote after Arnobius, does not say any thing of\nSimon\u2019s extraordinary end; but merely states that his credit and\ninfluence were extinguished, as soon as St. Peter began to preach in\nRome. It is probable, therefore, that no Greek writer before the time of\nEusebius had mentioned this story; but, on the other hand, there is such\na host of evidence, that the death of Simon Magus was in some way or\nother connected with the presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome,\nthat we might be carrying our skepticism too far if we rejected it.\n\nWith respect to the doctrines of Simon Magus, we know for certain that\nChrist held a conspicuous place in the philosophy which he taught; but\nto define with accuracy the various points of this philosophy, is a\ndifficult, if not impossible, task. The fathers perhaps may be suspected\nof laying too many impieties to the charge of this heretic; and some of\ntheir accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. Still, however, we\nmay extract from their writings an outline of the truth; and in this\ninstance, as before, I would attach particular weight to the authority\nof Justin Martyr. That writer says that nearly all the inhabitants of\nSamaria, and a few persons in other countries, acknowledged and\nworshipped Simon Magus as the first or supreme God: and in another place\nhe says that they styled him God, above all dominion and authority and\npower. Later writers have increased the blasphemy of this doctrine, and\nsaid that Simon declared himself to the Samaritans as the Father, to the\nJews as the Son, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost. But I\ncannot bring myself to believe that he ever advanced so far in\nwickedness or absurdity. The true state of the case may perhaps be\ncollected from the words of St. Luke, who tells us that Simon gave\nhimself out to be \u201csome great one,\u201d and that the people said of him,\n\u201cThis man is the great power of God,\u201d Acts viii, 10. Such is the title\nwhich he bore before he had heard of Christ; and there is no reason to\nthink that he afterward raised his pretensions, and identified himself\nwith God. He gave himself out as \u201cthe great power of God,\u201d that is, a\nperson in whom divine power resided: and, after he had heard the\nApostles, he seems to have so far enlarged his doctrine, as to have\nsaid, that the God whose minister he was, and who had always been\nworshipped in Samaria, had revealed himself to the Jews by his Son, and\nto the rest of the world by the Holy Ghost. There is reason to believe\nthat he declared himself to be the Christ who appeared to the Jews; or\nrather, he said that the same spirit which descended upon Jesus had\ndescended afterward upon himself; for he did not believe that Jesus had\na real body, but he taught that he was only a phantom. To this he added,\nthat the Holy Ghost, by which God was revealed to the Gentiles, resided\nin himself: and this I take to be the real origin of the story, that he\nwas the God who revealed himself as the Father to the Samaritans, as the\nSon to the Jews, and as the Holy Ghost to the rest of the world.\n\nAnother charge, which is equally difficult to believe, relates to a\nfemale companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first idea,\nor conception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another\nmental process, in which this first idea was a partner, he produced the\nangels, and they created the world. All this was highly mystical, and\nwriters have had recourse to different allegories, by which the\nabsurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living\nperson with an idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be\nassumed as certain. But we see, in this story, evident traces of the\nGnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first\ncause, or Bythus, act upon \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u1f74, or \u1f18\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1, that is, upon his own mind,\nand produce the first pair of \u00e6ons. This then was the doctrine of Simon:\nthe supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of\nangels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or\nprincipal power resided in Simon Magus. But when later writers had said\nthat he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he,\nwho, by an operation of his own mind, produced the angels. If I have\nargued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of\nits impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which\nis impious; for he believed that the world was created, not by the\nsupreme God, but by inferior beings: he taught also, that Christ was one\nof those successive generations of \u00e6ons which were derived from God; not\nthe \u00e6on which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue\nmankind from the tyranny of the demiurgus, or creative \u00e6on. Simon was\nalso inventor of the strange notion, that the Jesus who was said to be\nborn and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His\nother doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not\ninspired by the supreme God, the Fountain of good, but by those inferior\nbeings who created the world, and who were the authors of evil. He\ndenied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his\nfollowers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious\nconduct.\n\nSuch was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the\npseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon\nhimself seems to have been one of those Jews who, as we learn from the\nActs of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil\nspirits. But he was also a man of speculative mind; and, having studied\nthe doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so\ncommonly agitated, concerning the eternity of matter, and the origin of\nevil. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was\ncreated by angels, who were themselves produced from God. This was a\ncorrupted Platonism. Plato imagined that the ideas which were in the\nmind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the\nsupreme God by an operation of his own mind produced the angels. The\nfirst intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world:\nSimon also taught that the angels, or \u00e6ons, created the world; but in\none respect the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato;\nfor they taught that the angel, or angels, who created the world, acted\ncontrary to the wishes of the supreme God.\n\nSIN, the transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of\nGod, 1 John iii, 4. Original sin is that whereby our whole nature is\ncorrupted, and rendered contrary to the nature and law of God; or,\naccording to the ninth article of the church of England, \u201cIt is that\nwhereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his\nown nature, inclined to evil.\u201d This is sometimes called, \u201cindwelling\nsin,\u201d Rom. vii. The imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity, is\nalso what divines call, with some latitude of expression, original sin.\nActual sin is a direct violation of God\u2019s law, and generally applied to\nthose who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots or\nchildren, who have not the right use of their powers. Sins of omission\nconsist in leaving those things undone which ought to be done. Sins of\ncommission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts,\nor doing what should not be done. Sins of infirmity are those which\narise from ignorance, surprise, &c. Secret sins are those committed in\nsecret, or those of which, through blindness or prejudice, we do not see\nthe evil, Psalm xix, 7\u201312. Presumptuous sins are those which are done\nboldly against light and conviction. The unpardonable sin is, according\nto some, the ascribing to the devil the miracles which Christ wrought by\nthe power of the Holy Ghost. This sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather\nbe called, many scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, who, beholding our\nLord do his miracles, affirmed that he wrought them by Beelzebub, the\nprince of devils, which was, in effect, calling the Holy Ghost Satan, a\nmost horrible blasphemy; and, as on this ground they rejected Christ,\nand salvation by him, their sin could certainly have no forgiveness,\nMark iii, 22\u201330. No one therefore could be guilty of this blasphemy,\nexcept those who were spectators of Christ\u2019s miracles. There is,\nhowever, another view of this unpardonable offence, which deserves\nconsideration: The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says Bishop\nTomline, is mentioned in the first three Gospels. It appears that all\nthe three evangelists agree in representing the sin or blasphemy against\nthe Holy Ghost as a crime which would not be forgiven; but no one of\nthem affirms that those who had ascribed Christ\u2019s power of casting out\ndevils to Beelzebub, had been guilty of that sin, and in St. Luke it is\nnot mentioned that any such charge had been made. Our Saviour, according\nto the account in St. Matthew and St. Mark, endeavoured to convince the\nJews of their error; but so far from accusing them of having committed\nan unpardonable sin in what they had said concerning him, he declares\nthat \u201cwhosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be\nforgiven him;\u201d that is, whatever reproaches men may utter against the\nSon of man during his ministry, however they may calumniate the\nauthority upon which he acts, it is still possible that hereafter they\nmay repent and believe, and all their sins may be forgiven them; but the\nreviling of the Holy Ghost is described as an offence of a far more\nheinous nature: \u201cThe blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be\nforgiven unto men.\u201d \u201cHe that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath\nnever forgiveness.\u201d \u201cUnto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it\nshall not be forgiven.\u201d It is plain that this sin against the Holy Ghost\ncould not be committed while our Saviour was upon earth, since he always\nspeaks of the Holy Ghost as not being to come till after his ascension\ninto heaven. A few days after that great event, the descent of the Holy\nGhost enabled the Apostles to work miracles, and communicated to them a\nvariety of other supernatural gifts. If men should ascribe these powers\nto Beelzebub, or in any respect reject their authority, they would\nblaspheme the Holy Ghost, from whom they were derived; and that sin\nwould be unpardonable, because this was the completion of the evidence\nof the divine authority of Christ and his religion; and they who\nrejected these last means of conviction, could have no other opportunity\nof being brought to faith in Christ, the only appointed condition of\npardon and forgiveness. The greater heinousness of the sin of these men\nwould consist in their rejecting a greater body of testimony; for they\nare supposed to be acquainted with the resurrection of our Saviour from\nthe dead, with his ascension into heaven, with the miraculous descent of\nthe Holy Ghost, and with the supernatural powers which it communicated;\ncircumstances, all of which were enforced by the Apostles when they\npreached the Gospel; but none of which could be known to those who\nrefused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah during his actual ministry.\nThough this was a great sin, it was not an unpardonable one, it might be\nremedied by subsequent belief, by yielding to subsequent testimony. But,\non the other hand, they who finally rejected the accumulated and\ncomplete evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, as exhibited by the\ninspired Apostles, precluded themselves from the possibility of\nconviction, because no farther testimony would be afforded them, and\nconsequently, there being no means of repentance, they would be\nincapable of forgiveness and redemption. Hence it appears that the sin\nagainst the Holy Ghost consisted in finally rejecting the Gospel as\npreached by the Apostles, who confirmed the truth of the doctrine which\nthey taught \u201cby signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the\nHoly Ghost,\u201d Heb. ii, 4. It was unpardonable, because this was the\nconsummation of the proofs afforded to the men of that generation of the\ndivine mission of Christ. This sin was manifestly distinct from all\nother sins; it indicated an invincible obstinacy of mind, an impious and\nunalterable determination to refuse the offered mercy of God. It would\nappear from this, that those only committed or could commit this\nirremissible offence, who were witnesses of the mighty works wrought by\nthe Holy Spirit in the Apostles after Christ\u2019s ascension and the day of\npentecost. Our Lord\u2019s declaration appears chiefly to respect the Jews.\nThis view will serve to explain those passages in the Epistle to the\nHebrews, in which the hopeless case of Jewish apostates is described.\nBut see BLASPHEMY.\n\nSIN, DESERT OF. To this the tenth station the Israelites came exactly a\nmonth after they left Egypt. And here again they murmured for \u201cthe bread\nand the flesh-pots of Egypt.\u201d So the Lord gave them quails for a day,\nand manna for forty years, till they came to the borders of Canaan. On\nthis occasion the institution of the Sabbath was revived, as a day of\nrest, which had been intermitted during their Egyptian bondage. On this\nday there fell no manna, but on the preceding they were directed to\ngather two days\u2019 provision. To perpetuate the memorial of \u201cthis bread\nfrom heaven\u201d to future generations, a pot of manna, which was preserved\nfresh, by a standing miracle, was ordered to be laid up beside the ark\nof the covenant, in the sanctuary, Exod. xvi.\n\nSINAI, a famous mountain of Arabia Petr\u00e6a, on which God gave the law to\nMoses, Exod. xix, 1; xxiv, 16; xxxi, 18; xxxiv, 2, 4, &c; Lev. xxv, 1;\nxxvi, 46. It stands in a kind of peninsula, formed by the two arms of\nthe Red Sea; one extending north, called the Gulf of Kolsom; the other\nextending east, called the Gulf of Elan. The Arabs call Mount Sinai by\nthe name of Tor, that is, the mountain, by way of excellence; or Gibel\nMousa, \u201cthe mountain of Moses.\u201d It is two hundred and sixty miles from\nCairo, which is a journey of ten days. The wilderness of Sinai, where\nthe Israelites continued encamped almost a year, and where Moses erected\nthe tabernacle of the covenant, is considerably elevated above the rest\nof the country; the ascent to it is very craggy, the greater part cut\nout of the rock; then one comes to a large space of ground, which is a\nplain surrounded on all sides by rocks and eminences, whose length is\nnearly twelve miles. Toward the extremity of this plain, on the north,\ntwo high mountains appear; the highest is called Sinai, the other Horeb.\nThey are of very steep ascent, and do not stand on much ground in\ncomparison to their extraordinary height. Sinai is at least one third\npart higher than the other, and its ascent more upright and difficult.\nThe top of the mountain terminates in an uneven and rugged space, which\nmight contain about sixty persons. On this eminence is built a little\nchapel, called St. Catherine\u2019s, where it is thought the body of this\nsaint rested for three hundred and sixty years; but afterward it was\nremoved into a church at the foot of the mountain. Near this chapel\nissues a fountain of very good fresh water; it is looked upon as\nmiraculous, it not being conceivable how water can flow from the brow of\nso high and so barren a mountain. Mount Horeb stands west of Sinai; so\nthat at sun-rising the shadow of Sinai covers Horeb. Beside the little\nfountain at the top of Sinai, there is another at the foot of Horeb,\nwhich supplies the monastery of St. Catherine. Five or six paces from\nthence they show a stone, whose height is four or five feet, and breadth\nabout three, which they say is the very stone from whence Moses caused\nthe water to gush out. Its colour is of a spotted grey; and it is, as it\nwere, set in a kind of earth, where no other rock appears. This stone\nhas twelve holes or channels, which are about a foot wide, from whence\nthey say the water issued which the Israelites drank.\n\n\u201cSinai,\u201d says Sandys, \u201chas three tops of a marvellous height; that on\nthe west side, where God appeared to Moses in a bush, fruitful in\npasturage, far lower than the middlemost, and shadowed when the sun\nriseth thereon; which is that whereon God gave the law to Moses, and\nwhich is now called the Mount of Moses, at the foot of which stands the\nmonastery called St. Catherine\u2019s, from which there were steps formerly\nup to the very top of the mountain, and were computed fourteen thousand\nin number. At present some of them are broken, but those that remain are\nwell made, and easy to go up and down. There are, in several places of\nthe ascent, good cisterns; and especially near the top, a fair and good\none. The third or most easterly summit is called by the religious in\nthose parts, Mount Catherine; on the top of which there is a dome, under\nwhich they say was interred the body of this saint, brought thither by\nangels after she was beheaded at Alexandria.\u201d One may judge of the\nheight of St. Catherine\u2019s Mount, which certainly is not so high as that\nof Moses by a third part, from this circumstance, that Thevenot found\nmuch snow on both when he was there, which was in February. The\nmonastery of St. Catherine is from Cairo some eight days\u2019 journey over\nthe deserts.\n\nSION, or ZION, MOUNT, a mount or hill on the south of Old Jerusalem or\nSalem, and higher than that on which the ancient city stood. This hill\nwas, perhaps, on this account, made choice of by the Jebusites for\nbuilding a fort or citadel upon; which fort was taken by David, who\ntransferred his court thither from Hebron, and brought the ark of the\nLord and set it in a tabernacle or tent pitched for it. On this account\nit is, that this hill is so frequently styled in the Psalms the \u201choly\nhill;\u201d and, by way of excellence, is used in the poetical language of\nScripture to denote the whole city of Jerusalem. Here David built a\npalace, and a city, called after him the city of David; and which\nsubsequently formed a part of Jerusalem, enclosed within the same walls,\nalthough a great part of the hill is now left without them; while, on\nthe contrary, Calvary, which is supposed to have stood formerly without\nthe walls, is now enclosed within them, the city having drawn itself\nround about this sacred mount. \u201cThis hill,\u201d says M. Chateaubriand, \u201cis\nof a yellowish colour, and barren appearance; open in form of a\ncrescent, toward Jerusalem; and is about as high as Montmartre at Paris,\nbut rounder at the top. This sacred summit is distinguished by three\nmonuments, or, more properly, by three ruins, the house of Caiaphas, the\nplace where Christ celebrated his last supper, and the tomb or palace of\nDavid. From the top of the hill you see, to the south, the valley of Ben\nHinnom; beyond this, the field of blood, purchased with the thirty\npieces of silver given to Judas; the hill of Evil Counsel, the tombs of\nthe judges, and the whole desert toward Hebron and Bethlehem. To the\nnorth, the wall of Jerusalem, which passes over the top of Sion,\nintercepts the view of the city, the site of which gradually slopes\ntoward the Valley of Jehoshaphat.\u201d\n\nDr. Richardson observes of Sion, \u201cAt the time when I visited this sacred\nground, one part of it supported a crop of barley, another was\nundergoing the labour of the plough, and the soil turned up consisted of\nstones and lime mixed with earth, such as is usually met with in the\nfoundations of ruined cities. It is nearly a mile in circumference, is\nhighest on the west side, and toward the east falls down in broad\nterraces on the upper part of the mountain, and narrow ones on the side\nas it slopes down toward the brook Kedron. Each terrace is divided from\nthe one above it by a low wall of dry stone, built of the ruins of this\ncelebrated spot. The terraces near the bottom of the hill are used as\ngardens, and are watered from the pool of Siloam. We have here another\nremarkable instance of the special fulfilment of prophecy. \u2018Therefore\nshall Zion for your sakes be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall\nbecome heaps,\u2019 Micah iii, 12.\u201d Mr. Jolliffe represents the hill of Sion\nas not more raised above the city than the Aventine hill above the Roman\nforum; but conjectures that its height, from its base in the Valley of\nGehinnon, from which it rises abruptly, may be equivalent to some of the\nlowest hills which encompass Bath; that is, if the estimate be correct,\nabout three hundred and sixty feet, which is the height of the lowest of\nthe hills above that city.\n\nSISTER, in the style of the Hebrews, has equal latitude as brother. It\nis used not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father\nand mother, but also for a sister only by the same father or by the same\nmother, or a near relation only. Sarah is called sister to Abraham, Gen.\nxii, 13; xx, 12, though only his niece according to some, or sister by\nthe father\u2019s side according to others. In the law, Lev. xviii, 18, it is\nforbidden to take to wife the sister of a wife; to marry two sisters;\nor, according to some interpreters, to marry a second wife, having one\nalready. Literally, \u201cThou shalt not take a wife over her sister to\nafflict her;\u201d as if meaning to forbid polygamy. In the Gospels, the\nbrothers and sisters of Jesus Christ are his cousins, children of the\nsisters of the holy virgin, Matt. xiii, 56; Mark vi, 3.\n\nSLAVE. See SERVANT.\n\nSLEEP, SLEEPING, SLUMBERING, is taken either for the sleep or repose of\nthe body; or for the sleep of the soul, which is supineness, indolence,\nstupidity; or for the sleep of death. \u201cYou shall sleep with your\nfathers;\u201d you shall die, as they are dead. Jeremiah, li, 39, threatens\nBabylon, in the name of the Lord, with a perpetual sleep, out of which\nthey shall not awake. Daniel, xii, 2, speaks of those that sleep in the\ndust of the grave. \u201cLazarus our friend sleepeth; let us go and awake\nhim,\u201d John xi, 11; he is dead, let us go and raise him up. \u201cAwake, thou\nthat sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee\nlight,\u201d Eph. v, 14. Here St. Paul speaks to those that were dead in sin\nand infidelity. St. Peter says of the wicked, \u201cTheir damnation\nslumbereth not,\u201d 2 Peter ii, 3. God is not asleep, he will not forget to\npunish them in his own due time. Isaiah, lxv, 4, speaks of a\nsuperstitious practice among the Pagans, who went to sleep in the\ntemples of their idols, to obtain prophetic dreams: \u201cThey remain among\nthe graves, and lodge in the monuments.\u201d The word, which we translate\n\u201cmonuments,\u201d signifies places \u201ckept\u201d or \u201cobserved.\u201d Some interpret it of\nidol temples, some of caves and dens, in which the Heathens used to\nworship their idols; and some of tombs or monuments for dead persons.\nThus also the superstitious and idolatrous Jews, in contempt of the\nprophets, and of the temple of the Lord, went into the tombs and temples\nof idols to sleep there, and to have dreams that might discover future\nevents to them. The Pagans for this purpose used to lie upon the skins\nof the sacrificed victims.\n\nSLINGS. See ARMS.\n\nSMYRNA, a city of Asia Minor, and one of the finest in all the Levant.\nIt contended for the honour of giving birth to Homer, and its title is\nby many thought to be the best founded. The Christian church in Smyrna\nwas one of the seven churches of Asia to which the Apostle John was\ncommanded to address an epistle, Rev. ii, 8\u201310. The present Smyrna,\nwhich the Turks call Esmir, is about four miles in circumference, and\ncontains a population of about a hundred thousand souls. It is less\nremarkable for the elegance of its buildings than for the beauty of its\nsituation, the extent of its commerce, and the riches of its\ninhabitants.\n\nSOCINIANS, a sect so called from Faustus Socinus, who died in Poland in\n1604. This celebrated man was born in Tuscany, and was descended from an\nancient and noble family. In the earlier period of his life he devoted\nlittle time to literary acquisitions, but he was possessed of a vigorous\nunderstanding, and of that steady fortitude which qualified him for the\nmemorable part which he afterward acted. His connection with his uncle\nL\u00e6lius probably gave a bias to his mind with respect to religion. He\nwarmly embraced his tenets, and he spent a great part of his days in\nstudying and disseminating them. Having left his native country, he\nvisited Poland; and finally he settled in it for the express purpose of\npropagating his own peculiar views of religious truth. The fundamental\nprinciples which he assumed were, the rejection of all mystery from\nrevelation, and the necessity of trying its doctrines by the light of\nreason; and he rigorously applied this latter maxim in conducting his\ntheological investigations. He inculcated in the strictest sense, the\nunity of God; considered the Word and the Holy Ghost as attributes of\nthe supreme Being; taught that Christ was a man peculiarly honoured by\nthe Almighty, having been born through the operation of the Spirit; and\nthat he was so highly exalted, in consequence of his office as the\nSaviour of the world, that he might be styled the Son of God, and ought\nto be worshipped. Struck with several declarations of our Lord which\nseemed to imply that he had descended from heaven, and which militated\nagainst his leading tenet respecting Jesus, he endeavoured to evade the\napplication of them, by supposing or affirming that, previous to the\ncommencement of our Saviour\u2019s ministry, he had, through the power of\nGod, been taken up to the celestial regions, and had in them received\nfrom the Almighty the truths which he was commissioned to reveal.\n\nThe first reception of Socinus in Poland, even by those who might have\nbeen expected to welcome him, was most discouraging. The Unitarian\nchurches which had been previously established in that kingdom,\ndiffering from him in several points, would not admit him into their\ncommunion; and he had to encounter the enmity of the great majority of\nChristians, who abhorred his tenets, and branded them as impious. But,\nnotwithstanding all this, and although he was visited with much\nsuffering and affliction, his perseverance, his talents, and his zeal\nsoon excited admiration; his views were adopted by many even in the\nhighest stations of life; his principles were embodied in a catechism,\nwhich, though not imposed upon his followers, they read with very\nextensive acquiescence; and he had the satisfaction of beholding the\nsentiments which he had long cherished, embraced by various churches\nenjoying the protection of government, and permitted to establish\nseminaries of education by which the impression made on the public mind\nmight be preserved and deepened. There was not, however, perfect\nunanimity of faith among all his associates who united in denying the\ndivinity of our Lord. Vast numbers of these, previous to their having\nperused the papers of L\u00e6lius Socinus, had so far received the system of\nArianism, that they believed Christ to have existed before he entered\ninto the world; and although many, in consequence of the reasonings and\nrepresentations of Socinus, abandoned this doctrine, it was retained by\nsome, who, from their leader, were called Farnovians. Socinus conducted\nhimself toward these men with admirable address. Fully aware that the\ntendency of their having departed so far from the orthodox tenets was to\nlead them to still farther recession, and sensible that his own system\nnaturally and consequentially resulted from what they readily admitted,\nhe used every method to conciliate them, and he permitted them to remain\nwith his followers, upon condition of their not openly insisting on the\npre\u00ebxistence of Christ. They did, however, at length separate from the\ngreat body of his adherents; but they gradually approached nearer and\nnearer to them, and, upon the death of Farnovius, most of them\nincorporated themselves with the Socinians, and all trace of them as a\ndistinct party was obliterated.\n\nSocinus was much more agitated by the promulgation of an opinion very\nopposite to those now mentioned. As might have been anticipated, there\nwere some who, having adopted the sentiments of L\u00e6lius Socinus as to the\nsimple humanity of Christ, deduced from this tenet consequences which\nappeared to them obviously to flow from it, although these had not been\nperceived or admitted by L\u00e6lius himself. A striking example of this took\nplace in the time of Faustus Socinus. Francis David, a man of\nconsiderable influence among the Unitarians, being the superintendent of\ntheir churches in Transylvania, maintained that, as Christ was born just\nlike other men, so he continued, notwithstanding his exaltation, to be\nmerely a human being; and that therefore all invocation of him, and\nworship paid to him, were to be shunned as impiety or idolatry. Socinus\ninveighed with the utmost warmth against this opinion; he used every\nmethod to induce David to renounce it; and, at the desire of one of his\nfriends, he resided for a considerable time at the house of his\nopponent, that the subject at issue might be fully and calmly discussed.\nHe failed, however, in accomplishing his object. David persisted, as he\nhad, upon the ground which he had taken, good reason to do, in asserting\nthe doctrine which he had announced; and he was soon after this thrown\nby the prince of Transylvania into prison, where he lingered for several\nyears, and then died at an advanced age. It has been insinuated that\nSocinus was accessary to this cruel deed of detestable persecution; and,\nalthough attempts have been made to wipe off the imputation, there is\ntoo much cause to think that it is not wholly unfounded. Most certain it\nis, that he had it much at heart to root out what he viewed as the\nheresy of David, and that the support of it after the death of the\nunhappy sufferer by some distinguished Unitarians gave him much\nuneasiness. It is not unlikely that the zeal which he thus displayed\narose from his apprehension that the tenets which he opposed would\nsupplant his own, and from the difficulty that he must have experienced\nin turning aside the inferences which were affirmed to follow from what\nhe admitted. If such was the case, and it seems in many respects more\nprobable than the conjecture of Mosheim, that it is to be attributed to\nthe dread of rendering the sect more odious than it actually was, we\nhave a striking proof of his discernment, though at the expense of his\ncandour; for the present creed of Unitarianism approaches much nearer to\nthat of David than to the doctrines of the founder of Socinianism\nhimself.\n\nBut, while he was thus disquieted by opposition which, after the liberty\nwith which he had himself departed from the faith of the most ancient\nand numerous Christian churches, should have created no surprise, he was\nhighly gratified by the zeal and the establishment of his followers.\nUnder the protection of the ample toleration which they enjoyed in\nPoland they were sedulous in their attempts to imprint their tenets upon\nthose among whom they lived, and to send these tenets abroad to foreign\nnations. The Anti-trinitarians in Poland had early translated the\nScriptures, and their successors under Socinus composed many works with\nthe design of defending the principles of their faith. They also sent\nmissionaries to propagate their views and to disseminate the books which\nsupported them, anticipating success similar to that which had\naccompanied their efforts in Transylvania. But in Hungary and in Austria\nthey were successfully opposed by the united and cordial efforts of\nCatholics and Protestants. In Holland they were more fortunate; and in\nEngland they established only one congregation, which differed in some\npoints from the parent sect, and which soon dwindled away.\n\nThese failures, which the ardour, the ability, and the high rank of many\nwho engaged in the diffusion of Socinianism were unable to prevent, were\nsoon followed by their expulsion from the country in which they had so\nlong remained in security and peace. Toward the middle of the\nseventeenth century some of the students attending the academy at Racow,\nwantonly insulted the feelings and the principles of the Catholics, by a\ncontemptible act of outrage against a crucifix, which, with stones, they\nthrew down from the place in which it had been erected. By men warmly\nattached to their own religion, and who had at all times regarded the\nSocinians as undermining its foundation, this youthful excess was\nrepresented as confirming all the charges that had been made against the\ncommunity to which the perpetrators belonged, and they determined to\nexert themselves to procure their punishment or extirpation. The\nsupporters of the established religion accordingly applied to the diet\nat Warsaw; and, notwithstanding the powerful influence used in favour of\nthe Socinians, a cruel edict was passed, abolishing their academy at\nRacow, banishing the learned men who had taught in it, breaking the\nprinting presses, and shutting up the churches. This edict was carried\ninto effect with much severity; but it did not exhaust the enmity now\ncherished against the sect; for within a few years after, by a solemn\nact of the Polish diet, they were banished from the territories of the\nrepublic, and, with sad departure from the tolerant and beneficent\nspirit of the Gospel, death was denounced against all who held their\nopinions, or who even sheltered and protected those who entertained\nthem. A short time was allowed to the unfortunate victims to arrange\ntheir affairs before they bade an eternal adieu to scenes which all the\nties of human life must have endeared to them; but this period was\nabridged. Some, however, had escaped the operation of the law, and had\nremained in Poland; but three years after the edict was renewed, and the\nSocinians who still lingered in their beloved country were driven from\nit with a rigour and an inhumanity reflecting infamy upon those who were\nguilty of them, and leading to the most melancholy reflections upon that\ndismal perversion of all that is amiable in our nature, which has so\noften been effected by a mistaken zeal for a religion breathing the\ntenderest concern for the happiness of mankind. The principles of\nSocinus were, notwithstanding, secretly fostered, and various causes\ntended to perpetuate them even where in profession they were abjured.\nThe propensity, so natural to man, of dissipating every shade of\nmystery, and casting the light of his own understanding around the\nsubjects of his contemplation, did not cease to operate; and the\napplication of this principle, so gratifying to the pride of human\nreason, carried many farther than even Socinus had probably anticipated.\n\nThe Socinians hold, that Jesus Christ was a mere man, who had no\nexistence before he was born of the virgin Mary; that the Holy Ghost is\nno distinct person; but that the Father only is truly and properly God.\nThey own that the name of God is given in Scripture to Jesus Christ, but\ncontend that it is only a deputed title; which, however, invests him\nwith a great authority over all creatures. They deny the doctrine of\nsatisfaction and imputed righteousness, and say, that Christ only\npreached the truth to mankind, set before them in himself an example of\nheroic virtue, and sealed his doctrines with his blood. Original sin\nthey esteem a mere scholastic chimera. Some of them, likewise, maintain\nthe sleep of the soul, which, they say, becomes insensible at death, and\nis raised again with the body at the resurrection, when the good shall\nbe established in the possession of eternal felicity, while the wicked\nshall be consigned to a fire that will torment them, not eternally, but\nfor a certain duration, proportioned to their demerits.\n\nSODOM, the capital of Pentapolis, which for some time was the residence\nof Lot, the nephew of Abraham. The history of its destruction is given\nin the book of Genesis. See ABRAHAM, LOT, and DEAD SEA.\n\nSOLOMON, or SALOMON, son of David and Bathsheba, was born A. M. 2971.\nThe Lord loved him, and sent Nathan to David to give Solomon the name of\nJedidiah, or, \u201cbeloved of the Lord,\u201d 2 Sam. xii, 24, 25. This was\nprobably when Nathan assured David that his son should succeed him, and\nthat he should inherit those promises which had been made to him some\nyears before, when he had conceived the design of building a temple to\nthe Lord; for then God declared, by the prophet Nathan, that the honour\nof building a temple should be reserved for his son, 2 Sam. vii, 5, &c.\nSolomon, being confirmed in his kingdom, contracted an alliance with\nPharaoh, king of Egypt, and married his daughter, A.M. 2291. He brought\nher to Jerusalem, and had apartments for her in the city of David, till\nhe should build her a palace, which he did some years afterward, when he\nhad finished the temple. It is thought that on occasion of this\nmarriage, Solomon composed the Canticles, which are a kind of\nepithalamium. The Scripture speaks of the daughter of Pharaoh, as\ncontributing to pervert Solomon, 1 Kings xi, 1, 2; Neh. xiii, 26; and it\nis very likely, that if at first this princess might seem converted to\nthe Lord, she afterward might retain her private disposition to\nidolatry, and might engage her husband in it.\n\nSolomon, accompanied by his troops and all Israel, went up to Gibeon,\nwhere was then the brazen altar, upon which he offered a thousand\nburnt-offerings. The night following, God appeared to him in a dream,\nand said, \u201cAsk of me what thou wilt.\u201d Solomon begged of God a wise and\nunderstanding heart, and such qualities as were necessary for the\ngovernment of the people committed to him. This request pleased the\nLord, and was fully granted by him. Solomon returned to Jerusalem, where\nhe offered a great number of sacrifices on the altar before the ark of\nthe Lord, and made a great feast for his servants. He enjoyed a profound\npeace throughout his dominions; Judah and Israel lived in security; and\nhis neighbours either paid him tribute, or were his allies; he ruled\nover all the countries and kingdoms from the Euphrates to the Nile, and\nhis dominions extended even beyond the former; he had abundance of\nhorses and chariots of war; he exceeded the orientals, and all the\nEgyptians, in wisdom and prudence; he was the wisest of mankind, and his\nreputation was spread through all nations. He composed or collected,\nthree thousand proverbs, and one thousand and five canticles. He knew\nthe nature of plants and trees, from the cedar on Libanus to the hyssop\non the wall; also of beasts, of birds, of reptiles, of fishes. There was\na concourse of strangers from all countries to hear his wisdom, and\nambassadors from the most remote princes.\n\nWhen Hiram, king of Tyre, knew that Solomon was made king of Israel, he\nsent ambassadors to congratulate him on his accession to the crown. Some\ntime afterward, Solomon desired him to supply wood and workmen, to\nassist in building a temple to the Lord. Hiram gladly undertook this\nservice, and Solomon, on his part, obliged himself to give twenty\nthousand measures of wheat, and twenty thousand measures of oil. The\nHebrew and the Vulgate have only twenty measures of oil; but the reading\nought no doubt to be twenty thousand. Solomon began to build the temple\nin the fourth year of his reign, and the second after the death of\nDavid; four hundred and eighty years after the exodus from Egypt. He\nemployed in this great work seventy thousand proselytes, descendants of\nthe ancient Canaanites, in carrying burdens, fourscore thousand in\ncutting stones out of the quarries, and three thousand six hundred\noverseers of the works; beside thirty thousand Israelites in the\nquarries of Libanus.\n\nThe temple was completed in the eleventh year of Solomon, so that he was\nbut seven years in performing this vast work. The dedication was made\nthe year following, A. M. 3001. To make this ceremony the more august,\nSolomon chose for it the eighth day of the seventh month of the holy\nyear, which was the first of the civil year, and answered to our\nOctober. The ceremony of the dedication lasted seven days, at the end of\nwhich began the feast of tabernacles, which continued seven days longer;\nso that the people continued at Jerusalem fourteen or fifteen days, from\nthe eighth to the twenty-second of the seventh month. When the ark was\nplaced in the sanctuary, while the priests and Levites were celebrating\nthe praises of the Lord, the temple was filled with a miraculous cloud,\nso that the priests could no longer stand to perform the functions of\ntheir ministry. Then Solomon, being on his throne, prostrated himself\nwith his face to the ground; and rising up, and turning toward the\nsanctuary, he addressed his prayer to God, and besought him that the\nhouse which he had built might be acceptable to him, that he would bless\nand sanctify it, and hear the prayers of those who should address him\nfrom this holy place. He besought him also to fulfil the promises he had\nmade to David his servant in favour of his family, and of the kings his\nsuccessors. Then turning himself to the people, he solemnly blessed\nthem. Fire coming down from heaven consumed the victims and burnt\nsacrifices on the altar, and the glory of the Lord filled the whole\ntemple. On this day the king caused to be sacrificed twenty-two thousand\noxen, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep for peace-offerings. And\nbecause the altar of burnt-offerings was not sufficient for all these\nvictims, the king consecrated the court of the people.\n\nSolomon afterward built a palace for himself, and another for his queen,\nthe king of Egypt\u2019s daughter. He was thirteen years in finishing these\nbuildings, and employed in them whatever the most exquisite art, or the\nmost profuse riches, could furnish. The palace in which he generally\nresided was called the house of the forest of Lebanon; probably because\nof the great quantity of cedar used in it. Solomon also built the walls\nof Jerusalem, and the place called Millo in this city; he repaired and\nfortified Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, the two Bethhorons, Upper and Lower,\nBaalath, and Palmyra in the desert of Syria. He also fortified the\ncities where he had magazines of corn, wine, and oil; and those where\nhis horses and chariots were kept. He brought under his government the\nHittites, the Hivites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, which remained\nin the land of Israel. He made them tributaries, and compelled them to\nwork at the public works. He fitted out a fleet at Ezion-Geber, and at\nElath, on the Red Sea, to go to Ophir. Hiram, king of Tyre, furnished\nhim with mariners, who instructed the subjects of Solomon. They\nperformed this voyage in three years, and brought back gold, ivory,\nebony, precious wood, peacocks, apes, and other curiosities. In one\nvoyage they brought Solomon four hundred and fifty talents of gold, 2\nChron. ix, 21. About the same time, the queen of Sheba came to\nJerusalem, attracted by the great fame of the king. She brought rich\npresents of gold, spices, and precious stones; and proposed several\nenigmas and hard questions, to which Solomon gave her such satisfactory\nanswers, that she owned what had been told her of his wisdom and\nmagnificence was far short of what she had found. The king, on his part,\nmade her rich presents in return.\n\nSolomon was one of the richest, if not the very richest, of all princes\nthat have ever lived; and the Scripture expressly tells us he exceeded\nin riches and wisdom all the kings of the earth. His annual revenues\nwere six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold, without reckoning\ntributes from kings and nations, or paid by Israelites, or sums received\nfor customs. The bucklers of his guards, and the throne he sat on, were\noverlaid with gold. All the vessels of his table, and the utensils of\nhis palaces, were of gold. From all parts he received presents, vessels\nof gold and silver, precious stuffs, spices, arms, horses, and mules;\nand the whole earth desired to see his face, and to hear the wisdom\nwhich God had put into his heart. But the latter actions of his life\ndisgraced his character. Beside Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, he married wives\nfrom among the Moabites, Ammonites, Idumeans, Sidonians, and Hittites.\nHe had seven hundred wives, who were so many queens, beside three\nhundred concubines. These women perverted his heart in his declining\nage, so that he worshipped Ashtoreth, goddess of the Sidonians, Moloch,\nidol of the Ammonites, and Chemosh, god of the Moabites. To these he\nbuilt temples on the Mount of Olives, over against and east of\nJerusalem, and thus insulted openly the Majesty he had adored.\n\nSolomon died after he had reigned forty years, A. M. 3029. He might be\nabout fifty-eight years of age; for he was about eighteen when he began\nto reign. Josephus makes him to have reigned eighty years and to have\nlived ninety-four years; but this is a manifest error. The history of\nthis prince was written by the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo. He was\nburied in the city of David; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.\nOf all the ingenious works composed by Solomon, we have nothing\nremaining but his Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; that is,\nevery literary monument respecting him has perished, except those\nwritten under inspiration--the inspired history which registers his\napostasy, and his own inspired works, which, in all the principles they\ncontain, condemn his vices. Some have ascribed to him the book of\nWisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; but these were written by Hellenistic Jews.\n\nSOUL, that immortal, immaterial, active substance or principle in man,\nwhereby he perceives, remembers, reasons, and wills. See MATERIALISM.\n\nSOWING. Our Lord, in his parable of the sower, says, \u201cSome seeds fell by\nthe wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them.\u201d Buckingham, in his\nTravels in Palestine, remarks, \u201cWe ascended to an elevated plain where\nhusbandmen were sowing, and some thousands of starlings covered the\nground, as the wild pigeons do in Egypt, laying a heavy contribution on\nthe grain thrown into the furrows, which are not covered by harrowing,\nas in Europe.\u201d The sowing \u201cbeside all waters,\u201d mentioned by Isaiah,\nseems to refer to the sowing of rice, which is done on low grounds\nflooded, and prepared for sowing by being trodden by oxen and asses,\nmid-leg deep; thus, they send \u201cforth thither the feet of the ox and the\nass.\u201d\n\nSPARROW, \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8, Gen. vii, 14, and afterward frequently; \u03db\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, Matt.\nx, 29; Luke xii, 6, 7; a little bird every where known. The Hebrew word\nis used not only for a sparrow, but for all sorts of clean birds, or for\nthose the use of which was not forbidden by the law. That the sparrow is\nnot intended in Psalm cii, 7, is evident from several circumstances; for\nthat is intimated to be a bird of night, one that is both solitary and\nmournful; none of which characteristics is applicable to the sparrow,\nwhich rests by night, is gregarious and cheerful. It seems rather to\nmean a bird melancholy and drooping, much like one confined in a cage.\nSee SWALLOW.\n\nSPEECH. See LANGUAGE.\n\nSPIDER, \u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9, Job viii, 14; Isa. lix, 5. An insect well known,\nremarkable for the thread which it spins, with which it forms a web of\ncurious texture, but so frail that it is exposed to be broken and\ndestroyed by the slightest accident. To the slenderness of this filmy\nworkmanship, Job compares the hope of the wicked. This, says Dr. Good,\nwas \u201cdoubtless a proverbial allusion; and so exquisite, that it is\nimpossible to conceive any figure that can more fully describe the utter\nvanity of the hopes and prosperity of the wicked.\u201d\n\n               \u201cDeceiving bliss! in bitter shame it ends,\n               His prop a cobweb, which an insect rends.\u201d\n\nSo Isaiah says, \u201cThey weave the web of the spider; of their webs no\ngarment shall be made; neither shall they cover themselves with their\nworks.\u201d\n\nSPIKENARD, \u05e0\u05e8\u05d3. By this was meant a highly aromatic plant growing in the\nIndies, called \u201cnardostachys,\u201d by Dioscorides and Galen; from whence was\nmade the very valuable extract or unguent, or favourite perfume, used at\nthe ancient baths and feasts, _unguentum nardinum_, _unguentum nardi\nspicat\u00e6_, [the perfume or unction of spikenard,] which it appears from a\npassage in Horace, was so valuable, that as much of it as could be\ncontained in a small box of precious stone, was considered as a sort of\nequivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a handsome quota for a guest\nto contribute at an entertainment, according to the custom of antiquity:\n\n                _Nardo vina merebere:\n                 Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum._\n\n              \u201cBring you the odours, and a cask is thine.\n              Thy little box of ointment shall produce\n              A mighty cask.\u201d\n                                         FRANCIS.\n\nSt. Mark, xiv, 3, mentions \u201cointment of spikenard very precious,\u201d which\nis said to be worth more than three hundred denarii; and John, xii, 3,\nmentions a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly; the house was\nfilled with the odour of the ointment; it was worth three hundred\ndenarii. It is not to be supposed that this was a Syrian production, but\nthe true \u201catar\u201d of Indian spikenard; an unguent, containing the very\nessence of the plant, and brought at a great expense from a remote\ncountry.\n\nSPIRIT, in Hebrew, \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7, in Greek, \u03d6\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, and in Latin, _spiritus_, is\nin the Scriptures sometimes taken for the Holy Ghost, the third person\nof the Holy Trinity. The word signifies also the reasonable soul which\nanimates us, and continues in existence even after the death of the\nbody: that spiritual, thinking and reasoning substance, which is capable\nof eternal happiness, Num. xvi, 22; Acts vii, 59. The term spirit is\nalso often used for an angel, a demon, and a ghost, or soul separate\nfrom the body. It is said, in Acts xxiii, 8, that the Sadducees denied\nthe existence of angels and spirits. Jesus Christ appearing to his\ndisciples, said to them, Luke xxiv, 39, \u201cHandle me and see, for a spirit\nhath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.\u201d And St. Paul calls the\ngood angels \u201cministering spirits,\u201d Heb. i, 14. In 1 Sam. xvi, 14; xviii,\n10; xix 9, it is said that an evil spirit from the Lord troubled Saul:\nand we have also the expression unclean spirits. Add to this, spirit is\nsometimes put for the disposition of the heart or mind: see Num. v, 14;\nZech. xii, 10; Luke xiii, 11; Isa. xi, 2. Discerning of spirits, or the\nsecret character and thoughts of men, was a gift of God, and placed\namong the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii, 10; 1 John iv,\n1.\n\nSTAR, in Hebrew, \u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d1. Under the name of stars, the ancient Hebrews\ncomprehended all the heavenly bodies, constellations, and planets; in a\nword, all the luminaries, the sun and moon excepted. The number of the\nstars was looked upon as infinite. And the Psalmist, to exalt the power\nand magnificence of God, says, that he numbers the stars and calls them\nby their names; and so are they put to express a vast multitude, Gen.\nxv, 5; xxii, 17; Exod. xxxiii, 13.\n\nSTEPHEN, the first martyr. He is always put at the head of the seven\ndeacons; and it is believed he had studied at the feet of Gamaliel. As\nhe was full of the Holy Ghost, and of zeal, Acts vi, 5, 6, &c, he\nperformed many wonderful miracles: and those of the synagogue of the\nLibertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and others, disputing\nwith him, could not withstand the wisdom and the power with which he\nspoke. Then having suborned false witnesses, to testify that they had\nheard him blaspheme against Moses, and against God, they drew him before\nthe sanhedrim. Stephen appeared in the midst of this assembly, with a\ncountenance like that of an angel; and the high priest asking him what\nhe had to answer, in his defence he rapidly traced the history of the\nJews, showing that they had always opposed themselves to God and his\nprophets; faithfully upbraided them with the hardness of their hearts,\nwith their putting the prophets to death, and, lastly, with slaying\nChrist himself. At these words they were filled with rage, and gnashed\ntheir teeth against him. But Stephen, lifting up his eyes to heaven,\ncalmly exclaimed, \u201cI see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing\nat the right hand of God.\u201d Then the Jews cried out, and stopped their\nears as though they had heard blasphemy, and falling on him, they drew\nhim out of the city, and stoned him. The witnesses laid down their\nclothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, afterward St. Paul, who\nthen appears to have commenced his career of persecution. \u201cAnd they\nstoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my\nspirit; and he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not\nthis sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep,\u201d an\nexample of the majesty and meekness of true Christian heroism, and as\nthe first, so also the pattern, of all subsequent martyrs. His Christian\nbrethren forsook not the remains of this holy man; but took care to bury\nhim, and accompanied his funeral with great mourning, Acts viii, 2.\n\nSTOICS, a sect of Heathen philosophers, Acts xvii, 18. Their\ndistinguishing tenets were, that God is underived, incorruptible, and\neternal; possessed of infinite wisdom and goodness; the efficient cause\nof all the qualities and forms of things; and the constant preserver and\ngovernor of the world: That matter, in its original elements, is also\nunderived and eternal; and is by the powerful energy of the Deity\nimpressed with motion and form: That though God and matter subsisted\nfrom eternity, the present regular frame of nature had a beginning\noriginating in the gross and dark chaos, and will terminate in a\nuniversal conflagration, that will reduce the world to its pristine\nstate: That at this period all material forms will be lost in one\nchaotic mass; and all animated nature be reunited to the Deity: That\nfrom this chaotic state, however, the world will again emerge by the\nenergy of the efficient principle; and gods, and men, and all forms of\nregulated nature be renewed and dissolved, in endless succession: And\nthat after the revolution of the great year all things will be restored,\nand the race of men will return to life. Some imagined, that each\nindividual would return to its former body; while others supposed, that\nsimilar souls would be placed in similar bodies. Those among the stoics\nwho maintained the existence of the soul after death, supposed it to be\nremoved into the celestial regions of the gods, where it remains until,\nat the general conflagration, all souls, both human and divine, shall be\nabsorbed in the Deity. But many imagined that, before they were admitted\namong the divinities, they must purge away their inherent vices and\nimperfections, by a temporary residence in some a\u00ebrial regions between\nthe earth and the planets. According to the general doctrine of the\nstoics, all things are subject to a stern irresistible fatality, even\nthe gods themselves. Some of them explained this fate as an eternal\nchain of causes and effects; while others, more approaching the\nChristian system, describe it as resulting from the divine decrees--the\nfiat of an eternal providence. Considering the system practically, it\nwas the object of this philosophy to divest men of their passions and\naffections. They taught, therefore, that a wise man might be happy in\nthe midst of torture; and that all external things were to him\nindifferent. Their virtues all arose from, and centred in, themselves;\nand self approbation was their great reward.\n\nSTONE. This word is sometimes taken in the sense of rock, and is applied\nfiguratively to God, as the refuge of his people. See _Rock_, The\nHebrews gave the name of \u201cstones\u201d to the weights used in commerce; no\ndoubt because they were originally formed of stone. \u201cJust weights,\u201d is\ntherefore in Hebrew, \u201cjust stones.\u201d \u201cThe corner stone,\u201d or \u201cthe head\nstone of the corner,\u201d is a figurative representation of Christ. It is\nthe stone at the angle of a building, whether at the foundation or the\ntop of the wall. Christ was that corner stone, which, though rejected by\nthe Jews, became the corner stone of the church, and the stone that\nbinds and unites the synagogue and the Gentiles in the unity of the same\nfaith. Some have thought the showers of stones cast down by the Lord out\nof heaven, mentioned several times in the Old Testament, to be showers\nof hail of extraordinary size; which was probably the case, as they even\nnow sometimes occur in those countries in a most terrific and\ndestructive form, and show how irresistible an agent this meteor is in\nthe hands of an offended God. The knives of stone that were made use of\nby the Jews in circumcision, were not enjoined by the law; but the use\nof them was founded, either upon custom, or upon the experience that\nthis kind of instrument is found to be less dangerous than those made of\nmetal. Zipporah made use of a stone to circumcise her sons, Exod. iv,\n25. Joshua, v, 2, did the same, when he caused such of the Israelites to\nbe circumcised at Gilgal, as had not received circumcision during their\njourney in the wilderness. The Egyptians, according to Herodotus, made\nuse of knives of stone to open dead bodies that were to be embalmed; and\nPliny assures us, that the priests of the mother of the gods had sharp\nstones, with which they cut and slashed themselves, which they thought\nthey could not do with any thing else without danger. Great heaps of\nstones, raised up for a witness of any memorable event, and to preserve\nthe remembrance of some matter of great importance, are among the most\nancient monuments. In those elder ages, before the use of writing, these\nmonuments were instead of inscriptions, pyramids, medals, or histories.\nJacob and Laban raised such a monument upon Mount Gilead in memory of\ntheir covenant, Gen. xxxi, 46. Joshua erected one at Gilgal, made of\nstones taken out of the Jordan, to preserve the memorial of his\nmiraculous passage over this river, Josh. iv, 5\u20137. The Israelites that\ndwelt beyond Jordan also raised one upon the banks of the river, as a\ntestimony that they constituted but one nation with their brethren on\nthe other side, Joshua xxii, 10. Sometimes they heaped up such a\ncollection of stones upon the burying place of some odious persons, as\nwas done in the case of Achan and Absalom, Joshua vii, 26; 2 Kings\nxviii, 17.\n\nA \u201cheart of stone\u201d may be understood several ways. Job, xli, 24,\nspeaking of the leviathan, says, that \u201chis heart is as firm as a stone,\nyea as hard as a piece of the nether millstone:\u201d that is, he is of a\nvery extraordinary strength, boldness, and courage. It is said, 1 Sam.\nxxv, 37, that Nabal\u2019s heart died within him, and he became as a stone,\nwhen he was told of the danger he had incurred by his imprudence; his\nheart became contracted or convulsed, and this was the occasion of his\ndeath. Ezekiel, xxxvi, 26, says, that the Lord will take away from his\npeople their heart of stone, and give them a heart of flesh; that is, he\nwill render them contrite, and sensible to spiritual things. \u201cI will\ngive him a white stone,\u201d Rev. ii, 17; that is, I will give him full and\npublic pardon and absolution. It is spoken in allusion to an ancient\ncustom of delivering a white stone to such as they acquitted in\njudgment. They used likewise to give a white stone to such as conquered\nin the Grecian games.\n\nSTORK, \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Job xxxix, 13; Psalm civ, 17;\nJer. viii, 7; Zech. v, 9; a bird similar to the crane in size, has the\nsame formation as to the bill, neck, legs, and body, but is rather more\ncorpulent. The colour of the crane is ash and black; that of the stork\nis white and brown. The nails of its toes are also very peculiar; not\nbeing clawed like those of other birds, but flat like the nails of a\nman. It has a very long beak, and long red legs. It feeds upon serpents,\nfrogs, and insects, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among\nunclean birds. As it seeks for these in watery places, nature has\nprovided it with long legs; and as it flies away, as well as the crane\nand heron, to its nest with its plunder, therefore its bill is strong\nand jagged, the sharp hooks of which enable it to retain its slippery\nprey. It has long been remarkable for its love to its parents, whom it\nnever forsakes, but tenderly feeds and cherishes when they have become\nold, and unable to provide for themselves. The very learned and\njudicious Bochart has collected a variety of passages from the ancients,\nin which they testify this curious particular. Its very name in the\nHebrew language, _chasida_, signifies mercy or piety: and its English\nname is taken, if not directly, yet secondarily, through the Saxon, from\nthe Greek word \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74, which is often used for natural affection.\n\n             The stork\u2019s an emblem of true piety;\n             Because, when age has seized and made his dam\n             Unfit for flight, the grateful young one takes\n             His mother on his back, provides her food,\n             Repaying thus her tender care of him\n             Ere he was fit to fly.\n                                             BEAUMONT.\n\nIt is a bird of passage, and is spoken of as such in Scripture: \u201cThe\nstork knoweth her appointed time,\u201d Jer. viii, 7.\n\n            Who bid the stork, Columbus-like, explore\n            Heavens not its own, and worlds unknown before?\n            Who calls the council, states the certain day,\n            Who forms the phalanx, and who points the way?\n                                               POPE.\n\nBochart has collected several testimonies of the migration of storks.\n\u00c6lian says, that in summer time they remain stationary, but at the close\nof autumn they repair to Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia. \u201cFor about the\nspace of a fortnight before they pass from one country to another,\u201d says\nDr. Shaw, \u201cthey constantly resort together, from all the adjacent parts,\nin a certain plain; and there forming themselves, once every day, into a\n\u2018douwanne,\u2019 or council, (according to the phrase of these eastern\nnations,) are said to determine the exact time of their departure, and\nthe place of their future abodes.\u201d See SWALLOW.\n\nSTRANGER. Moses inculcated and enforced by numerous and by powerful\nconsiderations, as well as by various examples of benevolent\nhospitality, mentioned in the book of Genesis, the exhibition of\nkindness and humanity to strangers. There were two classes of persons\nwho, in reference to this subject, were denominated _strangers_, \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd.\nOne class were those who, whether Hebrews or foreigners, were destitute\nof a home, in Hebrew \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd. The others were persons who, though not\nnatives, had a home in Palestine; the latter were \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, _strangers_ or\n_foreigners_, in the strict sense of the word. Both of these classes,\naccording to the civil code of Moses, were to be treated with kindness,\nand were to enjoy the same rights with other citizens, Lev. xix, 33, 34;\nxxiv, 16, 22; Num. ix, 14; xv, 14; Deut. x, 18; xxiii, 7; xxiv, 17;\nxxvii, 19. In the earlier periods of the Hebrew state, persons who were\nnatives of another country, but who had come, either from choice or from\nnecessity, to take up their residence among the Hebrews, appear to have\nbeen placed in favourable circumstances. At a later period, namely, in\nthe reigns of David and Solomon, they were compelled to labour on the\nreligious edifices which were erected by those princes; as we may learn\nfrom such passages as these: \u201cAnd Solomon numbered all the strangers\nthat were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his\nfather had numbered them; and they were found a hundred and fifty\nthousand and three thousand and six hundred; and he set three score and\nten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens,\u201d &c, 1 Chron. xxii, 2; 2\nChron. ii, 1, 16, 17. The exaction of such laborious services from\nforeigners was probably limited to those who had been taken prisoners in\nwar; and who, according to the rights of war, as they were understood at\nthat period, could be justly employed in any offices, however low and\nhowever laborious, which the conqueror thought proper to impose. In the\ntime of Christ, the degenerate Jews did not find it convenient to render\nto the strangers from a foreign country those deeds of kindness and\nhumanity which were not only their due, but which were demanded in their\nbehalf by the laws of Moses. They were in the habit of understanding by\nthe word \u05e8\u05e2, _neighbour_, their friends merely, and accordingly\nrestricted the exercise of their benevolence by the same narrow limits\nthat bounded in this case their interpretation; contrary as both were to\nthe spirit of those passages which have been adduced above, Lev. xix,\n18.\n\nSTREETS, CORNERS OF. Our Lord reproves the Pharisees for praying in the\ncorners of the streets, that is, choosing public places for what ought\nto have been private devotion. The Hindoos, Mohammedans, and others\nstill have this practice. \u201cBoth Hindoos and Mussulmans offer their\ndevotions in the most public places; as, at the landing places of\nrivers, in the public streets, and on the roofs of boats, without the\nleast modesty or attempt at concealment.\u201d \u201cAn aged Turk,\u201d observes\nRichardson, \u201cis particularly proud of a long flowing white beard, a well\nshaved cheek and head, and a clean turban. It is a common thing to see\nsuch characters, far past the bloom of life, mounted on stone seats,\nwith a bit of Persian carpet, at the corner of the streets, or in front\nof their bazaars, combing their beards, smoking their pipes, or drinking\ntheir coffee, with a pitcher of water standing beside them, or saying\ntheir prayers, or reading the Koran.\u201d\n\nSTUMBLING, STONE OF. \u201cWe set out from Argos very early in the morning,\u201d\nsays Hartley, \u201cand were almost eleven hours in reaching Tripolitza. The\nroad is, for the most part, dreary; leading over lofty and barren hills,\nthe principal of which is Mount Parthenius. In England, where the roads\nare so excellent, we do not readily perceive the force and just\napplication of the Scriptural figures, derived from a \u2018stone of\nstumbling, and a rock of offence,\u2019 Isaiah viii, 14, and similar\npassages; but in the east, where the roads are, for the most part,\nnothing more than an accustomed track, the constant danger and\nimpediment arising to travellers from stones and rocks fully explain the\nallusion.\u201d\n\nIn the grand description which Isaiah gives, lxiii, 13, of God \u201cwith his\nglorious arm\u201d leading his people through the Red Sea, it is said, \u201cThat\nled them through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they\nshould not stumble;\u201d that is, who preserved them from falling amidst the\nnumerous inequalities in the bed of the sea, caused in some instances by\ndeep cavities, and in others by abrupt intervening rocks. The figure is\na very natural one, especially in the east, where the Arabs and Tartars\nare famed for their dexterity in the management of even bad horses. A\ncurious instance of this occurs in Colonel Campbell\u2019s \u201cOverland Journey\nto the East Indies.\u201d Speaking of the Tartar, an accredited courier of\nthe Turkish government, under whose guidance he travelled in disguise\nacross the desert from Aleppo to Mosul, he says, \u201cOne day, after riding\nabout four miles from a caravansera, at which we had changed our cattle,\nI found that a most execrably bad horse had fallen to my lot. He was\nstiff, feeble, and foundered; in consequence of which he stumbled very\nmuch, and I every minute expected that he would fall and roll over me. I\ntherefore proposed to the guide to exchange with me; a favour which he\nhad hitherto never refused, and for which I was the more anxious as the\nbeast that he rode was of the very best kind. To my utter astonishment,\nhe peremptorily refused; and as this had been a day of unusual\ntaciturnity on his part, I attributed his refusal to peevishness and ill\ntemper, and was resolved not to let the matter rest there. I therefore\ndesired the interpreter to inform him, that as he had at Aleppo agreed\nto change horses with me as often as I pleased, I should consider our\nagreement infringed if he did not comply, and would write to the consul\nat Aleppo to that effect. As soon as this was conveyed to him, he seemed\nstrongly agitated by anger, yet endeavoured to conceal his emotions\nunder affected contempt and derision, which produced from him one of the\nmost singular grins that ever yet marred the human physiognomy. At\nlength he broke forth:--\u2018You will write to Aleppo, will you? Foolish\nFrank! they will not believe you,\u2019 &c.--\u2018Why do you not, then,\u2019 said I,\ninterrupting him; \u2018why do you not perform your promise by changing\nhorses, when you are convinced in your conscience (if you have any) that\nit was part of our agreement?\u2019--\u2018Once for all, I tell you,\u2019 interrupted\nhe, \u2018I will not give up this horse. There is not,\u2019 said he\ngasconadingly, \u2018there is not a Mussulman that ever wore a beard, not to\ntalk of a wretched Frank, who should get this horse from under me. I\nwould not yield him to the Commander of the Faithful this minute, were\nhe in your place; and I have my own reasons for it.\u2019--\u2018I dare say you\nhave,\u2019 returned I, \u2018love of your ease, and fear of your bones.\u2019 At\nhearing this he grew quite outrageous; called Mohammed and Allah to\nwitness, that he did not know what it was to fear any thing; declared\nthat he was convinced some infernal spirit had that day got possession\nof me, &c. At length observing that I looked at him with sneering\ncontemptuous defiance, he rode up alongside of me. I thought it was to\nstrike, and prepared to defend myself. I was however mistaken: he\nsnatched the reins out of my hand, and caught hold of them collected\nclose at the horse\u2019s jaw, then began to flog my horse and to spur his\nown, till he got them both into full speed: nor did he stop there, but\ncontinued to belabour mine with his whip and to spur his own, driving\nheadlong over every impediment that came in our way, till I really\nthought he had run mad, or designed to kill me. Several times I was on\nthe point of striking him with my whip, in order to knock him off his\nhorse; but as often patience providentially came in to my assistance,\nand whispered to me to forbear, and see it out. Meantime I considered\nmyself as being in some danger; and yet such was the power which he had\nover the cattle, that I found it impossible to stop him. So, resigning\nthe event to the direction of Providence, I suffered him, without a\nfarther effort, to proceed. He continued this for some miles, over an\nuncultivated tract, here and there intersected with channels formed by\nrills of water in the periodical rains, thickly set with low furze,\nferns, and other dwarf bushes, and broken up and down into little hills.\nHis horse carried him clear over all; and though mine was every minute\nstumbling and nearly down, yet, with a dexterity inexpressible and a\nvigour altogether amazing, he kept him up by the bridle, and, I may say,\n_carried_ him gallantly over every thing. At all this I was very much\nastonished; and, toward the end, as much pleased as astonished; which he\nperceiving, cried out frequently and triumphantly, \u2018Behold, Frank,\nbehold!\u2019 and at last, drawing in the horses, stopping short, and looking\nme full in the face, he exclaimed, \u2018Frank, what say you now?\u2019 For some\ntime I was incapable of making him any answer, but continued surveying\nhim from head to foot as the most extraordinary savage I had ever\nbeheld; while he stroked his whiskers with great self-complacency and\ncomposure, and nodded his head every now and then, as much as to say,\n\u2018Look at me! Am I not a very capital fellow?\u2019 We alighted on the brow of\na small hill, whence was to be seen a full and uninterrupted prospect of\nthe country all round. The interpreter coming up, the Tartar called to\nhim, and desired him to explain to me carefully the meaning of what he\nwas about to say. \u2018You see those mountains,\u2019 said he, pointing to the\neast; \u2018they are in the province of Kurdestan, and inhabited by a vile\nrace of robbers, who pay homage to a god of their own, and worship the\ndevil from fear. They live by plunder; and often descend from those\nmountains, cross the Tigris which runs between them and us, and plunder\nand ravage this country in bands of great number and formidable\nstrength, carrying away into slavery all they can catch, and killing all\nwho resist them. This country therefore, for some distance round us, is\nvery dangerous to travellers, whose only safety lies in flight. Now it\nwas our misfortune this morning to get a very bad horse. Should we meet\nwith a band of those Curds, what could we do but fly? And if you, Frank,\nrode this horse, and I that, we could never escape; for I doubt _you\ncould not keep him up from falling under_ ME, _as I did under_ YOU. I\nshould therefore come down and be taken; you would lose your guide and\nmiss your way; and all of us would be undone.\u2019 As soon as the\ninterpreter had explained this to me, \u2018Well,\u2019 continued the Tartar,\n\u2018what does he say to it now?\u2019--\u2018Why, I say,\u2019 returned I, \u2018that you have\nspoken good sense and sound reason; and I am obliged to you.\u2019 This, when\nfully interpreted, operated most pleasingly upon him, and his features\nrelaxed into a broad look of satisfaction.\u201d\n\nSUPERSTITION may be described to be either the careful and anxious\nobservation of numerous and unauthorized ceremonies in religion, under\nthe idea that they possess some virtue to propitiate God and obtain his\nfavour, or, as among Pagans and others, the worship of imaginary\ndeities, and the various means of averting evil by religious ceremonies,\nwhich a heart oppressed with fears, and a perverted fancy, may dictate\nto those ignorant of the true God, and the doctrines of salvation. Dr.\nNeander observes, The consideration of human nature and history shows us\nthat the transition from unbelief to superstition is always easy. Both\nthese conditions of the human heart proceed from the self-same ground,\nthe want of that which may be properly called faith, the want of a life\nin God, of a lively communion with divine things by means of the inward\nlife; that is, by means of the feelings. Man, whose inward feelings are\nestranged from the divine nature, is inclined, sometimes to deny the\nreality of that of which he has nothing within him, and for the\nconception and application of which to himself he has no organ. Or else,\nthe irresistible force of his inward nature impels man to recognize that\nhigher power from which he would fain free himself entirely, and to seek\nthat connection with it which he cannot but feel needful to his comfort;\nbut, inasmuch as he is without any real inward sympathy of disposition\nwith the Divinity, and wants a true sense of holiness, the Divinity\nappears to his darkened religious conscience only under the form of\npower and arbitrary rule. His conscience paints to him this power as an\nangry and avenging power. But as he has no idea of that which the\nDivinity really is, he cannot duly understand this feeling of\nestrangement from God, this consciousness of divine wrath; and, instead\nof seeking in moral things the source of this unquiet feeling, which\nleaves him no rest by day or night, and from which there is no escape,\nhe fancies that by this or that action, which of itself is perfectly\nindifferent, he may have offended this higher power, and he seeks by\noutward observances again to reconcile the offended power. Religion here\nbecomes a source, not of life, but of death; the source, not of\nconsolation and blessing, but of the most unspeakable anxiety which\ntorments man day and night with the spectres of his own imagination.\nReligion here is no source of sanctification, but may unite in man\u2019s\nheart with every kind of untruth, and serve to promote it. There is one\nkind of superstition in which, while man torments himself to the utmost,\nhe still remains estranged from the true nature of inward holiness; and\nwhile he is restrained from many good works of charity by his constant\nattendance on mischievous, arbitrary, and outward observances, he is\nstill actuated by a horror of any great sin, a superstition in which man\navoids pleasure so completely that he falls into the opposite extreme;\nand even the most innocent enjoyments, which a childlike simplicity\nwould receive with thankfulness from the hand of a heavenly Father, he\ndares not indulge in. But there is also another kind of superstition,\nwhich makes it easy for man, by certain outward observances, to silence\nhis conscience under all kinds of sin, and which therefore serves as a\nwelcome support to it.\n\nSUPPER, LORD\u2019S, derives its name from having been instituted by Jesus,\nafter he had supped with his Apostles, immediately before he went out to\nbe delivered into the hands of his enemies. In Egypt, for every house of\nthe children of Israel, a lamb was slain upon that night, when the\nAlmighty punished the cruelty and obstinacy of the Egyptians by killing\ntheir first-born, but charged the destroying angel to pass over the\nhouses upon which the blood of the lamb was sprinkled. This was the\noriginal sacrifice of the passover. In commemoration of it, the Jews\nobserved the annual festival of the passover, when all the males of\nJudea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem. A lamb was slain for every\nhouse, the representative of that whose blood had been sprinkled in the\nnight of the escape from Egypt. After the blood was poured under the\naltar by the priests, the lambs were carried home to be eaten by the\npeople in their tents or houses at a domestic feast, where every master\nof a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his\nfamily to the God of Israel. Jesus having fulfilled the law of Moses, to\nwhich in all things he submitted, by eating the paschal supper with his\ndisciples, proceeded after supper to institute a rite, which, to any\nperson that reads the words of the institution without having formed a\nprevious opinion upon the subject, will probably appear to have been\nintended by him as a memorial of that event which was to happen not many\nhours after. \u201cHe took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it\nunto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in\nremembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup\nis the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,\u201d Luke xxii, 19,\n20. He took the bread which was then on the table, and the wine, of\nwhich some had been used in sending round the cup of thanksgiving; and\nby saying, \u201cThis is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of\nme,\u201d he declared to his Apostles that this was the representation of his\ndeath by which he wished them to commemorate that event. The Apostle\nPaul, not having been present at the institution, received it by\nimmediate revelation from the Lord Jesus; and the manner in which he\ndelivers it to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi, 23\u201326, implies that it was\nnot a rite confined to the Apostles who were present when it was\ninstituted, but that it was meant to be observed by all Christians till\nthe end of the world. \u201cAs often as ye eat this bread, and drink this\ncup, ye do show the Lord\u2019s death till he come.\u201d Whether we consider\nthese words as part of the revelation made to St. Paul, or as his own\ncommentary upon the nature of the ordinance which was revealed to him,\nthey mark, with equal significancy and propriety, the extent and the\nperpetuity of the obligation to observe that rite which was first\ninstituted in presence of the Apostles.\n\nThere is a striking correspondence between this view of the Lord\u2019s\nSupper, as a rite by which it was intended that all Christians should\ncommemorate the death of Christ, and the circumstances attending the\ninstitution of the feast of the passover. Like the Jews, we have the\noriginal sacrifice: \u201cChrist our passover is sacrificed for us,\u201d and by\nhis substitution our souls are delivered from death. Like the Jews, we\nhave a feast in which that sacrifice, and the deliverance purchased by\nit, are remembered. Hence the Lord\u2019s Supper was early called the\neucharist, from its being said by St. Luke, \u201cJesus, when he took the\nbread, gave thanks;\u201d and his disciples in all ages, when they receive\nthe bread, keep a feast of thanksgiving. To Christians, as to Jews,\nthere is \u201ca night to be much observed unto the Lord,\u201d in all\ngenerations. To Christians, as to Jews, the manner of observing the\nnight is appointed. To both it is accompanied with thanksgiving.\n\nThe Lord\u2019s Supper exhibits, by a significant action, the\ncharacteristical doctrine of the Christian faith, that the death of its\nauthor, which seemed to be the completion of the rage of his enemies,\nwas a voluntary sacrifice, so efficacious as to supersede the necessity\nof every other; and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins.\nBy partaking of this rite, his disciples publish an event most\ninteresting to all the kindreds of the earth; they declare that, far\nfrom being ashamed of the suffering of their Master, they glory in his\ncross; and, while they thus perform the office implied in that\nexpression of the Apostle, \u201cYe do show forth the Lord\u2019s death,\u201d they at\nthe same time cherish the sentiments by which their religion ministers\nto their own consolation and improvement. They cannot remember the death\nof Christ, the circumstances which rendered that event necessary, the\ndisinterested love and the exalted virtues of their deliverer, without\nfeeling their obligations to him. Unless the vilest hypocrisy accompany\nan action, which, by its very nature, professes to flow from warm\naffection, the love of Christ will constrain them to fulfil the purposes\nof his death, by \u201cliving unto him who died for them;\u201d and we have reason\nto hope, that, in the places where he causes his name to be remembered,\nhe will come and bless his people. As the object of faith is thus\nexplicitly set before them in every commemoration, so the renewed\nexercise of that faith, which the ordinance is designed to excite, must\nbring renewed life, and a deeper experience of the \u201cgreat salvation.\u201d\nSee SACRAMENT.\n\nSURETY, in common speech, is one who gives security for another; and\nhence it has become prevalent among theological writers to confound it\nwith the terms substitute and representative, when applied to Christ. In\nfact, the word \u201csurety\u201d occurs only once in our translation of the\nScriptures, namely, Heb. vii, 22: \u201cBy so much was Jesus made the surety\nof a better covenant.\u201d It is certainly true that the Son of God, in all\nthat he has done or is still doing as Mediator, may be justly viewed as\nthe surety of the new and everlasting covenant, and as affording the\nutmost security to believers that, as the Father hath given all things\ninto his hands, they will be conducted with effect, and all the\nexceeding great and precious promises of that covenant assuredly be\naccomplished. But this does not appear to be the precise idea which the\nApostle has in view in the above passage. This has been sufficiently\nevinced by many critics and commentators, particularly by Pierce,\nMacknight, and M\u2019Lean, in their notes on the place. The substance of\ntheir remarks is, that the original term employed by the Apostle, and\nwhich occurs no where else in Scripture, is \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2, which is derived\nfrom \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2, _near_, and signifies _one who draws near_, or who brings\nothers near; which sense of the word will not very well accord with that\nof a substitute or representative. The Greek commentators very properly\nexplain the word by \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, _a mediator_. Now, as in this passage a\ncomparison is stated between Jesus, as a high priest, and the Levitical\nhigh priests; and as the latter were considered by the Apostle to be the\nmediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the\nIsraelites worshipped God with sacrifices; it is evident that the\nApostle in this passage terms Jesus the High Priest or Mediator of the\nbetter covenant, because, through his mediation, or in virtue of the\nsacrifice which he offered of himself to God, believers receive all the\nblessings of the new covenant. And as in verse 16 the Apostle had said\nthat \u201cby the introduction of a better hope we draw near to God,\u201d he, in\nverse 22, very properly calls Jesus \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2, \u201che by whom we draw nigh,\u201d\nthereby denoting the effect of his mediation. From the whole, therefore,\nit is plain that the word \u201csurety\u201d in this place is equivalent with that\nof mediator or high priest.\n\nSWALLOWS, \u05e1\u05d9\u05e1, a bird too well known to need description. Our\ntranslators of the Bible have given this name to two different Hebrew\nwords. The first, \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8, in Psalm lxxxiv, 3, and Prov. xxvi, 2, is\nprobably the bird which Forskal mentions among the migratory birds of\nAlexandria, by the name of _dururi_; and the second, \u05e2\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8, Isa. xxxviii,\n14, and Jer. viii, 7, is the crane; but the word \u05e1\u05d9\u05e1, in the two last\nplaces rendered in our version \u201ccrane,\u201d is really the swallow. So the\nSeptuagint, Vulgate, and two ancient manuscripts, Theodotion, and Jerom,\nrender it, and Bochart and Lowth follow them. Bochart assigns the note\nof this bird for the reason of its name, and ingeniously remarks that\nthe Italians about Venice call a swallow _zizilla_, and its twittering\n_zizillare_. The swallow being a plaintive bird, and a bird of passage,\nperfectly agrees with the meaning of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The annual\nmigration of the swallow has been familiarly known in every age, and\nperhaps in every region of the earth. In Psalm lxxxiv, 3, it is said,\n\u201cThe sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself,\nwhere she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts.\u201d By the\naltars of Jehovah we are to understand the temple. The words probably\nrefer to the custom of several nations of antiquity,--that birds which\nbuilt their nests on the temples, or within the limits of them, were not\nsuffered to be driven away, much less killed; but found a secure and\nuninterrupted dwelling. Hence, when Aristodicus disturbed the birds\u2019\nnests of the temple of Kum\u00e6, and took the young from them, a voice,\naccording to a tradition preserved by Herodotus, is said to have spoken\nthese words from the interior of the temple: \u201cMost villainous of men,\nhow darest thou to drive away such as seek refuge in my temple?\u201d The\nAthenians were so enraged at Atarbes, who had killed a sparrow which\nbuilt on the temple of \u00c6sculapius, that they killed him. Among the\nArabs, who are more closely related to the Hebrews, birds which build\ntheir nests on the temple of Mecca have been inviolable from the\nearliest times. In the very ancient poem of a Dschorhamidish prince,\npublished by a Schulten, in which he laments that his tribe had been\ndeprived of the protection of the sanctuary of Mecca, it is said,\n\n                \u201cWe lament the house, whose dove\n                Was never suffer\u2019d to be hurt:\n                She remain\u2019d there secure; in it, also,\n                The sparrow built its nest.\u201d\n\nIn another ancient Arabian poet, Nabega, the Dhobianit swears \u201cby the\nsanctuary which affords shelter to the birds which seek it there.\u201d\nNiebuhr says, \u201cI will observe, that among the Mohammedans, not only is\nthe _kaba_ a refuge for the pigeons, but also on the mosques over the\ngraves of Ali and Hassein, on the Dsjamea, or chief mosque, at Helle,\nand in other cities, they are equally undisturbed.\u201d And Thevenot\nremarks: \u201cWithin a mosque at Oudjicum lies interred the son of a king,\ncalled Schah-Zadeh-Imam Dgiafer, whom they reckon a saint. The dome is\nrough cast over; before the mosque there is a court, well planted with\nmany high plane trees, on which we saw a great many storks, that haunt\nthereabout all the year round.\u201d See SPARROW.\n\nSWAN, \u05ea\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 16. The Hebrew word is very\nambiguous, for in the first of these places, it is ranked among\nwater-fowls; and by the Vulgate, which our version follows, rendered\n\u201cswan,\u201d and in the thirtieth verse, the same word is rendered \u201cmole,\u201d\nand ranked among reptiles. Some translate it in the former place, \u201cthe\nbat,\u201d which they justify by the affinity which there is between the bat\nand the mole. The LXX. in the former verse render it \u03d6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1, the\n_porphyrion_, or \u201cpurple bird,\u201d probably the \u201cflamingo;\u201d and in the\nlatter, \u201cibis.\u201d Parkhurst shows that the name is given from the\ncreature\u2019s breathing in a strong and audible manner; and Micha\u00eblis\nlearnedly conjectures, that in verse eighteen, and Deut. xiv, 16, it may\nmean the \u201cgoose,\u201d which every one knows is remarkable for its manner of\n\u201cbreathing out\u201d or \u201chissing,\u201d when approached.\n\nSWEDENBORGIANS denote that particular denomination of Christians who\nadmit the testimony of Baron Swedenborg, and receive the doctrines\ntaught in the theological writings of that author. Emanuel Swedenborg\nwas the son of a bishop of West Gothnia, in the kingdom of Sweden, whose\nname was Swedberg, a man of considerable learning and celebrity in his\ntime. The son was born at Stockholm, January 29, 1688. He enjoyed early\nthe advantages of a liberal education, and being naturally endowed with\nuncommon talents for the acquirement of learning, his progress in the\nsciences was rapid and extensive; and he soon distinguished himself by\nseveral publications in the Latin language, which gave proof of equal\ngenius and erudition. It may reasonably be supposed that under the care\nof his pious and reverend father our author\u2019s religious instruction was\nnot neglected. This, indeed, appears plain from the general tenor of his\nlife and writings, which are marked with strong and lively characters of\na mind deeply impressed with a sense of the divine Being, and of all the\nrelative duties thence resulting. He was ennobled in the year 1719, by\nQueen Ulrica Eleonora, and named Swedenborg, from which time he took his\nseat with the nobles of the equestrian order, in the triennial assembly\nof the states. The philosophical works, published in Latin, by Baron\nSwedenborg, are numerous; but his theological works are said to be still\nmore so.\n\n1. The first and principal distinguishing doctrine contained in the\nwritings of Baron Swedenborg, and maintained by his followers, relates\nto the person and character of Jesus Christ, and to the redemption\nwrought by him. On this subject it is insisted that Jesus Christ is\nJehovah, manifested in the flesh; and that he came into the world to\nglorify his human nature, by making it one with the divine. It is\ntherefore insisted farther that the humanity of Jesus Christ is itself\ndivine, by virtue of its indissoluble union with the indwelling Father,\nagreeably to the testimony of St. Paul, that, \u201cin Jesus Christ dwelleth\nall the fulness of the Godhead bodily,\u201d Col. ii, 9; and that thus, as to\nhis humanity, he is the Mediator between God and man, since there is now\nno other medium of God\u2019s access to man, or of man\u2019s access to God, but\nthis divine humanity, which was assumed for this purpose. Thus it is\ntaught, that in the person of Jesus Christ dwells the whole Trinity of\nFather, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father constituting the soul of the\nabove humanity, while the humanity itself is the Son, and the divine\nvirtue or operation proceeding from it is the Holy Spirit; forming\naltogether one God, just as the soul, the body, and operation of man,\nform one man. On the subject of the redemption wrought by this incarnate\nGod, it is lastly taught that it consisted not in the vicarious\nsacrifice of Christ, but in the real subjugation of the powers of\ndarkness and their removal from man, by continual combats and victories\nover them, during his abode in the world; and in the consequent descent\nto man of divine power and life, which was brought near to him in the\nthus glorified humanity of this victorious God. They who receive this\ntestimony concerning Jesus Christ therefore acknowledge no other God but\nhim; and believe that in approaching his divine humanity, they approach,\nat the same time, and have communication with, all the fulness of the\nGodhead, seeing and worshipping the invisible in the visible, agreeably\nto the tenor of those words of Jesus Christ: \u201cHe that believeth on me\nbelieveth not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that seeth me,\nseeth him that sent me,\u201d John xii, 44, 45.\n\n2. A second doctrine taught by the same author relates to the sacred\nScripture, or word of God, which is maintained to be divinely inspired\nthroughout, and, consequently, to be the repository of the whole will\nand wisdom of the most high God. It is, however, insisted, that this\nwill and wisdom are not in all places discoverable from the letter or\nhistory of the sacred pages, but lie deeply concealed under the letter.\nFor it is taught by Baron Swedenborg, that the sense of the letter of\nthe holy word is the basis, the continent, and the firmament, of its\nspiritual and celestial senses, being written according to the doctrine\nof correspondencies between things spiritual and things natural, and\nthus designed by the Most High as the vehicle of communication of the\neternal spiritual truths of his kingdom to the minds of men. It is\nfarther endeavoured to be shown that Jesus Christ spake continually\naccording to this same doctrine, veiling divine and spiritual truths\nunder natural images, especially in his parables, and thus communicating\nto man the most important mysteries relative to himself and his kingdom,\nunder the most beautiful and edifying figures taken from the natural\nthings of this world. Thus, according to Baron Swedenborg, even the\nhistorical parts both of the Old and New Testament contain vast stores\nof important and spiritual wisdom under the outward letter; and this\nconsideration, as he farther asserts, justifies the pages of divine\nrevelation, even in those parts which to a common observer appear\ntrifling, nugatory, and contradictory. It is lastly maintained, on this\nsubject, that the sacred Scripture, or word of God, is the only medium\nof communication and conjunction between God and man, and is likewise\nthe only source of all genuine truth and knowledge respecting God, his\nkingdom, and operation, and the only sure guide for man\u2019s understanding,\nin whatever relates to his spiritual or eternal concerns.\n\n3. The next branch of the system is practical, and relates to the life,\nor to that rule of conduct on the part of man which is truly acceptable\nto the Deity, and at the same time conducive to man\u2019s eternal happiness\nand salvation, by conjoining him with his God. This rule is taught to be\nsimply this: to shun all known evils as sins against God, and at the\nsame time to love, to cherish, and to practise whatsoever is wise,\nvirtuous, and holy, as being most agreeable to the will of God, and to\nthe spirit of his precepts. On this subject it is strongly and\nrepeatedly insisted that evil must of necessity remain with man, and\nprove his eternal destruction, unless it be removed by sincere\nrepentance, leading him to note what is disorderly in his own mind and\nlife; and, when he has discovered it, to fight resolutely against its\ninfluence, in dependence on the aid and grace of Jesus Christ. It is\ninsisted farther, that this opposition to evil ought to be grounded on\nthe consideration that all evil is against God, since, if evil be\ncombated from any inferior motive, it is not radically removed, but only\nconcealed, and on that account is even more dangerous and destructive\nthan before. It is added, that when man has done the work of repentance,\nby shunning his hereditary evils as sins against God, he ought to set\nhimself to the practice of what is wise and good by a faithful,\ndiligent, and conscientious discharge of all the duties of his station;\nby which means his mind is preserved from a return of the power of\ndisorder, and kept in the order of heaven, and the fulfilment of the\ngreat law of charity.\n\n4. A fourth doctrine inculcated in the same writings, is the co\u00f6peration\non the part of man with the divine grace or agency of Jesus Christ. On\nthis subject it is insisted that man ought not indolently to hang down\nhis hands, under the idle expectation that God will do every thing for\nhim in the way of purification and regeneration, without any exertion of\nhis own; but that he is bound by the above law of co\u00f6peration to exert\nhimself, as if the whole progress of his purification and regeneration\ndepended entirely on his own exertions; yet, in exerting himself, he is\ncontinually to recollect, and humbly to acknowledge, that all his power\nto do so is from above, agreeably to the declaration of Jesus Christ,\n\u201cWithout me ye can do nothing,\u201d John xv, 5.\n\n5. A fifth and last distinguishing doctrine taught in the theological\nwritings of our author, relates to man\u2019s connection with the other\nworld, and its various inhabitants. On this subject, it is insisted, not\nonly from his view of the sacred Scriptures, but also from the\nexperience of the author himself, that every man is in continual\nassociation with angels and spirits, and that without such association\nhe could not possibly think or exert any living faculty. It is insisted\nfarther, that man, according to his life in the world, takes up his\neternal abode, either with angels of light, or with the spirits of\ndarkness; with the former, if he is wise to live according to the\nprecepts of God\u2019s holy word; or with the latter, if, through folly and\ntransgression, he rejects the counsel and guidance of the Most High.\n\nSome other peculiar doctrines of minor importance might be enlarged on\nin this place if it was deemed necessary; such as the doctrine\nconcerning the human soul, as being in a human form; concerning the\nmarriage of the good and the true, as existing in the holy word, and in\nall things in nature. But it may be observed generally, that the\nfundamental error of the system is a denial of the divinity of Christ,\nwhile it appears to be acknowledged, and of the doctrine of the\natonement. Many true things are said also of the figurative and typical\ncharacter of the word of God; but the interpretation of it in this view\nruns into the wildest extravagance for want of principles; while the\nwhole is clothed with mysticism on the one hand and gross and carnal\nconceptions of spiritual things on the other. There is, indeed, much in\nwhich this sect agrees with other Christians, and much, therefore, that\nis true in their strange system; but it is unconnected with other great\nand vital truths of the Gospel; and is joined also with great errors. It\nis a dreamy delusion, which defies all rational defence: it rests upon\nthe assumed experience of a man of genius, it is true, but one who was\nnot always in his wits.\n\nIn London, and some of the other cities and great towns in England,\nplaces of public worship have been opened, for the express purpose of\npreaching the preceding doctrines. In all such places particular forms\nof prayer have been adopted, in agreement with the ideas of the\nworshippers, as grounded in the religious sentiments above stated,\nespecially respecting the supreme object of adoration, who is\nacknowledged to be the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in his divine\nhumanity. But in no place have any peculiar rites and ceremonies been\nintroduced, the worshippers being content with retaining the celebration\nof the two sacraments of baptism and the holy supper, since no other\nrites are insisted on by the author whose testimony they receive. It is\nbelieved, by a large majority of them, that it was never his intention\nthat any particular sect should be formed upon his doctrines, but that\nall who receive them, whether in the establishment, or in any other\ncommunion of Christians, should be at perfect liberty either to continue\nin their former communion, or to quit it, as their conscience dictates.\nEngland appears to be the country where the system has been most\ngenerally received. Baron Swedenborg had many eccentricities; but\nperhaps the most remarkable circumstance respecting him, was his\nasserting, that, during the uninterrupted period of twenty-seven years,\nhe enjoyed open intercourse with the world of departed spirits, and\nduring that time was instructed in the internal sense of the sacred\nScriptures, hitherto undiscovered! This is a correspondence with the\ninvisible world, to which few or no writers, before or since his time,\never pretended, if we except the Arabian prophet.\n\nSWINE, \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8, Lev. xi, 7; Deut. xiv, 8; Psalm lxxx, 13; Prov. xi, 22;\nIsaiah lxv, 4; lxvi, 3, 17; \u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. vii, 6; viii, 30; Mark v, 14;\nLuke viii, 33; xv, 15; the plural of hog, an animal well known. In\nimpurity and grossness of manners, this creature stands almost\nunrivalled among the order of quadrupeds; and the meanness of his\nappearance corresponds to the grossness of his manners. He has a most\nindiscriminate, voracious, and insatiable appetite. The Prophet Isaiah,\nlxv, 4, charges his degenerate people with eating swine\u2019s flesh, and\nhaving broth of abominable things in their vessels, Isaiah lxvi, 3.\nConduct so contrary to their solemn engagements, so hateful in the sight\nof the Holy One, though long endured, was not always to pass with\nimpunity. \u201cThey that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the\ngardens, behind one tree in the midst, eating swine\u2019s flesh, and the\nabomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord,\u201d\nIsaiah lxvi, 17. Such a sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord,\nbecause the eating of the blood was prohibited, and because the\nsacrifice consisted of swine\u2019s flesh. To these precepts and\nthreatenings, which were often enforced by severe judgments may be\ntraced the habitual and unconquerable aversion of the latter Jews to the\nuse of swine\u2019s flesh; an aversion which the most alluring promises and\nthe most cruel sufferings have been found alike insufficient to subdue.\n\nIn such detestation was the hog held by the Jews that they would not so\nmuch as pronounce its name, but called it \u201cthe strange thing;\u201d and we\nread in the history of the Maccabees, that Eleazer, a principal scribe,\nbeing compelled by Antiochus Epiphanes to open his mouth and receive\nswine\u2019s flesh, spit it forth, and went of his own accord to the torment,\nchoosing rather to suffer death than to break the law of God, and give\noffence to his nation, 2 Mac. vi, 18; vii, 1. It is observed that when\nAdrian rebuilt Jerusalem, he set up the image of a hog, in bas-relief,\nupon the gates of the city, to drive the Jews away from it, and to\nexpress the greater contempt for that miserable people. It was avarice,\na contempt of the law of Moses, and a design to supply the neighbouring\nidolaters with victims, that caused whole herds of swine to be fed on\nthe borders of Galilee. Whence the reason is plain of Christ\u2019s\npermitting the devils to throw the swine headlong into the lake of\nGenesareth, Matthew viii, 32. We read, in Matthew vii, 6, \u201cGive not that\nwhich is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,\nlest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.\u201d\nThere is a similar maxim in the Talmudical writings: \u201cDo not cast pearls\nbefore swine;\u201d to which is added, by way of explanation, \u201cDo not offer\nwisdom to one who knows not the value of it, but profanes its glory.\u201d\n\nSYCAMINE, \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, in Arabic _sokam_, Luke xvii, 6. This is a\ndifferent tree from the sycamore, mentioned Luke xix, 4. Dioscorides\nsays that this tree is the mulberry, though he allows that some\napprehend that it is the same with the sycamore. Galen has a separate\narticle on the _sycamorus_, which he speaks of as rare, and mentions as\nhaving seen it at Alexandria in Egypt. The Greeks name the _morus_ the\nsycamine. Grotius says the word \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 has no connection with \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03b7,\n_the fig-tree_, but is entirely Syrian, \u05e9\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05df, in Hebrew, \u05e9\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd. It\nshould seem, indeed, to be very similar to the mulberry, as not only the\nLatin, but the Syriac and the Arabic, render it by _morus_; and thus\nCoverdale\u2019s, the Rheim\u2019s, and Purver\u2019s English translations render it by\nthe mulberry; and so it is in Bishop Wilson\u2019s Bible.\n\nSYCAMORE, \u05e9\u05e7\u05de\u05d5\u05ea, \u05e9\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, 1 Kings x, 27; 1 Chron. xxvii, 28; 2 Chron. i,\n15; Psalm lxxviii, 47; Isa. ix, 9; Amos viii, 14; \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1, Luke xix,\n4; a large tree, according to the description of Theophrastus,\nDioscorides, and Galen, resembling the mulberry-tree in the leaf, and\nthe fig in its fruit; hence its name, compounded of \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03b7 _fig_, and\n\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, _mulberry_; and some have fancied that it was originally produced\nby ingrafting the one tree upon the other. Its fruit is palatable. When\nripe it is soft, watery, somewhat sweet, with a little of an aromatic\ntaste. The trees are very common in Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt; grow\nlarge, and to a great height; and though their grain is coarse are much\nused in building. To change sycamores into cedars, Isa. ix, 10, means,\nto render the buildings of cities, and the state of the nation, much\nmore magnificent than before. Dr. Shaw remarks, that as the grain and\ntexture of the sycamore is remarkably coarse and spongy, it could\ntherefore stand in no competition at all with the cedar for beauty and\nornament. We meet with the same opposition of cedars to sycamores in 1\nKings x, 27, where Solomon is said to have made silver as the stones,\nand cedars as the sycamores of the vale for abundance. \u201cBy this\n_mashal_, or figurative and sententious speech,\u201d says Bishop Lowth,\n\u201cthey boast, in this place of Isaiah, that they shall be easily able to\nrepair their present losses, suffered, perhaps, by the first Assyrian\ninvasion under Tiglath-Pileser, and to bring their affairs to a more\nflourishing condition than ever.\u201d The wood of this tree is very durable.\n\u201cThe mummy chests,\u201d says Dr. Shaw, \u201cand whatever figures and instruments\nof wood are found in the catacombs, are all of them of sycamore, which,\nthough spongy and porous to appearance, has, notwithstanding, continued\nentire and uncorrupted for at least three thousand years. From its value\nin furnishing wood for various uses, from the grateful shade which its\nwide-spreading branches afforded, and on account of the fruit which\nMallet says the Egyptians hold in the highest estimation, we perceive\nthe loss which the ancient inhabitants of Egypt must have felt when\ntheir vines were destroyed with hail, and their sycamore trees with\nfrost,\u201d Psalm lxxviii, 47. \u201cThe sycamore,\u201d says Mr. Norden, \u201cis of the\nheight of a beech, and bears its fruit in a manner quite different from\nother trees; it has them on the trunk itself, which shoots out little\nsprigs, in form of grape stalks, at the end of which grow the fruit\nclose to one another, almost like clusters of grapes. The tree is always\ngreen, and bears fruit several times in the year, without observing any\ncertain seasons; for I have seen some sycamores that have given fruit\ntwo months after others. The fruit has the figure and smell of real\nfigs, but is inferior to them in the taste, having a disgustful\nsweetness. Its colour is a yellow, inclining to an ochre, shadowed by a\nflesh colour. In the inside it resembles the common figs, excepting that\nit has a blackish colouring with yellow spots. This sort of tree is\npretty common in Egypt; the people, for the greater part, live upon its\nfruit, and think themselves well regaled when they have a piece of\nbread, a couple of sycamore figs, and a pitcher of water.\u201d There might\nbe many of these trees in Judea. David appointed a particular officer,\nwhose sole duty it was to watch over the plantations of sycamore and\nolive-trees, 1 Chron. xxviii, 28; and being joined with the olive, the\nhigh estimation in which it was held is intimated; for the olive is\nconsidered as one of the most precious gifts which the God of nature has\nbestowed on the oriental nations. There seem to have been great numbers\nof them in Solomon\u2019s time, 1 Kings x, 27; and in the Talmud they are\nmentioned as growing in the plains of Jericho.\n\nOne curious particular in the cultivation of the fruit must not be\npassed over. Pliny, Dioscorides, and Theophrastus observe that the fruit\nmust be cut or scratched, either with the nail or with iron, or it will\nnot ripen; but four days after this process it will become ripe. To this\nsame purpose Jerom, on Amos vii, 14, says, that without this management\nthe figs are excessively bitter. These testimonies, together with the\nSeptuagint and Vulgate version, are adduced to settle the meaning of the\nword \u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u05e1, in Amos vii, 14, which must signify scraping, or making\nincisions in the sycamore fruit; an employment of Amos before he was\ncalled to the prophetic office: \u201cI was no prophet, neither was I a\nprophet\u2019s son; but I was a herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit.\u201d\nHasselquist, describing the _ficus sycamorus_, or Scripture sycamore,\nsays, \u201cIt buds the latter end of March, and the fruit ripens in the\nbeginning of June. At the time when the fruit has arrived to the size of\nan inch diameter, the inhabitants pare off a part at the centre point.\nThey say that without this paring it would not come to maturity.\u201d The\nfigs thus prematurely ripened are called _djumeis_ _b\u00e6dri_, that is,\n\u201cprecocious sycamore figs.\u201d As the sycamore is a large spreading tree,\nsometimes shooting up to a considerable height, we see the reason why\nZaccheus climbed up into a sycamore tree to get a sight of our Saviour.\nThis incident also furnishes a proof that the sycamore was still common\nin Palestine; for this tree stood to protect the traveller by the side\nof the highway.\n\nSYENE, a city of Egypt, now called Assouan, situated at its southern\nextremity. Ezekiel, xxix, 10, describing the desolation to be brought\nupon Egypt says, \u201cTherefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make the\nland of Egypt utterly desolate, from the tower of Syene even to the\nborder of Cush,\u201d or Arabia, or, as some read it, \u201cfrom Migdol to Syene,\u201d\nimplying, according to either version of the passage, the whole length\nof the country from north to south. The latitude of Syene, according to\nBruce, is 24\u00b0 0\u00b4 45\u00b4\u00b4; that of Alexandria, 31\u00b0 11\u00b4 33\u00b4\u00b4; difference 7\u00b0\n10\u00b4 48\u00b4\u00b4, equal to four hundred and thirty geographical miles on the\nmeridian, or about five hundred British miles; but the real length of\nthe valley of Egypt, as it follows the windings of the Nile, is full six\nhundred miles.\n\nSYNAGOGUE, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74, \u201can assembly,\u201d Rev. ii, 9; iii, 9. The word often\noccurs in the Gospels and in the Acts, because Jesus Christ and his\nApostles generally went to preach in those places. Although the\nsacrifices could not be offered, except in the tabernacle or the temple,\nthe other exercises of religion were restricted to no particular place.\nAccordingly we find that the praises of God were sung, at a very ancient\nperiod, in the schools of the prophets; and those who felt any\nparticular interest in religion, were assembled by the seers on the\nSabbath, and the new moons, for prayers and religious instruction, 1\nSam. x, 5\u201311; xix, 18\u201324; 2 Kings iv, 23. During the Babylonish\ncaptivity, the Jews, who were then deprived of their customary religious\nprivileges, were wont to collect around some prophet or other pious man,\nwho taught them and their children in religion, exhorted to good\nconduct, and read out of the sacred books, Ezek. xiv, 1; xx, 1; Dan. vi,\n11; Neh. viii, 18. These assemblies, or meetings, became, in progress of\ntime, fixed to certain places, and a regular order was observed in them.\nSuch appears to have been the origin of synagogues.\n\nIn speaking of synagogues, it is worthy to be noticed, that there is\nnothing said in respect to the existence of such buildings in Palestine,\nduring the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. They are, therefore, by some\nsupposed to have been first erected under the Maccabean princes, but\nthat, in foreign countries, they were much more ancient. Whether this\nstatement be correct or not, it is nevertheless certain, that in the\ntime of the Apostles, there were synagogues wherever there were Jews.\nThey were built, in imitation of the temple of Jerusalem, with a court\nand porches, as is the case with the synagogues in the east at the\npresent day. In the centre of the court is a chapel, supported by four\ncolumns, in which, on an elevation prepared for it, is placed the book\nof the law, rolled up. This, on the appointed days, is publicly read. In\naddition to the chapel, there is erected within the court a large\ncovered hall or vestry, into which the people retire, when the weather\nhappens to be cold and stormy, and each family has its particular seat.\nThe uppermost seats in the synagogue, that is, those which were nearest\nthe chapel where the sacred books were kept, were esteemed peculiarly\nhonourable, Matt. xxiii, 6; James ii, 3. The \u201cproseuch\u00e6,\u201d \u03d6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76, are\nunderstood by some to be smaller synagogues, but by others are supposed\nto be particular places under the open sky, where the Jews assembled for\nreligious exercise. But Josephus calls the proseucha of Tiberias a large\nhouse, which held very many persons. See _Proseuch\u00e6_. The Apostles\npreached the Gospel in synagogues and proseuch\u00e6, and with their\nadherents performed in them all the religious services. When excluded,\nthey imitated the Jews in those places, where they were too poor to\nerect these buildings, and held their religious meetings in the houses\nof individuals. Hence we not only hear of synagogues in houses in the\nTalmud, but of churches in houses in the New Testament, Rom. xvi, 5; 1\nCor. xvi, 19; Col. iv, 15; Phil. ii; Acts iii, 46; v, 42. The Apostles\nsometimes hired a house, in which they performed religious services, and\ntaught daily, Acts xix, 9; xx, 8. \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74 means literally a convention\nor assembly, but by metonymy, was eventually used for the place of\nassembling; in the same way, that \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, which means literally a\ncalling together, or convocation, signifies also at the present time the\nplace of convocation. Synagogues were sometimes called by the Jews\nschools; but they were careful to make an accurate distinction between\nsuch, and the schools, properly so called, the \u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd, or \u201csublimer\nschools,\u201d in which the Talmud was read, while the law merely was read in\nthe synagogues, which they placed far behind the Talmud.\n\nThe mode of conducting religious instruction and worship in the\nprimitive Christian churches was derived for the most part from the\npractice which anciently prevailed in synagogues. But there were no\nregular teachers in the synagogues who were officially qualified to\npronounce discourses before the people; although there were interpreters\nwho rendered into the vernacular tongue, namely, the _Hebr\u00e6o-aramean_,\nthe sections, which had been publicly read in the Hebrew.\n\nThe \u201csynagogue preacher,\u201d \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05df, whose business it is, in consequence of\nhis office, to address the people, is an official personage that has\nbeen introduced in later times; at least we find no mention of such a\none in the New Testament. On the contrary, in the time of Christ, the\nperson who read the section for the Sabbath, or any other person who was\nrespectable for learning and had a readiness of speech, addressed the\npeople, Luke iv, 16\u201321; Acts xiii, 5, 15; xv, 21; Matt. iv, 23.\n\nThe other persons who were employed in the services and government of\nthe synagogue, in addition to the one who read the Scriptures, and the\nperson who rendered them into the vernacular tongue, were as follows: 1.\n\u201cThe ruler of the synagogue,\u201d \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea, who presided\nover the assembly, and invited readers and speakers, unless some persons\nwho were acceptable voluntarily offered themselves, Mark v, 22, 35\u201338;\nLuke viii, 41; xiii, 14, 15; Acts xiii, 15. 2. \u201cThe elders of the\nsynagogue,\u201d \u05d5\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \u03d6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. They appear to have been the counsellors\nof the head or ruler of the synagogue, and were chosen from among the\nmost powerful and learned of the people, and are hence called\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, Acts xiii, 15. The council of elders not only took a part\nin the management of the internal concerns of the synagogue, but also\npunished transgressors of the public laws, either by turning them out of\nthe synagogue, or decreeing the punishment of thirty-nine stripes, John\nxii, 42; xvi, 2; 2 Cor. xi, 24. 3. \u201cThe collectors of alms,\u201d \u05d2\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u201cdeacons.\u201d Although every thing which is said of them by the\nJews was not true concerning them in the time of the Apostles, there can\nbe no doubt that there were such officers in the synagogues at that\ntime, Acts vi. 4. \u201cThe servants of the synagogue,\u201d \u05d7\u05d6\u05df, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, Luke\niv, 20; whose business it was to reach the book of the law to the person\nwho was to read it, and to receive it back again, and to perform other\nservices. The ceremonies which prevail in the synagogues at the present\nday in presenting the law were not observed in the time of our Saviour.\n5. \u201cThe messenger or legate of the synagogue,\u201d \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8. This was a\nperson who was sent from synagogues abroad, to carry alms to Jerusalem.\nThe name, messenger of the synagogue, was applied likewise to any\nperson, who was commissioned by a synagogue, and sent forth to propagate\nreligious knowledge. A person likewise was denominated the messenger, or\nangel, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, &c, who was selected by the\nassembly to recite for them the prayers; the same that is called by the\nJews of modern times the synagogue singer, or cantilator, Rev. ii, 1, 8,\n12, 18; iii, 1, 7, 14.\n\nThe Jews anciently called those persons who, from their superior\nerudition, were capable of teaching in the synagogue, \u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd,\n\u201cshepherds,\u201d or \u201cpastors.\u201d They applied the same term, at least in more\nrecent times, to the elders of the synagogue, and also to the collectors\nof alms, or deacons. The ground of the application of this term in such\na way, is as follows: the word \u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05dd is, without doubt, derived from the\nGreek word \u03d6\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cbread,\u201d or \u201ca fragment of bread;\u201d and, as it is used\nin the Targums, it corresponds to the Hebrew verb \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4, \u201cto feed.\u201d It is\neasy to see, therefore, how the word \u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1 might be applied to persons\nwho sustained offices in the synagogue, in the same way as \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 is\napplied to kings, &c.\n\nWe do not find mention made of public worship in the synagogues, except\non the Sabbath, Matthew xii, 9; Mark i, 21; iii, 1; vi, 2; Luke iv, 16,\n32, 33; vi, 6; xiii, 10; Acts xiii, 14; xv, 21; xvi, 13\u201325; xvii, 2;\nxviii, 4. What is said of St. Paul\u2019s hiring the school of one Tyrannus\nat Ephesus, and teaching in it daily, is a peculiar instance, Acts xix,\n9, 10. Yet there can be no doubt that those Jews who were unable to go\nto Jerusalem attended worship on their festival days, as well as on the\nSabbath, in their own synagogues. Individuals sometimes offered their\nprivate prayers in the synagogue. When an assembly was collected\ntogether for worship, the services began, after the customary greeting,\nwith a doxology. A section was then read from the Mosaic law. Then\nfollowed, after the singing of a second doxology, the reading of a\nportion from the prophets, Acts xv, 31; Luke iv, 16. The person whose\nduty it was to perform the reading, placed upon his head, as is done at\nthe present day, a covering called _tallith_, to which St. Paul alludes,\n2 Cor. iii, 15. The sections which had been read in the Hebrew were\nrendered by an interpreter into the vernacular tongue, and the reader or\nsome other man then addressed the people, Luke iv, 16; Acts xiii, 15. It\nwas on such occasions as these, that Jesus, and afterward the Apostles,\ntaught the Gospel. The meeting, as far as the religious exercises, were\nconcerned, was ended with a prayer, to which the people responded Amen,\nwhen a collection was taken for the poor.\n\nThe customs which prevail at the present day, and which Vitringa has\ntreated of, were not all of them practised in ancient times. The\nreaders, for instance, were not then, as they are at the present day,\ncalled upon to perform, but presented themselves voluntarily, Luke iv,\n16; the persons also who addressed the people were not rabbins expressly\nappointed for that purpose, but were either invited from those present,\nor offered themselves, Acts xiii, 15; Luke iv, 17. The parts to be\npublicly read, likewise, do not appear to have been previously pointed\nout, although the book was selected by the ruler of the synagogue, Luke\niv, 16. Furthermore, the forms of prayer that are used by the Jews at\nthe present time do not appear to have been in existence in the time of\nChrist; unless this may perhaps have been the case in respect to the\nsubstance of some of them, especially the one called \u05e9\u05de\u05e5 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9, concerning\nwhich the Talmudists, at a very early period, gave many precepts.\n\nIt was by ministering in synagogues that the Apostles gathered the\nchurches. They retained also essentially the same mode of worship with\nthat of the synagogues, excepting that the Lord\u2019s Supper was made an\nadditional institution, agreeably to the example of Christ, Acts ii, 42;\nxx, 7\u201311; 1 Cor. xi, 16\u201334. They were at length excluded from the\nsynagogue and assembled at evening in the house of some Christian, which\nwas lighted for the purpose with lamps, Acts xx, 7\u201311. The Apostle, with\nthe elders, when engaged in public worship, took a position where they\nwould be most likely to be heard by all. The first service was merely a\nsalutation or blessing, namely, \u201cThe Lord be with you,\u201d or, \u201cPeace be\nwith you.\u201d Then followed the doxologies and prelexions, the same as in\nthe synagogues. The Apostle then addressed the people on the subject of\nreligion, and urged upon them that purity of life which it required.\nPrayer succeeded, which was followed by the commemoration of the\nSaviour\u2019s death in the breaking and distribution of bread. The meeting\nwas ended by taking a collection for the poor, especially those at\nJerusalem, 2 Cor. ix, 1\u201315.\n\nThose who held some office in the church were the regularly qualified\ninstructers in these religious meetings; and yet laymen had liberty to\naddress their brethren on these occasions the same as in the synagogues;\nalso to sing hymns, and to pray; which, in truth, many of them did,\nespecially those who were supernaturally gifted, not excepting the\nwomen. Those females who were not under a supernatural influence were\nforbidden by the Apostle Paul to make an address on such occasions, or\nto propose questions; and it was enjoined on those who did speak, not to\nlay aside their veils, 1 Cor. xi, 5; xiv, 34\u201340. The reader and the\nspeaker stood; the others sat; all arose in the time of prayer. Whatever\nwas stated in a foreign tongue was immediately rendered by an\ninterpreter into the speech in common use. This was so necessary, that\nPaul enjoined silence on a person who was even endowed with supernatural\ngifts, provided an interpreter was not at hand, 1 Cor. xiv, 1\u201333. It was\nthe practice among the Greek Christians to uncover their heads when\nattending divine service, 1 Cor. xi, 11\u201316; but in the east, the ancient\ncustom of worshipping with the head covered was retained. Indeed, it is\nthe practice among the oriental Christians to the present day, not to\nuncover their heads in their religious meetings, except when they\nreceive the eucharist.\n\nIt is affirmed that in the city of Jerusalem alone there were no less\nthan four hundred and sixty or four hundred and eighty synagogues. Every\ntrading company had one of its own, and even strangers built some for\nthose of their own nation. Hence we find synagogues of the Cyrenians,\nAlexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics, appointed for such as came up to\nJerusalem from those countries, Acts vi, 9.\n\nSYNODS, though actually synonymous with COUNCILS, are in common\nhistorical parlance employed to designate minor ecclesiastical\nconventions. In virtue of this distinction councils have usually claimed\nfor themselves the ample epithet of _\u0153cumenical_ or _general_, while\nsynods have long been known only by the humbler term of _local_ or\n_provincial_. In the apostolic age four local assemblies were held,\nwhich some have called councils and others synods. The first was\nconvened for the election of a successor to Judas in the apostleship,\nActs i, 26. At the second, seven deacons were chosen, Acts vi, 5. The\nthird, like the two which preceded it, was held at Jerusalem, according\nto some authors, A. D. 47, but, according to others, A. D. 51; that is,\nat the latest, eighteen years after Christ\u2019s ascension. It originated in\nthe attempt made to oblige the Gentile converts at Antioch to submit to\nthe rite of circumcision. St. Paul and Barnabas opposed this attempt;\nand, after \u201cno small dissension and disputation,\u201d it was determined,\nthat the question should be referred to the judgment of the Apostles and\nelders at Jerusalem. Accordingly, some of the Apostles and several of\nthe \u201celders came together\u201d to deliberate on the propriety of dispensing\nwith the ceremonial law. The result of their deliberations was, that the\nMosaic ordinances, being too rigorous, should be abrogated; and that\ntheir decision should be communicated to \u201cthe brethren which were of the\nGentiles,\u201d Acts xv, 1\u201330. The fourth apostolic synod was convened in\nreference to the toleration of legal rites, Acts xxi, 18. With respect\nto all these, the fact is, that, instead of being councils or synods in\nany proper sense, they were mere meetings of the church at Jerusalem,\nand all of them ordinary meetings except the third, when they assembled\nupon the request of the deputies from Antioch who came to ask advice.\n\nDr. Neander, speaking of the origin, use, and abuse of synods, says,--As\na closer bond of union was early formed between the churches of the same\nprovince, so also the Christian catholic spirit introduced the custom\nthat, in all pressing matters, controversies on doctrinal points, things\nrelating to the ecclesiastical life, and very commonly in those relating\nto church discipline, general deliberations should be held by deputies\nfrom these churches. Such assemblies become familiar to us in the\ncontroversies about the time of celebrating Easter, and in the\ntransactions about the Montanistic prophecies, in the last half of the\nsecond century. But these provincial synods appear, for the first time,\nas a constant and regular institution, fixed to definite times, about\nthe end of the second or the beginning of the third century; and it was\nin this case a peculiarity of one country, where particular local causes\nmay have introduced such an arrangement earlier than in other regions.\nThis country was, in fact, exactly Greece, where, from the time of the\nAchaic league, the system of confederation had maintained itself; and as\nChristianity is able to connect itself with all the peculiarities of a\npeople, provided they contain nothing immoral, and, entering into them,\nto take itself a peculiar form resembling them, so, also, it might\neasily happen that here the civil federal spirit which already existed\nworked upon the ecclesiastical catholic spirit, and gave it earlier than\nin other regions a tolerably good form, so that out of the\nrepresentative assemblies of the civil communities, the Amphictyonic\ncouncils, were formed the representative assemblies of the\necclesiastical communities, that is, the provincial synods. As the\nChristians, in the consciousness that they are nothing, and can do\nnothing, without the Spirit from above, were accustomed to begin all\nimportant business with prayer, they prepared themselves here, also, for\ntheir general deliberations by common prayer, at the opening of these\nassemblies, to Him who has promised that he will enlighten and guide, by\nhis Spirit, those who believe in him, if they will give themselves up to\nhim wholly, and that he will be among them, where they are gathered\ntogether in his name. It appears that this regular institution met at\nfirst with opposition as an innovation, so that Tertullian felt himself\ncalled upon to stand up in its defence. Nevertheless, the ruling spirit\nof the church decided for this institution; and, down to the middle of\nthe third century, the annual provincial synods appear to have been\ngeneral in the church, as we may conclude, because we find them\nprevalent, at the same time, in parts of the church as far distant from\neach other as North Africa and Cappadocia.\n\nThese provincial synods might certainly become very useful for the\nchurches; and, in many respects, they did become so. By means of a\ngeneral deliberation, the views of individuals might mutually be\nenlarged and corrected; wants, abuses, and necessary reforms, might thus\nmore easily be mutually communicated, and be deliberated on in many\ndifferent points of view; and the experience of every individual, by\nbeing communicated, might be made useful to all. Certainly, men had\nevery right to trust that Christ would be among them, according to his\npromise, and would lead those who were assembled in his name by his\nSpirit. Certainly it was neither enthusiasm nor hierarchical\npresumption, if the deputies, collected together to consult upon the\naffairs of their churches, and the pastors of these churches, hoped that\na higher Spirit than that of man, by his illumination, would show them\nwhat they could never find by their own reason, whose insufficiency they\nfelt deeply, if it were left to itself. It would far rather have been a\nproud self-confidence, had they been so little acquainted with the\nshallowness of their own heart, the poverty of human reason, and the\nself-deceits of human wisdom, as to expect that without the influence of\nthat higher Spirit of holiness and truth they could provide sufficiently\nfor the advantage of their churches. But this confidence, in itself just\nand salutary, took a false and destructive turn, when it was not\nconstantly accompanied by the spirit of humility and self-watchfulness,\nwith fear and trembling; when men were not constantly mindful of the\nimportant condition under which alone man could hope to share in the\nfulfilment of that promise, in that divine illumination and\nguidance,--the condition, that they were really assembled in the name of\nChrist, in lively faith in him, and honest devotion to him, and prepared\nto sacrifice their own wills; and when the people gave themselves up to\nthe fancy, that such an assembly, whatever might be the hearts of those\nwho were assembled, had unalienable claims to the illumination of the\nHoly Spirit; for then, in the confusion and the intermixture of human\nand divine, men were abandoned to every kind of self-delusion; and the\nformula, \u201c_Spiritu Sancto suggerente_,\u201d \u201cBy the suggestion of the Holy\nSpirit,\u201d might become a pretence and sanction for all the suggestions of\nman\u2019s own will. And farther, the provincial synods would necessarily\nbecome prejudicial to the progress of the churches, if, instead of\nproviding for the advantage of the churches according to the changing\nwants of each period, they wished to lay down unchanging laws in\nchangeable things. Evil was it at last, that the participation of the\nchurches was entirely excluded from these synods, that at length the\nbishops alone decided every thing in them, and that their power, by\nmeans of their connection with each other in these synods, was\nconstantly on the increase. As the provincial synods were also\naccustomed to communicate their resolutions to distant bishops in\nweighty matters of general concernment, they were serviceable, at the\nsame time, toward setting distant parts of the church in connection with\neach other, and maintaining that connection.\n\nIn the second century after the birth of Christ, eight local synods were\nheld on church affairs, about which little information is now extant,\nexcept that they related to the heresy of Montanus, the rebaptizing of\nheretics, and the time for celebrating the festival of Easter. In the\nthird century eighteen synods were held; the principal of which were,\nthat of Alexandria, against Origen; that of Africa, against the\nschismatic Novatus; that of Antioch, against the heresy of Sabellius,\nand another in the same city against Paul of Samosata; that of Carthage,\nagainst such persons as fell away in time of persecution; and that of\nRome, against Novatian and other schismatics. Prior to the assembling of\nthe first general council at Nice, A. D. 325, three synods were held at\nSinuessa, Cirtha, and Alexandria, the subjects discussed in which are\nunworthy of notice. Others were held, the discussions in which are so\nfar interesting as they show how desirous the Ante-Nicene fathers were\nto regulate the doctrine and practice of the church according to the\napostolic model. The fourth was that of Elvira, which rejected by its\nthirty-sixth canon any use whatever even of pictures. \u201cWe would not,\u201d\nsay they, \u201chave pictures placed in churches, that the object of our\nworship and adoration should not be painted on their walls.\u201d The synod\nat Carthage not having brought the rival pretensions of C\u00e6cilian and\nMajorinus to the episcopate of that city to a favourable issue, the\nEmperors Constantine appointed a commission (there being so few bishops\npresent, it could not deserve any other title) to sit, first at Rome,\nand afterward at Arles, for the purpose of rehearing the matter. At\nArles, it was decreed, that Easter should be celebrated on the same\nSunday throughout the world; and that heretics, who had been baptized in\nthe name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized. The synods of Ancyra\nand Neo-C\u00e6sarea followed. The tenth canon, decreed by the latter, shows\nthe sense of the fathers on the subject of celibacy: namely, \u201cIf deacons\ndeclare at the time of their ordination that they would marry, they\nshould not be deprived of their function if they did marry.\u201d Rigid\ndecrees were passed generally against such of the clergy as ate meats\nwhich had been sacrificed to idols. After the forementioned synods, two\nwere convened at Alexandria, A. D. 322, against Arius. But their acts\nmerge in the subsequent proceedings of the church. From the termination\nof the council of Nice to the next \u0153cumenical council, A. D. 381, no\nfewer than forty-three synods, eastern and western were convened. The\nprofessed object of these meetings was the tranquillity of the church;\nyet, from the unhappy divisions which prevailed in these assemblies,\ntheir deliberations were conducted with much of the violence of party\nfeeling; and, according as the one party or the other prevailed, they\nseverally hurled spiritual thunder-bolts against their doctrinal rivals,\nas if against the enemies of God himself. Of the synod of Sardica a\nseparate and more particular account will be subsequently given, because\non the authority of that unimportant assembly the church of Rome grounds\nthe right of appeal to itself before any other church. In the whole, no\nfewer than eighty-one synods were assembled throughout the universal\nchurch in this century. The principal subjects which engaged their\nattention related to Arianism, which was generally rejected by the\nwestern church; but experienced various vicissitudes in the east,\naccording to the view taken of it by the reigning power. Unfortunately\nfor the peace of the church, this heresy gave birth to numerous others.\nMarcellus, Photinus, Macedonius, and Priscilian, were severally betrayed\nby their violence into systems no less revolting to reason and common\nsense than the Arian impieties. Of sixty synods which were convened to\nregulate the affairs of the church between the second and third general\ncouncils, A. D. 381\u2013431, more than half of that number were assembled in\nAfrica:--no inconsiderable proof of the vigilance exercised by the local\nbishops over the interests of that portion of the church universal\ncommitted to their care. In the latter part of the fifth century many\nsynods were held, some eastern and others western, but none of them\npossessed peculiar interest. In the commencement of this century,\nZosimus, bishop of Rome, absolved the heresiarchs, Pelagius and\nC\u00e6lestius, and by this act confirmed their errors. On the latter\nappealing to him for support, Zosimus sent the Sardican canon to a\ncouncil held at the time in Carthage, as if that canon had been decreed\nby the council of Nice; because it allowed the right of appeal to the\nsee of Rome. The African council rejected it with disdain, having found,\non reference to the eastern patriarchs, that no such canons belonged to\nthe Nicene council, or were ever before heard of. Thus was the reputed\ninfallible head of an equally infallible church detected in a gross act\nof imposition; so gross as to compel our good Bishop Jewel to call\nZosimus \u201ca forger and falsifier of councils,\u201d The same pope pronounced\nhis unerring judgment in the dispute between the bishops of Arles and\nVincennes; while Boniface, his successor, under the influence of the\nsame inerrant principle and in the plenitude of the same apostolic\npower, reversed that judgment. In the year 498, Symmachus and Laurentius\nwere elected to the pontificate on the same day by different parties;\nand while they maintained the validity of their respective elections,\nthey reciprocally denounced each other. Where, then, did infallibility\nreside before Theodoric, king of the Goths, gave it a supposed\nhabitation in the person of Symmachus? Theodoric, an Arian, and\nconsequently a heretic in the eyes of the Romish church, awarded the\nkeys of St. Peter to Symmachus; a circumstance which must have vitiated\nthe boasted apostolic succession in the bishops of Rome, and therefore\nhave destroyed their title to infallibility! Cabals and intrigues for\nbeing elected to the popedom disgraced the commencement of the sixth\ncentury. Their prevention in future, however, was decreed; and certain\nrules, having in view the peace and order of the western church, were\nlaid down by two synods convened at Rome about the same time. From this\nperiod to the middle of the century, upward of twenty local meetings of\nthe clergy were held in different parts of Europe, fifteen in Asia, and\nonly four in Africa. The directions for the married clergy, which\noccasionally present themselves to view in the proceedings of these\nsynods, prove that _celibacy_ was not at this period a general\nregulation; while _communion in both kinds_ appears to have been an\nestablished usage. The synods which were held during the remainder of\nthe sixth century were confined to France and Spain. They amount in\nnumber to twenty-six; and, like the rest of the minor class which\npreceded them, canons are interspersed among their acts which have in\nview the security of church property, and the rights, privileges, and\npowers of the different ranks of the clergy. The remaining canons relate\nto discipline, with the exception of the few which were at different\ntimes ordained for the suppression of heretical opinions, for the\nregulation of both the married and celibate clergy, and of the fees to\nwhich they should be entitled on the performance of certain duties. In\nnone of them is to be found the least authority for the distinguishing\ntenets of the modern church of Rome; so that, to the very close of the\nsixth century, she may be considered as being orthodox, pure, and\nuncorrupt. Whatever deference she might claim as an elder branch of the\nchurch of Christ, she raised no pretensions to a lordly pre\u00ebminence over\nthe rights and privileges of other churches. Her jurisdiction was\ncircumscribed within her own diocesan boundaries; and, beyond them, none\nwas demanded. After the commencement of the seventh century, however, a\ncomplete change took place in this respect, so that if a comparison be\ninstituted between the tenets which the church of Rome held in the first\nages, and those which she subsequently professed, the precise period at\nwhich the novelties commenced which now distinguish her from her former\nself might easily be ascertained. The order of St. Benedict, which\nserved as a model for the other monastic fraternities that were\nsubsequently instituted, was founded in the early part of this century\n\nAs the history of synods after the sixth century dwindles down into a\nmeagre narrative of the unjust incroachments and corrupt innovations of\nthe church of Rome, and of the ineffectual struggles of Christian\nchurches in various parts of Europe to resist his usurpation, we shall\nclose this article with an account of the popish synod of Sardica and of\nthe Protestant synod of Dort. After a long night of darkness, the\nglimmerings of a bright day were perceived at a distance, when, in the\nfourteenth century, our celebrated countryman, the immortal Wickliffe,\nappeared as the precursor of the reformation from popery. The light\nincreased during the succeeding century, when those brave witnesses for\nthe truth, John Huss and Jerome of Prague, suffered martyrdom; and the\nsixteenth century was favoured with the full blaze of day when Luther\nand Melancthon were encouraged and supported in their benevolent and\narduous undertaking, and succeeded in putting down the shadowy forms of\nsuperstition and idolatry. Soon was the greatest part of irradiated\nEurope called upon to rejoice in this light; and to some of the best\npatriots in those countries that slighted such an opportunity, their own\nculpable supineness or neglect has been a source of deep national regret\nfrom one generation to another.\n\nTHE SYNOD OF SARDICA was held A. D. 347. The Emperors Constans and\nConstantius, being anxious to restore that peace to the church of which\nit was deprived by the continuance of Arius\u2019s heresy, agreed to convene\nan ecclesiastical assembly in Sardica, a city of M\u00e6sia on the verge of\ntheir respective empires. About a hundred western and seventy eastern\nbishops attended; but altercation, and not debate, ensued. The smaller\nparty, apprehensive for their personal safety, withdrew to a town in\nThrace; a circumstance that disclosed the first symptoms of discord and\nschism between the Greek and Latin churches. Before this period the\nright of appeal from all other churches to the see of Rome had not been\nclaimed; but from it we date the first aspirations of Roman pontiffs to\nlordly pre\u00ebminence, and they bent their restless energies to establish a\nspiritual tyranny over all the nations of the earth. Ecclesiastics,\nexcommunicated by the oriental or African churches, fled to Rome for\nrefuge, one after another; and as the bishop of that city afforded them\nhis protection, gratified as he was at every occasion which made it\nnecessary, they, in order to testify their gratitude, unwittingly\ncompromised the rights of the clergy, when, to the extent of their\nindividual sanction, they invested him with the appellant jurisdiction.\nAmong the refugees at Rome was the celebrated bishop of Alexandria.\nAthanasius, persecuted by the Arian party in the east, knelt as a\nsuppliant on the threshold of the Vatican. Julius gladly espoused his\ncause, and declared him to have been illegally condemned; a declaration\nthat seemed to come with authority, but which the eastern bishops\nopposed as an usurpation of undue power. They went so far as even to\nexcommunicate Hosius, Gaudentius, Julius the bishop of Rome, and others,\non the alleged assumption of authority. They maintained the principle\nlaid down in the canons, that the judgment passed on any individual,\neither by an eastern or western synod, ought to be confirmed by the\nother. And while they complained that the bishops of the west should\ndisturb the whole church, on account of one or two troublesome fellows,\nthey accused them of arrogantly attempting to establish a new law for\nthe purpose of empowering themselves to re\u00ebxamine what had been already\ndetermined. Chrysostom, too, in his distress, implored, at a subsequent\nperiod, the interference of Innocent, the then occupant of the papal\nchair, with the emperor of the east, for the purpose of procuring a\nreversal of the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by an\nobscure synod in the suburbs of Chalcedon. But that father never once\nsupposed that the Roman pontiff had any right to hear his cause. His\nappeal lay to the supreme tribunal of a free and general council, from a\npacked assembly which the empress Eudoxia had been instrumental in\ncalling together, in order to effect his ruin. As these two cases of\nAthanasius and Chrysostom are pleaded by Romish writers in support of\nthe appellant authority with which they invest the bishop of Rome, it is\na matter of importance to examine the stability of this ground-work, on\nwhich is laid the immense structure of papal supremacy. Hosius, who\npresided in the Sardican synod, as he did at every council where he\nhappened to be present, is reported to have proposed that an appeal\nshould be made to Rome out of respect to the chair of St. Peter, and\nnot, as was ruled at the council of Nice, to the bishops of the\nneighbouring province, when any decision had been come to in a\nprovincial synod. But what is the language of the proposition made by\nHosius? \u201cIf it be a favourite object with you, let us honour the memory\nof Peter, so that a letter may be addressed to Julius, bishop of Rome,\nby those who decided on the matter; that, if necessary, the judgment may\nbe reviewed by the bishops in his neighbourhood, and that he may appoint\nsome to hear the cause.\u201d Here neither canon nor Scripture is referred\nto; while it is left optional with the assembly whether deference was or\nwas not to be paid to Julius, who is simply styled \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ca\nfellow bishop.\u201d The fourth canon of this synod ordains, \u201cthat an\narchbishop, &c, deposed by a provincial synod, must not be expelled,\nuntil the bishop of Rome shall determine whether the cause shall be\nre\u00ebxamined;\u201d and the fifth canon decrees, \u201cthat the bishop of Rome, if\nhe deem it proper, shall order a rehearing of the matter; that, if\nconvenient, he shall send deputies for the purpose; if not, that he\nshould leave the decision of the case to the synod itself.\u201d From the\nthird and fourth canons it appears that a novelty in discipline is\nestablished, and made obligatory on the churches of both empires, but\nonly by a handful of bishops belonging to one of them; and from the\nfifth, that the bishop of Rome, if he deemed a judgment erroneous, might\nconvene a new council and send deputies to it, for the purpose of\nreconsidering the matter. These canons, no doubt, were very flattering\nto the ambition of the Roman pontiff, and, accordingly, they are pleaded\nin behalf of his supremacy; but how preposterous is it to ascribe that\nto a human law, which, it is asserted, belongs to him by the law of God!\nThere are other canons regulating the intercourse between bishops and\nthe imperial court; after such a manner, however, as to make the bishop\nof Rome the judge of the propriety of the petitions which they intended\nto prefer. Notwithstanding all this, they can never be rescued from the\nimputation of being forgeries. For, 1. They were never received by\neither the eastern or African church as general laws. At the sixth\ncouncil of Carthage, Austin strenuously denied the right of appeal to\nthe Roman see, although a letter has been forged in his name,\nstrenuously contending for it, which is now deposited among the pious\nfrauds of the Vatican. It happened, also, in the early part of the fifth\ncentury, that Appiarius, who had been excommunicated by the African\nbishops, applied to Zosimus, bishop of Rome. This pontiff forthwith sent\nthem the Sardican canon, which conferred on him the right of appeal.\nThis they indignantly rejected, inasmuch as their predecessors, who\nattended the council of Sardica, left no record of it; and because the\neastern patriarchs, whom they consulted on the occasion, not only\ndisclaimed all knowledge of any such canon being in existence, but\nfurnished their brethren with an exact copy of the Nicene canons, among\nwhich the Sardican one was not to be found. 2. The Sardican canons were\nnot inserted in the code of canons approved of by the council of\nChalcedon. 3. The council which passed them is not reckoned, even by the\nchurch of Rome, as one of the eighteen general councils, whose authority\nit acknowledges; nor does Bellarmine himself say that it is one of those\ncouncils which his church receives in part and rejects in part. 4. When\nthe western bishops entreated the Emperor Theodosius to summon a\ncouncil, A.D. 407, so far were they from making any allusion to the\ndoctrine of an appeal to the Roman see, that they distinctly disclaimed\nthe thought of such a prerogative, and only sought the fellowship of a\ncommon arbitration. 5. Lastly, if, as the historian Sozomen says, the\nSardican synod wrote to Julius, bishop of Rome, to apprize him of what\nthey had done, and of their decrees being drawn up in the spirit of the\ncouncil of Nice, the purport of the letter was not so strong as that\nwhich they addressed to the church of Alexandria, in which they pray it\nto give its suffrage to the determination of the council, additional\nsuspicions are created. From all these circumstances taken together, it\nis evident that no value is to be attached to the decrees of this\nobscure council; and that, although due respect was paid to St. Peter\u2019s\nchair, it was no acknowledgment of the superiority of its possessor as\nto ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction.\n\nTHE SYNOD OF DORT. The Dutch churches forsook the communion of the\ncorrupt church of Rome soon after the church of England had cast off the\npapal yoke; and they were generously aided in their endeavours to\nrecover their civil and religious liberties by our good Queen Elizabeth\nand her wise counsellors. The first Christian teachers among them were\nLutherans; but in process of time, the celebrity of Geneva as a place of\npublic instruction for ministers of religion induced the majority of the\ncandidates for the ministry to repair to that university; and, as might\nnaturally be expected, they imported into the Low Countries the peculiar\nviews of Calvin and Beza on the subject of predestination. It is justly\nobserved by Le Vassor, \u201cSome learned Hollanders had boldly defended this\ndoctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a professor\nat Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their\nwritings are still extant; although it is true that certain ministers,\nwho were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their\nproductions into disrepute; but the states of Holland uniformly checked\nthis impetuous zeal. The professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect\nliberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melancthon; and\nwhen Arminius was called to that university, his opinions were generally\nknown; for he had declared them in the church of Amsterdam, from the\nconsistory of which he received very honourable testimonials. Gomarus,\nand many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation\nwith Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging immediately that the\ndifference of sentiments which existed between them did not at all\nconcern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did\nnot remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken\numbrage at the reputation of his new colleague, or the enemies of\nArminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful\ninsinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man whom, some\ntime before, he looked upon as orthodox.\u201d The struggles of the party of\nArminius in Holland, after the death of that great man, to obtain a\ntoleration for their opinions, are matters of history. The political\ncircumstances of that country and of Europe in general were at that\nperiod very peculiar, and exercised great influence in the convening and\nconducting of that famous ecclesiastical assembly, the synod of Dort;\nbut in a sketch like this, they can only be briefly mentioned. Frederic,\nthe elector Palatine, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of our King\nJames the First; he was nephew to Maurice the prince of Orange: and he\nsent his Heidelberg divines to the synod to assist his uncle in the\ncondemnation of the Remonstrant party, as the Arminians were generally\ncalled, and to gratify his polemical father-in-law in the overthrow of\nthe heretical Vorstius. In return, he naturally expected both of his\nrelations to aid him in his grand enterprise of seizing on the crown of\nBohemia; in which, soon after the banishment of the Remonstrants, he\ncompletely succeeded,--though he subsequently lost that crown and all\nhis hereditary possessions, and embroiled nearly the whole of Protestant\nEurope in the famous thirty years\u2019 war.\n\nThe Remonstrants, according to Nichols, in the ample notes to his\ntranslation of the \u201cWorks of Arminius,\u201d had long wished to have their\n\u201cFive Points\u201d of doctrine brought for adjudication either before a\n_provincial_ synod, to prepare matters for a _national_ one; or to have\nthem brought at once before a _general council_ of Protestant divines.\nBut the Calvinists would listen to neither of these equitable proposals.\nIf a _provincial synod_ were convened, especially in that province\n(Holland) which most needed such a remedy, these men well knew, from\ntrial, how difficult it would be to combat and refute the strong and\npopular arguments of the Remonstrants, when both parties were placed\nnearly on an equality in the same assembly; and if a _general council_\nof Protestants was summoned together, they were certain that the\nprinciples of Arminius would, without demur, be recognized as integral\nparts of Scripture verity, and consequently entitled not only to\ntoleration, (which was all that the Remonstrants had desired,) but to\nthe especial patronage of the civil authorities. The latter result was\nanticipated, from the immense preponderance which the Lutheran divines,\nfrom all the small states of Germany, and from other parts of the north\nof Europe, would have had in such a council. Numerous state papers on\nthis subject were written by the public functionaries of the different\nprovinces in the year 1617; among which those of the composition of the\nlearned Grotius, who conducted the arguments in favour of a _general\ncouncil_, are very conspicuous for the superior ability which they\ndisplay. A _national synod_ was therefore the sole remedy which the\nwisdom, or rather the worldly prudence, of the Calvinists could discover\nfor removing the maladies under which the churches of Holland were at\nthat time labouring. In showing cause for their preference, they were\nplaced in an awkward dilemma; for they perceived, that the strongest\nreasons to be adduced for the adoption of this measure would extend too\nfar, and might, in the hands of their able antagonists, be made to apply\nwith greater cogency to the convening of a general council.\n\nThe designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient\nliberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which\npossessed by the act of union the complete management of its own\naffairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and\nillegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the\nappointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected\nindividuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill\nthe higher offices of state in the various towns which had been\nill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and\nscandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated\nrespecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians\nto deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to\nsucceed in his ambitious enterprises. To the party, therefore, that had\nforwarded his views he willingly gave all the weight of his influence,\nand that of the States General, the majority of whom, in virtue of the\nlate unlawful changes effected in the provinces, were favourable, not\nonly to Calvinism, but to any measure which the prince might think fit\nto propose. It was in allusion to the revolution, thus craftily\ncompleted, that Bogerman, as president of the synod of Dort, told\nEpiscopius, in a sarcastic style, as Hales tells us, \u201cYou may remember\nwhat you told the foreign divines in your letter to them, that there had\nof late been a great metamorphosis in the state; you are no longer\njudges and men in power, but persons under citation.\u201d In such a state of\naffairs, an ordinance of government was easily obtained for convening a\nnational synod, which was to consist of native divines appointed by the\ndifferent classes and presbyteries, of civil deputies chosen out of each\nprovince by the states, and of foreign divines deputed by such churches\nas had adopted both the platform and the doctrine of Geneva. The temper\nand intolerant conduct of the various ecclesiastical meetings with whom\nrested the inland appointments, had been but too apparent; and time had\nnot mollified their intolerant principles; for, under the new order of\nthings, and with the sanction of the fresh race of magistrates, they\nwere emboldened to effect a schism in many of the chief towns, and\nforcibly to exclude the Arminian ministers from the churches which they\noccupied. In other towns, in which these bold practices could not be\nattempted with any probability of success, they employed the\necclesiastical arms of the classes, provincial synods, and other packed\nvestry-meetings, the members of which (consisting generally of\nCalvinists) summoned before them all the chief Arminian pastors in the\nvarious districts, accused them of holding heterodox opinions on the\nsubject of predestination, and suspended or expelled them from the\nministry. This work of expulsion and suspension was carried on by the\ndominant party, even during the time in which the fate of Arminianism\nwas in a course of determination by the synod of Dort: so that, had that\nfar-famed and reverend assembly decided in favour of a toleration of the\nArminian doctrines, the minor church meetings had left few ministers of\nthat persecuted denomination to profit from such a decision. The\nCalvinistic account of this summary and iniquitous process is thus\ngiven, in the preface to the acts of the National Synod: \u201cAnd since\nthere were several pastors in that province, [Guelderland,] some of whom\nhad been suspected of many other errors beside the Five Points of the\nRemonstrants, others of them had illegally intruded into the office of\nthe ministry, while others were men of profligate habits; certain\npersons of this description being cited before the [provincial] synod\n[of Guelderland and Zutphen, held at Arnheim, in July, 1618,] were\nsuspended from the ministry for some of the before-mentioned reasons,\nand by no means on account of the opinion contained in the Five Points\nof the Remonstrants, which was reserved for the cognizance of the\nnational synod. The trial of the rest of these men being dismissed in\nthe name of the synod, was committed to a deputation from their body, to\nwhom the states added certain of their own delegates. When they had\nfully investigated the cases of these men in their classes, they\nsuspended some of them from the ministry, and entirely removed others.\u201d\nIn the very able memorial which the Remonstrants, on their arrival at\nthe synod, presented to the foreign members, it is justly observed,\nrespecting those who were accused of having taught, beside the Five\nPoints, those doctrines which were contrary to the fundamentals of\nfaith: \u201cSuch particular cases do not in any manner affect the common\ncause of the Remonstrants, but concern those alone who may be found\nguilty of them. Nor are we adverse to the issuing of ecclesiastical\ncensures against such persons, provided they be lawfully put upon their\ntrials, and fairly heard in defence of themselves against such charges.\u201d\nBecause the members of these Calvinistic provincial synods could not be\nlong absent from their respective congregations, such galloping\ncommissions as these, endowed with ample powers, were appointed to\ntraverse every province in which Arminianism had been planted; and they\nsoon showed to the world the most compendious method of rooting out\nreputed heresies. Their track through the land resembled that of the\nangel of destruction; it was marked by anguish, mourning, and\ndesolation. After this detail, established by the synodical documents\nthemselves, few words will suffice to point out the purely Calvinistic\nconstitution of the synod of Dort. When very few Remonstrant ministers\nremained in the land, except such as were ejected from the church or\nunder suspension, it was no difficult matter to procure an assemblage of\nmen that were of one heart respecting the main object that was then\nsought to be accomplished.\n\nIn the original order for holding the synod, and in the list appended to\nit, as they were both passed by the States General, no mention was made\nof inviting any other churches, except those of England, France, the\nPalatinate, Hesse, and Switzerland, and it was a matter postponed for\nfarther deliberation, whether any invitation should be transmitted to\nthe churches of Bremen, Brandenburgh, Geneva, and Nassau. The clergy of\nthe principality of Anhalt were not invited to the synod, because their\nopinions were understood to be similar to those of the Remonstrants, the\nancient confession adopted by their churches being decided on the\nsubject of conditional predestination. The divines of Bremen were viewed\nas men inclined too much to moderate counsels, and on that account\nimproper representatives in an assembly that intended to carry every\nproposition with the unanimity of force. The divines of Brandenburgh\nwere the last of those invited. Indeed no invitation was transmitted to\nthem, till the state and temper of their churches had been ascertained\nwith tolerable accuracy; and when it was generally thought that the\ndeputies from that electorate were tractable and would follow in the\ntrain of the Contra-Remonstrants, it was determined to summon them to\nthe synod. It was for some time a matter of doubt with the leading men\nof Holland, whether they ought to invite the divines of Geneva and\nNassau, two of the greatest nurseries of Calvinism, to be present at the\nsynod. The cause of this demur was, to avoid the appearance of\npartiality, which they justly thought all the world would have imputed\nto them had they convened an assembly consisting only of Calvinistic\ndoctors. To keep up this semblance of moderation, the synodical summons\nwas not transmitted to those divines when they were sent to the churches\nof other states and countries. But when Prince Maurice\u2019s schemes of\nsecular aggrandizement and political power had succeeded beyond his\nutmost wishes, they no longer studied to \u201cavoid the appearance of evil,\u201d\nbut boldly summoned all those divines about whose presence at the synod\nthey had formerly hesitated. This was a most notable and certain method\nof procuring a strict Calvinian uniformity in the members. On this\ntopic, Hales, in his letters from Dort, to the English ambassador at the\nHague, says, \u201cFor a general confession of faith, at least so far as\nthose churches stretch who have delegates here in the synod, I think his\nproject very possible, there being no point of faith in which they\ndiffer.\u201d Great interest was made at the court of France, to procure the\nattendance of deputies from the reformed churches of that country; but\nthe king of France prohibited the Protestant clergy within his dominions\nfrom becoming members of the synod, or assisting at its deliberations.\n\nThe letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the\nnational synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members\nwere summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of\nNovember in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of\nthe united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was\nformally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the\nforeign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will\nfind scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided\nopposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was\nnot consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge\nof the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This\ncaused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that \u201cno persons were\nsummoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of\nCalvin\u2019s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to\ngo to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the\nreverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be\nadmitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the\nbearing of his opinions.\u201d\n\nIt will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of\necclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having\nany deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic\nplan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were\nthe only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at\nall, was, because that province was almost equally divided between\nRemonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of\neach denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons\nas well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that\nthey would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the\nseat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously\ndeclared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as\nthe Acts express it, \u201cthat this synod might not be exposed to calumnies,\nas if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the\njudges\u201d on five conditions, the chief of which were, \u201cthat while the\naffairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not\ndisturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and\nnot acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which\nconcerned their cause.\u201d Two of them, after a day\u2019s deliberation, united\nthemselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a\nlayman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable\nassembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther\ndeliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members\nconvened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be\nsummoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed\nand sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each\nprovince as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired,\nif all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay\ncommissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the\nsecretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting\ntheir numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the\nsecretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day\nthe preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for\namendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the\ndetermination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many,\nshould be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the\nRemonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation,\ncommanding them to appear before the synod, \u201cwithin fourteen days after\nthe receipt of it without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that\nin it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the\nbefore-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to\nbe necessary.\u201d In the mean time the Remonstrants, without knowing the\nresolution of the synod, had deputed three of their body from Leyden, to\nobtain leave for their appearance at the synod, in a competent number\nand under safe conduct to defend their cause. On making their request\nknown to the lay commissioners, they were informed of the resolution\nwhich had passed the synod only the preceding day. To which they\nreplied, that it was unreasonable to cite those to justify themselves\nwho were both ready and willing to come of their own accord; and that if\nthey persisted in proceeding with their plan of citation, they would by\nthat act furnish just cause, not only to them, but to all good men, to\nentertain strange notions and suspicions of the synodical proceedings.\nNot being permitted to choose those men from their own body whom they\ndeemed the best qualified to state and defend their cause, they\naccounted it an additional hardship, that their enemies should assume\nthat unlawful authority to themselves. But neither at that time nor\nafterward, when they wished to add two of the most accomplished of the\nbrethren to their number, were their representations of the least avail.\nOn the sixth of December these valiant defenders of the truth arrived,\nand requested, by a deputation, to be allowed a few days to unpack their\nbooks, arrange their papers, &c. But they were commanded immediately to\nappear in a body before the synod, and to prefer their own request. They\nwere introduced by their brethren of Utrecht, and ordered to sit down at\na long table placed in the middle of the hall. Episcopius then, with the\npermission of the president, addressed an apostolic greeting to the\nsynod; and, having repeated the request previously made, he said, that\n\u201cthe cited Remonstrants appeared there to defend their good and\nrighteous cause before that venerable assembly, by reasons and arguments\ndrawn from the word of God,--or else to be confuted and better informed\nfrom the same word. In reference to the favour which they had asked,\nthey left it to the discretion of the commissioners of the States\nGeneral, being ready on their parts, immediately and without delay, to\nengage in a conference, if that should be required.\u201d Then were they\ndesired to withdraw into a chamber prepared for them adjoining the hall\nof the synod. After some time spent in deliberation, they were recalled,\nand informed by the president, that they would be expected at the synod\nnext morning at nine o\u2019clock. He added, according to Hales, \u201cthat they\ncame not to conference, neither did the synod profess themselves an\nadverse party against them. Conferences had been heretofore held to no\npurpose. They ought to have heeded the words of the letters by which\nthey were cited. They were called not to conference, but to propose\ntheir opinions with their reasons, and leave it with the synod to judge\nof them.\u201d Episcopius replied, that it was not necessary so nicely to\ncriticise the word conference, and that they had come there with no\nother view than to treat about the doctrines which were controverted,\naccording to the summons which they had received. The next day, December\n7th, the Remonstrants were called in, when after Episcopius had desired\nand obtained leave to speak, he uttered an oration, the delivery of\nwhich occupied nearly two hours, and which, on account of the noble\nsentiments contained in it, deserves to be recorded in letters of gold.\nThe gracefulness, force, and energy with which it was spoken, made such\nan impression on the auditory as drew tears from several of them, and\neven from some of the states\u2019 deputies. This effect gave mighty umbrage\nto the choleric Bogerman, who, as president, according to Mr. Hales\u2019s\naccount, \u201csignified unto Episcopius, that, because there were in his\nspeech many things considerable, he was therefore to deliver the copy of\nit. Episcopius replied, that he had none handsomely written: if the\nsynod would have patience, he would cause a fair transcript to be drawn\nfor them. But this excuse would not serve; fair or foul, deliver it up\nhe must, and so he did.\u201d In the session, December 10, after the\npresident had ceased to speak, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed\nwith their explanation and defence of the five points. They requested\nleave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to\nthis; but the lay president ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard\nDwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the\nsynod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the\nacts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause\nit defended. The first part declared, that the Remonstrants did not own\nthe members of the synod for lawful judges, because the great majority\nof them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed\nenemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as\nthose whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy\nschism which was made in the churches of Holland. The second part\ncontained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a\nwell constituted synod should consist. The observance of the\nstipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the\nsynod, averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the\nProtestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the\nPapists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. The\nproduction of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic\npersuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against\nthe principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,--gave\ndreadful offence to that powerful body in the synod, and especially when\nthey were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. No one\ncan form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading\nof this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the lay president, and the\ncommissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the\nsucceeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Bogerman\nlaboured hard to show, that, by denying the competency and impartial\nconstitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in\nreality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had\nappointed and convened the synod; and that, by charging the majority of\nthe members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect\naccused the prince of Orange and the States General, because those great\npersonages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the\nlatter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland\ndivines, he said, \u201cThe proper time has not yet arrived for discussing\nit. But when it shall have been proved to the synod, what kind of\ndoctrine is sanctioned by the church, those who have departed from it,\nand who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true\ncolours.\u201d Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in\nbehalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority\nof the states, and held the synod in due estimation, yet it was as\nlawful for them to challenge this synod, as for several of the Christian\nfathers who challenged some of the ancient councils, and their ancestors\nthat of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to\nchallenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law\nallowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had\npreviously separated from the Remonstrants should sit in the synod to\ntry them, after they had by such separation pre-judged their doctrine\nand entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation.\nEpiscopius then said, \u201cMr. President, if you were in our places and we\nin yours, would you submit to our judgment?\u201d Bogerman replied, \u201cIf it\nhad so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has\nordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with\npatience.\u201d Episcopius rejoined, \u201cIt is one thing to acknowledge a person\nfor a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which\nhe may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be\npersuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you\nare our sworn adversaries, and have churches totally separated from\nours.\u201d\n\nOn the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, being called in, were\nurged by the synod to present their objections in writing against the\nConfession and Catechism. Before they proceeded to do that, they craved\npermission to read another document: after some demur, leave was\ngranted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: \u201cThe celebrated\nPar\u00e6us, in his _Irenicum_, prudently observes, that he would advise no\nman to approach any council in which the same persons had to appear in\nthe character of both adversaries and judges.\u201d The rest of the paper was\noccupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in\nthe four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their\nwant of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They\ndeclared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to\nthe synod, as the States General had intended, and such men as had never\nbeen concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they\nwould have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a synod.\nThis document concluded with a protest. After the delivery of this\nprotest, the synod invented various methods to vex the cited\nRemonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause. Among those\nmethods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and\nnot in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers.\nThey had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they\nthought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the synod,\nwithout the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the\nindividuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who\nhad represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference\nin 1611, only three were summoned to the present synod; and though those\nwho appeared on this occasion were generally men of good natural talents\nand sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under\ndiscussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a\nready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be\nsuddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent\ndegree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had\ntime for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons\nwith those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be\nviewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without\nexception refused. Having presented to the synod their opinions relative\nto the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession,\nthe Remonstrants wished to enter on the \u201cproposing, explanation, and\ndefence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary,\u201d\naccording to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited;\nbut the synod in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those\nexpressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to\nthemselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to\nenter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was\naccounted an act of great injustice by the Remonstrants, who also\nalleged, that \u201cthey did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of\nelection, but that it was reprobation in which the chief difficulty\nlay.\u201d They were very desirous, therefore, of having reprobation\ndiscussed in the first instance: but the Calvinists of those days wished\nto keep unconditional reprobation enshrined in the dark _penetralia_ of\ntheir temples, only to be produced, as opportunity might serve, for\ntheir own private purposes, either to terrify the careless among their\nhearers, or to quicken the occasionally sluggish current of\ncongregational benevolence. It was not to be expected, therefore, that\nthe Calvinists of the synod would allow the Remonstrants to give\nreprobation that prominence in their discussions to which it was justly\nentitled. In one of the debates which these two questions produced,\nBogerman again took advantage of the disingenuous trickery which we have\njust exposed, and asked Pynakker, one of the cited ministers, \u201cDo you\nimagine the synod will suffer the Remonstrants to examine the doctrine\nof reprobation?\u201d Pynakker replied, \u201cYes, I do: because, as this is the\nchief source of the troubles of the church, it ought to be _first_\ndiscussed.\u201d Perceiving either that his meaning was not correctly\nunderstood, or that he had expressed it in an imperfect manner, Pynakker\nimmediately explained himself by adding, that by _first_ he meant\n_chiefly_, (both of which significations the Latin word conveys,) and by\nacknowledging that election ought to have the precedence of discussion.\nWhen relating this occurrence, Poppius remarks, \u201cThis, being received in\na wrong sense, was imputed to all of us, as though we were unanimously\nof opinion, that the discussion of the doctrine of reprobation ought to\nprecede that of election. Upon this question the foreign divines and\nothers were desired by the president to deliver their sentiments.\nHowever, the expression imputed to us was employed by none of us, much\nless by all. But this was their manner: if one of us, in the name of\nall, said any thing that proved advantageous to the rest, the president\nseemed much displeased at our unanimity: then we were told that we were\ncited singly and personally, and that we did not compose a society or\ncorporation. But when any of us happened to employ a word that was\ncapable of being wrested to our common injury and misconstrued, then\nwhat was said by one was certain to be imputed to all!\u201d After gaining a\nfavourable opportunity like this, Bogerman always hastily dismissed the\ncited persons; and on this occasion he dwelt largely, in their absence,\non Pynakker\u2019s expression, and persuaded the foreign divines that the\nproposal of the Remonstrants, to treat of reprobation before election,\nwas a _sine qu\u00e2 non_, and that without it was granted to them they would\nnot proceed. This alarmed all the Calvinistic brotherhood, who rose _vi\net armis_, delivered _seriatim_ their objections to such a bold\nproceeding, and thought, with the professor of Heidelberg, \u201cthat it was\nunreasonable for the Remonstrants to disturb the consciences of the\nelect on account of God\u2019s judgments against the reprobated, and to plead\nthe cause of the latter, as though they had been hired to undertake the\ndefence of those who had by the just judgment of God been rejected; and\nthat for these reasons the synod neither could nor ought to grant the\nRemonstrant brethren any farther liberty, unless the members designed to\nexpose the orthodox doctrine of predestination to be openly ridiculed.\u201d\nFinding this great aversion in the synod to the precedence of\nreprobation, the Remonstrants proposed, since they were forbidden to\nexplain or defend their sentiments _viv\u00e2 voce_, \u201cto explain their\ndoctrines in writing, beginning with the article of election, and\nproceeding to that of reprobation; to defend their doctrines, and to\nrefute the contrary opinions of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those\nwhom they consider orthodox: but that, in case this explanation or\ndefence seems to be defective, they would answer in writing the\nquestions which the president might think proper to propose to them, or\nin oral communications by those of their body whom they might judge best\nqualified for that purpose. And that the liberty which they desired\nmight not appear unlimited, they bound themselves to proceed in such a\nmanner as should not savour in the least of an insolent licentiousness:\nand that their discussions might not be extended too far, the lay\ncommissioners were empowered to curtail them at pleasure.\u201d But these\nvery equitable terms, which were much worse than those which the\nunsophisticated and grammatical sense of the citatory letters held out\nto them, were rejected by the synod, at the instigation and by the\nmanagement of the president, who, after having had recourse to his old\ntrick of propounding questions to each of the cited persons, and after\nprocuring against them three or four synodical censures, had them at\nlength, (Jan. 14th,) dismissed from the synod, with every mark of\ncontumely and scorn which he could invent. Bogerman had previously\nbusied himself in extracting the opinions of the Remonstrants from such\nwritings of theirs as had been published long before, and in forming\nthem into articles, to be separately discussed by the synod. This\npassing of judgment on the Remonstrants from the testimony of their own\nwritings, was an employment which Deodatus and his colleague from Geneva\nhad at one of the earliest sessions mentioned as very desirable, and in\nwhich they appeared eager to engage. Any one who attentively reads the\nActs of the synod, and compares them with the private accounts both of\nRemonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants will find, that this had also been\nthe intention of the president from the very commencement, and that all\nhis shifting schemes and boisterous conduct was intended to irritate the\nRemonstrants, who possessed more patience than he had contemplated, and\nwho were therefore to be removed from the synod by a greater exercise of\nart and with greater difficulty. But one of the greatest injuries of\nwhich the Remonstrants had to complain, was, that the book from which\ntheir supposed opinions were chiefly collected, was the production of a\ndeclared enemy, who wrote a highly coloured account of a conference\nrespecting the Five Points, in which he pretended that the Calvinists\nhad obtained a complete victory. A Remonstrant author had also written\nan able statement of the same conference, and had claimed a triumph for\nhis party. The latter would therefore have certainly been the most\nproper authority from which to extract the real opinions of his body.\n\nBut though dismissed from their farther attendance on the synod, the\nRemonstrants were not permitted to depart from Dort; the states\u2019\ncommissioners having charged them not to quit the town, without their\nspecial permission. The president, in his speech dimissory, had said,\nthat they would receive an intimation when the synod had any farther\noccasion for them. When a Remonstrant deputy, by leave of the acting\nburgomaster of Dort, who was one of the commissioners, had hastily gone\nto Utrecht, to visit one of his children that was expected soon to die,\nhe was on his return called to an account for his conduct, and the\nformer order repeated. In the course of their detention at Dort during\neight months, they were as strictly watched as if they had been\ncondemned malefactors. One of them whose sister lay on her death-bed and\nearnestly desired to see him, could not obtain permission to visit her\nwhile she lived; and after her decease he was not allowed to attend her\nfuneral. Another, whose wife was near the time of her accouchment,\nwished, like a good family man, to be at home for a few days at that\ncritical period; but his request was refused. When the uncle of another\nof them was at the point of death, he longed for the presence of his\nnephew, to receive his dying commands, and to benefit him by his\ncounsels and prayers; but the wishes of the good old man could not be\ngratified. After his death, the nephew was not allowed to look after the\npressing concerns of his orphan cousins, although his uncle had\nappointed him their legal guardian. None of these favours, though\nreasonable and asked with much humility, could be obtained from the high\nbigots, in whose hands, at that time, was vested the personal liberty of\nthe persecuted and cited Remonstrants. Toward the close of February, the\nmagistrates of different towns deposed from the ministry three of the\ncited Remonstrant ministers who were present at the synod, and sent\nregular notices to their families, speedily to quit the parsonage houses\nwhich they severally occupied. These three good men, being heartily\ntired of the strict durance in which they had been held since their\narrival at Dort, represented to the states\u2019 commissioners, that, as they\nwere not now in the ministry, they could no longer be considered\namenable to the jurisdiction of the synod: this was the very argument of\nthe commissioners, when, at the commencement of the synod, the\nRemonstrants had wished to have associated with them the two recently\ndeposed ministers, Grevinchovius and Goulart. Though, for very obvious\nreasons, at that early stage of the business, they would permit no\nRemonstrants to appear among the cited, \u201cexcept such as were actually in\nthe exercise of the ministry;\u201d yet they would not listen to the same\nargument when it militated against their favourite purposes: and the\nthree ministers were commanded to remain at Dort with their brethren.\nOne of the three, however, whose wife then far advanced in pregnancy,\nhad been ordered to leave her house within eight days, ventured to\nreturn to Horn, and to assist her to remove from their former dwelling.\nBut, on his arrival, he found her already removed to another house; and\nhis return to Dort was speedily required by the higher powers. To\nexpedite his departure, two or three of the Calvinist magistrates\nemployed their official authority in a manner the most reprehensible:\nthey placed him, like a criminal, in the town wagon openly before his\nown door, though he had provided a carriage for himself on the outside\nof the town, to which he wished to have retired privately and without\nnoise. A tumult ensued between the populace who were attached to their\ngood pastor, and the soldiers whom the magistrates had placed before his\nhouse two hours before his departure. On his return to Dort, he was\nseverely examined before the commissioners respecting the unhappy\ncommotion; but being convinced that he had not been at all to blame in\nthat affair, they passed it over in silence. At different times the\nRemonstrants wished to depute a few of their small body to the Hague, to\nmake a proper representation of the manner in which they were treated by\nthe synod; but this indulgence was invariably refused. Their only\nresource then was, to write to their high mightinesses an account of\ntheir proceedings, and to implore their interference and protection. But\nsuch an attempt, in that posture of their affairs, was unavailing; for\ntheir doom was already sealed. Soon after their appearance at Dort, the\nmagistrates of that city issued a proclamation, commanding the\ninhabitants, all of whom were celebrated for their attachment to Calvin,\nto refrain from insulting any of the foreign or native professors,\ndivines, or other persons that were called to appear at the synod, on\npain of summary punishment to the offenders. This document was not\nrequired for the protection of the Calvinists; but the persecuted\nRemonstrants were such objects of hatred to the populace, as scarcely to\nbe allowed to pass along the streets without being maltreated. This bad\nspirit was excited and encouraged by the violent sermons which were\nfulminated against them, from the different pulpits in the city.\nWhenever these good men were required to be in attendance, (and they\nwere liable to be summoned from their lodgings at a few minutes\u2019\nnotice,) they were not permitted to enter the large hall in which the\nsynodical sessions were held, but were ordered to wait the pleasure of\nthat venerable body in an ante-chamber, the door of which was generally\nlocked, and the passage leading to it guarded by two or three of the\npolice, who hindered them from holding any communication with their\nfriends, and kept them in as strict durance as if they had been\nconvicted of some capital offence. At the formal conclusion of the\nprincipal business of the synod, May the 6th, when the farther\nattendance of the foreign divines was declared to be no longer\nnecessary, the Remonstrants were summoned from their lodgings, and\nwaited upon the lay commissioners, at six o\u2019clock in the evening, when\nthe resolution and censure of the synod were read to them in Latin by\nHeinsius, the secretary; in which they were accused of \u201chaving corrupted\nthe true religion, dissolved the unity of the church, given grievous\ncause of scandal, and shown themselves contumacious and disobedient: for\nthese several reasons, the synod prohibited them from the farther\nexercise of their ministry, deprived them of their offices in the church\nand university, and declared them incapable of performing any\necclesiastical function, till, by sincere repentance, they should have\ngiven the church full satisfaction, and, being thus reconciled to her,\nshould be re-admitted into her communion.\u201d They were then required to\nwait at Dort till farther orders from their high mightinesses; and when\nthey requested to have a copy of the synodical censure and sentence\nagainst them, they were as usual refused. On the 24th of May, the cited\nRemonstrants were summoned to appear before three new commissioners whom\nthe States General had deputed from their body, when each of them was\ncalled into the room and separately interrogated; after which, he who\nhad been last called in was ordered into another room, and prevented\nfrom holding any communication with those who had not been ushered into\nthe presence of the commissioners. The proposal and questions addressed\nto each of them were in substance the following: \u201cSince you have been\ndeprived by the synod, the States General have directed us to ask you\nthe following questions: Whether you are, notwithstanding this decision,\nresolved to act as ministers? Or whether you will be content in future\nto lead quiet and peaceable lives in obedience to the government, as\nprivate burghers, without any place or office, abstaining from all\necclesiastical ministrations in any meeting of the people of your sect,\nfrom all manner of teaching and preaching, exhorting, reading,\nadministering the sacraments, visiting the sick, writing letters, or\ntransmitting papers?--It is the intention of their high mightinesses to\nallow to those who shall conform to these requisitions such a competency\nas may enable them to live comfortably either in or out of these united\nprovinces, as their own choice may determine.\u201d In addition to these\nthings, Episcopius was required to promise, \u201cnot to write either letters\nor books to confirm the people in the sentiments of the Remonstrants, or\nto seduce them from the doctrine of the synod.\u201d All of them professed\ntheir willingness to obey their governors in all such matters as might\nbe performed with a safe conscience, to live peaceably themselves, and\nto exhort all others to the same practice. They also expressed their\nreadiness to refrain from the exercise of their ecclesiastical functions\nin the public churches; but none of them, except Leo, could reconcile it\nto their consciences to abstain from feeding in smaller assemblies the\nflock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. The\nmajority of them added, \u201cNot only those who abuse or squander away their\ntalent will be punished, but those also who bury it in the earth, either\nthrough fear of trouble or hope of advantage. It is therefore our duty\nto place our lights on candlesticks, and not to hide or smother them\nunder a bushel or an easy bed; and we hope your lordships will neither\nhinder us, nor be displeased with us for so doing.\u201d In a subsequent\ninterview with the commissioners, the Remonstrants proved, that their\nreasons for continuing the exercise of their ministry had formerly\nreceived the sanction of the States General themselves: for at the\ntreaty of Cologne, in 1579, their high mightinesses had insisted, \u201cthat\nsubjects who professed any religion different from that which was\nestablished, could not satisfy their consciences by foregoing its\nexercise.\u201d But, after several unavailing conferences together, the\ncommissioners left them in a state of suspense and confinement, about\ntwenty days longer. During that time, several reports were brought to\nthem from various quarters, \u201cthat some great calamity was impending;\u201d\nand they were seriously advised to avoid it by a timely flight. They\nwere likewise informed of Barneveldt\u2019s execution, and of the perpetual\nimprisonment to which Grotius and Hogerbeets had been sentenced; and\nthat several of their brethren in the ministry, who had lately attended\na meeting at Rotterdam about their affairs in general, had been taken\ninto custody, and brought to the Hague, for that offence. They thought,\nhowever, that all these reports were only intended to create an\nartificial alarm, and to induce them to attempt an escape,--thus\ndelivering their enemies from the hatred to which they would be exposed\nby their farther rigorous proceedings. But their firmness on that\noccasion corresponded with all their previous conduct, and they refused\nto dishonour their good cause by flight, or any other act of cowardice.\nOn the 3d of July, after having been summoned from Dort to the Hague,\nthey appeared before the States General, and when they had been called\nin singly before their lordships, some time was spent to induce each of\nthem to sign the act of cessation from the ministry. But to these\nrenewed solicitations they separately returned the same modest answer as\nthat which they had delivered at Dort. After allowing them two days for\nfarther deliberation, their lordships on the fifth of the same month,\nhaving heard a repetition of their refusal, passed a resolution to\nbanish them \u201cout of the united provinces and the jurisdiction thereof,\nwithout ever being allowed to return till the said states be fully\nsatisfied that they are ready to subscribe the said act of cessation,\nand till they have obtained special leave from their high mightinesses\nfor that purpose, on pain, in case of non-compliance, of being treated\nas disturbers of the public peace, for an example to others.\u201d Episcopius\ndelivered a short speech, in which, among other matters, he reminded\ntheir high mightinesses, \u201cthat they had been invited to a free synod,\nand had received frequent verbal promises of a safe conduct.\u201d To this\nspeech they did not deign a reply, but ordered the Remonstrants to be\nconducted into another room, and to have the door locked and bolted,\nwhile the provost and his officers attended on the outside for purposes\nof intimidation. After being kept some time in this kind of imprisonment\nthey were at length permitted to depute to their high mightinesses two\nof their body, who requested that they might have leave to adjust their\ndomestic affairs, to collect what was owing to them, and to pay their\ndebts, that their wives and children might not be rendered miserable and\nturned naked into the streets. They offered to give unexceptionable\nsecurity for their return at such a period and to such places as their\nlordships might require. While they were preferring this request, the\nHeer Muis often interrupted them, and at last sarcastically told them\n\u201cnot to be so greatly concerned about their families; for if they had\nreceived an extraordinary call from God to serve his church, he would\nundoubtedly support them after an extraordinary manner.\u201d But the only\nfavour which the Remonstrants could obtain, was, the deferring of their\ndeparture till four o\u2019clock the next morning, provided each of them\nwould promise to retire to his lodgings without speaking to any body,\nand to be ready at the appointed early hour next day. Each of them had\nfifty guilders allowed for his travelling expenses, and a copy of the\nsentence of the States General. But it was between nine and ten o\u2019clock\nthe next day, before the magistrates removed them in nine wagons toward\nWalwick in Brabant, the place of banishment which they had desired,\nwhere they arrived after a journey of three days. The canons of Dort, as\nthe grand test of Calvinism, were then carried triumphantly by the\nsynodists throughout the land; and every clergyman, professor, and\nschoolmaster, that refused to sign them, was deprived of his benefice\nand compelled to lay aside his functions. Several of them, in addition\nto their deprivation, were also banished out of the country, to various\nparts on the continent. So ended these proceedings of the Synod of Dort\nas to these suffering men; proceedings which would have disgraced the\nworst age of popery!\n\nWhile in a state of banishment, these excellent ministers of Christ\nJesus provided for the spiritual wants of their destitute flocks; and,\nat the imminent hazard of life and liberty, discharged in person, as\noften as they found opportunity, the duties of the pastoral office.\nAfter the death of Prince Maurice, in 1631, they were permitted to\nreturn to their native country, and to resume the peaceable exercise of\ntheir ministry. But the immense literary labours in which they were\ncompelled to engage during this troublous period have, by the admirably\nover-ruling acts of Divine Providence, been rendered most valuable\nblessings to the whole of Christendom. Such doctrines and principles\nwere then brought under discussion, as served to enlighten every country\nin Europe on the grand subject of civil and religious liberty, the true\nnature of which has from that time been better understood, and its\nbeneficial effects more generally appreciated and enjoyed.\n\nWe subjoin their opinions on the \u201cFive Points\u201d in dispute between them\nand the Contra-Remonstrants, translated from the Latin papers which they\npresented to the synod. It is, however, necessary for the reader to be\napprized, that, in framing these doctrinal articles, which served them\nas texts or theses for some most valuable dissertations on various\ncognate subjects, they intended rather to expose the unguarded\nassertions and extravagant dogmas of their theological adversaries, than\nto exhibit a simple statement of their own sentiments.\n\nI. _On predestination._ 1. God has not decreed to elect any one to\neternal life or to reprobate any man from it, in an order prior to that\nby which he has decreed to create that man, without any insight into any\nantecedent obedience or disobedience, but according to his own good\npleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice, or of his\npower or absolute dominion. 2. As the decree of God concerning both the\nsalvation and the destruction of every man is not the decree of an end\nabsolutely [_intenti_] fixed, it follows that neither are such means\nsubordinated to that decree as through them both the elect and the\nreprobate may efficaciously and inevitably be brought to the destined\nend. 3. Wherefore, neither did God with this design in one man Adam\ncreate all men in an upright condition, nor did he ordain the fall or\neven its permission, nor did he withdraw from Adam necessary and\nsufficient grace, nor does he now cause the Gospel to be preached and\nmen to be outwardly called, nor does he confer on them the gifts of the\nHoly Spirit,--[he has done none of these things with the design] that\nthey should be means by which he might bring some of mankind to life\neverlasting, and leave others of them destitute of eternal life. Christ\nthe Mediator is not only the executor of election, but also the\nfoundation of the very decree of election itself. The reason [_causa_]\nwhy some men are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith,\nand are glorified, is not because they are absolutely elected to life\neternal: nor is the reason why others are deserted and left in the fall,\nhave not Christ bestowed upon them, or, farther, why they are\ninefficaciously called, are hardened and damned, because these men are\nabsolutely reprobated from eternal life. 4. God has not decreed, without\nthe intervening of actual sins, to leave by far the greater part of\nmankind in the fall, and excluded from all hope of salvation. 5. God has\nordained that Christ shall be the propitiation for the sins of the whole\nworld; and, in virtue of this decree, he has determined to justify and\nsave those who believe in him, and to administer to men the means which\nare necessary and sufficient for faith, in such a manner as he knows to\nbe befitting his wisdom and justice. But he has not in any wise\ndetermined, in virtue of an absolute decree, to give Christ as a\nMediator for the elect only, and to endow them alone with faith through\nan effectual call, to justify them, to preserve them in the faith, and\nto glorify them. 6. Neither is any man by some absolute antecedent\ndecree rejected from life eternal, nor from means sufficient to attain\nit: so that the merits of Christ, calling, and all the gifts of the\nSpirit, are capable of profiting all men for their salvation, and are in\nreality profitable to all men, unless by an abuse of these blessings\nthey pervert them to their own destruction. But no man whatever is\ndestined to unbelief, impiety, or the commission of sin, as the means\nand causes of his damnation. 7. The election of particular persons is\n[_peremptoria_] absolute, from consideration of their faith in Jesus\nChrist and their perseverance, but not without consideration of their\nfaith and of their perseverance in true faith as a prerequisite\ncondition in electing them. 8. Reprobation from eternal life is made\naccording to the consideration of preceding unbelief and perseverance in\nunbelief, but not without consideration of preceding unbelief or\nperseverance in unbelief. 9. All the children of believers are\nsanctified in Christ; so that not one of them perishes who departs out\nof this life prior to the use of reason. But some children of believers\nwho depart out of this life in their infancy, and before they have in\ntheir own persons committed any sin, are on no account to be reckoned in\nthe number of the reprobate: so that neither is the sacred laver of\nbaptism, nor are the prayers of the church, by any means capable of\nprofiting them to salvation. 10. No children of believers who have been\nbaptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\nand who live in the state of their infancy, are by an absolute decree\nnumbered among the reprobate.\n\nII. _On the universality of the merit of Christ._ 1. The price of\nredemption which Christ offered to his Father is in and of itself not\nonly sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but it has\nalso, through the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father,\nbeen paid for all men and every man; and therefore no one is by an\nabsolute and antecedent decree of God positively excluded from all\nparticipation in the fruits of the death of Christ. 2. Christ, by the\nmerit of his death, has [_hactenus_] thus far reconciled God the Father\nto the whole of mankind,--that he can and will, without injury to his\njustice and truth, enter into and establish a new covenant of grace with\nsinners and men obnoxious to damnation. 3. Though Christ has merited for\nall men and for every man reconciliation with God and forgiveness of\nsins, yet, according to [_pactum_] the tenor or terms of the new and\ngracious covenant, no man is in reality made a partaker of the benefits\nprocured by the death of Christ in any other way than through faith;\nneither are the trespasses and offences of sinful men forgiven prior to\ntheir actually and truly believing in Christ. 4. Those only for whom\nChrist has died are obliged to believe that Christ has died for them.\nBut those whom they call reprobates, and for whom Christ has not died,\ncan neither be obliged so to believe, nor can they be justly condemned\nfor the contrary unbelief; but if such persons were reprobates, they\nwould be obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.\n\nIII. & IV. _On the operation of grace in the conversion of man._ 1. Man\nhas not saving faith from and of himself, nor has he it from the powers\nof his own free will; because in a state of sin he is able from and of\nhimself to think, will, or do nothing that is good, nothing that is\nindeed saving good; of which description, in the first place, is saving\nfaith. But it is necessary that, by God in Christ through his Holy\nSpirit, he should be regenerated and renewed in his understanding,\naffections, will, and in all his powers, that he may be capable of\nrightly understanding, meditating, willing, and performing such things\nas are savingly good. 2. We propound the grace of God to be the\nbeginning, the progress, and the completion of every good thing; so that\neven the man who is born again is not able without this preceding and\nprevenient, this exciting and following, this accompanying and\nco\u00f6perating grace, to think, to will, or to perform any good, or to\nresist any temptations to evil: so that good works, and the good actions\nwhich any one is able to find out by thinking, are to be ascribed to the\ngrace of God in Christ. 3. Yet we do not believe that all the zeal,\ncare, study, and pains, which are employed to obtain salvation, before\nfaith and the Spirit of renovation, are vain and useless; much less do\nwe believe that they are more hurtful to man than useful and profitable.\nBut, on the contrary, we consider that to hear the word of God, to mourn\non account of the commission of sin, and earnestly to seek and desire\nsaving grace and the Spirit of renovation, (none of which is any man\ncapable of doing without divine grace,) are not only not hurtful and\nuseless, but that they are rather most useful and exceedingly necessary\nfor obtaining faith and the Spirit of renovation. 4. The will of man in\na lapsed or fallen state, and before the call of God, has not the\ncapability and liberty of willing any good that is of a saving nature;\nand therefore we deny that the liberty of willing as well what is a\nsaving good as what is an evil is present to the human will in every\nstate or condition. 5. Efficacious grace, by which any man is converted,\nis not irresistible: and though God so affects the will of man by his\nword and the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer upon him a\ncapability of believing, or supernatural power, and actually [_faciat_]\ncauses man to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject\nthis grace and not believe, and therefore, also, to perish through his\nown culpability. 6. Although, according to the most free and\nunrestrained will of God, there is very great disparity or inequality of\ndivine grace, yet the Holy Spirit either bestows, or is ready to bestow,\nupon all and upon every one to whom the word of faith is preached, as\nmuch grace as is sufficient to promote [_suis gradibus_] in its\ngradations the conversion of men; and therefore grace sufficient for\nfaith and conversion is conceded not only to those whom God is said to\nbe willing to save according to his decree of absolute election, but\nlikewise to those who are in reality not converted. 7. Man is able, by\nthe grace of the Holy Spirit, to do more good than he actually does, and\nto omit more evil than he actually omits. Neither do we believe that God\n[_simpliciter_] absolutely wills that man should do no more good than\nthat which he does, and to omit no more evil than that which he omits;\nnor do we believe it to have been determinately decreed from all\neternity that each of such acts should be so done or omitted. 8.\nWhomsoever God calls he calls them seriously, that is, with a sincere\nand not with a dissembled intention and will of saving them. Neither do\nwe subscribe to the opinion of those persons who assert that God\noutwardly calls certain men whom he does not will to call inwardly, that\nis, whom he is unwilling to be truly converted, even prior to their\nrejection of the grace of calling. 9. There is not in God a secret will\nof that kind which is so opposed to his will revealed in his word, that\naccording to this same secret will he does not will the conversion and\nsalvation of the greatest part of those whom, by the word of his Gospel,\nand by his revealed will, he seriously calls and invites to faith and\nsalvation. 10. Neither [_h\u00eec_] on this point do we admit of a holy\ndissimulation, as it is the manner of some men to speak, or of a twofold\nperson in the Deity. 11. It is not true, that, through the force and\nefficacy of the secret will of God or of the divine decree, not only are\nall good things necessarily done, but likewise all evil things; so that\nwhosoever commit sin, they are not able, in respect to the divine\ndecree, to do otherwise than commit sin; and that God wills, decrees,\nand [_procurat_] is the manager of men\u2019s sins, and of their insane,\nfoolish, and cruel actions, also of the sacrilegious blasphemy of his\nown name; that he moves the tongues of men to blaspheme, &c. 12. We also\nconsider it to be a false and horrible dogma, that God by _secret_ means\nimpels men to the commission of those sins which he _openly_ prohibits;\nthat those who sin do not act in opposition to the true will of God and\nthat which is properly so called; that what is unjust, that is, what is\ncontrary to God\u2019s command, is agreeable to his will; nay, farther, that\nit is a real and capital fault to do the will of God.\n\nV. _On the perseverance of true believers in faith._ 1. The perseverance\nof believers in faith is not the effect of that absolute decree of God\nby which he is said to have elected or chosen particular persons\ncircumscribed with no condition of their obedience. 2. God furnishes\ntrue believers with supernatural powers or strength of grace, as much as\naccording to his infinite wisdom he judges to suffice for their\nperseverance, and for their overcoming the temptations of the devil, the\nflesh, and the world; and on the part of God stands nothing to hinder\nthem from persevering. 3. It is possible for true believers to fall away\nfrom true faith, and to fall into sins of such a description as cannot\nconsist with a true and justifying faith; nor is it only possible for\nthem thus to fall, but such lapses not unfrequently occur. 4. True\nbelievers are capable by their own fault of falling into flagrant crimes\nand atrocious wickedness, to persevere and die in them, and therefore\nfinally to fall away and to perish. 5. Yet though true believers\nsometimes fall into grievous sins, and such as destroy the conscience,\nwe do not believe that they immediately fall away from all hope of\nrepentance; but we acknowledge this to be an event not impossible to\noccur,--that God, according to the multitude of his mercies may again\ncall them by his grace to repentance; nay, we are of opinion that such a\nrecalling has often occurred, although such fallen believers cannot be\n\u201cmost fully persuaded\u201d about this matter that it will certainly and\nundoubtedly take place. 6. Therefore do we with our whole heart and soul\nreject the following dogmas, which are daily affirmed in various\npublications extensively circulated among the people: namely, (1.) \u201cTrue\nbelievers cannot possibly sin with deliberate counsel and design, but\nonly through ignorance and infirmity.\u201d (2.) \u201cIt is impossible for true\nbelievers, through any sins of theirs, to fall away from the grace of\nGod.\u201d (3.) \u201cA thousand sins, nay, all the sins of the whole world, are\nnot capable of rendering election vain and void.\u201d If to this be added,\n\u201cMen of every description are bound to believe that they are elected to\nsalvation, and therefore are incapable of falling from that election,\u201d\nwe leave men to think what a wide window such a dogma opens to carnal\nsecurity. (4.) \u201cNo sins, however great and grievous they may be, are\nimputed to believers; nay, farther, all sins, both present and future,\nare remitted to them.\u201d (5.) \u201cThough true believers fall into destructive\nheresies, into dreadful and most atrocious sins, such as adultery and\nmurder, on account of which the church, according to the institution of\nChrist, is compelled to testify that it cannot tolerate them in its\noutward communion, and that unless such persons be converted, they will\nhave no part in the kingdom of Christ; yet it is impossible for them\ntotally and finally to fall away from faith.\u201d 7. As a true believer is\ncapable at the present time of being assured concerning the integrity of\nhis faith and conscience, so he is able and ought to be at this time\nassured of his own salvation and of the saving good will of God toward\nhim. On this point we highly disapprove of the opinion of the papists.\n8. A true believer, respecting the time to come, can and ought, indeed,\nto be assured that he is able, by means of watching, prayer, and other\nholy exercises, to persevere in the true faith; and that divine grace\nwill never fail to assist him in persevering. But we cannot see how it\nis possible for him to be assured that he will never afterward be\ndeficient in his duty, but that he will persevere, in this school of\nChristian warfare, in the performance of acts of faith, piety, and\ncharity, as becomes believers; neither do we consider it to be a matter\nof necessity that a believer should be assured of such perseverance.\n\nUnder the article PELAGIANS has been shown the line of distinction which\nthe Remonstrants drew between their doctrines and those of Pelagius; and\nthe following are the just distinctions, which they presented to the\nsynod of Dort, between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism: \u201cBut we must\ndeclare, likewise, what our judgment is respecting Semi-Pelagianism. The\nMassilians, after the time of Pelagius, partly corrected his error and\npartly retained it; on which account they received from Prosper the\nappellation of the _relics_ or _remains of Pelagius_, and are commonly\nstyled Semi-Pelagians. They allowed the existence of prevenient grace,\nbut only that which precedes or goes before good works; not that also\nwhich precedes the commencement of faith and of a good will, by which\nthey believed that man preceded God,--yet this not always, but only\nsometimes: On the contrary we say, that God precedes or goes before the\nbeginning of faith and of a good will; and that it is of grace both that\nour will be excited to begin well, and likewise, that, being thus\nprepared, it be led through to the grace of regeneration. The\nSemi-Pelagians asserted, that man, through the previous dispositions\nwhich had been implanted in his nature, obtained grace as a reward; and,\nhowever they might sometimes decline the use of the term _merit_, they\nby no means excluded merit itself: But we deny, that, through the\nendeavours of nature, man merits grace. The opinion of the\nSemi-Pelagians was, that, for the preservation of the grace of the Holy\nSpirit, we want nothing more than that which either by nature we may\nhave, or that which we may once obtain in conjunction with grace: But we\nacknowledge, that, in order to our perseverance in good, special grace\nis likewise required.\n\n\u201cWherefore we are unjustly accused of Semi-Pelagianism by the\nContra-Remonstrants, since we condemn in the Semi-Pelagians those things\nwhich the church universal formerly condemned in them. Yet these are\ngreat signs of inconstancy and consequently of a false judgment,--that\nwhile some among them fasten Pelagianism upon us and others\nSemi-Pelagianism, there are others who declare that we are nearly and\nalmost Semi-Pelagians, all of them having chosen and employed these\nepithets only for purposes of odium. Our conclusion therefore is, that\nwe derogate nothing from divine grace, but acknowledge its supernatural\nand unmerited acts, and their absolute necessity for the work of\nconversion. But, on the other hand, we frankly confess, that the\nindifferency or liberty of the will is not taken away by grace, but that\nit is perfected for the better; and that the will is not necessitated,\nor so determined toward good as not to be able to do the opposite.\n\n\u201cThis was also the judgment of all antiquity and of the church\nuniversal; and the orthodox accounted this way to be the safest, which\nlay between two precipices, the one that of the Manichees, the other\nthat of the Pelagians. St. Jerom says, \u2018We thus preserve free will, that\nwe do not deny to it the help which it requires in every thing which it\nperforms,\u2019 _Dialog. adversus Pelagium_. And St. Augustine, who was at\nother times a most fierce defender of absolute election, judiciously\nobserves, in his forty-sixth letter to Valentinus, \u2018If there be no grace\nof God, how does he save the world? And if there be no free will, how\ndoes he judge the world?\u2019 And, as St. Bernard says, in the commencement\nof his book _On Grace and Free Will_, \u2018Take away free will, and there\nwill be nothing to be saved; take away grace, and there will then be\nnothing from which salvation can come.\u2019 We have had regard to both of\nthem; lest, if we denied the existence of freedom in the will, we should\nencourage the sloth and listlessness of men; or if the existence of\ngrace, we should give up the reins to pride and haughtiness.--From these\nquotations [and others which they give] it is evident that the opinion\nof the fathers was, that free will and grace so completely conspire\ntogether, that free will is perfected by grace, and not destroyed; the\ndestruction of the will in this case being a calumny invented by the\nPelagians, which was generally refuted by the patrons of grace.\u201d\n\nFor other particulars relating to general redemption consult the\narticles ARMINIANISM, BAXTERIANISM, CALVINISM:CALVINISM, #CHURCH OF\nENGLAND, and LUTHERANS.\n\nSYRACUSE, a famous city of Sicily, seated on the east side of the\nisland, Acts xxviii, 12.\n\nSYRIA, that part of Asia which, bathed by the Mediterranean on the west,\nhad to the north Mount Taurus, to the east the Euphrates and a small\nportion of Arabia, and to the south Judea, or Palestine. The orientals\ncalled it Aram. The name, which has been transmitted to us by the\nGreeks, is a corruption or abridgment of Assyria, which was first\nadopted by the Ionians, who frequented these coasts after the Assyrians\nof Nineveh had reduced that country to be a province of their empire,\nabout B. C. 750. By the appellation of Syria is ordinarily meant the\nkingdom of Syria, of which, since the reign of the Seleucid\u00e6, Antioch\nhas been the capital. The government of Syria was for a long time\nmonarchical; but some of its towns, which formed several states, were\nrepublics. With regard to religion, the Syrians were idolaters. The\ncentral place of their worship was Hieropolis, in which was a\nmagnificent temple, and near the temple a lake that was reputed sacred.\nIn this temple was an oracle, the credit of which the priests used every\nmethod to support. The priests were distributed into various classes,\nand among them were those who were denominated Galli, and who\nvoluntarily renounced the power of transmitting the succession in their\nown families. The Syrians had bloody sacrifices. Among the religious\nceremonies of the Syrians, one was that any one who undertook a journey\nto Hieropolis began with shaving his head and eye-brows. He was not\nallowed to bathe, except in cold water, to drink any liquor, nor to lie\non any but a hard bed, before the term of his pilgrimage was finished.\nWhen the pilgrims arrived, they were maintained at the public expense,\nand lodged with those who engaged to instruct them in the sacred rites\nand ceremonies. All the pilgrims were marked on the neck and wrists. The\nyouth consecrated to the goddess the first-fruits of their beard and\nhair, which was preserved in the temple, in a vessel of gold or silver,\non which was inscribed the name of the person who made the offering. The\nsight of a dead person rendered it unfit for any one to enter into the\ntemple during the whole day. The dynasties of Syria may be distributed\ninto two classes; those that are made known to us in the sacred\nwritings, or in the works of Josephus, acknowledged by the orientals;\nand the Seleucidan kings, successors of Alexander, with whom we are\nacquainted by Greek authors. The monarchy of Syria continued two hundred\nand fifty-seven years.\n\nSYRO-PHENICIA, or PHENICIA PROPER, called Syro or Syrian Phenicia from\nbeing included in the kingdom of Syria. It implies that part of the\ncoast of Canaan on the Mediterranean in which the cities of Tyre and\nSidon were situated; and this same country, called Syro-Phenicia in the\nActs, is in the Gospels called the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. The woman\nalso called a Syro-Phenician in Mark vii, 26, is in Matt. xv, 22, called\na Canaanitish woman, because that country was still inhabited by the\ndescendants of Canaan, of whom Sidon was the eldest son.\n\n\nTABERNACLE, in Hebrew, \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc, in Greek, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f20, a word which properly\nsignifies _a tent_, but is particularly applied by the Hebrews to a kind\nof building in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of God,\nfor the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c, during the\njourneyings of the Israelites in the wilderness; and after their\nsettlement in the land of Canaan made use of for the same purpose, till\nthe temple was built in Jerusalem. The tabernacle was covered with\ncurtains and skins. It was divided into two parts, the one covered, and\nproperly called the tabernacle, and the other open, called the court.\nThe covered part was again divided into two parts, the one called holy,\nand the other called the holy of holies. The curtains which covered it\nwere made of linen of several colours embroidered. There were ten\ncurtains, twenty-eight cubits long, and four in breadth. Five curtains\ntogether made two coverings, which, being made fast together, enveloped\nall the tabernacle. Over the rest there were two other coverings, the\none of goat\u2019s hair, and the other of sheep skins. These vails or\ncoverings were laid on a square frame of planks, resting on bases. There\nwere forty-eight large planks, each a cubit and a half wide, and ten\ncubits high; twenty of them on each side, and six at one end to the\nwestward; each plank was supported by two silver bases; they were let\ninto one another, and held by bars running the length of the planks. The\nholy of holies was parted from the rest of the tabernacle by a curtain,\nmade fast to four pillars standing ten cubits from the end. The whole\nlength of the tabernacle was thirty-two cubits, that is, about fifty\nfeet; and the breadth twelve cubits, or nineteen feet. The end was\nthirty cubits high; the upper curtain hung on the north and south sides\neight cubits, and on the east and west four cubits. The court was a\nplace a hundred cubits long, and fifty in breadth, inclosed by twenty\ncolumns, each of them twenty cubits high, and ten in breadth, covered\nwith silver, and standing on copper bases, five cubits distant from each\nother, between which there were curtains drawn, and fastened with hooks.\nAt the east end was an entrance twenty cubits wide, covered with a\ncurtain hanging loose. In the tabernacle was the ark of the covenant,\nthe table of shew bread, the golden candlestick, and the altar of\nincense; and in the court opposite to the entrance of the tabernacle, or\nholy place, stood the altar of burnt-offerings, and the laver or bason\nfor the use of the priests.\n\nThe tabernacle was finished on the first day of the first month of the\nsecond year after the departure out of Egypt, A. M. 2514. When it was\nset up, a dark cloud covered it by day, and a fiery cloud by night.\nMoses went into the tabernacle to consult the Lord. It was placed in the\nmidst of the camp, and the Hebrews were ranged in order about it,\naccording to their several tribes. When the cloud arose from off the\ntabernacle, they decamped; the priests carried those things which were\nmost sacred, and the Levites all the several parts of the tabernacle.\nPart of the tribes went before, and the rest followed after, and the\nbaggage of the tabernacle marched in the centre. The tabernacle was\nbrought into the land of Canaan by Joshua, and set up at Gilgal. Here it\nrested till the land was conquered. Then it was removed to Shiloh, and\nafterward to Nob. Its next station was Gibeah, and here it continued\ntill the ark was removed to the temple.\n\nThe word also means a frail dwelling, Job xi, 14; and is put for our\nbodies, 2 Cor. v, 1.\n\nTABERNACLES, FEAST OF, a solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after\nharvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, Lev. xxiii, 34\u201344. It\nwas one of the three great solemnities, wherein all the males of the\nIsraelites were obliged to present themselves before the Lord; and it\nwas instituted to commemorate the goodness of God, who protected them in\nthe wilderness, and made them dwell in tents or booths after they came\nout of Egypt. (See _Feasts_.) This feast continued eight days, of which\nthe first and last days were the most solemn, Lev. xxiii, 34, &c. It was\nnot allowed to do any labour on this feast, and particular sacrifices\nwere offered, which, together with the other ceremonies used in\ncelebrating this festival, were as follows: The first day of the feast,\nthey cut down branches of the handsomest trees, with their fruit,\nbranches of palm trees, and such as were fullest of leaves, and boughs\nof the willow trees that grew upon the sides of brooks, Neh. viii, 16.\nThese they brought together, and waved them toward the four quarters of\nthe world, singing certain songs. These branches were also called\nhosanna, because when they carried them and waved them, they cried\nHosanna; not unlike what the Jews did at our Saviour\u2019s entry into\nJerusalem, Matthew xxi, 8, 9. On the eighth day they performed this\nceremony oftener, and with greater solemnity, than upon the other days\nof the feast. They called this day _hosanna rabba_, or \u201cthe great\nhosanna.\u201d\n\nTABLES OF THE LAW. Those that were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai were\nwritten by the finger of God, and contained the decalogue or ten\ncommandments of the law, as they are rehearsed in Exodus xx. Many\nquestions have been started about these tables; about their matter,\ntheir form, their number, he that wrote them, and what they contained.\nSome oriental authors make them amount to ten in number, others to\nseven; but the Hebrews reckon but two. Some suppose them to have been of\nwood, and others of precious stones. Moses observes, Exod. xxxii, 15,\nthat these tables were written on both sides. Many think they were\ntransparent, so that they might be read through; on one side toward the\nright, and on the other side toward the left. Others will have it, that\nthe lawgiver only makes this observation, that the tables were written\non both sides, because generally in writing tables they only wrote on\none side. Others thus translate the Hebrew text: \u201cThey were written on\nthe two parts that were contiguous to each other;\u201d because, being shut\nupon one another, the two faces that were written upon touched one\nanother, so that no writing was seen on the outside. Some think that the\nsame ten commandments were written on each of the two tables, others\nthat the ten were divided, and only five on one table, and five on the\nother. The words which intimate that the tables were written by the\nfinger of God, some understand simply and literally; others, of the\nministry of an angel; and others explain them merely to signify an order\nof God to Moses to write them. The expression, however, in Scripture\nalways signifies immediate divine agency. See DECALOGUE.\n\nTABOR, a mountain not far from Kadesh, in the tribe of Zebulun, and in\nthe confines of Issachar and Naphtali. It has its name from its\neminence, because it rises up in the midst of a wide champaign country,\ncalled the Valley of Jezreel, or the great plain. Maundrell tells us\nthat the area at the top of this mountain is enclosed with trees, except\nto the south, from whence there is the most agreeable prospect in the\nworld. Many have believed that our Lord\u2019s transfiguration took place on\nthis mountain. This place is mentioned, 1 Sam. x, 3. It is minutely\ndescribed by both Pococke and Maundrell. The road from Nazareth lies for\ntwo hours between low hills; it then opens into the plain of Esdraelon.\nAt about two or three furlongs within the plain, and six miles from\nNazareth, rises this singular mount, which is almost entirely insulated,\nits figure representing a half sphere. \u201cIt is,\u201d says Pococke, \u201cone of\nthe finest hills I ever beheld, being a rich soil that produces\nexcellent herbage, and is most beautifully adorned with groves and\nclumps of trees. The ascent is so easy, that we rode up the north side\nby a winding road. Some authors mention it as near four miles high,\nothers as about two: the former may be true, as to the winding ascent up\nthe hill. The top of it, about half a mile long, and near a quarter of a\nmile broad, is encompassed with a wall, which Josephus says was built in\nforty days: there was also a wall along the middle of it, which divided\nthe south part, on which the city stood, from the north part, which is\nlower, and is called the _meidan_, or place, being probably used for\nexercises when there was a city here, which Josephus mentions by the\nname of Ataburion. Within the outer wall on the north side are several\ndeep fosses, out of which, it is probable, the stones were dug to build\nthe walls; and these fosses seem to have answered the end of cisterns,\nto preserve the rain water, and were also some defence to the city.\nThere are likewise a great number of cisterns under ground for\npreserving the rain water. To the south, where the ascent was most easy,\nthere are fosses cut on the outside, to render the access to the walls\nmore difficult. Some of the gates, also, of the old city remain, as\n_Bab-el-houah_, \u2018the gate of the winds,\u2019 to the west; and\n_Bab-el-kubbe_, \u2018the arched gate,\u2019 a small one to the south. Antiochus,\nking of Syria, took the fortress on the top of this hill. Vespasian,\nalso, got possession of it; and, after that, Josephus fortified it with\nstrong walls. But what has made it more famous than any thing else is\nthe common opinion, from the time of St. Jerom, that the transfiguration\nof our Saviour was on this mountain.\u201d Van Egmont and Heyman give the\nfollowing account: \u201cThis mountain, though somewhat rugged and difficult,\nwe ascended on horseback, making several circuits round it, which took\nus up about three quarters of an hour. It is one of the highest in the\nwhole country, being thirty stadia, or about four English miles, a\ncircumstance that rendered it more famous. And it is the most beautiful\nI ever saw, with regard to verdure, being every where decorated with\nsmall oak trees, and the ground universally enamelled with a variety of\nplants and flowers, except on the south side, where it is not so fully\ncovered with verdure. On this mountain are great numbers of red\npartridges, and some wild boars; and we were so fortunate as to see the\nArabs hunting them. We left, but not without reluctancy, this delightful\nplace, and found at the bottom of it a mean village, called Deboura, or\nTabour, a name said to be derived from the celebrated Deborah mentioned\nin Judges.\u201d\n\nPococke notices this village, which stands on a rising ground at the\nfoot of Mount Tabor westward; and the learned traveller thinks, that it\nmay be the same as the Daberath, or Daberah mentioned in the book of\nJoshua, as on the borders of Zabulon and Issachar. \u201cAny one,\u201d he adds,\n\u201cwho examines the fourth chapter of Judges, may see that this is\nprobably the spot where Barak and Deborah met at Mount Tabor with their\nforces, and went to pursue Sisera; and on this account, it might have\nits name from that great prophetess, who then judged and governed\nIsrael; for Josephus relates, that Deborah and Barak gathered the army\ntogether at this mountain.\u201d\n\n\u201cFrom the top of Tabor,\u201d says Maundrell, \u201cyou have a prospect which, if\nnothing else, will reward the labour of ascending it. It is impossible\nfor man\u2019s eyes to behold a higher gratification of this nature. On the\nnorthwest you discern at a distance the Mediterranean, and all round you\nhave the spacious and beautiful plains of Esdraelon and Galilee. Turning\na little southward, you have in view the high mountains of Gilboa, fatal\nto Saul and his sons. Due east you discover the sea of Tiberias, distant\nabout one day\u2019s journey. A few points to the north appears that which\nthey call the mount of Beatitudes. Not far from this little hill is the\ncity Saphet: it stands upon a very eminent and conspicuous mountain, and\nis seen far and near.\u201d Beyond this is seen a much higher mountain,\ncapped with snow, a part of the chain of Antilibanus. To the south-west\nis Carmel, and on the south the hills of Samaria.\n\nTADMOR, a city built by Solomon, 1 Kings ix, 18, afterward called\nPalmyra; situated in a wilderness of Syria, upon the borders of Arabia\nDeserta, inclining toward the Euphrates. Josephus places it two days\u2019\njourney from the Euphrates, and six days\u2019 journey from Babylon. He says\nthere is no water any where else in the wilderness, but in this place.\nAt the present day there are to be seen vast ruins of this city. There\nwas nothing more magnificent in the whole east. There are still found a\ngreat number of inscriptions, the most of which are Greek, and the other\nin the Palmyrenian character. Nothing relating to the Jews is seen in\nthe Greek inscriptions; and the Palmyrenian inscriptions are entirely\nunknown, as well as the language and the character of that country. The\ncity of Tadmor preserved this name to the time of the conquest by\nAlexander the Great: then it had the name of Palmyra given to it, which\nit preserved for several ages. About the middle of the third century, it\nbecame famous, because Odenatus and Zenobia, his queen, made it the seat\nof their empire. When the Saracens became masters of the east, they\nrestored its ancient name of Tadmor to it again, which it has always\npreserved since. It is surrounded by sandy deserts on all sides. It is\nnot known when, nor by whom, it was reduced to the ruinous condition in\nwhich it is now found. It may be said to consist at present of a forest\nof Corinthian pillars, erect and fallen. So numerous are these,\nconsisting of many thousands, that the spectator is at a loss to connect\nor arrange them in any order or symmetry, or to conceive what purpose or\ndesign they could have answered. \u201cIn the space covered by these ruins,\u201d\nsays Volney, \u201cwe sometimes find a palace of which nothing remains but\nthe court and walls; sometimes a temple, whose peristyle is half thrown\ndown; and now a portico, a gallery, or triumphal arch. Here stand groups\nof columns, whose symmetry is destroyed by the fall of many of them;\nthere we see them ranged in rows of such length, that, similar to rows\nof trees, they deceive the sight, and assume the appearance of continued\nwalls. If from this striking scene we cast our eyes upon the ground,\nanother almost as varied presents itself On all sides we behold nothing\nbut subverted shafts, some whole, others shattered to pieces or\ndislocated in their joints; and on which side soever we look, the earth\nis strewed with vast stones half buried, with broken entablatures,\nmutilated friezes, disfigured reliefs, effaced sculptures, violated\ntombs, and altars defiled by dust.\u201d\n\nIt is probable, says Mansford, that, although Tadmor is said to have\nbeen built by Solomon, or, in other words, to have been erected by him\ninto a city, it was a watering station between Syria and Mesopotamia\nbefore; with perhaps accommodations suited to the mode of travelling in\nthose times, as we read of palm-trees being found there, which are not\ntrees that come by chance in these desert regions. The mere circumstance\nof wholesome water being afforded by any spot in such a country was\nsufficient to give it importance, and to draw toward it the stream of\ncommunication, for whatever purpose. This was probably the condition of\nTadmor long before it received its name and its honours from Solomon.\nBut, after all, what motive could there be to induce a peaceable king,\nlike Solomon, to undertake a work so distant, difficult, and dangerous?\nThere is but one which at all accords with his character, or the history\nof the times,--commercial enterprise. Solomon was at great pains to\nsecure himself in the possession of the ports of Elath and Ezion-Geber\non the Red Sea, and to establish a navy for his Indian commerce, or\ntrade to Ophir,--in all ages the great source of wealth. The riches of\nIndia, thus brought into Judea, were from thence disseminated over those\ncountries of the north and west at that time inhabited or known; while\nthe same country, Judea, became, for a season, like Tyre, the point of\nreturn and exchange of the money and the commodities of those countries,\nthe centre of communication between the east and the west.\n\nTALENT, a measure of weight among the ancients, equivalent to sixty\nmaneh, or one hundred and thirteen pounds ten ounces one pennyweight and\nten grains. The value of a talent of silver was three hundred and\nforty-two pounds three shillings and nine-pence, and a talent of gold\nwas equal to five thousand four hundred and seventy-five pounds\nsterling. In the writings of the evangelists, the term is employed to\ndenote the various gifts or opportunities for usefulness which the Lord\nof heaven confers upon his servants, and for which he will call them to\ngive in their account at the last day, Matt. xxv, 15; Luke xix, 12.\n\nTALITHA-CUMI, the words that Jesus Christ made use of when he raised up\nthe daughter of Jairus, chief of the synagogue of Capernaum. They are\nnot pure Hebrew, but Syriac, and signify, \u201cMy daughter, arise,\u201d Mark v,\n41.\n\nTALMUD. See JEWS.\n\nTARE, Matt. xiii, 25\u201327, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40. It is not easy to determine\nwhat plant or weed is here intended, as the word _zizania_ is neither\nmentioned in any other part of Scripture, nor in any ancient Greek\nwriter. Some Greek and Latin fathers have made use of it, as have also\nSuidas and Phavorinus: but it is probable that they have all derived it\nfrom this text. As this Gospel was first written in Syriac, it is\nprobably a word belonging to that language. Buxtorf gives several\ninterpretations, but at last concludes with submitting it to the\ndecision of others. In a treatise in the Mishna, called \u201cKilayim,\u201d which\ntreats expressly of different kinds of seeds, a bastard or degenerate\nwheat is mentioned by the name of \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, which the very sound, in\npronouncing, proves to be the same as the _zizanion_; and which may lead\nto the true derivation of the word, that is, from the Chaldee \u05d6\u05df, \u201ca\nkind,\u201d or \u201cspecies\u201d of grain, namely, whence the corrupt Hebrew or\nSyriac \u05d6\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0, which in the ancient Syriac version answers to the Greek\n\u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, Matt. xiii, 25, &c. In Psalm cxliv, 13, the words \u05de\u05d6\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d6\u05df,\nare translated, \u201call manner of store;\u201d but they properly signify \u201cfrom\nspecies to species.\u201d Might not the Chaldee word \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df, and the Greek\nword \u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, come from the psalmist\u2019s \u05d6\u05e0\u05be\u05d6\u05df, which might have\nsignified a \u201cmixture\u201d of grain of any kind, and be here used to point\nout the mixing bastard or degenerate wheat among the good seed-wheat?\nMintert says, that \u201cit is a kind of plant, not unlike corn or wheat,\nhaving at first the same sort of stalk, and the same viridity, but\nbringing forth no fruit, at least none good:\u201d and he adds, from John\nMelchior, \u201c\u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd does not signify every weed in general which grows\namong corn, but a particular seed, known in Canaan, which was not unlike\nwheat, but, being put into the ground, degenerated, and assumed another\nnature and form.\u201d Parkhurst, and Dr. Campbell, render it \u201cthe darnel,\u201d\n\u201c_lolium temulentum_.\u201d The same plant is called \u201c_zizana_\u201d by the\nSpaniards; as it appears to be _zuvan_, by the Turks and Arabs. \u201cIt is\nwell known to the people at Aleppo,\u201d says M. Forskal; \u201cit grows among\ncorn. If the seeds remain mixed with the meal, they occasion dizziness\nto those who eat of the bread. The reapers do not separate the plant;\nbut after the threshing, they reject the seeds by means of a van or\nsieve.\u201d Other travellers mention, that in some parts of Syria, the plant\nis drawn up by the hand in the time of harvest, along with the wheat,\nand is then gathered out, and bound up in separate bundles. In the\nparable of the tares, our Lord states the very same circumstances. They\ngrew among the grain; they were not separated by the tillers, but\nsuffered to grow up together till the harvest; they were then gathered\nfrom among the wheat with the hand, and bound up in bundles.\n\nTARGUM. See JEWS.\n\nTARSHISH, a country of this name, whither Solomon sent his fleets, 1\nKings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 11. There is a multitude of different opinions\nconcerning this country. Josephus, and the Chaldee and Arabic\nparaphrasts, explain it of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia; the Septuagint,\nSt. Jerom, and Theodoret, understand it of Carthage. The Arabian\ngeographer will have it to be Tunis in Africa. Bochart makes it to be\nTartessus, an island in the Straits of Gades. By Tarshish, M. Le Clerc\nunderstands Thassus, an island and city in the \u00c6gean sea. Grotius thinks\nthat the whole ocean was called Tarshish, because of the famous city of\nTartessus, now mentioned. Sanctius believes the sea in general to be\ncalled Tarshish, and that the ships of Tarshish were those that are\nemployed in voyages at sea, in opposition to the small vessels that are\nused only in most navigable rivers. The LXX. translate Tarshish\nsometimes by \u201cthe sea;\u201d and the Scripture gives the names of ships of\nTarshish to those that were fitted out at Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea,\nand which sailed upon the ocean, as well as to those that were fitted\nout at Joppa, and in the ports of the Mediterranean. Therefore, when we\nsee ships fitted out upon the Red Sea, or at Ezion-Geber, in order to go\nto Tarshish, we must conclude one of these two things, either that there\nwere two countries called Tarshish, one upon the ocean, and another upon\nthe Mediterranean, or that ships of Tarshish in general signifies\nnothing else but ships able to bear a long voyage; large merchant ships,\nin opposition to the small craft intended for a home trade in navigable\nrivers.\n\nTARSUS, the capital of Cilicia, and the native city of St. Paul, Acts\nix, 11; xxi, 39. Some think it obtained the privileges of a Roman colony\nbecause of its firm adherence to Julius C\u00e6sar; and this procured the\ninhabitants the favour of being acknowledged citizens of Rome, which St.\nPaul enjoyed by being born in it. Others maintain that Tarsus was only a\nfree city, but not a Roman colony, in the time of St. Paul, and that his\nprivilege as a Roman citizen was founded upon some other right, perhaps\ngained by his ancestors.\n\nTEARS. The prayer of David, \u201cPut my tears into thy bottle,\u201d is\nunintelligible without an acquaintance with ancient customs. \u201cThis\npassage,\u201d says Burder, \u201cseems to intimate that the custom of putting\ntears into the ampull\u00e6, or urnal lachrymales, so well known among the\nRomans, was more anciently in use among the eastern nations, and\nparticularly the Hebrews. These urns were of different materials, some\nof glass, some of earth; as may be seen in the work of Montfaucon, where\nalso may be seen the various forms or shapes of them. These urns were\nplaced on the sepulchres of the deceased, as a memorial of the distress\nand affection of their surviving relations and friends. It will be\ndifficult to account for this expression of the psalmist, but upon this\nsupposition. If this be allowed, the meaning will be, \u2018Let my distress,\nand the tears I shed in consequence of it, be ever before thee, excite\nthy kind remembrance of me, and plead with thee to grant the relief I\nstand in need of.\u2019\u201d\n\nTEMPLE, the house of God; properly the temple of Solomon. David first\nconceived the design of building a house somewhat worthy of the divine\nmajesty, and opened his mind to the Prophet Nathan, 2 Sam. vii; 1 Chron.\nxvii; xxii, 8, &c. God accepted of his good intentions, but refused him\nthe honour. Solomon laid the foundation of the temple, A. M. 2992,\ncompleted it in 3000, and dedicated it in 3001, 1 Kings viii, 2; 2\nChron. v, vi, vii. According to the opinion of some writers, there were\nthree temples, namely, the first, erected by Solomon; the second, by\nZerubbabel, and Joshua the high priest; and the third, by Herod, a few\nyears before the birth of Christ. But this opinion is, very properly,\nrejected by the Jews; who do not allow the third to be a new temple, but\nonly the second temple repaired and beautified: and this opinion\ncorresponds with the prophecy of Haggai, ii, 9, \u201cthat the glory of this\nlatter house,\u201d the temple built by Zerubbabel, \u201cshould be greater than\nthat of the former;\u201d which prediction was uttered with reference to the\nMessiah\u2019s honouring it with his presence and ministry. The first temple\nis that which usually bears the name of Solomon; the materials for which\nwere provided by David before his death, though the edifice was raised\nby his son. It stood on Mount Moriah, an eminence of the mountainous\nridge in the Scriptures termed Mount Zion, Psalm cxxxii, 13, 14, which\nhad been purchased by Araunah, or Ornan, the Jebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, 23,\n24; 1 Chron. xxi, 25. The plan, and the whole model of this superb\nstructure, were formed after that of the tabernacle, but of much larger\ndimensions. It was surrounded, except at the front or east end, by three\nstories of chambers, each five cubits square, which reached to half the\nheight of the temple; and the front was ornamented with a magnificent\nportico, which rose to the height of one hundred and twenty cubits: so\nthat the form of the whole edifice was not unlike that of some ancient\nchurches, which have a lofty tower in the front, and a low aisle running\nalong each side of the building. The utensils for the sacred service\nwere the same; excepting that several of them, as the altar,\ncandlestick, &c, were larger, in proportion to the more spacious edifice\nto which they belonged. Seven years and six months were occupied in the\nerection of the superb and magnificent temple of Solomon, by whom it was\ndedicated, A. M. 3001, B. C. 999, with peculiar solemnity, to the\nworship of the Most High; who on this occasion vouchsafed to honour it\nwith the Shechinah, or visible manifestation of his presence. Various\nattempts have been made to describe the proportions and several parts of\nthis structure; but as scarcely any two writers agree on this subject, a\nminute description of it is designedly omitted. It retained its pristine\nsplendour only thirty-three or thirty-four years, when Shishak, king of\nEgypt, took Jerusalem, and carried away the treasures of the temple; and\nafter undergoing subsequent profanations and pillages, this stupendous\nbuilding was finally plundered and burnt by the Chaldeans under\nNebuchadnezzar, A. M. 3416, or B. C. 584, 2 Kings xxv, 13\u201315; 2 Chron.\nxxxvi, 17\u201320.\n\nAfter the captivity, the temple emerged from its ruins being rebuilt by\nZerubbabel, but with vastly inferior and diminished glory; as appears\nfrom the tears of the aged men who had beheld the former structure in\nall its grandeur, Ezra iii, 12. The second temple was profaned by order\nof Antiochus Epiphanes, A. M. 3837, B. C. 163, who caused the daily\nsacrifices to be discontinued, and erected the image of Jupiter Olympus\non the altar of burnt-offering. In this condition it continued three\nyears, 1 Mac. iv, 42, when Judas Maccab\u00e6us purified and repaired it, and\nrestored the sacrifices and true worship of Jehovah. Some years before\nthe birth of our Saviour, the repairing and beautifying of this second\ntemple, which had become decayed in the lapse of five centuries, was\nundertaken by Herod the Great, who for nine years employed eighty\nthousand workmen upon it, and spared no expense to render it equal, if\nnot superior, in magnitude, splendour, and beauty, to any thing among\nmankind. Josephus calls it a work the most admirable of any that had\never been seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its\nmagnitude, and also for the vast wealth expended upon it, as well as for\nthe universal reputation of its sanctity. But though Herod accomplished\nhis original design in the time above specified, yet the Jews continued\nto ornament and enlarge it, expending the sacred treasure in annexing\nadditional buildings to it; so that they might with great propriety\nassert, that their temple had been forty and six years in building, John\nii, 20.\n\nBefore we proceed to describe this venerable edifice, it may be proper\nto remark, that by the temple is to be understood not only the fabric or\nhouse itself, which by way of eminence is called the temple, namely, the\nholy of holies, the sanctuary, and the several courts both of the\npriests and Israelites, but also all the numerous chambers and rooms\nwhich this prodigious edifice comprehended; and each of which had its\nrespective degree of holiness, increasing in proportion to its\ncontiguity to the holy of holies. This remark it will be necessary to\nbear in mind, lest the reader of Scripture should be led to suppose,\nthat whatever is there said to be transacted in the temple was actually\ndone in the interior of that sacred edifice. To this infinite number of\napartments, into which the temple was disposed, our Lord refers, John\nxiv, 2; and by a very striking and magnificent simile, borrowed from\nthem, he represents those numerous seats and mansions of heavenly bliss\nwhich his Father\u2019s house contained, and which were prepared for the\neverlasting abode of the righteous. The imagery is singularly beautiful\nand happy, when considered as an allusion to the temple, which our Lord\nnot unfrequently called his Father\u2019s house.\n\nThe second temple, originally built by Zerubbabel after the captivity,\nand repaired by Herod, differed in several respects from that erected by\nSolomon, although they agreed in others.\n\nThe temple erected by Solomon was more splendid and magnificent than the\nsecond temple, which was deficient in five remarkable things that\nconstituted the chief glory of the first: these were, the ark and the\nmercy seat; the shechinah, or manifestation of the divine presence, in\nthe holy of holies; the sacred fire on the altar, which had been first\nkindled from heaven; the urim and thummim; and the spirit of prophecy.\nBut the second temple surpassed the first in glory; being honoured by\nthe frequent presence of our divine Saviour, agreeably to the prediction\nof Haggai, ii, 9. Both, however, were erected upon the same site, a very\nhard rock, encompassed by a very frightful precipice; and the foundation\nwas laid with incredible expense and labour. The superstructure was not\ninferior to this great work: the height of the temple wall, especially\non the south side, was stupendous. In the lowest places it was three\nhundred cubits, or four hundred and fifty feet, and in some places even\ngreater. This most magnificent pile was constructed with hard white\nstones of prodigious magnitude. The temple itself, strictly so called,\nwhich comprised the portico, the sanctuary, and the holy of holies\nformed only a small part of the sacred edifice on Mount Moriah, being\nsurrounded by spacious courts, making a square of half a mile in\ncircumference. It was entered through nine gates, which were on every\nside thickly coated with gold and silver; but there was one gate without\nthe holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, the most precious metal\nin ancient times, and which far surpassed the others in beauty. For\nwhile these were of equal magnitude, the gate composed of Corinthian\nbrass was much larger; its height being fifty cubits, and its doors\nforty cubits, and its ornaments both of gold and silver being far more\ncostly and massive. This is supposed to have been the \u201cgate called\nBeautiful\u201d in Acts iii, 2, where Peter and John, in the name of Christ,\nhealed a man who had been lame from his birth. The first or outer court,\nwhich encompassed the holy house and the other courts, was named the\ncourt of the Gentiles; because the latter were allowed to enter into it,\nbut were prohibited from advancing farther. It was surrounded by a range\nof porticoes, or cloisters, above which were galleries, or apartments,\nsupported by pillars of white marble, each consisting of a single piece,\nand twenty-five cubits in height. One of these was called Solomon\u2019s\nporch, or piazza, because it stood on a vast terrace, which he had\noriginally raised from a valley beneath, four hundred cubits high, in\norder to enlarge the area on the top of the mountain, and make it equal\nto the plan of his intended building; and as this terrace was the only\nwork of Solomon that remained in the second temple, the piazza which\nstood upon it retained the name of that prince. Here it was that our\nLord was walking at the feast of dedication, John x, 23; and that the\nlame man, when healed by Peter and John, glorified God before all the\npeople, Acts iii, 11. This superb portico is termed the royal portico by\nJosephus, who represents it as the noblest work beneath the sun, being\nelevated to such a prodigious height, that no one could look down from\nits flat roof to the valley below, without being seized with dizziness;\nthe sight not reaching to such an immeasurable depth. The south-east\ncorner of the roof of this portico, where the height was the greatest,\nis supposed to have been the \u03d6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, pinnacle, or extreme angle,\nwhence Satan tempted our Saviour to precipitate himself, Matt, iv, 5;\nLuke iv, 9. This also was the spot where it was predicted that the\nabomination of desolation, or the Roman ensigns, should stand, Daniel\nix, 27; Matt, xxiv, 15. Solomon\u2019s portico was situated in the eastern\nfront of the temple, opposite to the mount of Olives, where our Saviour\nis said to have sat when his disciples came to show him the grandeur of\nits various buildings, of which, grand as they were, he said, the time\nwas approaching when one stone should not be left upon another, Matt,\nxxiv, 1\u20133. This outer court being assigned to the Gentile proselytes,\nthe Jews, who did not worship in it themselves, conceived that it might\nlawfully be put to profane uses: for here we find that the buyers and\nsellers of animals for sacrifices, and also the moneychangers, had\nstationed themselves; until Jesus Christ, awing them into submission by\nthe grandeur and dignity of his person and behaviour, expelled them;\ntelling them that it was the house of prayer for all nations, and was\nnot to be profaned, Matt. xxi, 12, 13; Mark xi, 15\u201317. Within the court\nof the Gentiles stood the court of the Israelites, divided into two\nparts, or courts; the outer one being appropriated to the women, and the\ninner one to the men. The court of the women was separated from that of\nthe Gentiles by a low stone wall, or partition, of elegant construction,\non which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions in Greek\nand Latin, importing that no alien should enter into the holy place. To\nthis wall St. Paul most evidently alludes in Eph. ii, 13, 14: \u201cBut now\nin Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the\nblood of Christ: for he is our peace, who hath made both one, (united\nboth Jews and Gentiles into one church,) and hath broken down the middle\nwall of partition between us;\u201d having abolished the law of ordinances,\nby which, as by the wall of separation, both Jews and Gentiles were not\nonly kept asunder, but also at variance. In this court was the treasury,\nover against which Christ sat, and beheld how the people threw their\nvoluntary offerings into it, for furnishing the victims and other things\nnecessary for the sacrifices, Mark xii, 41; John viii, 20. From the\ncourt of the women, which was on higher ground than that of the\nGentiles, there was an ascent of fifteen steps into the inner or men\u2019s\ncourt: and so called because it was appropriated to the worship of the\nmale Israelites. In these two courts, collectively termed the court of\nthe Israelites, were the people praying, each apart by himself, for the\npardon of his sins, while Zacharias was offering incense within the\nsanctuary, Luke i, 10. Within the court of the Israelites was that of\nthe priests, which was separated from it by a low wall, one cubit in\nheight. This enclosure surrounded the altar of burnt-offerings, and to\nit the people brought their oblations and sacrifices; but the priests\nalone were permitted to enter it. From this court twelve steps ascended\nto the temple, strictly so called; which was divided into three parts,\nthe portico, the outer sanctuary, and the holy place. In the portico was\nsuspended the splendid votive offerings made by the piety of various\nindividuals. Among other treasures, there was a golden table given by\nPompey, and several golden vines of exquisite workmanship, as well as of\nimmense size; for Josephus relates, that there were clusters as tall as\na man. And he adds, that all around were fixed up and displayed the\nspoils and trophies taken by Herod from the barbarians and Arabians.\nThese votive offerings, it should seem, were visible at a distance; for\nwhen Jesus Christ was sitting on the mount of Olives, and his disciples\ncalled his attention to the temple, they pointed out to him the gifts\nwith which it was adorned, Luke xxi, 5. This porch had a very large\nportal or gate, which, instead of folding doors, was furnished with a\ncostly Babylonian veil, of many colours, that mystically denoted the\nuniverse. From this the sanctuary, or holy place, was separated from the\nholy of holies by a double veil, which is supposed to have been the veil\nthat was rent in twain at our Saviour\u2019s crucifixion; thus emblematically\npointing out that the separation between Jews and Gentiles was\nabolished; and that the privilege of the high priest was communicated to\nall mankind, who might henceforth have access to the throne of grace\nthrough the one great Mediator, Jesus Christ, Heb. x, 19\u201322. The holy of\nholies was twenty cubits square: into it no person was admitted but the\nhigh priest, who entered it once a year on the great day of atonement,\nExod. xxx, 10; Lev. xvi, 2, 15, 34; Heb. ix, 2\u20137.\n\nMagnificent as the rest of the sacred edifice was, it was infinitely\nsurpassed in splendour by the inner temple, or sanctuary. Its\nappearance, according to Josephus, had every thing that could strike the\nmind, or astonish the sight: for it was covered on every side with\nplates of gold; so that when the sun rose upon it, it reflected so\nstrong and dazzling an effulgence, that the eye of the spectator was\nobliged to turn away, being no more able to sustain its radiance than\nthe splendour of the sun. To strangers who were approaching, it appeared\nat a distance like a mountain covered with snow; for where it was not\ndecorated with plates of gold, it was extremely white and glistering. On\nthe top it had sharp-pointed spikes of gold, to prevent any bird from\nresting upon it, and polluting it. There were, continues the Jewish\nhistorian, in that building, several stones which were forty-five cubits\nin length, five in height, and six in breadth. \u201cWhen all these things\nare considered,\u201d says Harwood, \u201chow natural is the exclamation of the\ndisciples, when viewing this immense building at a distance: \u2018Master,\nsee what manner of stones\u2019 (\u03d6\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, \u2018what very large ones\u2019) \u2018and\nwhat buildings are here!\u2019 Mark xiii, 1: and how wonderful is the\ndeclaration of our Lord upon this, how unlikely to be accomplished\nbefore the race of men who were then living should cease to exist!\n\u2018Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone\nupon another that shall not be thrown down.\u2019 Improbable as this\nprediction must have appeared to the disciples at that time, in the\nshort space of about thirty years after it was exactly accomplished; and\nthis most magnificent temple, which the Jews had literally turned into a\nden of thieves, through the righteous judgment of God upon that wicked\nand abandoned nation, was utterly destroyed by the Romans A. D. 70, or\n73 of the vulgar era, on the same month, and on the same day of the\nmonth, when Solomon\u2019s temple had been razed to the ground by the\nBabylonians!\u201d\n\nBoth the first and second temples were contemplated by the Jews with the\nhighest reverence. Of their affectionate regard for the first temple,\nand for Jerusalem, within whose walls it was built, we have several\ninstances in those Psalms which were composed during the Babylonish\ncaptivity; and of their profound veneration for the second temple we\nhave repeated examples in the New Testament. They could not bear any\ndisrespectful or dishonourable thing to be said of it. The least\ninjurious slight of it, real or apprehended, instantly awakened all the\ncholer of a Jew, and was an affront never to be forgiven. Our Saviour,\nin the course of his public instructions, having said, \u201cDestroy this\ntemple, and in three days I will raise it up again,\u201d John ii, 19, it was\nconstrued into a contemptuous disrespect, designedly thrown out against\nthe temple; his words instantly descended into the heart of the Jews,\nand kept rankling there for some years; for, upon his trial, this\ndeclaration, which it was impossible for a Jew ever to forget or to\nforgive, was immediately alleged against him, as big with the most\natrocious guilt and impiety: they told the court they had heard him\npublicly assert, \u201cI am able to destroy this temple,\u201d Matt. xxvi, 61. The\nrancour and virulence they had conceived against him for this speech,\nwas not softened by all the affecting circumstances of that wretched\ndeath they saw him die; even as he hung upon the cross, with triumph,\nscorn, and exultation, they upbraided him with it, contemptuously\nshaking their heads, and saying, \u201cThou that destroyest the temple, and\nbuildest it in three days, save thyself! If thou be the Son of God, come\ndown from the cross!\u201d Matt. xxvii, 40. It only remains to add, that it\nappears, from several passages of Scripture, that the Jews had a body of\nsoldiers who guarded the temple, to prevent any disturbances during the\nministration of such an immense number of priests and Levites. To this\nguard Pilate referred, when he said to the chief priests and Pharisees\nwho waited upon him to desire he would make the sepulchre secure, \u201cYe\nhave a watch, go your way, and make it as secure as ye can,\u201d Matt.\nxxvii, 65. Over these guards one person had the supreme command, who in\nseveral places is called the captain of the temple, or officer of the\ntemple guard. \u201cAnd as they spake unto the people, the priests and the\ncaptain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them,\u201d Acts iv, 1; v,\n25, 26; John xviii, 12. Josephus mentions such an officer.\n\nTENT MAKER. St. Paul, according to the practice of the Jews, who,\nhowever opulent, always taught their children some trade, appears to\nhave been a tent maker. This, however, is understood by some moderns to\nmean a maker of tent cloth, St. Paul being a Cilician, a country which\nproduced a species of rough-haired goats, from which the Cilicians\nmanufactured a thick and coarse cloth, much used for tents. The fathers,\nhowever, say that he made military tents, the material of which was\nskins.\n\nTERAPHIM. It is said, Gen. xxxi, 19, that Rachel had stolen the images\n(_teraphim_) of her father. What then were these _teraphim_? The\nSeptuagint translate this word by \u201coracle,\u201d and sometimes by \u201cvain\nfigures.\u201d Aquila generally translates it by \u201cfigures.\u201d It appears,\nindeed, from all the passages in which this word is used, that they were\nidols or superstitious figures. Some Jewish writers tell us the\n_teraphim_ were human heads placed in niches, and consulted by way of\noracles. Others think they were talismans or figures of metal cast and\nengraven under certain aspects of the planets, to which they ascribed\nextraordinary effects. All the eastern people are much addicted to this\nsuperstition, and the Persians still call them _telefin_, a name nearly\napproaching to teraphim. M. Jurieu supposes them to have been a sort of\n_dii penates_, or household gods; and this appears to be, perhaps, the\nmost probable opinion.\n\nTESTAMENT. The property or estate of the father fell, after his decease,\ninto the possession of his sons, who divided it among themselves\nequally, with this exception, that the eldest son had two portions. The\nfather expressed his last wishes or will in the presence of witnesses,\nand probably in the presence of the heirs, 2 Kings xx, 1. At a more\nrecent period the will was made out in writing. The portion that was\ngiven to the sons of concubines depended altogether upon the feelings of\nthe father. Abraham gave presents to what amount is not known, both to\nIshmael and to the sons whom he had by Keturah, and sent them away\nbefore his death. It does not appear that they had any other portion in\nthe estate. But Jacob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs\nas well as the others, Gen. xxi, 8\u201321; xxv, 1\u20136; xlix, 1\u201327. Moses laid\nno restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we\nshould infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an\nequal share with the other sons, from the fact, that Jephtha, the son of\na concubine, complained that he was excluded without any portion from\nhis father\u2019s house, Judg. xi, 1\u20137. The daughters not only had no portion\nin the estate, but, if they were unmarried, were considered as making a\npart of it, and were sold by their brothers into matrimony. If they had\nno brothers, or if they had died, the daughters then took the estate,\nNum. xxvii, 1\u20138. If any one died intestate, and without offspring, the\nproperty was disposed of according to Num. xxvii, 8\u201311. The servants or\nthe slaves in a family could not claim any share in the estate as a\nright; but the person who made a will, might, if he chose, make them his\nheirs, Gen. xv, 3. Indeed, in some instances, those who had heirs,\nrecognized as such by law, did not deem it unbecoming to bestow the\nwhole or a portion of their estates on faithful and deserving servants,\nProv. xvii, 2. The widow of the deceased, like his daughters, had no\nlegal right to a share in the estate. The sons, however, or other\nrelations, were bound to afford her an adequate maintenance, unless it\nhad been otherwise arranged in the will. She sometimes returned back\nagain to her father\u2019s house, particularly if the support which the heirs\ngave her was not such as had been promised, or was not sufficient, Gen.\nxxxviii, 11. See also the story of Ruth. The prophets very frequently,\nand undoubtedly not without cause, exclaim against the neglect and\ninjustice shown to widows, Isa. i, 17; x, 2; Jer. vii, 6; xxii, 3; Ezek.\nxxii, 7; Exod. xxii, 22\u201324; Deut. x, 18; xxiv, 17.\n\nTESTIMONY, a witnessing, evidence, or proof, Acts xiv, 3. The whole\nScripture or word of God, which declares what is to be believed,\npractised, and expected by us, is called God\u2019s \u201ctestimony,\u201d and\nsometimes in the plural \u201ctestimonies,\u201d Psalm xix, 7. The two tables of\nstone on which the law or ten commandments were written, which were\nwitnesses of that covenant made between God and his people, and\ntestified what it was that God had required of them, have the same\ntitle, Exod. xxv, 16, 21; xxxi, 18.\n\nTETRARCH, a sovereign prince that has the fourth part of a state,\nprovince, or kingdom under his dominion, without wearing the diadem, or\nbearing the title of king, Matt, xiv, 1; Luke iii, 1, 19; ix, 7; Acts\nxiii, 1.\n\nTHEOPHILUS, one to whom St. Luke addresses the books of his Gospel and\nActs of the Apostles, which he composed, Acts i, 1; Luke i, 3. It is\ndoubted whether the name Theophilus be here the proper name of a man, or\nan appellative or common name, which, according to its etymology, may\nstand for any good man, or a lover of God. Some think this name is\ngeneric, and that St. Luke\u2019s design here is to address his work to those\nthat love God; but it is much more probable that this Theophilus was a\nChristian to whom the evangelist has dedicated those two works; and the\nepithet of \u201cmost excellent,\u201d which is given to him, shows him to have\nbeen a man of great quality. \u0152cumenius concludes from thence that he\nwas governor or intendant of some province, because such a personage had\ngenerally the title of \u201cmost excellent\u201d given to him. Grotius\nconjectures he might be a magistrate of Achaia, converted by St. Luke.\n\nTHERAPEUT\u00c6. One particular phenomenon which resulted from the\ntheosophico-ascetic spirit among the Alexandrian Jews, was the sect of\nthe Therapeut\u00e6. Their head quarters were at no great distance from\nAlexandria, in a quiet pleasant spot on the shores of the Lake M\u0153ris,\nwhere they lived, like the anchorites in later periods, shut up in\nseparate cells, and employed themselves in nothing but prayer, and the\ncontemplation of divine things. An allegorical interpretation of\nScripture was the foundation of their speculations; and they had old\ntheosophical writings which gave them this turn. They lived only on\nbread and water, and accustomed themselves to fasting. They only ate in\nthe evening, and many fasted for several days together. They met\ntogether every Sabbath day, and every seven weeks they held a still more\nsolemn assembly, because the number seven was peculiarly holy in their\nestimation. They then celebrated a simple love-feast, consisting of\nbread with salt and hyssop; theosophical discussions were held, and the\nhymns which they had from their old traditions were sung; and mystical\ndances, bearing reference to the wonderful works of God with the fathers\nof their people, were continued, amidst choral songs, to a late hour in\nthe night. Many men of distinguished learning have considered this sect\nas nothing but a scion of the Essenes, trained up under the peculiar\ninfluence of the Egyptian spirit.\n\nTHESSALONIANS, Christians of Thessalonica, to whom St. Paul sent two\nepistles. It is recorded in the Acts, that St. Paul, in his first\njourney upon the continent of Europe, preached the Gospel at\nThessalonica, at that time the capital of Macedonia, with considerable\nsuccess; but that after a short stay he was driven thence by the malice\nand violence of the unbelieving Jews. From Thessalonica St. Paul went to\nBerea, and thence to Athens, at both which places he remained but a\nshort time. From Athens he sent Timothy to Thessalonica, to confirm the\nnew converts in their faith, and to inquire into their conduct. Timothy,\nupon his return, found St. Paul at Corinth. Thence, probably in A. D.\n52, St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; and it is to\nbe supposed that the subjects of which it treats, were suggested by the\naccount which he received from Timothy. It is now generally believed\nthat this was written the first of all St. Paul\u2019s epistles, but it is\nnot known by whom it was sent to Thessalonica. The church there\nconsisted chiefly of Gentile converts, 1 Thess. i, 9. St. Paul, after\nsaluting the Thessalonian Christians in the name of himself, Silas, and\nTimothy, assures them that he constantly returned thanks to God on their\naccount, and mentioned them in his prayers; he acknowledges the\nreadiness and sincerity with which they embraced the Gospel, and the\ngreat reputation which they had acquired by turning from idols to serve\nthe living God, 1 Thess. i; he reminds them of the bold and\ndisinterested manner in which he had preached among them; comforts them\nunder the persecutions which they, like other Christians, had\nexperienced from their unbelieving countrymen, and informs them of two\nineffectual attempts which he had made to visit them again, 1 Thess. ii;\nand that, being thus disappointed, he had sent Timothy to confirm their\nfaith, and inquire into their conduct; he tells them that Timothy\u2019s\naccount of them had given him the greatest consolation and joy in the\nmidst of his affliction and distress, and that he continually prayed to\nGod for an opportunity of seeing them again, and for their perfect\nestablishment in the Gospel, 1 Thess. iii; he exhorts to purity,\njustice, love, and quietness, and dissuades them against excessive grief\nfor their deceased friends, 1 Thess. iv; hence he takes occasion to\nrecommend preparation for the last judgment, the time of which is always\nuncertain; and adds a variety of practical precepts. He concludes with\nhis usual benediction. This epistle is written in terms of high\ncommendation, earnestness, and affection.\n\nIt is generally believed that the messenger who carried the former\nepistle into Macedonia, upon his return to Corinth, informed St. Paul\nthat the Thessalonians had inferred, from some expressions in it, that\nthe coming of Christ and the final judgment were near at hand, and would\nhappen in the time of many who were then alive, 1 Thess. iv, 15, 17; v,\n6. The principal design of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was\nto correct that error, and prevent the mischief which it would naturally\noccasion. It was written from Corinth, probably at the end of A. D. 52.\nSt. Paul begins with the same salutation as in the former epistle, and\nthen expresses his devout acknowledgments to God for the increasing\nfaith and mutual love of the Thessalonians in the midst of persecution;\nhe represents to them the rewards which will be bestowed upon the\nfaithful, and the punishment which will be inflicted upon the\ndisobedient, at the coming of Christ, 2 Thess. i; he earnestly entreats\nthem not to suppose, as upon authority from him, or upon any other\nground, that the last day is at hand; he assures them, that before that\nawful period a great apostasy will take place, and reminds them of some\ninformation which he had given them upon that subject when he was at\nThessalonica; he exhorts them to steadfastness in their faith, and prays\nto God to comfort their hearts, and establish them in every good word\nand work, 2 Thess. ii; he desires their prayers for the success of his\nministry, and expresses his confidence in their sincerity; he cautions\nthem against associating with idle and disorderly persons, and\nrecommends diligence and quietness. He adds a salutation in his own\nhand, and concludes with his usual benediction.\n\nTHESSALONICA, a celebrated city in Macedonia, and capital of that\nkingdom, standing upon the Thesmaic Sea. Stephen of Byzantium says that\nit was improved and beautified by Philip, king of Macedon, and called\nThessalonica in memory of the victory that he obtained over the\nThessalians. Its old name was Thesma. The Jews had a synagogue here, and\ntheir number was considerable, Acts xvii.\n\nTHIEF. Among the Hebrews theft was not punished with death: \u201cMen do not\ndespise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry. But\nif he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the\nsubstance of his house,\u201d Prov. vi, 30, 31. The law allowed the killing\nof a night-robber, because it was supposed his intention was to murder\nas well as to rob, Exod. xxii, 2. It condemned a common thief to make\ndouble restitution, Exod. xxii, 4. If he stole an ox he was to restore\nit fivefold; if a sheep, only fourfold, Exod. xxii, 1; 2 Sam. xii, 6.\nBut if the animal that was stolen was found alive in his house he only\nrendered the double of it. If he did not make restitution, they seized\nwhat was in his house, put it up to sale, and even sold the person\nhimself if he had not wherewithal to make satisfaction, Exod. xxii, 3.\n\nTHOMAS, the Apostle, otherwise called Didymus, which in Greek signifies\n_a twin_, Matt. x, 3; Luke vi, 15. We know no particulars of his life\ntill A. D. 33, John xi, 16; xiv, 5, 6; xx, 24\u201329; xxi, 1\u201313. Ancient\ntradition says, that in the distribution which the Apostles made of the\nseveral parts of the world, wherein they were to preach the Gospel, the\ncountry of the Parthians fell to the share of St. Thomas. It is added,\nthat he preached to the Medes, Persians, Carmanians, Hircanians,\nBactrians, &c. Several of the fathers inform us that he also preached in\nthe East Indies, &c.\n\nTHORN. A general name for several kinds of prickly plants. 1. In the\ncurse denounced against the earth, Gen. iii, 18, its produce is\nthreatened to be \u201cthorns and thistles,\u201d \u05e7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d3\u05e8\u05d3\u05e8, in the Septuagint\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03d0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. St. Paul uses the same words, Heb. vi, 8, where\nthe last is rendered \u201cbriers;\u201d they are also found Hos. x, 8. The word\n_kutz_ is put for \u201cthorns,\u201d in other places, as Exod. xxii, 6; Judges\nviii, 7; Ezek. ii, 6; xxviii, 24; but we are uncertain whether it means\na specific kind of thorn, or may be a generic name for all plants of a\nthorny kind. In the present instance it seems to be general for all\nthose obnoxious plants, shrubs, &c, by which the labours of the\nhusbandman are impeded, and which are only fit for burning. If the word\ndenotes a particular plant, it maybe the \u201crest-harrow,\u201d a pernicious\nprickly weed, which grows promiscuously with the large thistles in the\nuncultivated grounds, and covers entire fields and plains, in Egypt and\nPalestine. From the resemblance of the Hebrew _dardar_, to the Arabic\nword _dardargi_, Scheuchzer supposes the _cnicus_ to be intended. 2.\n\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea, from its etymology, must be a kind of thorn, with incurvated\nspines, like fish hooks, similar to those of the North American \u201cwitch\nhazel.\u201d Celsius says that the same word, and of the same original in\nArabic, is the \u201cblack thorn,\u201d or \u201csloe tree,\u201d the _prunus spinosa_ of\nLinn\u00e6us. 3. \u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd. It is impossible to determine what plants are\nintended by this word. Meninski says that _serbin_, in the Persic\nlanguage, is the name of a tree bearing thorns. In Eccles. vii, 6, and\nNahum i, 10, they are mentioned as fuel which quickly burns up; and in\nHosea ii, 6, as obstructions or hedges; it may be the _lycium Afrum_. 4.\n\u05e1\u05dc\u05d5\u05df, mentioned Josh. xxiii, 13; Ezek. ii, 6, xxviii, 24. From the\nvexatious character ascribed to this thorn in the places just referred\nto, compared with Num. xxxiii, 55; Judges ii, 3; it is probably the\n_kantuffa_, as described by Bruce. 5. By \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, Num. xxxiii, 55, may be\nintended goads, or sharp-pointed sticks, like those with which cattle\nwere driven. 6. The \u05e9\u05d9\u05ea, Isa. v, 6; x, 17, must mean some noxious plant\nthat overruns waste grounds. 7. The word \u05e6\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Num. xxxiii, 55; Josh.\nxxiii, 13; Isa. v, 5. It seems, from its application, to describe a bad\nkind of thorn. Hiller supposes it to be the _vepris_. Perhaps it is the\n_rhamnus paliurus_, a deciduous plant or tree, a native of Palestine,\nSpain, and Italy. It will grow nearly to the height of fourteen feet,\nand is armed with sharp thorns, two of which are at the insertion of\neach branch, one of them straight and upright, the other bent backward.\n8. \u05db\u05e8\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, translated \u201cbriers,\u201d Judges viii, 16. \u201cThere is no doubt but\nthis word means a sharp, jagged kind of plant: the difficulty is to fix\non one, where so many offer themselves. The Septuagint preserves the\noriginal word. We should hardly think Gideon went far to seek these\nplants. The thorns are expressly said to be from the wilderness, or\ncommon hard by; probably the _barkanim_ were from the same place. In our\ncountry this would lead us to the blackberry bushes on our commons; but\nit might not be so around Succoth. There is a plant mentioned by\nHasselquist, whose name and properties somewhat resemble those which are\nrequired in the _barkanim_ of this passage: \u201c_Nabka paliurus Athen\u00e6i_,\nis the _nabka_ of the Arabs. There is every appearance that this is the\ntree which furnished the crown of thorns which was put on the head of\nour Lord. It is common in the east. A plant more proper for this purpose\ncould not be selected; for it is armed with thorns, its branches are\npliant, and its leaf of a deep green like that of ivy. Perhaps the\nenemies of Christ chose this plant, in order to add insult to injury by\nemploying a wreath approaching in appearance that which was used to\ncrown emperors and generals.\u201d In the New Testament, the Greek word\ntranslated \u201cthorn,\u201d is \u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1; Matt. vii, 16, xiii, 7, xxvii, 29, John\nxix, 2. The note of Bishop Pearce on Matt. xxvii, 29, is this: \u201cThe word\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd may as well be the plural genitive case of the word \u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, as\nof \u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1; if of the latter, it is rightly translated \u2018of thorns,\u2019 but\nthe former would signify what we call \u2018bear\u2019s foot,\u2019 and the French\n_branche ursine_. This is not of the thorny kind of plants, but is soft\nand smooth. Virgil calls it _mollis acanthus_. So does Pliny: and Pliny\nthe elder says that it is _l\u00e6vis_, \u201csmooth;\u201d and that it is one of those\nplants that are cultivated in gardens. I have somewhere read, but cannot\nat present recollect where, that this soft and smooth herb was very\ncommon in and about Jerusalem. I find nothing in the New Testament\nconcerning this crown which Pilate\u2019s soldiers put on the head of Jesus,\nto incline one to think that it was of thorns, and intended, as is\nusually supposed, to put him to pain. The reed put into his hand, and\nthe scarlet robe on his back, were meant only as marks of mockery and\ncontempt. One may also reasonably judge by the soldiers being said to\nplat this crown, that it was not composed of such twigs and leaves as\nwere of a thorny nature. I do not find that it is mentioned by any of\nthe primitive Christian writers as an instance of the cruelty used\ntoward our Saviour before he was led to crucifixion, till the time of\nTertullian, who lived after Jesus\u2019 death at the distance of above one\nhundred and sixty years. He indeed seems to have understood \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd in\nthe sense of thorns, and says, \u2018_Quale oro te, Jesus Christus sertum pro\nutrogue sexu subiit? Ex spinis, opinor, et tribulis._\u2019 [What kind of a\ncrown, I beseech you, did Jesus Christ sustain? One made of thorns and\nthistles, I think.] The total silence of Polycarp, Barnabas, Clemens\nRomanus, and all the other Christian writers whose works are now extant,\nand who wrote before Tertullian, in particular, will give some weight to\nincline one to think that this crown was not platted with thorns. But as\nthis is a point on which we have not sufficient evidence, I leave it\nalmost in the same state of uncertainty in which I found it.\u201d See\nGARDEN.\n\nTHRESHING FLOORS, among the ancient Jews, were only, as they are to this\nday in the east, round level plats of ground in the open air, where the\ncorn was trodden out by oxen, the _libyc\u00e6 are\u00e6_ of Horace. Thus,\nGideon\u2019s floor, Judges vi, 37, appears to have been in the open air; as\nwas likewise that of Araunah the Jebusite; else it would not have been a\nproper place for erecting an altar and offering sacrifice. In Hosea\nxiii, 3, we read of the chaff which is driven by the whirlwind from the\nfloor. This circumstance of the threshing floor\u2019s being exposed to the\nagitation of the wind seems to be the principal reason of its Hebrew\nname; which may be farther illustrated by the direction which Hesiod\ngives his husbandman to thresh his corn in a place well exposed to the\nwind. From the above account it appears that a threshing floor (rendered\nin our textual translation \u201ca void place\u201d) might well be near the\nentrance of the gate of Samaria, and that it might afford no improper\nplace in which the kings of Israel and Judah could hear the prophets, 1\nKings xxii, 10; 2 Chron. xviii, 9; Psalm i, 4.\n\nTHRONE is used for that magnificent seat on which sovereign princes\nusually sit to receive the homage of their subjects, or to give audience\nto ambassadors; where they appear with pomp and ceremony, and from\nwhence they dispense justice; in a word, the throne, the sceptre, the\ncrown, are the ordinary symbols of royalty and regal authority. The\nScripture commonly represents the Lord as sitting upon a throne;\nsometimes it is said that the heaven is his throne, and the earth his\nfootstool, Isaiah lxvi, 1. The Son of God is also represented as sitting\nupon a throne, at the right hand of his Father, Psalm cx, 1; Heb. i, 8;\nRev. iii, 21. And Jesus Christ assures his Apostles that they should sit\nupon twelve thrones, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, Luke xxii,\n30. Though a throne and royal dignity seem to be correlatives, or terms\nthat stand in reciprocal relation to each other, yet the privilege of\nsitting on a throne has been sometimes granted to those that were not\nkings, particularly to some governors of important provinces. We read of\nthe throne of the governor of this side the river; the throne, in other\nwords, of the governor for the king of Persia of the provinces belonging\nto that empire on the west of the Euphrates. So D\u2019Herbelot tells us that\na Persian monarch of aftertimes gave the governor of one of his\nprovinces permission to seat himself in a gilded chair, when he\nadministered justice; which distinction was granted him on account of\nthe importance of that post, to which the guarding a pass of great\nconsequence was committed. This province, he tells us, is now called\nShirvan, but was formerly named Serir-aldhahab, which signifies, in\nArabic, \u201cthe throne of gold.\u201d To which he adds, that this privilege was\ngranted to the governor of this province, as being the place through\nwhich the northern nations used to make their way into Persia; on which\naccount, also, a mighty rampart or wall was raised there.\n\nIn the Revelation of St. John, we find the twenty-four elders sitting\nupon as many thrones in the presence of the Lord; \u201cand they fall down\nbefore him that sat on the throne, &c, and cast their crowns before the\nthrone.\u201d Many of the travellers in eastern countries have given\ndescriptions highly illustrative of this mode of adoration. Thus Bruce,\nin his Travels, says, \u201cThe next remarkable ceremony in which these two\nnations (of Persia and Abyssinia) agreed is that of adoration,\ninviolably observed in Abyssinia to this day, as often as you enter the\nsovereign\u2019s presence. This is not only kneeling, but absolute\nprostration; you first fall upon your knees, then upon the palms of your\nhands, then incline your head and body till your forehead touches the\nground; and, in case you have an answer to expect, you lie in that\nposture till the king, or somebody from him, desires you to rise.\u201d And\nStewart observes, \u201cWe marched toward the emperor with our music playing,\ntill we came within about eighty yards of him, when the old monarch,\nalighting from his horse, prostrated himself on the earth to pray, and\ncontinued some minutes with his face so close to the earth, that, when\nwe came up to him, the dust remained upon his nose.\u201d\n\nThe circumstance of \u201ccasting their crowns before the throne\u201d may be\nillustrated by several cases which occur in history. That of Herod, in\nthe presence of Augustus, has been already mentioned. (See _Herod_.)\nTiridates, in this manner, did homage to Nero, laying the ensigns of his\nroyalty at the statue of C\u00e6sar, to receive them again from his hand.\nTigranes, king of Armenia, did the same to Pompey. In the inauguration\nof the Byzantine C\u00e6sars, when the emperor comes to receive the\nsacrament, he puts off his crown. \u201cThis short expedition,\u201d says Malcolm,\n\u201cwas brought to a close by the personal submission of Abool Fyze Khan,\nwho, attended by all his court, proceeded to the tents of Nadir Shah,\nand laid his crown, and other ensigns of royalty, at the feet of the\nconqueror, who assigned him an honourable place in his assembly, and in\na few days afterward restored him to his throne.\u201d\n\nTHYATIRA, a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and the seat of one of the\nseven churches in Asia. It was situated nearly midway between Pergamos\nand Sardis, and is still a tolerable town, considering that it is in the\nhands of the Turks, and enjoys some trade, chiefly in cottons. It is\ncalled by that people Ak-hisar, or White Castle.\n\nTIBERIAS, a city situated in a small plain, surrounded by mountains, on\nthe western coast of the sea of Galilee, which, from this city, was also\ncalled the sea of Tiberias. Tiberias was erected by Herod Antipas, and\nso called in honour of Tiberius C\u00e6sar. He is supposed to have chosen,\nfor the erection of his new city, a spot where before stood a more\nobscure place called Chenereth or Cinnereth, which also gave its name to\nthe adjoining lake or sea.\n\nTIMBRELS. See MUSIC.\n\nTIMOTHEUS, commonly called Timothy, a disciple of St. Paul. He was a\nnative of Lystra in Lycaonia. His father was a Gentile; but his mother,\nwhose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, Acts xvi, 1, and educated her son\nwith great care in her own religion, 2 Tim. i, 5; iii, 15. To this young\ndisciple St. Paul addressed two epistles; in the first of which he calls\nhim his \u201cown son in the faith,\u201d 1 Tim. i, 2; from which expression it is\ninferred that St. Paul was the person who converted him to the belief of\nthe Gospel; and as, upon St. Paul\u2019s second arrival at Lystra, Timothy is\nmentioned as being then a disciple, and as having distinguished himself\namong the Christians of that neighbourhood, his conversion, as well as\nthat of Eunice his mother, and Lois his grandmother, must have taken\nplace when St. Paul first preached at Lystra, A. D. 46. Upon St. Paul\u2019s\nleaving Lystra, in the course of his second apostolical journey, he was\ninduced to take Timothy with him, on account of his excellent character,\nand the zeal which, young as he was, he had already shown in the cause\nof Christianity; but before they set out, St. Paul caused him to be\ncircumcised, not as a thing necessary to his salvation, but to avoid\ngiving offence to the Jews, as he was a Jew by the mother\u2019s side, and it\nwas an established rule among the Jews that _partus sequitur ventrem_.\nTimothy was regularly appointed to the ministerial office by the laying\non of hands, not only by St. Paul himself, but also by the presbytery, 1\nTim. iv, 14; 2 Tim. i, 6. From this time Timothy acted as a minister of\nthe Gospel; he generally attended St. Paul, but was sometimes employed\nby him in other places; he was very diligent and useful, and is always\nmentioned with great esteem and affection by St. Paul, who joins his\nname with his own in the inscription of six of his epistles. He is\nsometimes called bishop of Ephesus, and it has been said that he\nsuffered martyrdom in that city, some years after the death of St. Paul.\n\nThe principal design of St. Paul\u2019s First Epistle to Timothy was to give\nhim instructions concerning the management of the church of Ephesus; and\nit was probably intended that it should be read publicly to the\nEphesians, that they might know upon what authority Timothy acted. After\nsaluting him in an affectionate manner, and reminding him of the reason\nfor which he was left at Ephesus, the Apostle takes occasion, from the\nfrivolous disputes which some Judaizing teachers had introduced among\nthe Ephesians, to assert the practical nature of the Gospel, and to show\nits superiority over the law; he returns thanks to God for his own\nappointment to the apostleship, and recommends to Timothy fidelity in\nthe discharge of his sacred office; he exhorts that prayers should be\nmade for all men, and especially for magistrates; he gives directions\nfor the conduct of women, and forbids their teaching in public; he\ndescribes the qualifications necessary for bishops and deacons, and\nspeaks of the mysterious nature of the Gospel dispensation; he foretels\nthat there will be apostates from the truth, and false teachers in the\nlatter times, and recommends to Timothy purity of manners and\nimprovement of his spiritual gifts; he gives him particular directions\nfor his behaviour toward persons in different situations in life, and\ninstructs him in several points of Christian discipline; he cautions him\nagainst false teachers, gives him several precepts, and solemnly charges\nhim to be faithful to his trust.\n\nThat the Second Epistle to Timothy was written while St. Paul was under\nconfinement at Rome, appears from the two following passages: \u201cBe not\nthou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his\nprisoner,\u201d 2 Timothy i, 8. \u201cThe Lord give mercy unto the house of\nOnesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain;\nbut when he was at Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found\nme,\u201d 2 Tim. i, 16, 17. The epistle itself will furnish us with several\narguments to prove that it could not have been written during St. Paul\u2019s\nfirst imprisonment. 1. It is universally agreed that St. Paul wrote his\nepistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and to Philemon,\nwhile he was confined the first time at Rome. In no one of these\nepistles does he express any apprehension for his life; and in the two\nlast mentioned we have seen that, on the contrary, he expresses a\nconfident hope of being soon liberated; but in this epistle he holds a\nvery different language: \u201cI am now ready to be offered, and the time of\nmy departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my\ncourse, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a\ncrown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give\nme at that day,\u201d 2 Tim. iv, 6, &c. The danger in which St. Paul now was,\nis evident from the conduct of his friends, when he made his defence:\n\u201cAt my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me,\u201d 2\nTim. iv, 16. This expectation of death, and this imminent danger, cannot\nbe reconciled either with the general tenor of his epistles written\nduring his first confinement at Rome, with the nature of the charge laid\nagainst him when he was carried thither from Jerusalem, or with St.\nLuke\u2019s account of his confinement there; for we must remember that in A.\nD. 63, Nero had not begun to persecute the Christians; that none of the\nRoman magistrates and officers who heard the accusations against St.\nPaul at Jerusalem thought that he had committed any offence against the\nRoman government; that at Rome St. Paul was completely out of the power\nof the Jews; and, so little was he there considered as having been\nguilty of any capital crime, that he was suffered to dwell \u201ctwo whole\nyears,\u201d that is, the whole time of his confinement, \u201cin his own hired\nhouse, and to receive all that came in unto him, preaching the word of\nGod, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with\nall confidence, no man forbidding him,\u201d Acts xxviii, 30, 31. 2. From the\ninscriptions of the epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, and\nPhilemon, it is certain that Timothy was with St. Paul in his first\nimprisonment at Rome; but this epistle implies that Timothy was absent.\n3. St. Paul tells the Colossians that Mark salutes them, and therefore\nhe was at Rome with St. Paul in his first imprisonment; but he was not\nat Rome when this epistle was written, for Timothy is directed to bring\nhim with him, 2 Tim. iv, 11. 4. Demas, also, was with St. Paul when he\nwrote to the Colossians: \u201cLuke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet\nyou,\u201d Col. iv, 14. In this epistle he says, \u201cDemas has forsaken me,\nhaving loved this present world, and is departed into Thessalonica,\u201d 2\nTim. iv, 10. It may be said that this epistle might have been written\nbefore the others, and that in the intermediate time Timothy and Mark\nmight have come to Rome, more especially as St. Paul desires Timothy to\ncome shortly, and bring Mark with him. But this hypothesis is not\nconsistent with what is said of Demas, who was with St. Paul when he\nwrote to the Colossians, and had left him when he wrote this second\nepistle to Timothy; consequently the epistle to Timothy must be\nposterior to that addressed to the Colossians. The case of Demas seems\nto have been, that he continued faithful to St. Paul during his first\nimprisonment, which was attended with little or no danger; but deserted\nhim in the second, when Nero was persecuting the Christians, and St.\nPaul evidently considered himself in great danger. 5. St. Paul tells\nTimothy, \u201cErastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum\nsick,\u201d 2 Tim. iv, 20. These were plainly two circumstances which had\nhappened in some journey which St. Paul had taken not long before he\nwrote this epistle, and since he and Timothy had seen each other; but\nthe last time St. Paul was at Corinth and Miletum, prior to his first\nimprisonment at Rome, Timothy was with him at both places; and Trophimus\ncould not have been then left at Miletum, for we find him at Jerusalem\nimmediately after St. Paul\u2019s arrival in that city; \u201cfor they had seen\nbefore with him in the city Trophimus, an Ephesian, whom they supposed\nthat Paul had brought into the temple,\u201d Acts xxi, 29. These two facts\nmust therefore refer to some journey subsequent to the first\nimprisonment; and, consequently, this epistle was written during St.\nPaul\u2019s second imprisonment at Rome, and probably in A. D. 65, not long\nbefore his death. It is by no means certain where Timothy was when this\nepistle was written to him. It seems most probable that he was somewhere\nin Asia Minor, since St. Paul desires him to bring the cloak with him\nwhich he had left at Troas, 2 Tim. iv, 13; and also at the end of the\nfirst chapter, he speaks of several persons whose residence was in Asia.\nMany have thought that he was at Ephesus; but others have rejected that\nopinion, because Troas does not lie in the way from Ephesus to Rome,\nwhither he was directed to go as quickly as he could. St. Paul, after\nhis usual salutation, assures Timothy of his most affectionate\nremembrance; he speaks of his own apostleship and of his sufferings;\nexhorts Timothy to be steadfast in the true faith, to be constant and\ndiligent in the discharge of his ministerial office, to avoid foolish\nand unlearned questions, and to practise and inculcate the great duties\nof the Gospel; he describes the apostasy and general wickedness of the\nlast days, and highly commends the Holy Scriptures; he again solemnly\nexhorts Timothy to diligence; speaks of his own danger, and of his hope\nof future reward; and concludes with several private directions, and\nwith salutations.\n\nTIN, \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc, Num. xxxi, 22; Isa. i, 25; Ezek. xxii, 18, 20; xxvii, 12; a\nwell-known coarse metal, harder than lead. Mr. Parkhurst observes, that\nMoses, in Num. xxxi, 22, enumerates all the six species of metals. The\nLord, by the Prophet Isaiah, having compared the Jewish people to\nsilver, declares, \u201cI will turn my hand upon thee, and purge away thy\ndross, and remove all \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05da, _thy particles of tin_:\u201d where Aquila,\nSymmachus, and Theodotion have \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, and the Vulgate _stannum\ntuum_, \u201cthy tin;\u201d but the LXX. \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _wicked ones_. This\ndenunciation, by a comparison of the preceding and following context,\nappears to signify that God would, by a process of judgment, purify\nthose among the Jews who were capable of purification, as well as\ndestroy the reprobate and incorrigible, Jer. vi, 29, 30; ix, 7; Mal.\niii, 3; Ezek. xii, 18, 20. In Ezek. xxvii, 12, Tarshish is mentioned as\nfurnishing \u05db\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc; and Bochart proves from the testimonies of Diodorus,\nPliny, and Stephanus, that Tartessus in Spain, which he supposes the\nancient Tarshish, anciently furnished tin. As Cornwall in very ancient\ntimes was resorted to for this metal, and probably first by the\nPhenicians, some have thought that peninsula to be the Tarshish of the\nScriptures; a subject which, however, from the vague use of the word, is\ninvolved in much uncertainty. See TARSHISH.\n\nTITHES. We have nothing more ancient concerning tithes, than what we\nfind in Gen. xiv, 20, that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec, king of\nSalem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer, and the\nfour kings in confederacy with him. Abraham gave him tithe of all the\nbooty he had taken from the enemy. Jacob imitated this piety of his\ngrandfather, when he vowed to the Lord the tithe of all the substance he\nmight acquire in Mesopotamia, Gen. xxviii, 22. Under the law, Moses\nordained, \u201cAll the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,\nor of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord\u2019s; it is holy unto the Lord.\nAnd if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add\nthereto the fifth part thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or\nof the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall\nbe wholly unto the Lord,\u201d Lev. xxvii, 30\u201332. The Pharisees, in the time\nof Jesus Christ, to distinguish themselves by a more scrupulous\nobservance of the law, did not content themselves with paying the tithe\nof the grain and fruits growing in the fields; but they also paid tithe\nof the pulse and herbs growing in their gardens, which was more than the\nlaw required of them. The tithes were taken from what remained, after\nthe offerings and first fruits were paid. They brought the tithes to the\nLevites in the city of Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus and Tobit, i,\n6. The Levites set apart the tenth part of their tithes for the priest;\nbecause the priests did not receive them immediately from the people,\nand the Levites were not to meddle with the tithes they had received,\nbefore they had given the priests such a part as the law assigned them.\nOf those nine parts that remained to the proprietors, after the tithe\nwas paid to the Levites, they took still another tenth part, which was\neither sent to Jerusalem in kind, or, if it was too far, they sent the\nvalue in money; adding to it a fifth from the whole as the rabbins\ninform us. This tenth part was applied toward celebrating the festivals\nin the temple, which bore a near resemblance to the _agap\u00e6_, or love\nfeasts of the first Christians. Thus are those words of Deuteronomy\nunderstood by the rabbins: \u201cThou shalt truly tithe all the increase of\nthy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat\nbefore the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his\nname there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil, and of\nthe firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks: that thou mayest learn to\nfear the Lord thy God always,\u201d Deut. xiv, 22, 23. Tobit i, 6, says, that\nevery three years he punctually paid his tithe to strangers and\nproselytes. This was probably because there were neither priests nor\nLevites in the city where he dwelt. Moses speaks of this last kind of\ntithe: \u201cAt the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe\nof thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates.\nAnd the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and\nthe stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy\ngates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God\nmay bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest,\u201d Deut.\nxiv, 28; xxvi, 12. It is thought that this tithe was not different from\nthe second kind before noticed, except that in the third year it was not\nbrought to the temple, but was used upon the spot by every one in the\ncity of his habitation. So, properly speaking, there were only two sorts\nof tithes, that which was given to the Levites and priests, and that\nwhich was applied to making feasts of charity, either in the temple of\nJerusalem, or in other cities. Samuel tells the children of Israel, that\nthe king they had a mind to have over them would \u201ctake the tenth of\ntheir seed, and of their vineyards, and give to his officers, and his\nservants. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his\nservants,\u201d 1 Sam. viii, 15, 17. Yet it does not clearly appear from the\nhistory of the Jews, that they regularly paid any tithe to their\nprinces. But the manner in which Samuel expresses himself, seems to\ninsinuate that it was looked upon as a common right among the kings of\nthe cast. At this day, the Jews no longer pay any tithe; at least they\ndo not think themselves obliged to do it, except it be those who are\nsettled in the territory of Jerusalem, and the ancient Judea. For there\nare few Jews now that have any lands of their own, or any flocks. They\nonly give something for the redemption of the first-born, to those who\nhave any proofs of their being descended from the race of the priests or\nLevites. However, we are assured, that such among the Jews as would be\nthought to be very strict and religious give the tenth part of their\nwhole income to the poor.\n\nTITUS. It is remarkable that Titus is not mentioned in the Acts of the\nApostles. The few particulars which are known of him, are collected from\nthe epistles of St. Paul. We learn from them that he was a Greek, Gal.\nii, 3; but it is not recorded to what city or country he belonged. From\nSt. Paul\u2019s calling him \u201chis own son according to the common faith,\u201d\nTitus i, 4, it is concluded that he was converted by him; but we have no\naccount of the time or place of his conversion. He is first mentioned as\ngoing from Antioch to the council at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, Gal. ii, 1,\n&c; and upon that occasion St. Paul says that he would not allow him to\nbe circumcised, because he was born of Gentile parents. He probably\naccompanied St. Paul in his second apostolical journey, and from that\ntime he seems to have been constantly employed by him in the propagation\nof the Gospel; he calls him his partner and fellow-helper, 2 Cor. viii,\n23. St. Paul sent him from Ephesus with his First Epistle to the\nCorinthians, and with a commission to inquire into the state of the\nchurch at Corinth; and he sent him thither again from Macedonia with his\nSecond Epistle, and to forward the collections for the saints in Judea.\nFrom this time we hear nothing of Titus till he was left by St. Paul in\nCrete, after his first imprisonment at Rome, to \u201cset in order the things\nthat were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city,\u201d Titus i, 5. It\nis probable that he went thence to join St. Paul at Nicopolis, Titus\niii, 12; that they went together to Crete to visit the churches there,\nand thence to Rome. During St. Paul\u2019s second imprisonment at Rome Titus\nwent into Dalmatia, 2 Tim. iv, 10; and after the apostle\u2019s death, he is\nsaid to have returned into Crete, and to have died there in the\nninety-fourth year of his age: he is often called bishop of Crete by\necclesiastical writers. St. Paul always speaks of Titus in terms of high\nregard, and intrusted him, as we have seen, with commissions of great\nimportance. It is by no means certain from what place St. Paul wrote\nthis epistle; but as he desires Titus to come to him at Nicopolis, and\ndeclares his intention of passing the winter there, some have supposed\nthat, when he wrote it he was in the neighbourhood of that city, either\nin Greece or Macedonia; others have imagined that he wrote it from\nColosse, but it is difficult to say upon what ground. As it appears that\nSt. Paul, not long before he wrote this epistle, had left Titus in Crete\nfor the purpose of regulating the affairs of the church, and at the time\nhe wrote it had determined to pass the approaching winter at Nicopolis,\nand as the Acts of the Apostles do not give any account of St. Paul\u2019s\npreaching in that island, or of visiting that city, it is concluded that\nthis epistle was written after his first imprisonment at Rome, and\nprobably in A. D. 64. It may be considered as some confirmation of that\nopinion, that there is a great similarity between the sentiments and\nexpressions of this epistle and of the First Epistle to Timothy, which\nwas written in that year. It is not known at what time a Christian\nchurch was first planted in Crete; but as some Cretans were present at\nthe first effusion of the Holy Ghost at Jerusalem, Acts ii, 11, it is\nnot improbable that, upon their return home, they might be the means of\nintroducing the Gospel among their countrymen. Crete is said to have\nabounded with Jews; and from the latter part of the first chapter of\nthis epistle it appears that many of them were persons of very\nprofligate lives, even after they had embraced the Gospel. The principal\ndesign of this epistle was to give instructions to Titus concerning the\nmanagement of the churches in the different cities of the island of\nCrete, and it was probably intended to be read publicly to the Cretans,\nthat they might know upon what authority Titus acted. St. Paul, after\nhis usual salutation, intimates that he was appointed an apostle by the\nexpress command of God, and reminds Titus of the reason of his being\nleft in Crete; he describes the qualifications necessary for bishops,\nand cautions him against persons of bad principles, especially Judaizing\nteachers, whom he directs Titus to reprove with severity; he informs him\nwhat instructions he should give to people in different situations of\nlife, and exhorts him to be exemplary in his own conduct; he points out\nthe pure and practical nature of the Gospel, and enumerates some\nparticular virtues which he was to inculcate, avoiding foolish questions\nand frivolous disputes; he instructs him how he is to behave toward\nheretics and concludes with salutations.\n\nTIZRI, or TISRI, the first Hebrew month of the civil year, and the\nseventh of the sacred year, answering to the moon of September. On the\nfirst day of this month was kept the feast of trumpets, because the\nbeginning of the civil year was proclaimed with the sound of trumpets.\n\nTOB, a country of Palestine, lying beyond Jordan, in the northern part\nof the portion of Manasseh. To this district Jephthah retired, when he\nwas driven away by his brethren, Judges xi, 3, 5. It is also called\nTobie, or Tubin, 1 Mac. v, 13; and the inhabitants of this canton were\ncalled Tubieni. It is supposed to be the same as Ishtob, one of the\nsmall principalities of Syria, which appears, like the other little\nkingdoms in its neighbourhood, to have been swallowed up in the kingdom\nof Damascus. This principality furnished twelve thousand men to the\nconfederacy formed by the Syrians and Ammonites against David, 2 Sam. x.\n\nTOBIAH, an Ammonite, an enemy to the Jews. He was one of those who\nstrenuously opposed the rebuilding of the temple, after the return from\nthe captivity of Babylon, Neh. ii, 10; iv, 3; v, 1, 12, 14. This Tobiah\nis called \u201cthe servant,\u201d or \u201cslave,\u201d in some parts of Nehemiah; probably\nbecause he was of a servile condition. However, he was of great\nconsideration in the land of the Samaritans, of which he was governor\nwith Sanballat. This Tobiah married the daughter of Shechaniah, one of\nthe principal Jews of Jerusalem, Neh. vi, 18, and had a powerful party\nin Jerusalem itself, who were opposed to that of Nehemiah. He maintained\na correspondence by letter with this party against the interest of\nNehemiah, vi, 17\u201319; but that prudent governor, by his wisdom and\nmoderation, defeated all their machinations. After some time, Nehemiah\nwas obliged to return to Babylon, subsequent to having repaired the\nwalls of Jerusalem. Tobiah took this opportunity to come and dwell at\nJerusalem; and even obtained of Eliashib, who had the care of the house\nof the Lord, to have an apartment in the temple. But at Nehemiah\u2019s\nreturn from Babylon, some years after, he drove Tobiah out of the courts\nof the temple, and threw his goods out of the holy place, Neh. xiii,\n4\u20138. From this time the Scripture makes no farther mention of Tobiah. It\nis probable he retired to Sanballat at Samaria.\n\nTOGARMAH, the third son of Gomer, Gen. x, 4. The learned are divided as\nto what country he peopled. Josephus and St. Jerom were of opinion, that\nTogarmah was the father of the Phrygians: Eusebius, Theodoret, and\nIsidorus of Seville, that he peopled Armenia: the Chaldee and the\nTalmudists are for Germany. Several moderns believe that the children of\nTogarmah peopled Turcomania in Tartary and Scythia. Bochart is for\nCappadocia: he builds upon what is said in Ezekiel xxvii, 14, \u201cThey of\nthe house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs,\u201d that is, at Tyre, \u201cwith\nhorses and horsemen and mules.\u201d He proves that Cappadocia was famous for\nits excellent horses and its asses. He observes also, that certain\nGauls, under the conduct of Trocmus, made a settlement at Cappadocia,\nand were called Trocmi, or Throgmi. The opinion, says Calmet, which\nplaces Togarmah in Scythia and Turcomania, seems to stand upon the best\nfoundation.\n\nTOKENS, TESSER\u00c6, or TICKETS, were written testimonials to character,\nmuch in use in the primitive church. By means of letters, and of\nbrethren who travelled about, even the most remote churches of the Roman\nempire were connected together. When a Christian arrived in a strange\ntown, he first inquired for the church; and he was here received as a\nbrother, and provided with every thing needful for his spiritual or\ncorporeal sustenance. But since deceivers, spies with evil intentions,\nand false teachers abused the confidence and the kindness of Christians,\nsome measure of precaution became necessary, in order to avert the many\ninjuries which might result from this conduct. An arrangement was\ntherefore introduced, that only such travelling Christians should be\nreceived as brethren into churches where they were strangers, as could\nproduce a testimonial from the bishop of the church from which they\ncame. They called these church letters, which were a kind of _tesser\u00e6\nhospitales_, [tickets of hospitality,] by which the Christians of all\nquarters of the world were brought into connection, _epistol\u00e6_, or\n_liter\u00e6_ _format\u00e6_, [formal letters,] \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, because, in\norder to avoid forgery, they were made after a certain _schema_, (\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2,\n_forma_,) or else, _epistol\u00e6 communicatori\u00e6_, [epistles of fellowship,]\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, because they contained a proof that those who\nbrought them were in the communion of the church, as well as that the\nbishops, who mutually sent and received such letters, were in connection\ntogether by the communion of the church; and afterward these church\nletters, _epistol\u00e6 cleric\u00e6_, were divided into different classes,\naccording to the difference of their purposes.\n\nTONGUE. This word is taken in three different senses. 1. For the\nmaterial tongue, or organ of speech, James iii, 5. 2. For the tongue or\nlanguage that is spoken in any country, Deut. xxviii, 49. (See\n_Language_.) 3. For good or bad discourses, Prov. xii, 18; xvii, 20.\nTongue of the sea signifies a gulf. To gnaw the tongue, Rev. xvi, 10, is\na token of fury, despair, and torment. The gift of tongues was that\nwhich God granted to the apostles and disciples assembled at Jerusalem\non the day of pentecost, Acts ii. The tongue of angels, a kind of\nhyperbole made use of by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii, 1.\n\nTOOTH. It was ordered by the law of retaliation, that they should give\ntooth for tooth, Exod. xxi, 24. The opinion that it is every man\u2019s right\nand duty to do himself justice, and to revenge his own injuries, is by\nno means eradicated from among the Afghans, a people of India, to the\nsouthward of Cashmere, and according to a paper in the Asiatic\nResearches, supposed to be descended from the Jews; and the right of\nsociety, even to restrain the reasonable passions of individuals, and to\ntake the redress of wrongs and the punishment of crimes into its own\nhands, is still very imperfectly understood; or, if it is understood, is\nseldom present to the thoughts of the people; for although, in most\nparts of their country, justice might now be obtained by other means,\nand though private revenge is every where preached against by the\n_mollahs_, priests, and forbidden by the government, yet it is still\nlawful, and even honourable in the eyes of the people, to seek that mode\nof redress. The injured party is considered to be entitled to strict\nretaliation on the aggressor. If the offender be out of his power, he\nmay wreak his vengeance on a relation, and, in some cases, on any man in\nthe tribe. If no opportunity of exercising this right occurs, he may\ndefer his revenge for years; but it is disgraceful to neglect or abandon\nit entirely; and it is incumbent on his relations, and sometimes on his\ntribe, to assist him in his retaliation. To gnash the teeth is a token\nof sorrow, rage, despair, Psalm xxxv, 16, &c. God breaks the teeth of\nthe wicked, Psalm iii, 7. Cleanness of teeth denotes famine, Amos iv, 6.\nThe wicked complain, that the \u201cfathers have eaten sour grapes, and their\nchildren\u2019s teeth are set on edge,\u201d Ezek. xviii, 2, to signify, that the\nchildren have suffered for their transgressions.\n\nTOPAZ, \u05d4\u05d8\u05d3\u05d4, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Job xxviii, 19; Ezek. xxviii,\n13; \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Rev. xxi, 20; a precious stone of a pale dead green, with\na mixture of yellow; and sometimes of fine yellow, like gold. It is very\nhard, and takes a fine polish. We have the authority of the Septuagint\nand Josephus for ascertaining this stone. The oriental topazes are most\nesteemed. Those of Ethiopia were celebrated for their wonderful lustre,\nJob xxviii, 19.\n\nTOPHET. It is thought that Tophet was the butchery, or place of\nslaughter, at Jerusalem, lying to the south of the city, in the valley\nof the children of Hinnom. It is also said, that a large fire was\nconstantly kept there for burning carcasses, garbage, and other filth\nbrought thither from the city. It was the place where they burned the\nremains of images and false gods, &c, Isa. xxx, 33. Others think the\nname Tophet was given to the valley of Hinnom, from the beating of\ndrums, (the word toph signifying a drum,) which accompanied the\nsacrifices of infants that were offered there to the god Moloch. For the\nmanner of performing those sacrifices in Tophet, see MOLOCH.\n\nTOWER. \u201cThe tower of the flock,\u201d or the tower of Ader, Micah iv, 8. It\nis said this tower was in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, Gen. xxxv, 21,\nand that the shepherds, to whom the angel revealed the birth of our\nSaviour, were near to this tower, Luke ii, 8, 15. Many interpreters\nassert, that the passage of Micah, in which mention is made of the tower\nof the flock: \u201cAnd thou tower of the flock, the strong hold of the\ndaughter of Zion,\u201d is to be understood of the city of Bethlehem, out of\nwhich our Saviour was to come. Others maintain, that the prophet speaks\nof the city of Jerusalem, in which there was a tower of this name,\nthrough which the flocks of sheep were driven to the sheep-market. \u201cFrom\nthe tower of the watchmen to the fenced city,\u201d 2 Kings xvii, 9. This\nform of speaking expresses in general all the places of the country,\nfrom the least to the greatest. The towers of the watchmen, or of the\nshepherds, stood alone in the midst of the plain, in which the shepherds\nand herdsmen who looked after the flocks, or watchmen, might lodge. King\nUzziah caused several towers to be built for the shepherds in the\ndesert, and made many cisterns there, because he had a great number of\nflocks, 2 Chronicles xxvi, 10. The tower of the flock, and that which\nIsaiah, v, 2, notices, which was built in the midst of a vineyard, were\nof the same kind.\n\nTOWER OF BABEL. See BABEL.\n\nTOWER OF SHECHEM was a citadel, or fortress, standing upon a higher\nground than the rest of the city, and capacious enough to contain above\na thousand persons. This tower, filled with the inhabitants of Shechem,\nwas burned by Abimelech down to the very ground, together with those who\nhad taken refuge in it.\n\nTRACHONITIS, Luke iii, 1. This province had Arabia Deserta to the east,\nBatanea to the west, Iturea to the south, and the country of Damascus to\nthe north. It belonged rather to Arabia than Palestine; was a rocky\nprovince, and served as a shelter for thieves and depredators.\n\nTRADITION. See CABBALA.\n\nTRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST. This event relates to a very remarkable\noccurrence in the history of our Lord\u2019s life, which is recorded by three\nof the evangelists, Matthew xvii; Mark ix; Luke ix. The substance of\nwhat we learn from their accounts is, that upon a certain occasion Jesus\ntook Peter, James, and John, into a high mountain apart from all other\nsociety, and that he was there transfigured before them; his face\nshining as the sun, and his raiment white as the light; that moreover\nthere appeared unto them Moses and Elias, conversing with him; and that\nwhile they spake together on the subject of his death, which was soon\nafterward to take place at Jerusalem, a bright cloud overshadowed them,\nand a voice out of the cloud proclaimed, \u201cThis is my beloved Son, in\nwhom I am well pleased.\u201d The Apostle Peter, adverting to this memorable\noccurrence, says, \u201cWe have not followed cunningly devised fables, when\nwe made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,\nbut were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the\nFather honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the\nexcellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And\nthis voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the\nholy mount,\u201d 2 Peter i, 16\u201318. This event is to be considered: 1. As a\nsolemn confirmation of the prophetic office of Christ. 2. As designed to\nsupport the faith of the disciples, which was to be deeply tried by his\napproaching humiliations; and to afford consolation to the human nature\nof our Lord himself, by giving him a foretaste of \u201cthe joy set before\nhim.\u201d 3. As an emblem of humanity glorified at the resurrection. 4. As\ndeclaring Christ to be superior to Moses and Elias, the giver and the\nrestorer of the law. 5. As an evidence to the disciples of the existence\nof a separate state, in which good men consciously enjoy the felicity of\nheaven. 6. As a proof that the bodies of good men shall be so refined\nand changed, as, like Elias, to live in a state of immortality, and in\nthe presence of God. 7. As exhibiting the sympathy which exists between\nthe church in heaven and the church on earth, and the instruction which\nthe former receives from the events which take place in the\nlatter:--Moses and Elias conversed with our Lord on his approaching\ndeath, doubtless to receive, not to convey information. 8. As\nmaintaining the grand distinction, the infinite difference, between\nChrist and all other prophets: he is \u201cTHE SON.\u201d \u201c_This is my beloved\nSon, hear him._\u201d It has been observed, with much truth, that the\ncondition in which Jesus Christ appeared among men, humble, weak, poor,\nand despised, was a true and continual transfiguration; whereas, the\ntransfiguration itself, in which he showed himself in the real splendour\nof his glory, was his true and natural condition.\n\nTRANSUBSTANTIATION. The Lord\u2019s Supper being observed in commemoration of\nthe death of Christ, which was the sacrifice offered for the sins of\nmen, the idea of a sacrifice was early conjoined with it; and finally,\nit came to be regarded not merely as the symbol of a sacrifice, but in\nsome sense a sacrifice itself. There was also another cause which\ncontributed to this belief. It was the anxious wish of some of the\nfathers to give to their religion a degree of splendour, which might\nmake a powerful impression upon the senses. Under the Jewish economy,\nthe numerous sacrifices that were offered, in a remarkable degree\nriveted the attention; and, with reference to this, it became customary\nto hold forth the Lord\u2019s Supper as the great sacrifice in the Christian\nchurch. This mode of speaking quickly gained ground; it is often used by\nCyprian, although he plainly understood it in a mystical sense; and the\nordinance of the supper was not unfrequently styled the eucharistical\nsacrifice. It was very early the practice to hold up the elements,\nprevious to their being distributed, to the view of the people, probably\nto excite in them more effectually devout and reverential feelings; and\nthis laid the foundation for that adoration of them which was, at a\nsubsequent period, as we shall soon find, extensively introduced.\n\nFor several ages, says Dr. Cook, the state of opinion respecting the\nsacramental elements was, that they were memorials of Christ\u2019s death,\nbut that, agreeably to his own declaration, his body and blood were, in\nsome sense, present with them. The questions, however, what was the\nnature of that presence? and what were the physical consequences as to\nthe bread and the wine? however much we may conceive these points to\nhave been involved in the opinion actually held, or the language\nactually used, seem not to have been for a long period much agitated,\nor, at all events, not authoritatively decided, although the Roman\nCatholic writers gladly and triumphantly bring forward the expressions\nthat were so often used from the earliest age, in support of the tenet\nwhich their church at length espoused. But it was not to be supposed\nthat the curiosity of man would be permanently arrested at the threshold\nof this most mysterious inquiry; and accordingly a definite theory, with\nrespect to it, was, in the ninth century, avowed, and zealously\ndefended. Pascasius Radbert, a monk, and afterward abbot of Corbey in\nPicardy, published a treatise concerning the sacrament of the body and\nblood of Christ, in which he did not hesitate to maintain the following\nmost extraordinary positions: \u201cThat after the consecration of the bread\nand wine in the Lord\u2019s Supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the\noutward form or figure under which the body and blood of Christ were\nreally and locally present; and that this body so present was the\nidentical body that had been born of the Virgin Mary, had suffered on\nthe cross, and had been raised from the dead.\u201d The publication of\nnotions so decidedly at war with all which human beings must credit,\nexcited, as might have been expected, astonishment and indignation; and,\naccordingly, many writers exerted their talents against it. Among these\nwas the celebrated Johannes Scotus, who laid the axe to the root of the\ntree, and, shaking off all that figurative language which had been so\nsadly abused, distinctly and powerfully stated, that the bread and wine\nused in the eucharist were the signs or symbols of the absent body and\nblood of Christ. The light of reason and truth was, however, too feeble\nto penetrate through the darkness which during this age was spread over\nthe minds and understandings of men. No public declaration, indeed, as\nto the nature of the sacramental elements was made; and even the popes\ndid not interpose their high and revered authority with regard to it;\nbut there seems little doubt that the opinion of Pascasius was adopted\nby the greater part of the western church, although it is not likely\nthat much deference was paid to his explanations of it. The question was\nagain agitated, and attracted more notice than it had ever before done,\nin the course of the eleventh century. Several theologians,\ndistinguished for the period at which they lived, shocked with the\ngrossness and absurdity of the conversion which had been defended,\nstrenuously opposed it. Among these Berenger holds the most conspicuous\nplace, both on account of the zeal and ability which he displayed, and\nthe cruel and unchristian manner in which he was resisted. About the\ncommencement of the century, he began to inculcate that the bread and\nwine of the eucharist were not truly and actually, but only\nfiguratively, and by similitude, the body and blood of Christ; and a\ndoctrine so rational obtained many adherents in France, Italy, and\nEngland. He was, however, encountered by a host of opponents, numbers of\nwhom possessed the highest situations in the church; and the church\nitself, either from having perceived that the doctrine which he laboured\nto confute was grateful to the people, or, what is more likely, tended\nto exalt the powers and to increase the influence and wealth of the\npriesthood, declared against him, various councils having been\nassembled, and having pronounced their solemn decrees in condemnation of\nwhat he taught. The councils did not rest their hope of overcoming\nBerenger upon the strength of the reasoning which they could urge\nagainst him: they took a much more summary method, and threatened to put\nhim to death if he did not recant. At one synod held at Rome, under the\nimmediate eye of the pope, the fathers of whom it consisted so\nsuccessfully alarmed Berenger, that, not having sufficient vigour of\nmind to stand firm against their cruelty, he confessed that he had been\nin error, and subscribed the following declaration composed by one of\nthe cardinals: \u201cThe bread and wine which are placed on the altar are,\nafter consecration, not merely a sacrament, symbol, or figure, but even\nthe true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is handled by\nthe hands of the priests, and broken and chewed by the teeth of the\nfaithful.\u201d He had no sooner escaped from the violence which he had\ndreaded, than he shrunk from the tenet to which he had been forced to\ngive his assent, and he again avowed his original sentiments; but he was\nafterward turned aside from his integrity by the arts and the infamous\npersecution of new councils, although he died adhering to the\nspirituality of Christ\u2019s presence in the eucharist. From this time the\nstrange opinion of Pascasius rapidly gained ground, being supported by\nall the influence of popes and councils; but there had not yet been\ndevised a term which clearly expressed what was really implied in that\nopinion. In the next century, the ingenuity of some theologian invented\nwhat was wanting; the change that takes place on the elements after\nconsecration having been denominated by him transubstantiation. Still,\nhowever, some latitude was afforded to those who interpreted the\nepithet; but this in the thirteenth century was taken away, a celebrated\ncouncil of the Lateran, attended by no fewer than four hundred and\ntwelve bishops, and eight hundred abbots and priors, having, at the\ninstigation of Innocent the Third, one of the most arrogant and\npresumptuous of the pontiffs, explicitly adopted transubstantiation as\nan article of faith, in the monstrous form in which it is now held in\nthe popish church, and denounced anathemas against all who hesitated to\ngive their assent. The opposition which after this was made to a\ndoctrine so revolting to the senses and the reason, was very feeble,\ninsomuch that it may, in consequence of the decree of the Lateran\ncouncil, be considered as having become the established faith of the\nwestern church. In the Greek church it was long resisted, and, indeed,\nwas not embraced till the seventeenth century, a time at which it might\nhave been thought that it could not have extended the range of its\ninfluence.\n\nAfter transubstantiation was thus sanctioned, a change necessarily took\nplace with respect to various parts of the service used in administering\nthe eucharist. That solemn service was now viewed as an actual sacrifice\nor offering of the body of Christ for the sins of men, and the elevation\nof the host was held forth as calling for the adoration and worship of\nbelievers; so that an ordinance mercifully designed to preserve the pure\ninfluence of the most spiritual and elevated religion, became the\ninstrument, in the hands of ignorant or corrupt men, of introducing the\nmost senseless and degrading idolatry. When the Reformation shook the\ninfluence of the church, and brought into exercise the intellectual\nfaculties of man, the subject of the eucharist demanded and received the\nclosest and most anxious attention. It might have been naturally\nsupposed, that when Luther directed his vigorous mind to point out and\nto condemn the abuses which had been sanctioned in the popish church, he\nwould not have spared a doctrine the most irrational and objectionable\nwhich that church avows, and that he would have vindicated the holy\nordinance of the Lord\u2019s Supper from the abomination with which it had\nbeen associated. He did, indeed, object to transubstantiation, but he\ndid so with a degree of hesitation truly astonishing, although that\nhesitation was displayed by many of the first reformers. He declared\nthat he saw no warrant for believing that the bread and wine were\nactually changed into the body and blood of Christ; but he adhered to\nthe literal import of our Saviour\u2019s words, teaching that his body and\nblood were received, and that they were in some incomprehensible manner\nconjoined or united with the bread and wine. It is quite evident, that\nalthough this system got rid of one difficulty by leaving the testimony\nof the senses as to the bread and wine unchallenged, yet it is just as\nincomprehensible as the other, assumes as a fact what the senses cannot\ndiscern, and involves in it difficulties equally repugnant to the\nplainest dictates of reason. Powerful accordingly as most deservedly was\nhis ascendency, and great as was the veneration with which he was\ncontemplated, he was upon this point happily opposed; his colleague, the\ncelebrated Carlostadt, openly avowing, that when our Lord said of the\nbread, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d he pointed to his own person, and thus taught\nthat the bread was merely the sign or emblem of it. Luther warmly\nresisted this opinion; Carlostadt was obliged, surely in little\nconsistency with the fundamental principle of Protestantism, in\nconsequence of having professed it, to leave Wirtemberg; and although it\nprocured some adherents, yet as it rested upon an assertion of which\nthere could be no proof, it was never extensively disseminated, and was\nultimately abandoned by Carlostadt himself. The discussion, however,\nwhich he had commenced stimulated others to the consideration of the\nsubject, and led Zuinglius, who had previously often meditated upon it,\nand \u0152colampadius, two of the most distinguished reformers, to submit\nto the public the doctrine, that the bread and wine are only symbols of\nChrist\u2019s body and blood, but that the body of our Lord was in heaven, to\nwhich after his resurrection he had ascended. Luther composed several\nworks to confute the opinions of Zuinglius. At the commencement of the\ncontroversy respecting the eucharist among the defenders of the\nProtestant faith, there seem to have been only two opinions, that of\nLuther, asserting that the body and blood of Christ were actually with\nthe bread and wine, and that of Zuinglius, \u0152colampadius, and Bucer,\nthat the bread and wine were the emblems or signs of Christ\u2019s body and\nblood, no other advantage being derived from partaking of them than the\nmoral effect naturally resulting from the commemoration of an event so\nawful and so deeply interesting as the crucifixion of our Redeemer.\nCalvin soon published what may be regarded as a new view of the subject.\nAdmitting the justness of the interpretation of our Lord\u2019s words given\nby Zuinglius, he maintained that spiritual influence was conveyed to\nworthy partakers of the Lord\u2019s Supper, insomuch that Christ may be said\nto be spiritually present with the outward elements. The sentiments of\nthis most eminent theologian made a deep impression upon the public\nmind; and although the churches of Zurich and Berne long adhered to the\ncreed of Zuinglius, yet, through the perseverance and dexterity of\nCalvin, the Swiss Protestant churches at length united with that of\nGeneva in assenting to the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament\nof the Lord\u2019s Supper. In other countries, too, he saw many adhering to\nwhat he had taught, and carrying to as great length as it could be\ncarried what, under his system, must be termed the allegorical language\nwhich he recommended. The French Protestants in their confession thus\nexpress themselves: \u201cWe affirm that the holy supper of our Lord is a\nwitness to us of our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, because that he\nis not only once dead and raised up again from the dead for us, but also\nhe doth indeed feed and nourish us with his flesh and blood. And\nalthough he be now in heaven, and shall remain there till he come to\njudge the world, yet we believe that, by the secret and incomprehensible\nvirtue of his Spirit, he doth nourish and quicken us with the substance\nof his body and blood. But we say that this is done in a spiritual\nmanner; nor do we hereby substitute in place of the effect and truth an\nidle fancy and conceit of our own; but rather, because this mystery of\nour union with Christ is so high a thing that it surmounteth all our\nsenses, yea and the whole order of nature, and in short, because it is\ncelestial, it cannot be comprehended but by faith.\u201d Knox, who revered\nCalvin, carried into Scotland the opinions of that reformer; and in the\noriginal Scottish confessions, similar language, though somewhat more\nguarded than that which has been just quoted, is used: \u201cWe assuredly\nbelieve that in the supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with\nus, that he becometh the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not\nthat we imagine any transubstantiation,--but this union and communion\nwhich we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use\nof the sacrament, is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who by\ntrue faith carrieth us above all things that are visible, carnal, and\nearthly, and maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus.\nWe most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion\nof Christ\u2019s body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his\nblood; so that we confess and undoubtedly believe, that the faithful in\nthe right use of the Lord\u2019s table so do eat the body and drink the blood\nof the Lord Jesus, that he remaineth in them and they in him; yea, that\nthey are so made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, that as the\neternal Godhead hath given to the flesh of Christ Jesus life and\nimmortality, so doth Christ Jesus\u2019s flesh and blood, eaten and drunken\nby us, give to us the same prerogatives.\u201d The church of Scotland, which\ndid not long use this first confession, seems to have seen, in the\ncourse of the following century, the propriety, if not of relinquishing,\nyet of more cautiously employing the phraseology now brought into view;\nfor in the Westminster confession, which is still the standard of faith\nin that church, there is unquestionably a great improvement in the style\nwhich has been adopted in treating of this subject. In it the compilers\ndeclare, that \u201cthe outward elements in the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s\nSupper duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation\nto him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are\nsometimes called by the name of the things they represent; namely the\nbody and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still\nremain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.\u201d Then after\nmost powerfully exposing the absurdity of transubstantiation,\nrepresenting it as repugnant not to Scripture alone, but to reason and\ncommon sense, they proceed: \u201cWorthy receivers, outwardly partaking of\nthe visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith,\nreally and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually,\nreceive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death:\nthe body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in,\nwith, or under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present\nto the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves\nare to their outward senses.\u201d The church of England was in its first\nreformation from popery inclined to adhere to the Lutherans; but in the\ntime of Edward the Sixth, a more correct and Scriptural view seems to\nhave been taken. In the thirty-nine articles, the present creed of the\nEnglish church, it is said of this ordinance: \u201cThe supper of the Lord is\nnot only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among\nthemselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our\nredemption by Christ\u2019s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly,\nworthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a\npartaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup is a partaking of\nthe blood of Christ.\u201d This strong language is, however, in the same\narticle, so modified, as to show that all which was intended by it was\nto represent the spiritual influence conveyed through the Lord\u2019s Supper;\nfor it is taught, \u201cthat the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in\nthe supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.\u201d The idea of\nZuinglius, that the Lord\u2019s Supper is merely a commemoration of Christ\u2019s\ndeath, naturally producing a moral effect upon the serious and\nconsiderate mind, has been held by members of both the established\nchurches in Great Britain. It was vigorously defended, about the\nbeginning of last century, by Bishop Hoadly, in a work which he\nentitled, \u201cA plain Account of the Nature and Ends of the Sacrament of\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper;\u201d and it has more recently been supported by Dr. Bell,\nin a treatise denominated \u201cAn Attempt to ascertain the Authority,\nNature, and Design of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u201d The ingenuity of particular\nindividuals has been exerted in giving other peculiar illustrations of\nthe subject. Cudworth and Bishop Warburton, for example, represented the\nsacrament of the supper under the view of a feast upon a sacrifice; but\nsuch speculations have not influenced the faith of any large\ndenomination of Christians.\n\nTRAVELLING. The mode in which the patriarchs performed their pastoral\nmigrations will be illustrated, with several differences in\ncircumstances, by the following extract from Parsons\u2019 Travels: \u201cIt was\nentertaining enough to see the horde of Arabs decamp, as nothing could\nbe more regular. First went the sheep and goat herds, each with their\nflocks in divisions, according as the chief of each family directed;\nthen followed the camels and asses, loaded with the tents, furniture,\nand kitchen utensils; these were followed by the old men, women, boys,\nand girls, on foot. The children that cannot walk are carried on the\nbacks of the young women, or the boys and girls; and the smallest of the\nlambs and kids are carried under the arms of the children. To each tent\nbelong many dogs, among which are some greyhounds; some tents have from\nten to fourteen dogs, and from twenty to thirty men, women, and\nchildren, belonging to it. The procession is closed by the chief of the\ntribe, whom they call emir and father, (emir means prince,) mounted on\nthe very best horse, and surrounded by the heads of each family, all on\nhorses, with many servants on foot. Between each family is a division or\nspace of one hundred yards, or more, when they migrate; and such great\nregularity is observed, that neither camels, asses, sheep, nor dogs,\nmix, but each keeps to the division to which it belongs, without the\nleast trouble. They had been here eight days, and were going four hours\u2019\njourney to the north-west, to another spring of water. This tribe\nconsisted of about eight hundred and fifty men, women, and children.\nTheir flocks of sheep and goats were about five thousand, beside a great\nnumber of camels, horses, and asses. Horses and greyhounds they breed\nand train up for sale: they neither kill nor sell their ewe lambs. At\nset times a chapter in the Koran is read by the chief of each family,\neither in or near each tent, the whole family being gathered round, and\nvery attentive.\u201d Instead of the Koran of modern times, let us conceive\nof Abraham, and other patriarchal emirs, collecting their numerous\ndependents and teaching them the true religion, and we then see with\nwhat truth they are called the Lord\u2019s \u201cprophets.\u201d\n\nTREASURE. The Hebrew word signifies any thing collected together,\nprovisions, or magazines. So they say, a treasure of corn, of wine, of\noil, of honey, Jer. xli, 8; treasures of gold, silver, brass, Ezek.\nxxviii, 4; Dan. xi, 43. Snow, winds, hail, rain, waters, are in the\ntreasuries of God, Psalm cxxxv, 7; Jer. li, 16. The wise men opened\ntheir treasures, Matt. ii, 11, that is, their packets, or bundles, to\noffer presents to our Saviour. Joseph acquainted his brethren, when they\nfound their money returned in their sacks, that God had given them\ntreasures, Genesis xliii, 23. The treasures of the house of God, whether\nin silver, corn, wine, or oil, were under the care of the Levites. The\nkings of Judah had also keepers of the treasures both in city and\ncountry, 1 Chron. xxvii, 25; and the places where these magazines were\nlaid up were called treasure cities. Pharaoh compelled the Hebrews to\nbuild him treasure cities, or magazines.\n\nTREE is the first and largest of the vegetable kind, consisting of a\nsingle trunk, out of which spring forth branches and leaves. Heat is so\nessential to the growth of trees, that we see them grow larger and\nsmaller in a sort of gradation as the climates in which they stand are\nmore or less hot. The hottest countries yield, in general, the largest\nand tallest trees, and those, also, in much greater beauty and variety\nthan the colder do; and even those plants which are common to both\narrive at a much greater bulk in the southern than in the northern\nclimates; nay, there are some regions so bleak and chill, that they\nraise no vegetables at all to any considerable height. Greenland,\nIceland, and similar places, afford no trees at all; and the shrubs\nwhich grow in them are always little and low. In the warmer climates,\nwhere trees grow to a moderate size, any accidental diminution of the\ncommon heat is found very greatly to impede vegetation; and even in\nEngland the cold summers we sometimes have give us an evident proof of\nthis in the scarcity of produce from all our large fruit trees. Heat,\nwhatever be the producing cause, acts as well upon vegetation one way as\nanother. Thus the heat of manure, and the artificial heat of coal fires\nin stoves, are found to supply the place of the sun. Great numbers of\nthe eastern trees, in their native soil, flower twice in a year, and\nsome flower and bear ripe fruit all the year round; and it is observed\nof these last, that they are at once the most frequent and the most\nuseful to the inhabitants; their fruits, which always hang on them in\nreadiness, containing cool juices, which are good in fevers, and other\nof the common diseases of hot countries. The umbrageous foliage, with\nwhich the God of providence has generally furnished all trees in warm\nclimates, affords a most refreshing and grateful shade to those who seek\nrelief from the direct and hurtful rays of a tropical sun.\n\nThe Land of Promise cannot boast, like many other countries, of\nextensive woods; but considerable thickets of trees and of reeds\nsometimes arise to diversify and adorn the scene. Between the Lake\nSamochonites and the sea of Tiberias, the river Jordan is almost\nconcealed by shady trees from the view of the traveller. When the waters\nof the Jordan are low, the Lake Samochonites is only a marsh, for the\nmost part dry and overgrown with shrubs and reeds. In these thickets,\namong other ferocious animals, the wild boar seeks a covert from the\nburning rays of the sun. Large herds of them are sometimes to be seen on\nthe banks of the river, near the sea of Tiberias, lying among the reeds,\nor feeding under the trees. Such moist and shady places are in all\ncountries the favourite haunts of these fierce and dangerous animals.\nThose marshy coverts are styled woods in the sacred Scriptures; for the\nwild boar of the wood is the name which that creature receives from the\nroyal psalmist: \u201cThe boar out of the wood doth waste it; and the wild\nbeast of the field doth devour it,\u201d Psalm lxxx, 13. The wood of Ephraim,\nwhere the battle was fought between the forces of Absalom and the\nservants of David, was probably a place of the same kind; for the sacred\nhistorian observes, that the wood devoured more people that day than the\nsword, 2 Sam. xviii, 8. Some have supposed the meaning of this passage\nto be, that the soldiers of Absalom were destroyed by the wild beasts of\nthe wood; but it can scarcely be supposed, that in the reign of David,\nwhen the Holy Land was crowded with inhabitants, the wild beasts could\nbe so numerous in one of the woods as to cause such a destruction. But,\nsupposing the wood of Ephraim to have been a morass covered with trees\nand bushes, like the haunts of the wild boar near the banks of Jordan,\nthe difficulty is easily removed. It is certain that such a place has\nmore than once proved fatal to contending armies, partly by suffocating\nthose who in the hurry of flight inadvertently venture over places\nincapable of supporting them, and partly by retarding them till their\npursuers come up and cut them to pieces. In this manner a greater number\nof men than fell in the heat of battle may be destroyed. It is probable,\nhowever, that nothing more is intended by the sacred historian, than the\nmention of a fact familiar to military men in all ages, and whatever\nkind of weapons were then employed in warfare,--that forests, especially\nsuch thick and impassable forests as are common in warm countries,\nconstitute the very worst ground along which a discomfited army can be\ncompelled to retreat. Their orderly ranks are broken; the direction\nwhich each warrior for his own safety must take is uncertain; and while\none tumultuous mass is making a pass for itself through intervening\nbrushwood and closely matted jungle, and another is hurrying along a\ndifferent path and encountering similar or perhaps greater impediments,\nthe cool and deliberate pursuers, whether archers or sharp shooters,\nenjoy an immense advantage in being able to choose their own points of\nannoyance, and by flank or cross attacks to kill their retreating foes,\nwith scarcely any risk to themselves, but with immense carnage to the\nrouted army.\n\nSeveral critics imagine that by \u05e2\u05e5 \u05d7\u05d3\u05e8, rendered \u201cgoodly trees,\u201d Lev.\nxxiii, 40, the citron tree is intended. \u05e2\u05e5-\u05e2\u05d1\u05ea, rendered \u201cthick trees\u201d\nin the same verse, and in Neh. viii, 15; Ezek. xx, 28, is the myrtle,\naccording to the rabbins, the Chaldee paraphrase, Syriac version, and\nDeodatus. The word \u05d0\u05e9\u05dc, translated \u201cgrove\u201d in Gen. xxi, 33, has been\nvariously translated. Parkhurst renders it an oak, and says, that from\nthis word may be derived the name of the famous asylum, opened by\nRomulus between two groves of oak at Rome. On the other hand, Celsius,\nMicha\u0113lis, and Dr. Geddes render it the tamarisk, which is a lofty and\nbeautiful tree, and grows abundantly in Egypt and Arabia. The same word\nin 1 Sam. xxii, 6; xxxi, 13, is rendered \u201ca tree.\u201d It must be noted too,\nthat in the first of these places, the common version is equally obscure\nand contradictory, by making _ramah_ a proper name: it signifies hillock\nor bank. Of the trees that produced precious balsams there was one in\nparticular that long flourished in Judea, having been supposed to have\nbeen an object of great attention to Solomon, which was afterward\ntransplanted to Matarea, in Egypt, where it continued till about two\nhundred and fifty years ago, according to Maillet, who gives a\ndescription of it, drawn, it is supposed, from the Arabian authors, in\nwhich he says, \u201cThis shrub had two very differently coloured barks, the\none red, the other perfectly green; that they tasted strongly like\nincense and turpentine, and when bruised between the fingers they smelt\nvery nearly like cardamoms. This balsam, which was extremely precious\nand celebrated, and was used by the Coptic church in their chrism, was\nproduced by a very low shrub; and it is said, that all those shrubs that\nproduced balsams are every where low, and do not exceed two or three\ncubits in height.\u201d\n\nDescriptions of the principal trees and shrubs mentioned in Holy Writ\nthe reader will find noticed in distinct articles under their several\ndenominations.\n\nTRIBE. Jacob having twelve sons, who were the heads of so many great\nfamilies, which altogether formed a great nation; every one of these\nfamilies was called a tribe. But Jacob on his death bed adopted Ephraim\nand Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, and would have them also to constitute\ntwo tribes of Israel, Gen. xlviii, 5. Instead of twelve tribes, there\nwere now thirteen, that of Joseph being divided into two. However, in\nthe distribution of lands to each which Joshua made by the order of God,\nthey counted but twelve tribes, and made but twelve lots. For the tribe\nof Levi, which was appointed to the service of the tabernacle of the\nLord, had no share in the distribution of the land, but only some cities\nin which to dwell, and the first fruits, tithes, and oblations of the\npeople, which was all their subsistence. The twelve tribes continued\nunited under one head, making but one state, one people, and one\nmonarchy, till after the death of Solomon. Then ten of the tribes of\nIsrael revolted from the house of David, and received for their king\nJeroboam, the son of Nebat; and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin\ncontinued under the government of Rehoboam. This separation may be\nlooked upon as the chief cause of those great misfortunes that afterward\nhappened to those two kingdoms, and to the whole Hebrew nation. For,\nfirst, it was the cause of the alteration and change of the old\nreligion, and of the ancient worship of their forefathers. Jeroboam the\nson of Nebat substituted the worship of golden calves for the worship of\nthe true God; which was the occasion of the ten tribes forsaking the\ntemple of the Lord. Secondly, this schism caused an irreconcilable\nhatred between the ten tribes, and those of Judah and Benjamin, and\ncreated numerous wars and disputes between them. The Lord, being\nprovoked, delivered them up to their enemies. Tiglath-Pileser first took\naway captive the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, and the half tribe of\nManasseh, which were beyond Jordan, and carried them beyond the\nEuphrates, 2 Kings xv, 29; 1 Chron. v, 26; A. M. 3264. Some years after,\nShalmaneser king of Assyria took the city of Samaria, destroyed it, took\naway the rest of the inhabitants of Israel, carried them beyond the\nEuphrates, and sent other inhabitants into the country to cultivate and\npossess it, 2 Kings xvii, 6; xviii, 10, 11. Thus ended the kingdom of\nthe ten tribes of Israel, A. M. 3283. As to the tribes of Judah and\nBenjamin, who remained under the government of the kings of the family\nof David, they continued a much longer time in their own country. But at\nlast, after they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, God\ndelivered them all into the hands of their enemies. Nebuchadnezzar took\nthe city of Jerusalem, entirely ruined it, and took away all the\ninhabitants of Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, and the other provinces of\nhis empire, A. M. 3416. The return from this captivity is stated in the\nbooks of Ezra and Nehemiah. See JEWS.\n\nTRIBUTE. The Hebrews acknowledged none for sovereign over them but God\nalone; whence Josephus calls their government a theocracy, or divine\ngovernment. They acknowledged the sovereign dominion of God by a\ntribute, or capitation tax, of half a shekel a head, which every\nIsraelite paid yearly, Exod. xxx, 13. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, thus\nreasons with St. Peter: \u201cWhat thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings\nof the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of\nstrangers?\u201d Matt. xvii, 25, meaning, that as he was the Son of God, he\nought to be exempt from this capitation tax. We do not find that either\nthe kings or the judges of the Hebrews, when they were themselves Jews,\ndemanded any tribute of them. Solomon, at the beginning of his reign, 1\nKings xi, 22, 33; 2 Chron. viii, 9, compelled the Canaanites, who were\nleft in the country, to pay him tribute, and to perform the drudgery of\nthe public works he had undertaken. As to the children of Israel, he\nwould not suffer one of them to be employed upon them, but made them his\nsoldiers, ministers, and chief officers, to command his armies, his\nchariots, and his horsemen. Yet, afterward, toward the end of his reign,\nhe imposed a tribute upon them, and made them work at the public\nbuildings, 1 Kings v, 13, 14; ix, 15; xi, 27; which much alienated their\nminds from him, and sowed the seeds of that discontent which afterward\nappeared in an open revolt, by the rebellion of Jeroboam, the son of\nNebat; who was at first indeed obliged to take shelter in Egypt. But\nafterward the defection became general, by the total revolt of the ten\ntribes. Hence it was, that the Israelites said to Rehoboam the son of\nSolomon, \u201cThy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore, make thou\nthe grievous service of thy father, and the heavy yoke which he put upon\nus, lighter, and we will serve thee,\u201d 1 Kings xii, 4. It is needless to\nobserve, that the Israelites were frequently subdued by foreign princes,\nwho laid great taxes and tribute upon them, to which fear and necessity\ncompelled them to submit. Yet in the latter times, that is, after\nArchelaus had been banished to Vienne in France, in the sixth year of\nthe vulgar era, and after Judea was reduced to a province, Augustus sent\nQuirinius into this country to take a new poll of the people, and to\nmake a new estimate of their substance, that he might thereby regulate\nthe tribute that every one was to pay to the Romans. Then Judas,\nsurnamed the Galilean, formed a sedition, and made an insurrection, to\noppose the levying of this tribute. See in St. Matthew xxii, 16, 17, &c,\nthe answer that Jesus Christ returned to the Pharisee, who came with an\ninsidious design of tempting him, and asked him, whether or not it was\nlawful to pay tribute to C\u00e6sar? and in John viii, 33, where the Jews\nboast of having never been slaves to any body, of being a free nation,\nthat acknowledged God only for master and sovereign.\n\nTRINITY. That nearly all the Pagan nations of antiquity, says Bishop\nTomline, in their various theological systems, acknowledged a kind of\nTrinity, has been fully evinced by those learned men who have made the\nHeathen mythology the subject of their elaborate inquiries. The almost\nuniversal prevalence of this doctrine in the Gentile kingdoms must be\nconsidered as a strong argument in favour of its truth. The doctrine\nitself bears such striking internal marks of a divine original, and is\nso very unlikely to have been the invention of mere human reason, that\nthere is no way of accounting for the general adoption of so singular a\nbelief, but by supposing that it was revealed by God to the early\npatriarchs, and that it was transmitted by them to their posterity. In\nits progress, indeed, to remote countries, and to distant generations,\nthis belief became depraved and corrupted in the highest degree; and he\nalone who brought \u201clife and immortality to light,\u201d could restore it to\nits original simplicity and purity. The discovery of the existence of\nthis doctrine in the early ages, among the nations whose records have\nbeen the best preserved, has been of great service to the cause of\nChristianity, and completely refutes the assertion of infidels and\nskeptics, that the sublime and mysterious doctrine of the Trinity owes\nits origin to the philosophers of Greece. \u201cIf we extend,\u201d says Mr.\nMaurice, \u201cour eye through the remote region of antiquity, we shall find\nthis very doctrine, which the primitive Christians are said to have\nborrowed from the Platonic school, universally and immemorially\nflourishing in all those countries where history and tradition have\nunited to fix those virtuous ancestors of the human race, who, for their\ndistinguished attainments in piety, were admitted to a familiar\nintercourse with Jehovah and the angels, the divine heralds of his\ncommands.\u201d The same learned author justly considers the first two verses\nof the Old Testament as containing very strong, if not decisive,\nevidence in support of the truth of this doctrine: Elohim, a noun\nsubstantive of the plural number, by which the Creator is expressed,\nappears as evidently to point toward a plurality of persons in the\ndivine nature, as the verb in the singular, with which it is joined,\ndoes to the unity of that nature: \u201cIn the beginning God created;\u201d with\nstrict attention to grammatical propriety, the passage should be\nrendered, \u201cIn the beginning Gods created,\u201d but our belief in the unity\nof God forbids us thus to translate the word Elohim. Since, therefore,\nElohim is plural, and no plural can consist of less than two in number,\nand since creation can alone be the work of Deity, we are to understand\nby this term so particularly used in this place, God the Father, and the\neternal Logos, or Word of God; that Logos whom St. John, supplying us\nwith an excellent comment upon this passage, says, was in the beginning\nwith God, and who also was God. As the Father and the Son are expressly\npointed out in the first verse of this chapter, so is the Third Person\nin the blessed Trinity not less decisively revealed to us in Gen. i, 2:\n\u201cAnd the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters:\u201d \u201cbrooded\nupon\u201d the water, _incubavit_, as a hen broods over her eggs. Thus we see\nthe Spirit exerted upon this occasion an active effectual energy, by\nthat energy agitating the vast abyss, and infusing into it a powerful\nvital principle.\n\nElohim seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead\nis collectively distinguished in Scripture; and in the concise history\nof the creation only, the expression, _bara Elohim_, \u201cthe Gods created,\u201d\nis used above thirty times. The combining this plural noun with a verb\nin the singular would not appear so remarkable, if Moses had uniformly\nadhered to that mode of expression; for then it would be evident that he\nadopted the mode used by the Gentiles in speaking of their false gods in\nthe plural number, but by joining with it a singular verb or adjective,\nrectified a phrase that might appear to give a direct sanction to the\nerror of polytheism. But, in reality, the reverse is the fact; for in\nDeut. xxxii, 15, 17, and other places, he uses the singular number of\nthis very noun to express the Deity, though not employed in the august\nwork of creation: \u201cHe forsook God,\u201d _Eloah_; \u201cthey sacrificed to devils\nnot to God,\u201d _Eloah_. But farther, Moses himself uses this very word\nElohim with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix\nenumerates many other striking instances that might be brought from the\nPentateuch; and other inspired writers use it in the same manner in\nvarious parts of the Old Testament, Job xxxv, 10; Joshua xxiv, 19; Psalm\ncix, 1; Ecclesiastes xii, 3; 2 Samuel vii, 23. It must appear,\ntherefore, to every reader of reflection, exceedingly singular, that\nwhen Moses was endeavouring to establish a theological system, of which\nthe unity of the Godhead was the leading principle, and in which it\ndiffered from all other systems, he should make use of terms directly\nimplicative of a plurality in it; yet so deeply was the awful truth\nunder consideration impressed upon the mind of the Hebrew legislator,\nthat this is constantly done by him; and, indeed, as Allix has observed,\nthere is scarcely any method of speaking from which a plurality in Deity\nmay be inferred, that is not used either by himself in the Pentateuch,\nor by the other inspired writers in various parts of the Old Testament.\nA plural is joined with a verb singular, as in the passage cited before\nfrom Genesis i, 1; a plural is joined with a verb plural, as in Gen.\nxxxv, 7, \u201cAnd Jacob called the name of the place El-beth-el, because the\nGods there appeared to him;\u201d a plural is joined with an adjective\nplural, Joshua xxiv, 19, \u201cYou cannot serve the Lord; for he is the holy\nGods.\u201d To these passages, if we add that remarkable one from\nEcclesiastes, \u201cRemember thy Creators in the days of thy youth,\u201d and the\npredominant use of the terms, Jehovah Elohim, or, the \u201cLord thy Gods,\u201d\nwhich occur a hundred times in the law, (the word Jehovah implying the\nunity of the essence, and Elohim a plurality in that unity,) we must\nallow that nothing can be more plainly marked than this doctrine in the\nancient Scriptures.\n\nThough the august name of Jehovah in a more peculiar manner belongs to\nGod the Father, yet is that name, in various parts of Scripture, applied\nto each person in the holy Trinity. The Hebrews considered that name in\nso sacred a light, that they never pronounced it, and used the word\nAdonai instead of it. It was, indeed, a name that ranked first among\ntheir profoundest cabala; a mystery, sublime, ineffable, incommunicable.\nIt was called tetragrammaton, or the name of four letters, and these\nletters are _jod_, _he_, _vau_, _he_, the proper pronunciation of which,\nfrom long disuse, is said to be no longer known to the Jews themselves.\nThis awful name was first revealed by God to Moses from the centre of\nthe burning bush; and Josephus, who, as well as Scripture, relates this\ncircumstance, evinces his veneration for it, by calling it the name\nwhich his religion did not permit him to mention. From this word the\nPagan title of Iao and Jove is, with the greatest probability, supposed\nto have been originally formed; and in the Golden Verses of Pythagoras,\nthere is an oath still extant to this purpose, \u201cBy Him who has the four\nletters.\u201d As the name Jehovah, however, in some instances applied to the\nSon and the Holy Spirit, was the proper name of God the Father, so is\nLogos in as peculiar a manner the appropriated name of God the Son. The\nChaldee Paraphrasts translate the original Hebrew text by _Mimra da\nJehovah_, literally, \u201cthe Word of Jehovah,\u201d a term totally different, as\nBishop Kidder has incontestably proved, in its signification, and in its\ngeneral application among the Jews, from the Hebrew _dabar_, which\nsimply means a discourse or decree, and is properly rendered by\n_pithgam_. In the Septuagint translation of the Bible, a work supposed\nby the Jews to have been undertaken by men immediately inspired from\nabove, the former term is universally rendered \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, and it is so\nrendered and so understood by Philo and all the more ancient rabbins.\nThe name of the third person in the ever blessed Trinity has descended\nunaltered from the days of Moses to our own time; for, as well in the\nsacred writings as by the Targumists, and by the modern doctors of the\nJewish church, he is styled Ruach Hakhodesh, the Holy Spirit. He is\nsometimes, however, in the rabbinical books, denominated by Shechinah,\nor glory of Jehovah; in some places he is called Sephirah, or Wisdom;\nand in others the Binah, or Understanding. From the enumeration of these\ncircumstances, it must be sufficiently evident to the mind which unites\npiety and reflection, that so far from being silent upon the subject,\nthe ancient Scriptures commence with an avowal of this doctrine, and\nthat, in fact, the creation was the result of the joint operations of\nthe Trinity.\n\nIf the argument above offered should still appear inconclusive, the\ntwenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains so pointed\nan attestation to the truth of it, that, when duly considered, it must\nstagger the most hardened skeptic; for in that text not only the\nplurality is unequivocally expressed, but the act which is the peculiar\nprerogative of Deity is mentioned together with that plurality, the one\ncircumstance illustrating the other, and both being highly elucidatory\nof this doctrine: \u201cAnd God (Elohim) said, Let _us_ make man in our\nimage, after our likeness.\u201d Why the Deity should speak of himself in the\nplural number, unless that Deity consisted of more than one person, it\nis difficult to conceive; for the answer given by the modern Jews, that\nthis is only a figurative mode of expression, implying the high dignity\nof the speaker, and that it is usual for earthly sovereigns to use this\nlanguage by way of distinction, is futile, for two reasons. In the first\nplace it is highly degrading to the Supreme Majesty to suppose he would\ntake his model of speaking and thinking from man, though it is highly\nconsistent with the vanity of man to arrogate to himself, as doubtless\nwas the case in the licentiousness of succeeding ages, the style and\nimagined conceptions of Deity; and it will be remembered, that these\nsolemn words were spoken before the creation of any of those mortals,\nwhose false notions of greatness and sublimity the Almighty is thus\nimpiously supposed to adopt. In truth, there does not seem to be any\nreal dignity in an expression, which, when used by a human sovereign in\nrelation to himself, approaches very near to absurdity. The genuine\nfact, however, appears to be this. When the tyrants of the east first\nbegan to assume divine honours, they assumed likewise the majestic\nlanguage appropriated to, and highly becoming, the Deity, but totally\ninapplicable to man. The error was propagated from age to age through a\nlong succession of despots, and at length Judaic apostasy arrived at\nsuch a pitch of profane absurdity, as to affirm that very phraseology to\nbe borrowed from man which was the original and peculiar language of the\nDivinity. It was, indeed, remarkably pertinent when applied to Deity;\nfor, in a succeeding chapter, we have more decisive authority for what\nis thus asserted, where the Lord God himself says, \u201cBehold, the man is\nbecome as one of us;\u201d a very singular expression, which some Jewish\ncommentators, with equal effrontery, contend was spoken by the Deity to\nthe council of angels, that, according to their assertions, attended him\nat the creation. From the name of the Lord God being used in so\nemphatical a manner, it evidently appears to be addressed to those\nsacred persons to whom it was before said, \u201cLet us make man;\u201d for would\nindeed the omnipotent Jehovah, presiding in a less dignified council,\nuse words that have such an evident tendency to place the Deity on a\nlevel with created beings?\n\nThe first passage to be adduced from the New Testament in proof of this\nimportant doctrine of the Trinity, is, the charge and commission which\nour Saviour gave to his apostles, to \u201cgo and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost,\u201d Matt. xxviii, 19. The Gospel is every where in Scripture\nrepresented as a covenant or conditional offer of eternal salvation from\nGod to man; and baptism was the appointed ordinance by which men were to\nbe admitted into that covenant, by which that offer was made and\naccepted. This covenant being to be made with God himself, the ordinance\nmust of course be performed in his name; but Christ directed that it\nshould be performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost; and therefore we conclude that God is the same as the\nFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since baptism is to be performed in\nthe name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they must be all\nthree persons; and since no superiority or difference whatever is\nmentioned in this solemn form of baptism, we conclude that these three\npersons are all of one substance, power, and eternity. Are we to be\nbaptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\nand is it possible that the Father should be self-existent, eternal, the\nLord God Omnipotent; and that the Son, in whose name we are equally\nbaptized, should be a mere man, born of a woman, and subject to all the\nfrailties and imperfections of human nature? or, is it possible that the\nHoly Ghost, in whose name also we are equally baptized, should be a bare\nenergy or operation, a quality or power, without even personal\nexistence? Our feelings, as well as our reason, revolt from the idea of\nsuch disparity.\n\nThis argument will derive great strength from the practice of the early\nages, and from the observations which we meet with in several of the\nancient fathers relative to it. We learn from Ambrose, that persons at\nthe time of their baptism, declared their belief in the three persons of\nthe Holy Trinity, and that they were dipped in the water three times. In\nhis Treatise upon the Sacraments he says, \u201cThou wast asked at thy\nbaptism, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? and thou didst\nreply, I believe, and thou wast dipped; and a second time thou wast\nasked, Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ the Lord? thou didst answer\nagain, I believe, and thou wast dipped; a third time the question was\nrepeated, Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? and the answer was, I\nbelieve, then thou wast dipped a third time.\u201d It is to be noticed, that\nthe belief, here expressed separately, in the three persons of the\nTrinity, is precisely the same in all. Tertullian, Basil, and Jerom, all\nmention this practice of trine immersion as ancient; and Jerom says, \u201cWe\nare thrice dipped in the water, that the mystery of the Trinity may\nappear to be but one. We are not baptized in the names of Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost, but in one name, which is God\u2019s; and, therefore, though\nwe be thrice put under water to represent the mystery of the Trinity,\nyet it is reputed but one baptism.\u201d Thus the mysterious union of the\nFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one God, was, in the opinion of\nthe purer ages of the Christian church, clearly expressed in this form\nof baptism. By it the primitive Christians understood the Father\u2019s\ngracious acceptance of the atonement offered by the Messiah; the\npeculiar protection of the Son, our great High Priest and Intercessor;\nand the readiness of the Holy Ghost to sanctify, to assist, and to\ncomfort all the obedient followers of Christ, confirmed by the visible\ngift of tongues, of prophecy, and divers other gifts to the first\ndisciples. And as their great Master\u2019s instructions evidently\ndistinguished these persons from each other, without any difference in\ntheir authority or power, all standing forth as equally dispensing the\nbenefits of Christianity, as equally the objects of the faith required\nin converts upon admission into the church, they clearly understood that\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were likewise equally the\nobjects of their grateful worship: this fully appears from their\nprayers, doxologies, hymns, and creeds, which are still extant.\n\nThe second passage to be produced in support of the doctrine now under\nconsideration, is, the doxology at the conclusion of St. Paul\u2019s Second\nEpistle to the Corinthians, \u201cThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the\nlove of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you.\u201d The\nmanner in which Christ and the Holy Ghost are here mentioned, implies\nthat they are persons, for none but persons can confer grace or\nfellowship; and these three great blessings of grace, love, and\nfellowship, being respectively prayed for by the inspired apostle from\nJesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, without any intimation\nof disparity, we conclude that these three persons are equal and Divine.\nThis solemn benediction may therefore be considered as another proof of\nthe Trinity, since it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus Christ and of\nthe Holy Ghost. The third passage is the following salutation or\nbenediction in the beginning of the Revelation of St. John: \u201cGrace and\npeace from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from\nthe seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ.\u201d\nHere the Father is described by a periphrasis taken from his attribute\nof eternity; and \u201cthe seven spirits\u201d is a mystical expression for the\nHoly Ghost, used upon this occasion either because the salutation is\naddressed to seven churches, every one of which had partaken of the\nSpirit, or because seven was a sacred number among the Jews, denoting\nboth variety and perfection, and in this case alluding to the various\ngifts, administrations, and operations of the Holy Ghost. Since grace\nand peace are prayed for from these three persons jointly and without\ndiscrimination, we infer an equality in their power to dispense those\nblessings; and we farther conclude that these three persons together\nconstitute the Supreme Being, who is alone the object of prayer, and is\nalone the Giver of every good and of every perfect gift. It might be\nright to remark, that the seven spirits cannot mean angels, since\nprayers are never in Scripture addressed to angels, nor are blessings\never pronounced in their name. It is unnecessary to quote any of the\nnumerous passages in which the Father is singly called God, as some of\nthem must be recollected by every one, and the divinity of the Father is\nnot called in question by any sect of Christians; and those passages\nwhich prove the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost separately,\nwill be more properly considered under those heads. In the mean time we\nmay observe, that if it shall appear from Scripture, that Christ is God,\nand the Holy Ghost is God, it will follow, since we are assured that\nthere is but one God, that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and\nthe Holy Ghost, by a mysterious union, constitute the one God, or, as it\nis expressed in the first article of the church of England: \u201cThere is a\nTrinity in Unity; and in the unity of this Godhead there be three\nPersons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and\nthe Holy Ghost.\u201d\n\nThe word Trinity does not occur in Scripture, nor do we find it in any\nof the early confessions of faith; but this is no argument against the\ndoctrine itself, since we learn from the fathers of the first three\ncenturies, that the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost was, from\nthe days of the Apostles, acknowledged by the catholic church, and that\nthose who maintained a contrary opinion were considered as heretics; and\nas every one knows that neither the divinity of the Father, nor the\nunity of the Godhead, was ever called in question at any period, it\nfollows that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity has been in substance,\nin all its constituent parts, always known among Christians. In the\nfourth century it became the subject of eager and general controversy;\nand it was not till then that this doctrine was particularly discussed.\nWhile there was no denial or dispute, proof and defence were\nunnecessary: _Nunquid enim perfect\u00e9 de Trinitate tractatum est, antequam\noblatrarent Ariani?_ But this doctrine is positively mentioned as being\nadmitted among catholic Christians, by writers who lived long before\nthat age of controversy. Justin Martyr, in refuting the charge of\natheism urged against Christians, because they did not believe in the\ngods of the Heathen, expressly says, \u201cWe worship and adore the Father,\nand the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the\nprophetic Spirit;\u201d and soon after, in the same apology, he undertakes to\nshow the reasonableness of the honour paid by Christians to the Father\nin the first place, to the Son in the second, and to the Holy Ghost in\nthe third; and says, that their assigning the second place to a\ncrucified man, was, by unbelievers, denominated madness, because they\nwere ignorant of the mystery, which he then proceeds to explain.\nAthenagoras, in replying to the same charge of atheism urged against\nChristians, because they refused to worship the false gods of the\nHeathen, says, \u201cWho would not wonder, when he knows that we, who call\nupon God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, showing\ntheir power in the unity, and their distinction in order, should be\ncalled atheists?\u201d Clement of Alexandria not only mentions three divine\npersons, but invokes them as one only God. Praxeas, Sabellius, and other\nUnitarians, accused the orthodox Christians of tritheism, which is of\nitself a clear proof that the orthodox worshipped the Father, the Son,\nand the Holy Ghost; and though in reality they considered these three\npersons as constituting the one true God, it is obvious that their\nenemies might easily represent that worship as an acknowledgment of\nthree Gods. Tertullian, in writing against Praxeas, maintains, that a\nTrinity rationally conceived is consistent with truth, and that unity\nirrationally conceived forms heresy. He had before said, in speaking of\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that \u201cthere are three of one substance,\nand of one condition, and of one power, because there is one God:\u201d and\nhe afterward adds, \u201cThe connection of the Father in the Son, and of the\nSon in the Comforter, makes three united together, the one with the\nother; which three are one thing, not one person; as it is said, I and\nthe Father are one thing, with regard to the unity of substance, not to\nthe singularity of number:\u201d and he also expressly says, \u201cThe Father is\nGod, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God;\u201d and again, \u201cThe\nFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, believed to be three, constitute\none God.\u201d And in another part of his works he says, \u201cThere is a Trinity\nof one Divinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.\u201d And\nTertullian not only maintains these doctrines, but asserts that they\nwere prior to any heresy, and had, indeed, been the faith of Christians\nfrom the first promulgation of the Gospel. To these writers of the\nsecond century, we may add Origen and Cyprian in the third; the former\nof whom mentions baptism (alluding to its appointed form) as \u201cthe source\nand fountain of graces to him who dedicates himself to the divinity of\nthe adorable Trinity.\u201d And the latter, after reciting the same form of\nbaptism, says that \u201cby it Christ delivered the doctrine of the Trinity,\nunto which mystery or sacrament the nations were to be baptized.\u201d It\nwould be easy to multiply quotations upon this subject; but these are\namply sufficient to show the opinions of the early fathers, and to\nrefute the assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity was an invention\nof the fourth century. To these positive testimonies may be subjoined a\nnegative argument: those who acknowledged the divinity of Christ and of\nthe Holy Ghost, are never called heretics by any writer of the first\nthree centuries; and this circumstance is surely a strong proof that the\ndoctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the primitive church; more\nespecially, since the names of those who first denied the divinity of\nChrist and of the Holy Ghost, are transmitted to us as of persons who\ndissented from the common faith of Christians.\n\nBut while we contend that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is\nfounded in Scripture, and supported by the authority of the early\nChristians, we must acknowledge that it is not given to man to\nunderstand in what manner the three persons are united, or how,\nseparately and jointly, they are God. It would, perhaps, have been well,\nif divines, in treating this awful and mysterious subject, had confined\nthemselves to the expressions of Scripture; for the moment we begin to\nexplain it beyond the written word of God, we plunge ourselves into\ninextricable difficulties. And how can it be otherwise? Is it to be\nexpected that our finite understandings should be competent to the full\ncomprehension of the nature and properties of an infinite Being? \u201cCan we\nfind out the Almighty to perfection,\u201d Job xi, 7; or penetrate into the\nessence of the Most High? \u201cGod is a Spirit,\u201d John iv, 24, and our gross\nconceptions are but ill-adapted to the contemplation of a pure and\nspiritual Being. We know not the essence of our own mind, nor the\nprecise distinction of its several faculties; and why then should we\nhope to comprehend the personal characters which exist in the Godhead?\n\u201cIf I tell you earthly things, and you understand them not, how shall ye\nunderstand if I tell you heavenly things?\u201d When we attempt to\ninvestigate the nature of the Deity, whose existence is commensurate\nwith eternity, by whose power the universe was created, and by whose\nwisdom it is governed; whose presence fills all space, and whose\nknowledge extends to the thoughts of every man in every age, and to the\nevents of all places, past, present, and to come, the mind is quickly\nlost in the vastness of these ideas, and, unable to find any sure guide\nto direct its progress, it becomes, at every step, more bewildered and\nentangled in the endless mazes of metaphysical abstraction. \u201cGod is a\nGod that hideth himself.\u201d \u201cWe cannot by searching find out God.\u201d\n\u201cBehold, God is great, and we know him not,\u201d Job xxiii, 9; xi, 7; xxxvi,\n26. \u201cSuch knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for us; it is high;\nwe cannot attain unto it,\u201d Psalm cxxxix, 6. It is for us, simply and in\nthat docile spirit which becomes us, to receive the testimony of God as\nto himself, and to fix ourselves upon that firmest of all foundations,\nand most rational of all evidence, \u201cThus saith the Lord.\u201d\n\nTRIUMPHS, MILITARY. The Hebrews, under the direction of inspired\nprophets, celebrated their victories by triumphal processions, the women\nand children dancing, and playing upon musical instruments, and singing\nhymns and songs of triumph to the living and true God. The song of Moses\nat the Red Sea, which was sung by Miriam and the women of Israel to the\ndulcet beat of the timbrel, is a majestic example of the triumphal hymns\nof the ancient Hebrews. The song of Deborah and Barak, after the\ndecisive battle in which Sisera lost his life, and Jabin his dominion\nover the tribes of Israel, is a production of the same sort, in which\nthe spirit of genuine heroism and of true religion are admirably\ncombined. But the song which the women of Israel chanted when they went\nout to meet Saul and his victorious army, after the death of Goliath,\nand the discomfiture of the Philistines, possesses somewhat of a\ndifferent character, turning chiefly on the valorous exploits of Saul\nand the youthful champion of Israel: \u201cAnd it came to pass, as they came,\nwhen David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the\nwomen came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet\nKing Saul with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music: and the\nwomen answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his\nthousands, and David his ten thousands,\u201d 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7. But the\nmost remarkable festivity, perhaps, on the records of history, was\ncelebrated by Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, in a succeeding age. When\nthat religious prince led forth his army to battle against a powerful\nconfederacy of his neighbours, he appointed a band of sacred music to\nmarch in front, praising the beauty of holiness as they went before the\narmy, \u201cand to say, Praise the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever.\u201d\nAfter the discomfiture of their enemies, he assembled his army in the\nvalley of Beracha, near the scene of victory, where they resumed the\nanthem of religious praise: \u201cThen they returned, every man of Judah and\nJerusalem, and Jehoshaphat in the fore front of them, to go again to\nJerusalem with joy; for the Lord had made them to rejoice over their\nenemies. And they came to Jerusalem with psalteries, and harps, and\ntrumpets, unto the house of the Lord,\u201d 2 Chron. xx, 21, 27. Instead of\ncelebrating his own heroism, or the valour of his troops, on this\nmemorable occasion, that excellent prince sung with his whole army the\npraises of the Lord of hosts, who disposes of the victory according to\nhis pleasure. This conduct was becoming the descendant and successor of\nDavid, the man according to God\u2019s own heart, and a religious people, the\npeculiar inheritance of Jehovah.\n\nThe Roman conquerors used to carry branches of palm in their hands when\nthey went in triumph to the capitol; and sometimes wore the _toga\npalmata_, a garment with the figures of palm trees upon it, which were\ninterwoven in the fabric. In the same triumphant attitude, the Apostle\nJohn beheld in vision those who had overcome by the blood of the lamb,\nstanding \u201cbefore the throne, clothed with white robes, and palms in\ntheir hands,\u201d Rev. vii, 9. The highest military honour which could be\nobtained in the Roman state, was a triumph, or solemn procession, in\nwhich a victorious general and his army advanced through the city to the\ncapitol. He set out from the Campus Martius, and proceeded along the Via\nTriumphalis, and from thence through the most public places of the city.\nThe streets were strewed with flowers, and the altars smoked with\nincense. First went a numerous band of music, singing and playing\ntriumphal songs; next were led the oxen to be sacrificed, having their\nhorns gilt, and their heads adorned with fillets and garlands; then, in\ncarriages, were brought the spoils taken from the enemy; also golden\ncrowns sent by the allied and tributary states. The titles of the\nvanquished nations were inscribed on wooden frames; and images or\nrepresentations of the conquered countries and cities were exhibited.\nThe captive leaders followed in chains, with their children and\nattendants; after the captives came the lictors, having their faces\nwreathed with laurel, followed by a great company of musicians and\ndancers, dressed like satyrs, and wearing crowns of gold; in the midst\nof whom was a pantomime, clothed in a female garb, whose business it\nwas, with his looks and gestures, to insult the vanquished; a long train\nof persons followed, carrying perfumes; after them came the general,\ndressed in purple, embroidered with gold, with a crown of laurel on his\nhead, a branch of laurel in his right hand, and in his left an ivory\nsceptre, with an eagle on the top, his face painted with vermilion, and\na golden ball hanging from his neck on his breast; he stood upright in a\ngilded chariot, adorned with ivory, and drawn by four white horses,\nattended by his relations, and a great crowd of citizens, all in white.\nHis children rode in the chariot along with him; his lieutenants and\nmilitary tribunes, commonly by his side. After the general followed the\nconsuls and senators, on foot; and the whole procession was closed by\nthe victorious army drawn up in order, crowned with laurel, and\ndecorated with the gifts which they had received for their valour,\nsinging their own and their general\u2019s praises. The triumphal procession\nwas not confined to the Romans; the Greeks had a similar custom; for the\nconquerors used to make a procession through the middle of their city,\ncrowned with garlands, repeating hymns and songs, and brandishing their\nspears; the captives followed in chains, and all their spoils were\nexposed to public view.\n\nThe great Apostle of the Gentiles alludes to these splendid triumphal\nscenes in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he mentions the glorious\nascension of his Redeemer into heaven: \u201cWhen he ascended up on high, he\nled captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men,\u201d Eph. iv, 8. These words\nare a quotation from the sixty-eighth Psalm, where David in spirit\ndescribes the ascension of Messiah in very glowing colours: \u201cThe\nchariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord\nis among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on\nhigh, thou hast led captivity captive,\u201d or an immense number of\ncaptives; \u201cthou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious\nalso; that the Lord God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who\ndaily loadeth us with his benefits, even the God of our salvation.\nSelah,\u201d Psalm lxviii, 17\u201319. Knowing the deep impression which such an\nallusion is calculated to make on the mind of a people familiarly\nacquainted with triumphal scenes, the Apostle returns to it in his\nEpistle to the Colossians, which was written about the same time:\n\u201cHaving spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them\nopenly, triumphing over them in it,\u201d Col. ii, 15. After obtaining a\ncomplete victory over all his enemies, he ascended in splendour and\ntriumph into his Father\u2019s presence on the clouds of heaven, the chariots\nof the Most High, thousands of holy angels attending in his train; he\nled the devil and all his angels, together with sin, the world, and\ndeath, as his spoils of war, and captives in chains, and exposed them to\nopen contempt and shame, in the view of all his angelic attendants,\ntriumphing like a glorious conqueror over them, in virtue of his cross,\nupon which he made complete satisfaction for sin, and by his own\nstrength, without the assistance of any creature, destroyed him that had\nthe power of death, that is, the devil. And as mighty princes were\naccustomed to scatter largesses among the people, and reward their\ncompanions in arms with a liberal hand, when, laden with the spoils of\nvanquished nations, they returned in triumph to their capital; so the\nConqueror of death and hell, when he ascended far above all heavens, and\nsat down in the midst of the throne, shed forth blessings of his grace\nand Holy Spirit, upon people of every tongue and of every nation.\n\nThe officers and soldiers, also, were rewarded according to their merit.\nAmong the Romans, the noblest reward which a soldier could receive, was\nthe crown, made of leaves. Alluding to this high distinction, the\nApostle says to his son Timothy, \u201cI have fought a good fight; henceforth\nthere is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the\nrighteous Judge, will give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto\nall them also that love his appearing,\u201d 2 Tim. iv, 7, 8. And lest any\none should imagine that the Christian\u2019s crown is perishable in its\nnature, and soon fades away, like a crown of oak leaves, the Apostle\nPeter assures the faithful soldier of Christ that his crown is\ninfinitely more valuable and lasting: \u201cYe shall receive a crown of glory\nthat fadeth not away,\u201d 1 Peter v, 4. And this account is confirmed by\nSt. James: \u201cBlessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he is\ntried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised\nto them that love him,\u201d James i, 12. The military crowns were conferred\nby the general in presence of his army; and such as received them, after\na public eulogium on their valour, were placed next his person. The\nChristian also receives his unmerited reward from the hand of the\nCaptain of his salvation: \u201cBe thou faithful unto death, and I will give\nthee a crown of life,\u201d Rev. ii, 10. And, like the brave veteran of\nancient times, he is promoted to a place near his Lord: \u201cTo him that\novercometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also\novercame, and am set down with my Father on his throne,\u201d Rev. iii, 21.\n\nTROAS, a city of Phrygia, or of Mysia, upon the Hellespont, having the\nold city of Troy to the north, and that of Assos to the south. Sometimes\nthe name of Troas is put for the province, wherein the city of Troy\nstood. St. Paul was at Troas, when he had the vision of the Macedonian\ninviting him to come and preach in that kingdom, Acts xvi, 8. Beside\nthis, the Apostle was several times at Troas; but we know nothing\nparticular of his transactions there, Acts xx, 5, 6; 2 Cor. ii, 14; 2\nTim. iv, 13.\n\nTROPHIMUS, a disciple of St. Paul, and an Ephesian by birth. He came\nfrom Ephesus to Corinth with the Apostle, and kept him company in his\nwhole journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, Acts xx, 4. When St.\nPaul was in the temple there, the Jews laid hold of him, crying out,\n\u201cMen of Israel, help; this is the man that teacheth all men every where\nagainst the people, and the law, and this place; and farther, brought\nGreeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place,\u201d Acts\nxxi, 28, 29. And this they said, because certain Jews of Ephesus having\nseen Trophimus with St. Paul in the city, whom they looked upon as a\nGentile, imagined that St. Paul had introduced him into the temple. The\nwhole city was immediately in an uproar, and St. Paul was secured.\nTrophimus afterward accompanied St. Paul; for that Apostle writes to\nTimothy, that he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus, 2 Tim. iv, 20.\n\nTRUMPET. The Lord commanded Moses to make two trumpets of beaten silver,\nto be employed in calling the people together when they were to decamp,\nNum. x, 2, 3, &c. They also chiefly made use of these trumpets, to\nproclaim the beginning of the civil year, the beginning of the\nSabbatical year, and the beginning of the jubilee, Lev. xxv, 9, 10.\nJosephus says, that these trumpets were near a cubit long; and had a\ntube, or pipe, of the thickness of a common flute. Their mouths were\nonly wide enough to be blown into, and their ends were like those of a\nmodern trumpet. At first there were but two in the camp, but afterward a\ngreater number were made. Even in the time of Joshua there were seven of\nthem, Joshua vi, 4. At the dedication of the temple of Solomon six-score\npriests sounded as many trumpets, 2 Chron. v, 12. Beside the sacred\ntrumpets of the temple, the use of which was restrained to the priests\nonly, in war there were others, which the generals sometimes employed\nfor gathering their troops together. For example, Ehud sounded the\ntrumpet, to assemble the Israelites against the Moabites, who oppressed\nthem, and whose king Eglon he had lately slain, Judg. vi, 27. Gideon\ntook a trumpet in his hand, and gave every one of his people one, when\nhe assaulted the Midianites, Judges vii, 2, 16. Joab sounded the\ntrumpet, to give the signal of retreat to his soldiers, in the battle\nagainst those of Abner\u2019s party, and in that against Absalom; and lastly,\nin the pursuit of Sheba the son of Bichri, 2 Sam. ii, 28; xviii, 16; xx,\n22. The feast of trumpets was kept on the first day of the seventh month\nof the sacred year, the first of the civil year. See MUSIC.\n\nTRUTH is used, 1. In opposition to falsehood, lies, or deceit, Prov.\nxii, 17, &c. 2. It signifies fidelity, sincerity, and punctuality in\nkeeping promises; and to truth taken in this sense is generally joined\nmercy or kindness, as in Gen. xxiv, 27, and other places of Scripture.\n3. Truth is put for the true doctrine of the Gospel, Galatians iii, 1.\n4. Truth is put for the substance of the types and ceremonies of the\nlaw, John i, 17.\n\nTUBAL, the fifth son of Japheth. The Scripture commonly joins together\nTubal and Meshech, which makes it thought that they peopled countries\nbordering upon each other. The Chaldee interpreters, by Tubal and\nMeshech understand Italy and Asia, or rather Ausonia. Josephus accounts\nthem to be Iberia and Cappadocia. St. Jerom affirms that Tubal\nrepresents the Spaniards, heretofore called Iberians. Bochart is very\ncopious in proving, that by Meshech and Tubal are intended the\nMuscovites and the Tibarenians.\n\nTUBAL-CAIN, or THUBAL-CAIN, son of Lamech the bigamous, and of Zillah,\nGen. ix, 29. The Scriptures tell us, that he was the father and\ninventor, or master, of the art of forging and managing iron, and of\nmaking all kinds of iron-work. There is great reason to believe that\nthis was the Vulcan of the Heathens.\n\nTURTLE, \u05ea\u05d6\u05d5, \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd, Gen. xv, 9; Lev. i, 14; v, 7, 11; xii, 6, 8; xiv,\n22, 30; xv, 14, 29; Num. vi, 10; Psalm lxxiv, 19; Cant. ii, 12; Jer.\nviii, 7; \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd, Luke ii, 24. We have the authority of the Septuagint,\nthe Targum, and of all the ancient interpreters, for understanding this\nof the turtle. Indeed, it is one of those evident instances in which the\nname of the bird is by _onomatop\u0153ia_ formed from its note or cry. The\nturtle is mentioned among migratory birds by Jeremiah viii, 7, and in\nthis sense differs from the rest of its family, which are all\nstationary. The fact to which the prophet alludes is attested by\nAristotle in these words: \u201cThe pigeon and the dove are always present,\nbut the turtle only in summer: that bird is not seen in winter.\u201d And in\nanother part of his work, he asserts that the dove remains, while the\nturtle migrates. Varro, and other ancient writers, make the like\nstatement. Thus Solomon, Cant. ii, 12, mentions the return of this bird\nas one of the indications of spring: \u201cThe voice of the turtle is heard\nin the land.\u201d See DOVE.\n\nTYCHICUS, a disciple of St. Paul, whom the Apostle often employed to\ncarry his letters to the several churches. He was of the province of\nAsia, and accompanied St. Paul, when, in A. D. 58, he made his journey\nfrom Corinth to Jerusalem, Acts xx, 4. It was he that carried the\nepistle to the Colossians, that to the Ephesians, and the first to\nTimothy. St. Paul did not send him merely to carry his letters, but also\nto learn the state of the churches, and to bring him an account of them.\nWherefore he calls him his dear brother, a faithful minister of the\nLord, and his companion in the service of God, Eph. vi, 21, 22; Col. iv,\n7, 8. He had thoughts also of sending him into Crete, to preside over\nthat church in the absence of Titus, iii, 12.\n\nTYPE. This word is not frequently used in Scripture; but what it\nsignifies is supposed to be very frequently implied. We usually consider\na type as an example, pattern, or general similitude to a person, event,\nor thing which is to come: and in this it differs from a representation,\nmemorial, or commemoration of an event, &c, which is past. The Spirit of\nGod has adopted a variety of means to indicate his perfect foreknowledge\nof all events, and his power to control them. This is sometimes declared\nby express verbal prophecy; sometimes by specific actions performed by\ndivine command; and sometimes by those peculiar events, in the lives of\nindividuals, and the history or religious observances of the Israelites,\nwhich were caused to bear a designed reference to some parts of the\nGospel history. The main point, says Chevallier, in an inquiry into\nthese historical types, is to establish the fact of a preconcerted\nconnection between the two series of events. No similarity, in itself,\nis sufficient to prove such a correspondence. Even those recorded in\nScripture are recorded under very different circumstances. If the first\nevent be declared to be typical, at the time when it occurs, and the\nsecond correspond with the prediction so delivered, there can be no\ndoubt that the correspondence was designed. If, before the occurrence of\nthe second event, there be delivered a distinct prophecy, that it will\nhappen, and will correspond with some previous event; the fulfilment of\nthe prophecy furnishes an intrinsic proof, that the person who gave it\nspake by divine inspiration. It may not, from this fact, follow, that\nthe two events were connected by a design formed before either of them\noccurred: but it certainly does follow, that the second event, in some\nmeasure, had respect to the first; and that whatever degree of\nconnection was, by such a prophet, assumed to exist, did really exist.\nIf, again, no specific declaration be made, respecting the typical\ncharacter of any event or person, until after the second event has\noccurred, which is then declared to have been prefigured; the fact of\npreconcerted connection will rest solely upon the authority of the\nperson who advances the assertion. But, if we know, from other sources,\nthat his words are the words of truth, our only inquiry will be, if he\neither distinctly asserts, or plainly infers, the existence of a\ndesigned correspondence. The fact, then, of a preconcerted connection\nbetween two series of events, is capable of being established in three\nways: and the historical types may be accordingly arranged in three\nprincipal divisions. Some of them afford intrinsic evidence, that the\nScriptures, which record them, are given by inspiration of God; the\nothers can be proved to exist only by assuming that fact: but all, when\nonce established, display the astonishing power and wisdom of God; and\nthe importance of that scheme of redemption, which was ushered into the\nworld with such magnificent preparations. In contemplating this\nwonderful system, we discern one great intention interwoven, not only\ninto the verbal prophecies and extraordinary events of the history of\nthe Israelites, but into the ordinary transactions of the lives of\nselected individuals, even from the creation of the world. Adam was \u201cthe\nfigure of him that was to come,\u201d Romans v, 14. Melchisedec was \u201cmade\nlike unto the Son of God,\u201d Heb. vii, 3. Abraham, in the course of events\nin which he was engaged by the especial command of Heaven, was enabled\nto see Christ\u2019s day, John viii, 56; and Isaac was received from the dead\n\u201cin a figure,\u201d Heb. xi, 19. At a later period, the paschal lamb was\nordained to be sacrificed, not only as a memorial of the immediate\ndeliverance, which it was instituted to procure and to commemorate, but\nalso as a continued memorial of that which was to be \u201cfulfilled in the\nkingdom of God,\u201d Luke xxii, 16. Moses was raised up to deliver the\npeople of Israel; to be to them a lawgiver, a prophet, a priest; and to\npossess the regal authority, if not the title of king. But, during the\nearly period of his life, he was himself taught, that one great prophet\nshould be raised up like unto him: before his death he delivered the\nsame prophecy to the people: and, after that event, the Israelites\ncontinually looked for that faithful prophet, who should return answer\nto their inquiries, 1 Macc. iv, 46; xiv, 41. Their prophets all pointed\nto some greater lawgiver, who should introduce a new law into their\nhearts, and inscribe them upon their minds, Jer. xxxi, 33. The whole\npeople of Israel were also made, in some instances, designedly\nrepresentative of Christ: and the events, which occurred in their\nnational history, distinctly referred to him. During their wanderings in\nthe wilderness, God left not himself without witness, which should bear\nreference to the great scheme of the Gospel. They ate spiritual meat. It\nwas an emblem of the true bread of life, which came down from heaven,\nJohn vi, 32. \u201cThey drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and\nthat Rock was Christ,\u201d 1 Cor. x, 4. They were destroyed of serpents; and\na brazen serpent was lifted up on a pole, that whosoever looked might\nlive. It was a sensible figure of the Son of man, who was, in like\nmanner to be lifted up; \u201cthat whosoever believeth in him should not\nperish, but have eternal life,\u201d John iii, 15. Beside, their religious\nordinances were only \u201ca figure for the time then present,\u201d Heb. ix, 9.\nTheir tabernacle was made after the pattern of heavenly things, Heb.\nviii, 5; Exod. xxv, 9, 40; and was intended to prefigure the \u201cgreater\nand more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,\u201d Heb. ix, 11. The high\npriest was a living representative of the great \u201cHigh Priest of our\nprofession,\u201d Heb. iii, 1: and the Levitical sacrifices plainly had\nrespect to the one great sacrifice for sins. Joshua the son of Nun\nrepresented Jesus in name: and by his earthly conquests in some measure\nprefigured the heavenly triumphs of his Lord. In a subsequent period,\nDavid was no indistinct type of \u201cthe Messiah the Prince,\u201d Dan. ix, 25,\nfor a long time humbled, and at length triumphant over his enemies. And\nthe peaceable dominion of Solomon prefigured that eternal rest and\npeace, which remaineth to the people of God. In a still later age, the\nmiraculous preservation of the Prophet Jonah displayed a sign, which was\nfulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. And when the temple was\nrebuilt, Joshua, the son of Josedech, the high priest, and his fellows,\nwere set forth as \u201cmen of sign,\u201d representatives of the Branch, which\nshould, in the fulness of time, be raised up to the stem of Jesse, Zech.\niii, 8; Isa. xi, 1. The illustration, then, to be derived from the\nhistorical types of the Old Testament, is found diffused over the whole\nperiod, which extends from the creation of the world, to the time when\nvision and prophecy were sealed. And all the light, which emanates from\nso many various points, is concentrated in the person of Christ.\n\nTYRANNUS. It is said in Acts xix, 9, that St. Paul being at Ephesus, and\nseeing that the Jews to whom he preached, instead of being converted,\nwere rather more hardened and obstinate, he withdrew from their society,\nnor went to preach in their synagogue, but taught every day in the\nschool of one Tyrannus. It is inquired, Who was this Tyrannus? Some\nthink him to have been a prince or great lord, who accommodated the\nApostle with his house, in which to receive and instruct his disciples.\nBut the generality conclude, that Tyrannus was a converted Gentile, a\nfriend of St. Paul, to whom he withdrew.\n\nTYRE, or TYRUS, was a famous city of Phenicia. Its Hebrew name is \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8 or\n\u05e6\u05e8, which signifies a rock. The city of Tyre was allotted to the tribe\nof Asher, Joshua xix, 29, with the other maritime cities of the same\ncoast; but it does not appear that the Asherites ever drove out the\nCanaanites. Isaiah, xxiii, 12, calls Tyre the daughter of Sidon, that\nis, a colony from it. Homer never speaks of Tyre, but only of Sidon.\nJosephus says, that Tyre was built not above two hundred and forty years\nbefore the temple of Solomon; which would be in A. M. 2760, two hundred\nyears after Joshua. Tyre was twofold, insular and continental. Insular\nTyre was certainly the most ancient; for this it was which was noticed\nby Joshua: the continental city, however, as being more commodiously\nsituated, first grew into consideration, and assumed the name of\nPal\u00e6tyrus, or Old Tyre. Want of sufficient attention to this\ndistinction, has embarrassed both the Tyrian chronology and geography.\nInsular Tyre was confined to a small rocky island, eight hundred paces\nlong, and four hundred broad, and could never exceed two miles in\ncircumference. But Tyre, on the opposite coast, about half a mile from\nthe sea, was a city of vast extent, since many centuries after its\ndemolition by Nebuchadnezzar, the scattered rains measured nineteen\nmiles round, as we learn from Pliny and Strabo. Of these, the most\ncurious and surprising are, the cisterns of Roselayne, designed to\nsupply the city with water; of which there are three still entire; about\none or two furlongs from the sea, so well described by Maundrell, for\ntheir curious construction and solid masonry. Old Tyre withstood the\nmighty Assyrian power, having been besieged in vain, by Shalmaneser, for\nfive years; although he cut off their supplies of water from the\ncisterns; which they remedied by digging wells within the city. It\nafterward held out thirteen years against Nebuchadnezzar, king of\nBabylon, and was at length taken; but not until the Tyrians had removed\ntheir effects to the insular town, and left nothing but the bare walls\nto the victor, which he demolished. What completed the destruction of\nthe city was, that Alexander afterward made use of these materials to\nbuild a prodigious causeway, or isthmus, above half a mile long, to the\ninsular city, which revived, as the ph\u0153nix, from the ashes of the\nold, and grew to great power and opulence, as a maritime state; and\nwhich he stormed after a most obstinate siege of five months. Pococke\nobserves, that \u201cthere are no signs of the ancient city; and as it is a\nsandy shore, the face of every thing is altered, and the great aqueduct\nis in many parts almost buried in the sand.\u201d Thus has been fulfilled the\nprophecy of Ezekiel: \u201cThou shalt be built no more: though thou be sought\nfor, yet shalt thou never be found again,\u201d Ezek. xxvi, 21. The fate of\ninsular Tyre has been no less remarkable. When Alexander stormed the\ncity, he set fire to it. This circumstance was foretold. \u201cTyre did build\nherself a strong hold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold\nas the mire of the streets. Behold, the Lord will cast her out, and he\nwill smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire,\u201d\nZech. ix, 3, 4. After this terrible calamity, Tyre again retrieved her\nlosses. Only eighteen years after, she had recovered such a share of her\nancient commerce and opulence, as enabled her to stand a siege of\nfourteen months against Antigonus, before he could reduce the city; but\nafter this, Tyre fell alternately under the dominion of the kings of\nSyria and Egypt, and then of the Romans, until it was taken by the\nSaracens, about A. D. 639, retaken by the Crusaders, A. D. 1124; and at\nlength sacked and razed by the Mamelukes of Egypt, with Sidon, and other\nstrong towns, that they might no longer harbour the Christians, A. D.\n1289.\n\nThe final desolation of Tyre was thus foretold: \u201cI will scrape her dust\nfrom her, and make her like the top of a rock: it shall be a place for\nthe spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it,\nsaith the Lord God.\u201d \u201cI will make thee like the top of a rock: thou\nshalt be a place to spread nets upon: thou shalt be built no more; for I\nthe Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.\u201d Nothing can be more\nliterally and astonishingly executed than this sentence. Huetius relates\nof one Hadrianus Parvillerius, that \u201cwhen he approached the ruins of\nTyre, and beheld the rocks stretched forth to the sea, and the great\nstones scattered up and down on the shore, made clean and smooth by the\nsun and waves and wind, and useful only for the drying of fishermen\u2019s\nnets, many of which happened at that time to be spread thereon, it\nbrought to his memory the prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Tyre, that such\nshould be its fate.\u201d Maundrell, who visited the Holy Land, A. D. 1697,\ndescribes it thus: \u201cThis city, standing in the sea upon a peninsula,\npromises at a distance, something very magnificent; but when you come to\nit, you find no similitude of that glory for which it was so renowned in\nancient times, and which the Prophet Ezekiel describes, xxvi, xxvii,\nxxviii. On the north side it has an old Turkish ungarrisoned castle;\nbeside which, you see nothing here but a mere Babel of broken walls,\npillars, vaults, &c; there being not so much as one entire house left!\nIts present inhabitants are only a few poor wretches harbouring\nthemselves in the vaults, and subsisting chiefly by fishing: who seem to\nbe preserved in this place by Divine Providence, as a visible argument\nhow God has fulfilled his word concerning Tyre, namely, that it should\nbe as the top of a rock; a place for fishers to dry their nets upon,\nEzek. xxvi, 14.\u201d Hasselquist, who saw it since, in A. D. 1751, observes\nas follows: \u201cNone of those cities which were formerly famous are so\ntotally ruined as Tyre, now called Zur; except Troy. Zur now scarcely\ncan be called a miserable village, though it was formerly Tyre, the\nqueen of the sea. Here are about ten inhabitants, Turks and Christians,\nwho live by fishing.\u201d Bruce, who visited this country about eighty years\nafter Maundrell, says, that \u201cpassing by Tyre from curiosity, I came to\nbe a mournful witness of the truth of that prophecy, that Tyre, the\nqueen of nations, should be a rock for fishers to dry their nets on.\u201d\nMr. Buckingham, who visited it in 1816, represents it as containing\nabout eight hundred substantial stone-built houses, and from five to\neight thousand inhabitants. But Mr. Jowett, on the authority of the\nGreek archbishop, reduces this number to less than four thousand;\nnamely, one thousand two hundred Greek Catholics, one hundred Maronites,\none hundred Greeks, one thousand Montonalis, and one hundred Turks. Mr.\nJowett observed numerous and beautiful columns stretched along the\nbeach, or standing in fragments half buried in the sand, that has been\naccumulating for ages: \u201cthe broken aqueduct, and the ruins which appear\nin its neighbourhood, exist as an affecting monument of the fragile and\ntransitory nature of earthly grandeur.\u201d Mr. Joliffe states, that there\nnow exist scarcely any traces of this once powerful city. \u201cSome\nmiserable cabins, ranged in irregular lines, dignified with the name of\nstreets, and a few buildings of a rather better description, occupied by\nthe officers of government, compose nearly the whole of the town. It\nstill makes, indeed, some languishing efforts at commerce, and contrives\nto export annually to Alexandria cargoes of silk and tobacco; but the\namount merits no consideration. The noble dust of Alexander, traced by\nthe imagination till found stopping a beer barrel, would scarcely afford\na stronger contrast of grandeur and debasement, than Tyre, at the period\nof being besieged by that conqueror, and the modern town of Tsour\nerected on its ashes.\u201d\n\nAs commercial cities, says Mansford, ancient Alexandria and London may\nbe considered as approaching the nearest to Tyre. But Alexandria, during\nthe whole of her prosperous days, was subject to foreign rule; and\nLondon, great as are her commerce and her wealth, and possessing as she\ndoes almost a monopoly of what has in all ages been the most enviable\nand most lucrative branch of trade, that with the east, does not centre\nin herself, as Tyre did, without a rival and without competition, the\ntrade of all nations, and hold an absolute monopoly, not of one, but of\nevery branch of commerce. For the long period of a thousand years, not a\nsingle production of the east passed to the west, or of the west to the\neast, but by the merchants of Tyre. Nor for many ages were any ships\nfound but those of Tyre daring enough to pass the straits of the Red Sea\non one side, or of the Mediterranean on the other. While the vessels of\nother countries were groping along their coasts, clinging to their\nlandmarks, and frightened at a breeze, the ships of Tyre were found from\nSpain, if not from Britain, on the west, to the coast of Malabar and\nSofala on the east and south. No wonder that her merchants were princes,\nand that they lived in a style of magnificence unknown in any other\ncountry in the same age; or that she should be considered a desirable\nprey by the conquerors of the times. But enterprise and wealth did not\nalone complete the character of the Tyrians; they had an undoubted claim\nto valour of no common order. Their city, which possessed scarcely any\nterritory beyond their own walls, maintained a siege of thirteen years\n(the longest in history except that of Ashdod) against the whole power\nof Babylon; and another of seven months against Alexander, whose\nsuccesses had afforded no instance of similar delay. And in neither case\nhad the captors much to boast of, as the Tyrians had shipped off their\nmost valuable property to Carthage; and in the former particularly, as\nhas been already related, they so effectually secured or sacrificed the\nwhole, that the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar found nothing to reward them\nfor their length of labour, during which, by excessive toil and heat,\n\u201ctheir heads were made bald, and their very shoulders peeled,\u201d but\nvacant streets, and houses already sacked. Carthage, Utica, and Cadiz,\nare celebrated monuments of the power of Tyre on the Mediterranean, and\nin the west. She extended her navigation even into the ocean, and\ncarried her commerce beyond England to the north, and the Canaries to\nthe south. Her connections with the east, though less known, were not\nless considerable; the islands of Tyrus and Aradus, (the modern\nBarhain,) in the Persian Gulf. The cities of Faran and Ph\u0153nicum\nOppidum, on the Red Sea, in ruins even in the time of the Greeks, prove\nthat the Tyrians had long frequented the coast of Arabia and the Indian\nSea. But, through the vicissitudes of time, Tyre, reduced to a miserable\nvillage, has no other trade than the exportation of a few sacks of corn\nand raw cotton, nor any merchant, says Volney, but a single Greek factor\nin the service of the French Saide, (Sidon,) who scarcely makes\nsufficient profit to maintain his family. In allusion to Tyre in her\nbetter days, Forbes observes, when speaking of Surat, \u201cThe bazars,\nfilled with costly merchandise; picturesque and interesting groups of\nnatives on elephants, camels, horses, and mules; strangers from all\nparts of the globe, in their respective costume; vessels building on the\nstocks, others navigating the river; together with Turks, Persians, and\nArmenians, on Arabian chargers; European ladies in splendid carriages,\nthe Asiatic females in hackeries drawn by oxen; and the motley\nappearance of the English and nabob\u2019s troops on the fortifications,\nremind us of the following description of Tyre, \u201cO thou that art situate\nat the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many\nisles,\u201d &c, Ezek. xxvii, 3. This is a true picture of oriental commerce\nin ancient times; and a very exact description of the port and the\nbazars of Surat, at the present day.\u201d\n\nDr. Vincent has given the following able illustration of the trade of\nTyre as described in Ezek. xxvii, which must be considered as one of the\nmost ample and early accounts extant. The learned author has rendered\nthe Hebrew names into others better known in the geography of more\nrecent times:--Tyre produced from Hermon, and the mountains near it, fir\nfor planking; and from Libanus, cedars for masts. From Bashan, east of\nthe sea of Galilee, oaks for oars. From Greece, or the Grecian isles,\nivory to adorn the benches or the waists of the galleys. From Egypt,\nlinen, ornamented with different colours, for sails, or flags, or\nensigns. From Peloponnesus, blue and purple cloths for awnings. From\nSidon and Aradus, mariners; but Tyre itself furnished pilots and\ncommanders. From Gebal, or Biblos, on the coast between Tripolis and\nBerytus, caulkers. From Persia and Africa, mercenary troops. From\nAradus, the troops that garrisoned Tyre with the Gamadim. From Tarshish,\nor by distant voyages toward the west, and toward the east, great\nwealth, iron, tin, lead, and silver. Tin implies Britain or Spain, or at\nleast a voyage beyond the Straits of Hercules. From Greece, and the\ncountries bordering on Pontus, slaves, and brass ware. From Armenia,\nhorses, horsemen, and mules. From the Gulf of Persia, and the isles\nwithin that gulf, horns (tusks) of ivory, and ebony. The export to these\nisles was the manufacture of Tyre. From Syria, emeralds, purple,\nbroidered work, fine linen, coral, and agate. The exports to Syria were\nthe manufactures of Tyre in great quantities. From Judah and Israel, the\nfinest wheat, honey, oil, and balsam. From Damascus, wine of Chalybon,\n(the country bordering on the modern Aleppo,) and wool in the fleece.\nThe exports to Damascus were costly and various manufactures. From the\ntribe of Dan, situated nearest to the Philistines, the produce of\nArabia, bright or wrought iron, cassia or cinnamon, and the calamus\naramaticus. In conducting the transport of these articles, Dan went to\nand fro, that is, formed or conducted the caravans. By one\ninterpretation, they are said to come from Uzal; and Uzal is said to be\nSana, the capital of Yemen, or Arabia Felix. From the Gulf of Persia,\nrich cloth for the decoration of chariots or horsemen. From Arabia\nPetr\u00e6a and Hedjaz, lambs, and rams, and goats. From Sabea and Oman, the\nbest of spices. From India, gold, and precious stones. From Mesopotamia,\nfrom Carrh\u00e6, and Babylonia, the Assyrians brought all sorts of exquisite\nthings; that is, fine manufacture, blue cloth, and broidered work, or\nfabric of various colours, in chests of cedar bound with cords,\ncontaining rich apparel. If these articles were obtained farther from\nthe east, may they not be the fabrics of India, first brought to Assyria\nby the Gulf of Persia, or by caravans from Karmania and the Indus, and\nthen conveyed by the Assyrians, in other caravans, to Tyre and Syria? In\nthis view, the care of package, the chests of cedar, and the cording of\nthe chests, are all correspondent to the nature of such a transport.\nFrom Tarshish the ships came that rejoiced in the markets of Tyre: they\nreplenished the city, and made it glorious in the midst of the sea,\nEzek. xxvii, 5\u201325. Dr. Vincent observes, that from the Tarshish last\nmentioned the ships returned to the ports in the Red Sea; as from the\nnineteenth to the twenty-fourth verse every particular relates to the\neast, while that referred to in the twelfth implies the west--Spain, or\nbeyond. We have here some light thrown on the obscurity which surrounds\nthe situation of this distant and unknown place. There is, indeed, a\nclear reference to two distinct places, or parts of the world,\ndenominated Tarshish; perhaps from those very circumstances, their\ndistance, and the little that was known respecting them. That one was\nsituated westward, and reached by a passage across the Mediterranean, is\ncertain from other parts of Scripture; that the other was eastward, or\nsouthward, on the coast of Arabia, India, or Africa, is equally certain.\nSee TARSHISH, and OPHIR.\n\n\nUNBELIEF or INFIDELITY is a want of credence in the word of God; or it\nmay be defined, a calling in question the divine veracity, in what God\nhath either testified, promised, or threatened; and thus it is the\nopposite of faith, which consists in crediting what God hath said, John\niii, 18, 33. It is said that the Jews could not enter into the promised\nland, \u201cbecause of their unbelief,\u201d Heb. iii, 18, 19. And the Apostle,\nteaching the believing Hebrews what instruction they should deduce from\nthat portion of the history of their forefathers, says, as the words\nliterally translated would run, \u201cWe are evangelized as well as they\nwere; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed\nwith faith in them that heard it,\u201d Heb. iv, 2. The meaning is, We\nChristians are favoured with the good news of the heavenly rest, as well\nas Israel in the wilderness were with the good news of the earthly rest\nin Canaan; but the word which they heard concerning that rest did not\nprofit them, because they did not believe it. Hence it appears that\nfaith and unbelief are not confined to the spiritual truths and promises\nof the Gospel of Christ, but respect any truth which God may reveal, or\nany promise which he may make even concerning temporal things. It is a\ncrediting or discrediting God in what he says, whatever be the subject.\nChrist could not do many mighty works in his own country, because of\ntheir unbelief, Matt. vi, 5, 6; their mean opinion of him, and contempt\nof his miracles, rendered them unfit objects to have miracles wrought\nupon or among them. The Apostles\u2019 distrust of Christ\u2019s promises, of\nenabling them to cast out devils, rendered them incapable of casting one\nout, Mark xvii, 16; and St. Peter\u2019s distrust of his Master\u2019s power\noccasioned his sinking in the water, Matt. xiv, 30, 31. The unbelief for\nwhich the Jews were broken off from their being a church was their\ndenial of Christ\u2019s Messiahship, their contempt and refusal of him, and\ntheir violent persecution of his cause and members, Rom. xi, 20.\n\nAdverting to the infidelity which prevailed among the educated class of\nHeathens when Christianity first appeared in the world, Dr. Neander\nobserves:--It was Christianity which first presented religion under the\nform of objective truth, as a system of doctrines perfectly independent\nof all individual conceptions of man\u2019s imagination, and calculated to\nmeet the moral and religious wants of man\u2019s nature, and in that nature\nevery where to find some point on which it might attach itself. The\nreligions of antiquity, on the contrary, consist of many elements of\nvarious kinds, which, either by the skill of the first promulgator, or,\nin the length of years, by the impress of national peculiarities, were\nmoulded together into one whole. By the transmission of tales, half\nmythical, and half historical, by forms and statutes bearing the impress\nof religious feelings or ideas, mingled with multifarious poems, which\nshowed a powerful imaginative spirit, rugged indeed, or, if animated by\nthe spirit of beauty, at least devoid of that of holiness,--all these\nvaried materials were interwoven so completely into all the characters,\ncustoms, and relations of social life, that the religious matter could\nno longer be separated from the mixed mass, nor be disentangled from the\nindividual nature of the life and political character of each people\nwith which it was interwoven. There was no religion generally adapted to\nhuman nature, only religions fitted to each people. The Divinity\nappeared here, not as free and elevated above nature; not as that which,\noverruling nature, might form and illuminate the nature of man; but was\nlowered to the level of nature, and made subservient to it. Through this\nprinciple of deifying the powers of nature, by which every exertion of\nbare power, even though immoral, might be received among the objects of\nreligious veneration, the idea of holiness which beams forth from man\u2019s\nconscience must continually have been thrown into the back ground and\novershadowed. The old lawgivers were well aware how closely the\nmaintenance of an individual state religion depends on the maintenance\nof the individual character of the people, and their civil and domestic\nvirtues. They were well aware that when once this union is dissolved no\npower can restore it again. Therefore we find, especially in Rome, where\npolitics were the ruling passion, a watchfulness after the most\npunctilious observance of traditional religious ceremonies, and a\njealous aversion to any innovations in religion. The belief of a divine\norigin of all existence is a first principle in man\u2019s nature, and he is\nirresistibly impelled to ascend from many to One. This very feeling\nshowed itself even in the polytheism of national religions, under the\nidea of a highest God, or a father of the gods. Among those who gave\nthemselves up to the consideration of divine things, and to reflection\nupon them, this idea of an original unity must have been more clearly\nrecognized, and must have formed the centre point of all their inward\nreligious life and thought. The imagination of the people was to be\nengaged with the numerous powers and energies flowing forth from that\none highest Being, while to the contemplation of that unity, only a\nsmall number of exalted spirits, the initiated leaders of the multitude,\ncould elevate themselves. The one God was the God of philosophers alone.\nThe ruling opinion of all the thinking men of antiquity, from which all\nreligious legislation proceeded, was, that pure religious truth could\nnot be proposed to the multitude, but only such a mixture of fiction,\npoetry, and truth, as would serve to represent religious notions in such\na manner that they might make an impression on men, whose only guide was\ntheir senses. The principle of a so called _fraus pia_ [pious fraud] was\nprevalent in all the legislation of antiquity. But how miserable would\nbe the case of mankind, if the higher bond, connecting human affairs\nwith heaven, could only be united by means of lies; if lies were\nnecessary in order to restrain the greater portion of mankind from evil!\nAnd what could their religion in such a case effect? It could not impart\nholy dispositions to the inward heart of man; it could only restrain the\nopen outbreaking of evil that existed in the heart, by the power of\nfear. Falsehood, which cannot be arbitrarily imposed on human nature,\nwould never have been able to obtain this influence, had not a truth,\nwhich is sure to make itself felt by human nature, been working through\nit,--had not the belief in an unseen God, on whom man universally feels\nhimself dependent, and to whom he feels himself attracted,--had not the\nimpulse toward an invisible world, which is implanted in the human\nheart,--been able to work also through this covering of superstition.\nThe geographer Strabo thinks that, in the same manner that mythical\ntales and fables are needful for children, so also they are necessary\nfor the uneducated and uninformed, who are in some sort children, and\nalso for those who are half educated; for even with them reason is not\nsufficiently powerful, and they are not able to free themselves from the\nhabits they have acquired as children. This is, indeed, a sad condition\nof humanity, when the seed of holiness, which can develope itself only\nin the whole course of a life, cannot be strewn in the heart of the\nchild, and when mature reason must destroy that which was planted in the\nearly years of infancy! when holy truth cannot form the foundation of\nthe future developement of life from the earliest dawn of childish\nconsciousness! The thinking Roman statesmen also of the time at which\nChristianity appeared, as Varro, for instance, distinguish between the\n_theologia philosophica_ [philosophical theology] and the _theologia\ncivilis_, [civil theology,] which contradicts the principles of the\nformer, as Cotta in Cicero distinguished between the belief of Cotta,\nand the belief of the Pontifex. The philosopher required in religion a\npersuasion grounded on reasoning; the citizen, the statesman, followed\nthe tradition of his ancestors without inquiry. Suppose now this\n_theologia civilis_, and this _theologia philosophica_ to proceed\ntogether, without a man\u2019s wishing to set the opposition between the two\nin a very clear light to himself; that the citizen and the statesman,\nthe philosopher and the man, could be united in the same individual with\ncontradictory sentiments, (a division which in the same man is very\nunnatural,) and then he would perhaps say, \u201cPhilosophical reason\nconducts to a different result from that which is established by the\nstate religion; but the latter has in its favour the good fortune which\nthe state has enjoyed in the exercise of religion handed down from our\nancestors. Let us follow experience even where we do not thoroughly\nunderstand.\u201d Thus speaks Cotta, and thus also many Romans of education\nin his time, either more or less explicitly. Or perhaps we may suppose,\nthat men openly expressed this contradiction, and did not scruple to\nassign the pure truth to the _theologia philosophica_, and to declare\nthe _theologia civilis_ only a matter of politics. In the east, which is\nless subject to commotions, where tranquil habits of life were more\ncommon, and where a mystical spirit of contemplation, accompanying and\nspiritualizing the symbolical religion of the people, was more prevalent\nthan an intellectual cultivation opposed to it, and developing itself\nindependently, it was possible that this kind of esoteric and exoteric\nreligion should proceed hand in hand without change for many centuries.\nBut it was otherwise with the more stirring spirits and habits of the\nwest. Here this independently proceeding developement of the intellect\nmust have been at open war with the religion of the people; and as\nintellectual culture spread itself more widely, so also must a disbelief\nof the popular religion have been more extensively diffused; and, in\nconsequence of the intercourse between the people and the educated\nclasses, this disbelief must also have found its way at last among the\npeople themselves; more especially since, as this perception of the\nnothingness of the popular religion spread itself more widely, there\nwould naturally be many who would not, with the precaution of the men of\nold, hide their new illumination from the multitude, but would think\nthemselves bound to procure for it new adherents, without any regard to\nthe injury of which they might be laying the foundations, without\ninquiring of themselves, whether they had any thing to offer to the\npeople in the room of that of which they robbed them; in the room of\ntheir then source of tranquillity under the storms of life; instead of\nthat which taught them moderation under affliction; and, lastly, in the\nplace of their then counterpoise against the power of wild desires and\npassions. Men saw, in the religious systems of different nations which\nthen came into contact with each other in the enormous empire of Rome,\nnothing but utter contradiction and opposition. The philosophical\nsystems also exhibited nothing but opposition of sentiments, and left\nthose who could see in the moral consciousness no criterion of truth to\ndoubt whether there were any such thing or not. In this sense, as\nrepresenting the opinions of many eminent and cultivated Romans, with a\nsneer at all desire for truth, Pilate made the sarcastic inquiry, \u201cWhat\nis truth?\u201d Many contented themselves with a shallow lifeless deism,\nwhich usually takes its rise where the thirst after a living union with\nheaven is wanting; a system which, although it denies not the existence\nof a God, yet drives it as far into the back ground as possible; a\nlistless God! who suffers every thing to take its own course, so that\nall belief in any inward connection between this Divinity and man, any\ncommunication of this Divinity to man, would seem to this system fancy\nand enthusiasm! The world and human nature remain at least free from\nGod. This belief in God, if we can call it a belief, remains dead and\nfruitless, exercising no influence over the life of man. The belief in\nGod here produced neither the desire after that ideal perfection of\nholiness, the contemplation of which shows at the same time to man the\ncorruption of his own nature, so opposite to that holiness; nor that\nconsciousness of guilt by which man, contemplating the holiness of God\nwithin him, feels himself estranged from God; nor does this belief\nimpart any lively power of sanctification. Man is not struck by the\ninquiry, \u201cHow shall I, unclean as I am, approach the holy God, and stand\nbefore him, when he judges me according to the holy law which he has\nhimself engraven on my conscience? What shall I do to become free from\nthe guilt which oppresses me, and again to attain to communion with\nhim?\u201d To make inquiries such as these, this spirit of deism considers as\nfanaticism; and it casts away from itself all notions of God\u2019s anger,\njudgments, or punishments, as representations arising only from the\nlimited nature of the human understanding. More lively and penetrating\nspirits, who felt in the world an infinite Spirit which animated all\nthings, fell into an error of quite an opposite nature to this deism,\nwhich removed God too far from the world; namely into a pantheism, which\nconfused God and the world, which was just as little calculated to\nbestow tranquillity and consolation. They conceived God only as the\ninfinite Being elevated above frail man, and not as being connected with\nhim, attracting him to himself, and lowering himself down to him. It was\nonly the greatness, not the holiness nor the love, of God which filled\ntheir souls. Yet the history of all ages proves that man cannot for any\nlength of time disown the desire for religion implanted in his nature.\nWhenever man, entirely devoted to the world, has for a long time wholly\noverwhelmed the perception of the Divinity which exists in his nature,\nand has long entirely estranged himself from divine things, these at\nlast prevail over humanity with greater force. Man feels that something\nis wanting to his heart, which can be replaced to him by nothing else;\nhe feels a hollowness within him which can never be satisfied by earthly\nthings, and can find satisfaction and blessing suited to his condition\nin the Divinity alone, and an irresistible desire impels him to seek\nagain his lost connection with Heaven. The times of the dominion of\nsuperstition also, as history teaches us, are always times of earthly\ncalamity; for the moral corruption which accompanies superstition\nnecessarily, also, destroys all the foundations of earthly prosperity.\nThus the times in which superstition extended itself among the Romans\nwere those of the downfall of civil freedom, and of public suffering\nunder cruel despots. But, however, the consequences of these evils\nconducted man, also to their remedy; for by distress from without man is\nbrought to the consciousness of his own weakness, and his dependence on\na higher than earthly power; and when he is forsaken by human help, he\nis compelled to seek it here. Man becomes induced to look upon his\nmisfortunes as the punishments of a higher Being, and to seek for means\nby which he may secure again for himself the favour of that Being. The\nneed of a connection with Heaven, from which man felt himself estranged,\nand dissatisfaction with the cold and joyless present, obtained a more\nready belief for the picture which mythology presented, of a golden age,\nwhen gods and men lived together in intimate union; and warm\nimaginations looked back on such a state with longing and desire. This\nbelief and this desire, it must be owned, were founded on a great truth\nwhich man could rightly apprehend only through Christianity; and this\ndesire was a kind of intimation which pointed to Christianity. From the\nnature of the case, however, it is clear that a fanatical zeal, where\nthe heat of passion concealed from man the hollowness and falsehood of\nhis faith, might be created for a religion, to which man only betook\nhimself as a refuge in his misery, and in his dread of the abyss of\nunbelief; a religion which no longer served for the developement of\nman\u2019s nature, and into which, nevertheless, he felt himself driven back\nfrom the want of any other; and that men must use every kind of power\nand art to uphold that which was in danger of falling from its own\ninternal weakness, and to defend that which was unable to defend itself\nby its own power. Fanaticism was therefore obliged to avail itself of\nevery kind of power in the struggle with Christianity, in order to\nuphold Heathenism, which was fast sinking by its own weakness. Although\nthe Romans had from the oldest times been noted for their repugnance to\nall foreign sorts of religious worship, yet this trait of the old Roman\ncharacter had with many altogether disappeared. Because the old national\ntemples of the Romans had lost their respect, in many dispositions man\nwas inclined to bring in to their assistance foreign modes of worship.\nThose which obtained the readiest admission were such as consisted of\nmysterious, symbolical customs, and striking, sounding forms. As is\nalways the case, men looked for some special and higher power in what is\ndark and mysterious. The very simplicity of Christianity became\ntherefore a ground of hatred to it.\n\nUNICORN, \u05e8\u05d0\u05dd, Num. xxiii, 22; xxiv, 8; Deut. xxxiii, 17; Job xxxix, 9,\n10; Psalm xxii, 21; xxix, 6; xcii, 10; Isa. xxxiv, 7. In each of these\nplaces it is rendered in the Septuagint \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, except in Isaiah,\nwhere it is \u1f01\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76, _the great or mighty ones_. Barrow, in his \u201cTravels\nin Southern Africa,\u201d has given a drawing of the head of the unicorn, \u201ca\nbeast with a single horn projecting from the forehead;\u201d accompanied with\nsuch details as, he thinks, offer strong arguments for the existence of\nsuch animals in the country of the Bosjesmans. He observes that this\ncreature is represented as a \u201csolid-ungulous animal resembling a horse,\nwith an elegantly shaped body, marked from the shoulders to the flanks\nwith longitudinal stripes or bands.\u201d Still he acknowledges that the\nanimal to which the writer of the book of Job, who was no mean natural\nhistorian, makes a poetical allusion, has been supposed, with great\nplausibility, to be the one-horned rhinoceros; and that Moses also very\nprobably meant the rhinoceros, when he mentions the unicorn as having\nthe strength of God.\n\n\u201cThere are two animals,\u201d says Bruce, \u201cnamed frequently in Scripture,\nwithout naturalists being agreed what they are. The one is the\n_behemoth_, the other the _reem_; both mentioned as types of strength,\ncourage, and independence on man; and, as such, exempted from the\nordinary lot of beasts, to be subdued by him, or reduced under his\ndominion. The behemoth, then, I take to be the elephant; his history is\nwell known, and my only business is with the reem, which I suppose to be\nthe rhinoceros. The derivation of this word, both in the Hebrew and\nEthiopic, seems to be from erectness, or standing straight. This is\ncertainly no particular quality in the animal itself, which is not more,\nnor even so much erect as many other quadrupeds, for its knees are\nrather crooked; but it is from the circumstance and manner in which his\nhorn is placed. The horns of all other animals are inclined to some\ndegree of parallelism with the nose, or _os frontis_, [front bone.] The\nhorn of the rhinoceros alone is erect and perpendicular to this bone, on\nwhich it stands at right angles; thereby possessing a greater purchase\nor power, as a lever, than any horn could possibly have in any other\nposition. This situation of the horn is very happily alluded to in the\nsacred writings: \u2018My horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a reem,\u2019\nPsalm xcii, 10. And the horn here alluded to is not wholly figurative,\nbut was really an ornament worn by great men in the days of victory,\npreferment, or rejoicing, when they were anointed with new, sweet, or\nfresh oil; a circumstance which David joins with that of erecting the\nhorn. Balaam, a priest of Midian, and so in the neighbourhood of the\nhaunts of the rhinoceros, and intimately connected with Ethiopia, for\nthey themselves were shepherds of that country, in a transport, from\ncontemplating the strength of Israel, whom he was brought to curse,\nsays, that they had as it were the strength of the reem, Num. xxiii, 22.\nJob, xxxix, 9, 10, makes frequent allusion to his great strength,\nferocity, and indocility. Isaiah, xxxiv, 7, who of all the prophets\nseems to have known Egypt and Ethiopia the best, when prophesying about\nthe destruction of Idumea, says, that the reem shall come down with the\nfat cattle: a proof that he knew his habitation was in the\nneighbourhood. In the same manner as when foretelling the desolation of\nEgypt, he mentions, as one manner of effecting it, the bringing down the\nfly from Ethiopia, Isa. vii, 18, 19, to meet the cattle in the desert\nand among the bushes, and destroy them there, where that insect did not\nordinarily come but on command, Exodus viii, 22, and where the cattle\nfled every year, to save themselves from that insect.\n\n\u201cThe rhinoceros in Geez is called _arw\u00e9 harish_, and in the Amharic\n_auraris_, both which names signify the large wild beast with the horn.\nThis would seem as if applied to the species that had but one horn. The\nEthiopic text renders the word reem, _arwe harish_, and this the\nSeptuagint translates \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, or unicorn. If the Abyssinian\nrhinoceros had invariably two horns, it seems to me improbable the\nSeptuagint would call him \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, especially as they must have seen\nan animal of this kind exposed at Alexandria in their time, when first\nmentioned in history, at an exhibition given to Ptolemy Philadelphus, at\nhis accession to the crown, before the death of his father. The\nprincipal reason for translating the word _reem_ unicorn, and not\nrhinoceros, is from a prejudice that he must have but one horn. But this\nis by no means so well founded, as to be admitted as the only argument\nfor establishing the existence of an animal, which never has appeared\nafter the search of so many ages. Scripture speaks of the horns of the\nunicorn, Deut. xxxiii, 17; Psalm xxii, 21; so that even from this\ncircumstance the reem may be the rhinoceros as the rhinoceros may be the\nunicorn.\u201d\n\nIn the book of Job, xxxix, 9, 10, the reem is represented as an\nunmanageable animal, which, although possessed of sufficient strength to\nlabour, sternly and pertinaciously refused to bend his neck to the yoke.\n\n        Will the reem submit to serve thee?\n        Will he, indeed, abide at thy crib?\n        Canst thou make his harness bind the reem to the furrow?\n        Will he, forsooth, plough up the valleys for thee?\n        Wilt thou rely on him for his great strength,\n        And commit thy labour unto him?\n        Wilt thou trust him that he may bring home thy grain,\n        And gather in thy harvest?\n\nThe rhinoceros, in size, is only exceeded by the elephant; and in\nstrength and power is inferior to no other creature. He is at least\ntwelve feet in length, from the extremity of the snout to the insertion\nof the tail; six or seven feet in height, and the circumference of the\nbody is nearly equal to its length. He is particularly distinguished\nfrom the elephant and all other animals by the remarkable and offensive\nweapon he carries upon his nose. This is a very hard horn, solid\nthroughout, directed forward, and has been seen four feet in length. Mr.\nBrowne, in his Travels, says, that the Arabians call the rhinoceros\n_abu-kurn_, \u201cfather of the one horn.\u201d The rhinoceros is very hurtful, by\nthe prodigious devastation which he makes in the fields. This\ncircumstance peculiarly illustrates the passage from Job. Instead of\ntrusting him to bring home the grain, the husbandman will endeavour to\nprevent his entry into the fields, and hinder his destructive ravages.\nIn a note upon this passage, Mr. Good says, \u201cThe original reem, by all\nthe older translators rendered rhinoceros, or unicorn, is by some modern\nwriters supposed to be the bubalus, bison, or wild ox. There can be no\ndoubt that rhinoceros is the proper term; for this animal is universally\nknown in Arabia, by the name of reem, to the present day.\u201d The\nrhinoceros, though next in size, yet in docility and ingenuity greatly\ninferior, to the elephant, has never yet been tamed, so as to assist the\nlabours of mankind, or to appear in the ranks of war. The rhinoceros is\nperfectly indocile and untractable, though neither ferocious nor\ncarnivorous. He is among large animals what the hog is among smaller\nones, brutal and insensible; fond of wallowing in the mire, and\ndelighting in moist and marshy situations near the banks of rivers. He\nis, however, of a pacific disposition; and, as he feeds on vegetables,\nhas few occasions for conflict. He neither disturbs the less, nor fears\nthe greater, beasts of the forest, but lives amicably with all. He\nsubsists principally on large succulent plants, prickly shrubs, and the\nbranches of trees; and lives to the age of seventy or eighty years.\n\nUNITARIANS, a comprehensive term, including all who believe the Deity to\nsubsist in one person only. The chief article in the religious system of\nthe Unitarians is, that Christ was a mere man. But they consider him as\nthe great instrument in the hands of God of reversing all the effects of\nthe fall; as the object of all the prophecies from Moses to his own\ntime; as the great bond of union to virtuous and good men, who, as\nChristians, make one body in a peculiar sense. The Socinian creed was\nreduced to what Dr. Priestley calls Humanitarianism, by denying the\nmiraculous conception, the infallibility, and the impeccability of the\nSaviour; and, consequently, his right to any divine honours or religious\nworship. As to those texts which declare that Jesus Christ \u201cknew no\nsin,\u201d &c, his followers explain them in the sense in which it is said of\nbelievers, \u201cWhosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,\u201d 1 John iii,\n9. Or, if this be not satisfactory, Dr. Priestley refers us to the\n\u201cTheological Repository,\u201d \u201cin which,\u201d he says, \u201cI think I have shown\nthat the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusively; and, therefore, that\nhe wrote as any other person of his turn of mind or thinking, and in his\nsituation, would have written, without any particular inspiration.\nFacts, such as I think I have there alleged, are stubborn things, and\nall hypotheses must be accommodated to them.\u201d Nor is this sentiment\npeculiar to Dr. Priestley. Mr. Belsham says, \u201cThe Unitarian doctrine is,\nthat Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects like other\nmen, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices,\nand frailties; descended from the family of David, the son of Joseph and\nMary, though some indeed still adhere to the popular opinion of the\nmiraculous conception; that he was born in low circumstances, having no\npeculiar advantages of education or learning, but that he was a man of\nexemplary character; and that, in conformity to ancient prophecy, he was\nchosen and appointed by God to introduce a new moral dispensation into\nthe world, the design of which was to abolish the Jewish economy, and to\nplace believing Gentiles upon an equal ground of privilege and favour\nwith the posterity of Abraham; in other words, he was authorized to\nreveal to all mankind, without distinction, the great doctrine of a\nfuture life, in which men shall be rewarded according to their works.\u201d\nMr. Belsham goes on to state the Unitarian opinion to be, that Jesus was\nnot conscious of his high character till after his baptism; that he\nafterward spent some time in the wilderness, where he was invested with\nmiraculous powers, and favoured with heavenly visions, like St. Paul, 2\nCor. xii, in which he supposed himself taken up into heaven, and in\nconsequence of which he speaks of his descent from heaven; that he\nexercised his ministry on earth for the space of a year or more, and\nthen suffered death upon the cross, not to exhibit the evil of sin, or\nin any sense to make atonement for it, but as a martyr to the truth, and\nas a necessary preliminary to his resurrection, which they consider as a\npledge of the resurrection of mankind. Many also believe that Jesus\nmaintained some personal and sensible connection with the church during\nthe apostolic age, and the continuance of miraculous powers in the\nchurch. They farther believe that he is appointed to revisit the earth,\nand to judge the world,--a difficult task one would suppose, if \u201che be\nconstituted,\u201d as said above, \u201cin all respects like other men, subject to\nthe same ignorance, prejudices frailties,\u201d &c! So this blasphemous\nsystem contains, in this respect, and in almost every other, its own\nrefutation. See SOCINIANS.\n\nThe creed which the celebrated council of Nice established, says Grier,\nin his \u201cEpitome of General Councils,\u201d is that which Christians now\nprofess; the errors and impieties which it condemned are those which,\naccording to the refinements of Socinus, his followers of the present\nday have moulded into their antichristian system. Arius, a presbyter in\nthe church of Alexandria, a man of consummate talent and address, but of\na cold and speculative mind, impiously maintained that there had been a\ntime when the Son of God was not; that he was capable of virtue and\nvice; and that he was a creature, and mutable as creatures are! It is\ntrue that Arius held a qualified pre\u00ebxistence, when he said that God\ncreated the Son from nothing before he created the world; in other\nwords, that the Son was the first of created beings; but such\npre\u00ebxistence does not imply co\u00ebxistence or co\u00ebternity with the Father.\nAfter this manner did he deny the divinity of the Son, and his\nco\u00ebternity with the Father. Seduced by the pride of reasoning, no less\nthan by his fondness for novelty, did he likewise reject the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd,\nas it is called, or the tenet of the Son being of the same substance\nwith the Father. The blasphemies of Arius consisted in the denial of\nChrist\u2019s being either co-eternal or consubstantial with God. After a\nlapse of twelve centuries, Socinus lowered him another step by declaring\nhis inferiority to the Father; for that he, as well as all other things,\nwas subject to the supreme Creator of the universe; and although he held\nhis mere humanity, yet, inconsistently enough, he would offer him divine\nworship! Inconsistently it may be said, because the Socinian, on his own\nprinciples, thereby incurs the guilt of idolatry as much as the Roman\nCatholic who worships the Virgin Mary, a mere created being. The\nUnitarian, or Humanitarian, sinks the character of the Saviour still\nlower, by withholding all worship from him; and while he considers him\nas a mere man, and therefore as not possessing the attributes of the\nDeity, with an inconsistency as singular as that of Socinus, he\nacknowledges his divinity so as to call him God; as if the terms Deity\nand Divinity bore different significations, or as if the principle which\nconstituted the essence of the Godhead were separable from the Godhead\nitself! It should be observed, that the lowest denomination of\nunbelievers in the descending scale, namely, the modern Unitarian,\ncombines with his own peculiar errors and impieties all the errors and\nimpieties of both Arius and Socinus, together with an absolute denial of\nthe Holy Ghost being a divine Person. Having touched on the shades of\ndifference which exist between the followers of Arius and Socinus, a\nmore minute detail of the division and subdivision of the classes into\nwhich they may be ranged may not be unacceptable to the reader: Arians\nand Semi-Arians constituted the original distinction; that of a\nsubsequent day was high and low Arians. The high Arians entertain the\nhighest views of the mediatorial influence of Christ, and believe in the\nentire Scriptures; the low Arians run into the opposite extreme, yet\nneither high nor low Arians consider Christ to be truly God. The old\nSocinians admitted the miraculous conception, and the worship of the\nSon; the modern Socinians do not; a circumstance that identifies the\nmodern Socinian with the Unitarian. Some high Arians, such as Dr. Samuel\nClarke, &c, thought that Christ might be worshipped; others of them\naffect to have no distinct notion of what the Holy Ghost meant, and to\nbelieve that worship is not to be addressed to Christ, but through\nChrist! These variations in the Unitarian creed have been deduced from\nthe evidence of Unitarians themselves, given before the Commissioners of\nEducation Inquiry in Ireland in 1826, as detailed in their Report to\nParliament; a circumstance that renders them the more valuable, as it\nimparts to them a living, speaking authority. It must, however, be\nobserved, that motley as they are, they all terminate in one point, the\nrejection of Christ\u2019s divinity; and that, diversified as the\ndistinctions appear to be, they all will be ultimately found to be\nwithout a shadow of difference. In short, Arians, Socinians, Unitarians,\n&c, not only agree with each other in their antichristian scheme; but\ncan scarcely be said to differ from the infidel Musselmans, who are\ntaught by their Koran to regard Christ as a great prophet, and the\nforerunner of their own. With Deism doubtless Unitarianism has an\nintimate alliance. For Deists reject all the doctrines of the Christian\nrevelation, while Unitarians reject all its peculiar doctrines: 1. The\nTrinity of Persons in the Godhead. 2. The divinity of Christ. 3. The\npersonality of the Holy Spirit. 4. The miraculous birth of Christ. 5.\nThe atonement of Christ. 6. The sanctification of the Spirit. 7. The\nexistence of angels and spirits; 8. And, therefore, of the devil and his\nangels. \u201cIn what, then,\u201d says the learned Dr. Burgess, bishop of\nSalisbury, after this enumeration of the peculiar doctrines of\nChristianity, \u201cdoes Unitarianism differ from Deism? Deists deny the\nessential doctrines of Christianity by rejecting the whole of the\nChristian revelation; Unitarians reject the Christian revelation by\ndenying all its peculiar and essential doctrines.\u201d\n\nUNIVERSALISTS. Those who believe that Christ so died for all, that,\nbefore he shall have delivered up his mediatorial kingdom, all fallen\ncreatures shall be brought to a participation of the benefits of his\ndeath, in their restoration to holiness and happiness. They are called\nalso Universal Restorationists, and their doctrine, the doctrine of\nuniversal restoration. Some of its friends have maintained it, also,\nunder the name of universal salvation; but perhaps the former name is\nthat by which it should be distinguished; for the Universalists do not\nhold any universal exemption from future punishment, but merely the\nrecovery of all those that shall have been exposed to it.[A] They have\nlikewise a just claim to this title on other grounds; for their\ndoctrine, which includes the restoration, or \u201crestitution of all the\nintelligent offspring of God,\u201d or of all\n\n[Footnote A: This may be true in respect to the Universalists in Europe;\nbut in America there are those who deny any future punishment whatever.\nIn this country also they have formed themselves into separate and\ndistinct societies. AM. ED.] \u201clapsed intelligences,\u201d seems to embrace\neven the fallen angels. They admit the reality and equity of future\npunishment; but they contend that it will be corrective in its nature,\nand limited in its duration. They teach the doctrine of election, but\nnot in the exclusive Calvinistic sense of it. They suppose that God has\nchosen some for the good of all; and that his final purpose toward all\nis intimated by his calling his elect the first-born and the\nfirst-fruits of his creatures, which, say they, implies other branches\nof his family, and a future ingathering of the harvest of mankind. They\nteach, also, that the righteous shall have part in the first\nresurrection, shall be blessed and happy, and be made priests and kings\nto God and to Christ in the millennial kingdom, and that over them the\nsecond death shall have no power; that the wicked will receive a\npunishment apportioned to their crimes; that punishment itself is a\nmediatorial work, and founded upon mercy, and, consequently, that it is\na means of humbling, subduing, and finally reconciling the sinner to\nGod. They add, that the words rendered \u201ceternal,\u201d \u201ceverlasting,\u201d \u201cfor\never,\u201d and \u201cfor ever and ever,\u201d in the Scriptures, are frequently used\nto express the duration of things that have ended or must end; and if it\nis contended that these words are sometimes used to express proper\neternity, they answer, that then the subject with which the words are\nconnected must determine the sense of them; and as there is nothing in\nthe nature of future punishment which can be offered as a reason why it\nshould be endless, they infer that the above words ought always to be\ntaken in a limited sense when connected with the infliction of misery.\n\nThose who deny the eternity of future punishments have not formed\nthemselves into any separate body or distinct society; but are to be\nfound in most Christian countries, and among several denominations.\nTheir doctrines form part of the creed of some Arians, as of Mr.\nWhiston; of many Deists, as of Mr. Hobbes, Mr. Tindal, &c; and of most\nSocinians. Nor need we be surprised that libertines and atheists hold\nit, and that they strive to bring others over to their opinion. \u201cThe\ntyranny of priests,\u201d said Dupont the atheist, in the national\nconvention, December, 1792, \u201cextends their opinion to another life, of\nwhich they have no other idea than that of eternal punishment; a\ndoctrine which some men have hitherto had the good nature to believe.\nBut these prejudices must now fall: we must destroy them, or they will\ndestroy us.\u201d The Mennonites in Holland have long held the doctrine of\nthe Universalists; the people called Dunkers, or Tunkers, in America,\ndescended from the German Baptists, hold it; and also the Shakers.\nExcellent refutations of this specious system have been published by the\nRev. S. Jerram, and the Rev. Daniel Isaac.\n\nThe Arminians are sometimes called \u201cUniversalists,\u201d on account of their\nholding the tenet of general redemption; in opposition to the\nCalvinists, who, from their specifically restricting the saving grace of\nGod to certain fore ordained individuals, receive the denomination of\n\u201cParticularists.\u201d By the epithet \u201cHypothetical Universalists,\u201d are\ndesignated on the continent those who have adopted the theological\nsystem of Amyraut and Cameron, but who are better KNOWN in this country\nas \u201cBaxterians.\u201d See AMYRAUT, BAXTERIANISM, and CAMERON.\n\nUPPER ROOM. The principal rooms anciently in Judea were those above, as\nthey are to this day at Aleppo; the ground floor being chiefly made use\nof for their horses and servants. \u201cThe house in which I am at present\nliving,\u201d says, Jowett, \u201cgives what seems to be a correct idea of the\nscene of Eutychus\u2019 falling from the upper loft while St. Paul was\npreaching, Acts xx, 6\u201312. According to our idea of houses, the scene is\nvery far from intelligible; and, beside this, the circumstance of\npreaching generally leaves on the mind of cursory readers the notion of\na church. To describe this house, which is not many miles distant from\nthe Troad, and perhaps, from the unchanging character of oriental\ncustoms, nearly resembles the houses then built, will fully illustrate\nthe narrative. On entering my host\u2019s door, we find the first floor\nentirely used as a store: it is filled with large barrels of oil, the\nproduce of the rich country for many miles round: this space, so far\nfrom being habitable, is sometimes so dirty with the dripping of the\noil, that it is difficult to pick out a clean footing from the door to\nthe first step of the staircase. On ascending, we find the first floor,\nconsisting of an humble suit of rooms, not very high; these are occupied\nby the family for their daily use. It is on the next story that all\ntheir expense is lavished: here my courteous host has appointed my\nlodging: beautiful curtains and mats, and cushions to the divan, display\nthe respect with which they mean to receive their guest. Here, likewise,\ntheir splendour, being at the top of the house, is enjoyed by the poor\nGreeks with more retirement, and less chance of molestation from the\nintrusion of Turks: here, when the professors of the college waited upon\nme to pay their respects, they were received in ceremony, and sat at the\nwindow. The room is both higher and also larger than those below; it has\ntwo projecting windows; and the whole floor is so much extended in front\nbeyond the lower part of the building, that the projecting windows\nconsiderably overhang the street. In such an upper room, secluded,\nspacious, and commodious, St. Paul was invited to preach his parting\ndiscourse. The divan, or raised seat, with mats or cushions, encircles\nthe interior of each projecting window; and I have remarked that when\nthe company is numerous, they sometimes place large cushions behind the\ncompany seated on the divan; so that a second tier of company, with\ntheir feet upon the seat of the divan, are sitting behind, higher than\nthe front row. Eutychus, thus sitting, would be on a level with the open\nwindow; and, being overcome with sleep, he would easily fall out from\nthe third loft of the house into the street, and be almost certain, from\nsuch a height, to lose his life. Thither St. Paul went down, and\ncomforted the alarmed company by bringing up Eutychus alive. It is noted\nthat \u2018there were many lights in the upper chamber.\u2019 The very great\nplenty of oil in this neighbourhood would enable them to afford many\nlamps; the heat of these and so much company would cause the drowsiness\nof Eutychus, at that late hour, and be the occasion, likewise, of the\nwindows being open.\u201d\n\nURIM AND THUMMIM. The high priests of the Jews, we are told, consulted\nGod in the most important affairs of their commonwealth, and received\nanswers by the Urim and Thummim. What these were, is disputed among the\ncritics. Josephus, and some others, imagine the answer was returned by\nthe stones of the breastplate appearing with an unusual lustre when it\nwas favourable, or in the contrary case dim. Others suppose, that the\nUrim and Thummim were something enclosed between the folding of the\nbreastplate; this some will have to be the tetragrammaton, or the word\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 _Jehovah_. Christophorus de Castro, and after him Dr. Spencer,\nmaintain them to be two little images shut up in the doubling of the\nbreastplate, which gave the oracular answer from thence by an articulate\nvoice. Accordingly, they derive them from the Egyptians, who consulted\ntheir _lares_, and had an oracle, or teraphim, which they called Truth.\nThis opinion, however, has been sufficiently confuted by the learned Dr.\nPococke and by Witsius. The more common opinion among Christians\nconcerning the oracle by Urim and Thummim, and which Dr. Prideaux\nespouses, is, that when the high priest appeared before the veil,\nclothed with his ephod and breastplate, to ask counsel of God, the\nanswer was given with an audible voice from the mercy seat, within the\nveil; but, it has been observed, that this account will by no means\nagree with the history of David\u2019s consulting the oracle by Abiathar, 1\nSam. xxiii, 9, 11; xxx, 7, 8; because the ark, on which was the mercy\nseat, was then at Kirjathjearim; whereas David was in the one case at\nZiklag, and in the other in the forest of Hareth. Braunius and Hottinger\nhave adopted another opinion: they suppose, that, when Moses is\ncommanded to put in the breastplate the Urim and Thummim, signifying\n_lights_ and _perfections_ in the plural number, it was meant that he\nshould make choice of the most perfect set of stones, and have them so\npolished as to give the brightest lustre; and, on this hypothesis, the\nuse of the Urim and Thummim, or of these exquisitely polished jewels,\nwas only to be a symbol of the divine presence, and of the light and\nperfection of the prophetic inspiration; and, as such, constantly to be\nworn by the high priest in the exercise of his sacred function,\nespecially in consulting the oracle.\n\nMicha\u00eblis observes: That in making distributions of property, and in\ncases of disputes relative to _meum_ [mine] and _tuum_, [thine,]\nrecourse was had to the lot, in default of any other means of decision,\nwill naturally be supposed. The whole land was partitioned by lot; and\nthat, in after times, the lot continued to be used, even in courts of\njustice, we see from Prov. xvi, 33; xviii, 18; where we are expressly\ntaught to remember, that it is Providence which maketh the choice, and\nthat therefore we ought to be satisfied with the decision of the lot, as\nthe will of God. It was for judicial purposes, in a particular manner,\nthat the sacred lot called Urim and Thummim was employed; and on this\naccount the costly embroidered pouch, in which the priest carried this\nsacred lot on his breast, was called the judicial ornament. \u201cBut was\nthis sacred lot used likewise in criminal trials?\u201d Yes, says Micha\u00eblis,\nonly to discover the guilty, to convict them; for in the only two\ninstances of its use in such cases which occur in the whole Bible,\nnamely, in Joshua vii, 14\u201318, 1 Sam. xiv, 37\u201345, we find the confessions\nof the two delinquents, Achan and Jonathan, annexed. It appears also to\nhave been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed which the\nwhole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name, but not\nin the case of other crimes; for an unknown murder, for example, was not\nto be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot.\n\nThe inner sanctuary, within the veil of the tabernacle, observes Dr.\nHales, or most holy place, was called the oracle, 1 Kings vi, 16,\nbecause there the Lord communed with Moses, face to face, and gave him\ninstructions in cases of legal difficulty or sudden emergency, Exod.\nxxv, 22; Num. vii, 89; ix, 8; Exod. xxxiii, 11; a high privilege granted\nto none of his successors. After the death of Moses a different mode was\nappointed for consulting the oracle by the high priest, who put on \u201cthe\nbreastplate of judgment,\u201d a principal part of the pontifical dress, on\nwhich were inscribed the words Urim and Thummim, emblematical of divine\nillumination; as the inscription on his mitre, \u201cHoliness to the Lord,\u201d\nwas of sanctification, Exod. xxviii, 30\u201337; Lev. viii, 8. Thus prepared,\nhe presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters,\nnot in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter, except on\nthe great day of national atonement, but without the veil, with his face\ntoward the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some\ndistance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who\nwanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible\nvoice from within the veil, Num. xxvii, 21, as in the case of Joshua,\nvi, 6\u201315; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin, Judges\nxx, 27, 28; on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid himself,\n1 Sam. x, 22\u201324; of David, 1 Sam. xxii, 10; xxiii, 2\u201312; xxx, 8; 2 Sam.\nv, 23, 24; of Saul, 1 Sam. xxviii, 6. This mode of consultation\nsubsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and\nuntil the building of Solomon\u2019s temple; after which we find no instances\nof it. The oracles of the Lord were thenceforth delivered by the\nprophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam, 1 Kings xi, 29; by Shemaiah to\nRehoboam, 1 Kings xii, 22; by Elijah to Ahab, 1 Kings xvii, 1; xxi,\n17\u201329; by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings xxii, 7; by Elisha\nto Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings iii, 11\u201314; by Isaiah to Hezekiah, 2\nKings xix, 6\u201334; xx, 1\u201311; by Huldah to Josiah, 2 Kings xxii, 13\u201320; by\nJeremiah to Zedekiah, Jer. xxxii, 3\u20135, &c. After the Babylonish\ncaptivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,\nthe oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold by Ezra, ii, 63, and\naccomplished by Christ, who was himself the oracle, under the old and\nnew covenants, Gen. xv, 1; John i, 1. See BREASTPLATE.\n\nUSURY, profit or gain from lending money or goods. Moses enacted a law\nto the effect that interest should not be taken from a poor person,\nneither for borrowed money, nor for articles of consumption, for\ninstance, grain, which was borrowed with the expectation of being\nreturned, Exod. xxii, 25; Lev. xxv, 35\u201337. A difficulty arose in\ndetermining who was to be considered a poor person in a case of this\nkind; and the law was accordingly altered in Deut. xxiii, 20, 21, and\nextended in its operation to all the Hebrews, whether they had more or\nless property; so that interest could be lawfully taken only of\nforeigners. As the system of the Jews went to secure every man\u2019s\npaternal inheritance to his own family, they could not exact it from\ntheir brethren, but only from strangers. As the law of nature does not\nforbid the receipt of moderate interest in the shape of rent, for the\nuse of lands or houses, neither does it prohibit it for the loan of\nmoney or goods. When one man trades with the capital of another, and\nobtains a profit from it, he is bound in justice to return a part of it\nto his benefactor, who, in the hands of God, has been a second cause of\n\u201cgiving him power to get wealth.\u201d But should Divine Providence not\nfavour the endeavours of some who have borrowed money, the duty of the\nlenders is to deal gently with them, and to be content with sharing in\ntheir losses, as they have been sharers in their gains. The Hebrews were\ntherefore exhorted to lend money, &c, as a deed of mercy and brotherly\nkindness, Deut. xv, 7\u201311; xxiv, 13. And hence it happens that we find\nencomiums every where bestowed upon those who were willing to lend\nwithout insisting upon interest for the use of the thing lent, Psalm xv,\n15; xxxvii, 21, 26; cxii, 5; Prov. xix, 17; Ezek. xviii, 8. This\nregulation in regard to taking interest was very well suited to the\ncondition of a state that had been recently founded, and which had but\nvery little mercantile dealings; and its principle, though not capable\nof being generally introduced into communities that are much engaged in\ncommerce, may still be exercised toward those who stand toward us in the\nrelation of brethren.\n\nUZ, LAND OF, the country of Job. As there were three persons of this\nname, namely, the son of Aram, the son of Nahor, and the grandson of\nSeir the Horite, commentators are divided in their opinion as to the\nsituation of the country meant by the land of Uz. Bochart, Spanheim,\nCalmet, Wells, and others, place it in Arabia Deserta. Micha\u00eblis places\nit in the valley of Damascus; which city was, in fact, built by Uz, the\ngrandson of Shem. Archbishop Magee, Bishop Lowth, Dr. Hales, Dr. Good,\nand others, with more reason, fix the scene of the history of Job in\nIdumea. This is also the opinion of Mr. Horne, who refers for a\nconfirmation of it to Lam. iv, 21, where Uz is expressly said to be in\nEdom; and to Jer. xlix, 7, 8, 20; Ezek. xxv, 13; Amos i, 11, 12; Obad.\n8, 9, where both Teman and Dedan are described as inhabitants of Edom.\nIn effect, says Mr. Horne, nothing is clearer than that the history of\nan inhabitant of Idumea is the subject of the poem which bears the name\nof Job, and that all the persons introduced into it were Idumeans,\ndwelling in Idumea; in other words, Edomite Arabs.\n\n\nVEIL. Women were wont to cover their faces with veils in token of\nmodesty, of reverence, and subjection to their husbands, Gen. xxiv, 65;\n1 Cor. xi, 3, &c. In modern times, the women of Syria never appear in\nthe streets without their veils. These are of two kinds, the furragi and\nthe common Aleppo veil; the former being worn by some of the Turkish\nwomen only, the latter indiscriminately by all. The first is in the form\nof a large cloak, with long straight sleeves, and a square hood hanging\nflat on the back; it is sometimes made of linen, sometimes of a shawl or\ncloth. This veil, reaching to the heels, conceals the whole of the\ndress, from the neck downward; while the head and face are covered by a\nlarge white handkerchief over the head dress and forehead, and a smaller\none tied transversely over the lower part of the face, hanging down on\nthe neck. Many of the Turkish women, instead of the smaller\nhandkerchief, use a long piece of black crape stiffened, which, sloping\na little from the forehead, leaves room to breathe more freely. In this\nlast way, the ladies are completely disguised; in the former, the eyes\nand nose remaining visible, they are easily known by their\nacquaintances. The _radid_ is a species of veil, which Calmet supposes\nis worn by married women, as a token of their submission and dependence,\nand descends low down on the person. To lift up the veil of a virgin is\nreckoned a gross insult; but to take away the veil of a married woman is\none of the greatest indignities that she can receive, because it\ndeprives her of the badge which distinguishes and dignifies her in that\ncharacter, and betokens her alliance to her husband, and her interest in\nhis affections. This is the reason why the spouse so feelingly\ncomplains: \u201cThey took away my veil, \u05e8\u05d3\u05d3, from me,\u201d Cant. v, 7. When it\nis forcibly taken away by the husband, it is equivalent to divorce, and\njustly reckoned a most severe calamity; therefore, God threatened to\ntake away the ornamental dresses of the daughters of Zion, including the\n_radidim_, the low descending veils: \u201cIn that day the Lord will take\naway the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the fine\nlinen, and the hoods, and the veils,\u201d Isaiah iii, 18, &c.\n\nThe ordinary Aleppo veil is a linen sheet, large enough to cover the\nwhole habit from head to foot, and is brought over the face in a manner\nto conceal all but one eye. This is perhaps alluded to by the bridegroom\nin these words: \u201cThou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes,\u201d\nCant. iv, 9. In Barbary, when the ladies appear in public, they always\nfold themselves up so closely in their hykes, that, even without their\nveils, one can discover very little of their faces. But, in the summer\nmonths, when they retire to their country seats, they walk abroad with\nless caution; though, even then, on the approach of a stranger, they\nalways drop their veils, as Rebekah did on the approach of Isaac. But,\nalthough they are so closely wrapped up, that those who look at them\ncannot see even their hands, still less their face, yet it is reckoned\nindecent in a man to fix his eyes upon them; he must let them pass\nwithout seeming at all to observe them. When a lady of distinction, says\nHanway, travels on horseback, she is not only veiled, but has generally\na servant, who runs or rides before her to clear the way; and on such\noccasions the men, even in the market places, always turn their backs\ntill the women are past, it being thought the highest ill manners to\nlook at them. A lady in the east considers herself degraded when she is\nexposed to the gaze of the other sex, which accounts for the conduct of\nVashti in refusing to obey the command of the king. Their ideas of\ndecency, on the other hand, forbid a virtuous woman to lay aside or even\nto lift up her veil in the presence of the other sex. She who ventures\nto disregard this prohibition inevitably ruins her character. From that\nmoment she is noted as a woman of easy virtue, and her act is regarded\nas a signal for intrigue. Pitts informs us that in Barbary the courtezan\nappears in public without her veil; and, in Prov. vii, 13, 14, the\nharlot exposes herself in the same indecent manner: \u201cSo she caught him,\nand kissed him, and with an impudent face,\u201d a face uncovered and\nshameless, \u201csaid unto him, I have peace-offerings with me, this day have\nI paid my vows.\u201d But it must nevertheless be remarked, that, at\ndifferent times, and in different parts of the east, the use, or partial\nuse of the veil has greatly varied.\n\nVINE, \u05d2\u05e4\u05df, Gen. xl, 9; \u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. xxvi, 29; Mark xiv, 25; Luke xxii,\n18; John xv, 4, 5; James iii, 12; Rev. xiv, 19; a noble plant of the\ncreeping kind, famous for its fruit, or grapes, and the liquor they\nafford. The vine is a common name or genus, including several species\nunder it; and Moses, to distinguish the true vine, or that from which\nwine is made, from the rest, calls it, the wine vine, Num. vi, 4. Some\nof the other sorts were of a poisonous quality, as appears from the\nstory related among the miraculous acts of Elisha, 2 Kings iv, 39, 41.\n(See _Grapes_.) The expression of \u201csitting every man under his own\nvine,\u201d probably alludes to the delightful eastern arbours, which were\npartly composed of vines. Capt. Norden, in like manner, speaks of vine\narbours as common in the Egyptian gardens; and the Pr\u00e6nestine pavement\nin Dr. Shaw gives us the figure of an ancient one. Plantations of trees\nabout houses are found very useful in hot countries, to give them an\nagreeable coolness. The ancient Israelites seem to have made use of the\nsame means, and probably planted fruit trees, rather than other kinds,\nto produce that effect. \u201cIt is their manner in many places,\u201d says Sir\nThomas Rowe\u2019s chaplain, speaking of the country of the Great Mogul, \u201cto\nplant about and among their buildings, trees which grow high and broad,\nthe shadow whereof keeps their houses by far more cool: this I observed\nin a special manner, when we were ready to enter Amadavar; for it\nappeared to us as if we had been entering a wood rather than a city.\u201d\n\u201cImmediately on entering,\u201d says Turner, \u201cI was ushered into the court\nyard of the aga, whom I found smoking under a vine, surrounded by\nhorses, servants, and dogs, among which I distinguished an English\npointer.\u201d There were in Palestine many excellent vineyards. Scripture\ncelebrates the vines of Sorek, of Sebamah, of Jazer, of Abel. Profane\nauthors mention the excellent wines of Gaza, Sarepta, Libanus, Saron,\nAscalon, and Tyre. Jacob, in the blessing which he gave Judah, \u201cBinding\nhis foal unto the vine, and his ass\u2019s colt unto the choice vine, he\nwashed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes,\u201d\nGen. xlix, 11; he showed the abundance of vines that should fall to his\nlot. \u201cJoseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose\nbranches hang over the wall,\u201d Gen. xlix, 22. \u201cTo the northward and\nwestward,\u201d says Morier, \u201care several villages, interspersed with\nextensive orchards and vineyards, the latter of which are generally\nenclosed by high walls. The Persian vine dressers do all in their power\nto make the vine run up the wall, and curl over on the other side, which\nthey do by tying stones to the extremity of the tendril. The vine,\nparticularly in Turkey and Greece, is frequently made to entwine on\ntrellises around a well, where, in the heat of the day, whole families\ncollect themselves, and sit under the shade.\u201d\n\nNoah planted the vine after the deluge, and is supposed to have been the\nfirst who cultivated it, Gen. ix, 20. Many are of opinion that wine was\nnot unknown before the deluge; and that this patriarch only continued to\ncultivate the vine after that event, as he had done before it: but the\nfathers think that he knew not the force of wine, having never used it\nbefore, nor having ever seen any one use it. He was the first that\ngathered the juice of the grape, and preserved it till by fermentation\nit became a potable liquor. Before him men only ate the grapes like\nother fruit. The law of Moses did not allow the planters of vineyards to\neat the fruit before the fifth year, Lev. xix, 24, 25. The Israelites\nwere also required to indulge the poor, the orphan, and the stranger,\nwith the use of the grapes on the seventh year. A traveller was allowed\nto gather and eat the grapes in a vineyard as he passed along, but he\nwas not permitted to carry any away, Deut. xxiii, 24. The scarcity of\nfuel, especially wood, in most parts of the east, is so great, that they\nsupply it with every thing capable of burning; cow dung dried, roots,\nparings of fruits, withered stalks of herbs and flowers, Matthew vi, 30.\nVine twigs are particularly mentioned as used for fuel in dressing their\nfood, by D\u2019Arvieux, La Roque, and others: Ezekiel says, in his parable\nof the vine, used figuratively for the people of God, \u201cShall wood be\ntaken thereof to do any work? Or will men take a pin of it to hang any\nvessel thereon? Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel,\u201d Ezekiel xv,\n3, 4. \u201cIf a man abide not in me,\u201d saith our Lord, \u201che is cast forth as a\nbranch\u201d of the vine, \u201cand is withered; and men gather them, and cast\nthem into the fire, and they are burned,\u201d John xv, 6.\n\nVINEGAR, \u05d7\u05de\u05e5, Num. vi, 3; Ruth ii, 14; Psalm lxix, 21; Prov. x, 26; xxv,\n20; \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 36; John xix, 29, 30; an acid\nproduced by a second fermentation of vinous liquors. The law of the\nNazarite was that he should \u201cseparate himself from wine and strong\ndrink, and should drink no vinegar of wine, nor vinegar of strong drink,\nnor any liquor of grapes.\u201d This is exactly the same prohibition that was\ngiven in the case of John the Baptist, Luke i, 15, \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f7a\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03d6\u03af\u1fc3, _wine and sikera he shall not drink_. Any inebriating liquor,\nsays Jerom, is called _sicera_, whether made of corn, apples, honey,\ndates, or other fruits. One of the four prohibited drinks among the\nMohammedans in India is called _sakar_, which signifies inebriating\ndrink in general, but especially date wine. From the original word,\nprobably, we have our term cider or sider, which among us, exclusively\nmeans the fermented juice of apples. Vinegar was used by harvesters for\ntheir refreshment. Boaz told Ruth that she might come and dip her bread\nin vinegar with his people. Pliny says, \u201d_Aceto summa vis in\nrefrigerando_.\u201d [There is the greatest power in vinegar, in cooling.] It\nmade a very cooling beverage. It was generally diluted with water. When\nvery strong, it affected the teeth disagreeably, Prov. x, 26. In\nProverbs xxv, 20, the singing of songs to a heavy heart is finely\ncompared to the contrariety or colluctation between vinegar and nitre;\nuntimely mirth to one in anxiety serves only to exasperate, and as it\nwere put into a ferment by the intrusion.\n\nThe Emperor Pescennius Niger gave orders that his soldiers should drink\nnothing but vinegar on their marches. That which the Roman soldiers\noffered to our Saviour at his crucifixion, was, probably, the vinegar\nthey made use of for their own drinking. Constantine the Great allowed\nthem wine and vinegar alternately, every day. This vinegar was not of\nthat sort which we use for salads and sauces; but it was a tart wine\ncalled _pesca_, or _sera_. They make great use of it in Spain and Italy,\nin harvest time. They use it also in Holland, and on shipboard, to\ncorrect the ill taste of the water.\n\nVIPER, \u05d0\u05e4\u05e2\u05d4, Job xx, 16; Isaiah xxx, 6; lix, 5; \u1f14\u03c7\u03b9\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1, Matt. iii, 7;\nxii, 34; xxiii, 33; Luke iii, 7; Acts xxviii, 3; a serpent famed for the\nvenomousness of its bite, which is one of the most dangerous poisons in\nthe animal kingdom. So remarkable, says Dr. Mead, has the viper been for\nits venom, that the remotest antiquity made it an emblem of what is\nhurtful and destructive. Nay, so terrible was the nature of these\ncreatures, that they were very commonly thought to be sent as\nexecutioners of divine vengeance upon mankind, for enormous crimes which\nhad escaped the course of justice. An instance of such an opinion as\nthis we have in the history of St. Paul, Acts xxviii, whom the people of\nMelita, when they saw the viper leap upon his hand, presently concluded\nto be a murderer; and as readily made a god of him when, instead of\nhaving his hand inflamed, or falling down dead, one or other of which is\nusually the effect of these bites, he without any harm shook the reptile\ninto the fire: it being obvious enough to imagine that he must stand in\na near relation at least to the gods themselves, who could thus command\nthe messengers of their vengeance, and counterwork the effects of such\npowerful agents.\n\nVISION, the act of seeing; but, in Scripture, it generally signifies a\nsupernatural appearance, either by dream or in reality, by which God\nmade known his will and pleasure to those to whom it was vouchsafed,\nActs ix, 10, 12; xvi, 9, xxvi, 13; 2 Cor. xii, 1. Thus, in the earliest\ntimes, to patriarchs, prophets, and holy men God sent angels, he\nappeared to them himself by night in dreams, he illuminated their minds,\nhe made his voice to be heard by them, he sent them ecstasies, and\ntransported them beyond themselves, and made them hear things that eye\nhad not seen, ear had not heard, and which had not entered into the\nheart of man. The Lord showed himself to Moses, and spoke to him when he\nwas at the mouth of the cave. Jesus Christ manifested himself to his\nApostles, in his transfiguration upon the mount, and on several other\noccasions after his resurrection. God appeared to Abraham under the form\nof three travellers; he showed himself to Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the\nsplendour of his glory. Vision is also used for the prophecies written\nby the prophets. The _beatific vision_ denotes the act of angels and\nglorified spirits beholding in heaven the unveiled splendours of the\nLord Jehovah, and privileged to contemplate his perfections and plans in\nand by himself.\n\nVOCATION, or CALLING, is a gracious act of God in Christ, by which,\nthrough his word and Spirit, he calls forth sinful men, who are liable\nto condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition\nof the animal life, and from the pollutions and corruptions of this\nworld, 2 Tim. i, 9; Matt. xi, 28; 1 Peter ii, 9, 10; Gal. i, 4; 2 Peter\nii, 20; Romans x, 13\u201315; 1 Peter iii, 19; Gen. vi, 3, unto \u201cthe\nfellowship of Jesus Christ,\u201d and of his kingdom and its benefits; that,\nbeing united unto him as their head, they may derive from him life,\nsensation, motion, and a plenitude of every spiritual blessing, to the\nglory of God and their own salvation, 1 Cor. i, 9; Gal. ii, 20; Eph. i,\n3, 6; 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. The end intended is, that they who have been\ncalled answer by faith to God and to Christ who give the call, and that\nthey thus become the covenanted people of God through Christ the\nMediator of the new covenant; and, after having become believers and\nparties to the covenant, that they love, fear, honour, and worship God\nand Christ, render in all things obedience to the divine precepts \u201cin\nrighteousness and true holiness,\u201d and that by this means they \u201cmake\ntheir calling and election sure,\u201d Prov. i, 24; Heb. iii, 7; Rev. iii,\n20; Eph. ii, 11\u201316; Titus iii, 8; Deut. vi, 4, 5; Jer. xxxii, 38, 39;\nLuke i, 74, 75; 2 Peter i, 1, 10. The glory of God, who is supremely\nwise, good, merciful, just, and powerful, is so luminously displayed in\nthis communication both of his grace and glory, as deservedly to raise\ninto rapturous admiration the minds of angels and of men, and to employ\ntheir loosened tongues in celebrating the praises of Jehovah, Rev. iv,\n8\u201311; v, 8\u201310. See CALLING.\n\nVOW, a promise made to God, of doing some good thing hereafter. The use\nof vows is observable throughout Scripture. When Jacob went into\nMesopotamia, he vowed to God the tenth of his estate, and promised to\noffer it at Bethel, to the honour of God, Gen. xxviii, 22. Moses enacts\nseveral laws for the regulation and execution of vows. A man might\ndevote himself, or his children, to the Lord. Jephthah devoted his\ndaughter, Judges xi, 30, 31. Samuel was vowed or consecrated to the\nservice of the Lord before his birth, by his pious mother Hannah; and\nwas really offered to him, to serve in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. i, 21, &c.\nIf a man and woman vowed themselves to the Lord, they were obliged to\nadhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow;\nbut in some cases they might be redeemed. A man from twenty years of age\ntill sixty, gave fifty shekels of silver; and a woman thirty, Lev.\nxxvii, 3. From the age of five years to twenty, a man gave twenty\nshekels, and a woman ten; from a month old to five years, they gave for\na boy five shekels, and for a girl three. A man of sixty years old, or\nupward, gave fifteen shekels, and a woman of the same age gave ten. If\nthe person was poor, and could not procure this sum, the priest imposed\na ransom upon him, according to his abilities. If any one had vowed an\nanimal that was clean, he had not the liberty of redeeming it, or of\nexchanging it, but was obliged to sacrifice it to the Lord. If it was an\nunclean animal, and such as was not allowed to be sacrificed, the priest\nmade a valuation of it; and if the proprietor would redeem it, he added\na fifth part to the value, by way of forfeit. They did the same in\nproportion, when the thing vowed was a house or a field. They could not\ndevote the first born, because in their own nature they belonged to the\nLord, Lev. xxvii, 28, 29. Whatever was devoted by way of anathema, could\nnot be redeemed, of whatever nature or quality it was. An animal was put\nto death, and other things were devoted for ever to the Lord. The\nconsecration of Nazarites was a particular kind of vow. The vows and\npromises of children were void, of course, except they were ratified\neither by the express or tacit consent of their parents. It was the same\nwith the vows of a married woman; they were of no validity, except\nconfirmed by the express or tacit consent of her husband, Num. xxx. But\nwidows, or liberated wives, were bound by their vows, whatever they\nwere.\n\nWhosoever invokes the awful name of God to witness any untruth, knowing\nit to be such, is guilty of taking it in vain. Our Lord did not mean to\npreclude solemn appeals to heaven, whether oaths or vows, in courts of\njustice, or in important compacts. For an oath, or appeal to the\ngreatest of all beings, as the Searcher of hearts, to witness a\ntransaction, and to punish falsehood or perjury, is necessary, for\nputting an end to all strife or controversy among men, to promote\nconfirmation or security of property, Heb. vi, 16. And it was sanctioned\nby the example of God, swearing by himself, Genesis xxii, 15; Heb. vi,\n17, 18; and by the example of the patriarchs and saints of old; thus\nAbraham swore by the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth, Gen.\nxiv, 22; the transjordanite tribes, by the God of gods, the Lord, Joshua\nxxii, 22. And the law prescribed, \u201cThou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and\nserve him, and shalt swear by his name,\u201d Deut. vi, 13. And afterward,\n\u201cAll Judah rejoiced at the oath, for they had sworn unto the Lord with a\nloud voice, with all their heart, and sought him with their whole\ndesire: and he was found of them; and the Lord gave them rest round\nabout,\u201d 2 Chron. xv, 14, 15. And a highly gifted Apostle uses the\nfollowing most solemn asseveration, \u201cThe God and Father of our Lord\nJesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not,\u201d 2\nCor. xi, 31. See the vows of the priests and Levites, to put away\nstrange wives, Ezra x, 5; and to take no usury from their brethren, Neh.\nx, 29. St. Paul also vowed a vow, which he performed, Acts xviii, 18;\nxxi, 23. Our Lord, therefore, re\u00ebnacted the law, while he guarded\nagainst the abuse of it, by prohibiting all oaths in common\nconversation, as a profanation either of God\u2019s name, where that was\nirreverently used, or where any of his works was substituted instead of\nthe awful and terrible name of the Lord, which the Jews, through\nsuperstitious dread, at length ceased to use, from misinterpretation of\nDeut. xxviii, 58: \u201cBut I say unto you, Swear not at all,\u201d in common\nconversation, by any of your usual oaths, \u201cneither by heaven, for it is\nGod\u2019s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool,\u201d &c. For, by\nthe detestable casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees, some oaths were\nreckoned binding, others not, as we learn from the sequel; thus, to\nswear by the temple, the altar, heaven, &c, they considered as not\nbinding: but to swear by the gold of the temple, by the gift on the\naltar, &c, they considered as binding; the absurdity and impiety of\nwhich practice is well exposed by our Lord in Matt. xxiii, 16\u201322.\n\nVULGATE, a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible; and the only one\nthe church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic. The ancient Vulgate of\nthe Old Testament was translated almost word for word, from the Greek of\nthe Septuagint. The author of the version is not known. It was a long\ntime known by the name of the Italic, or old version; as being of very\ngreat antiquity in the Latin church. It was the common, or vulgar\nversion, before St. Jerom made a new one from the Hebrew original, with\noccasional references to the Septuagint; whence it has its name Vulgate.\nNobilius, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 1628, gave new editions of it;\npretending to have restored and re-collated it from the ancients who had\ncited it. It has since been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom;\nand it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version, and some\ncorrections of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the\ncouncil of Trent has declared to be authentic. It is this Vulgate alone\nthat is used in the Romish church, excepting some passages of the\nancient Vulgate, which were left in the Missal and the Psalms, and which\nare still sung according to the old Italic version. St. Jerom declares\nthat, in his revisal of the Italic version, he used great care and\ncircumspection, never varying from that version but when he thought it\nmisrepresented the sense. But as the Greek copies to which he had access\nwere not so ancient as those from which the Italic version had been\nmade, some learned authors have been of opinion that it would have been\nmuch better if he had collected all the copies, and, by comparing them,\nhave restored that translation to its original purity. It is plain that\nhe never completed this work, and that he even left some faults in it,\nfor fear of varying too much from the ancient version, since he renders\nin his commentaries some words otherwise than he has done in his\ntranslation. This version was not introduced into the church but by\ndegrees, for fear of offending weak persons. Rufinus, notwithstanding\nhis enmity to St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much against this\nperformance, was one of the first to prefer it to the vulgar or Italian.\nThis translation gained at last so great an authority, by the\napprobation of Pope Gregory I., and his declared preference of it to\nevery other, that it was subsequently brought into public use through\nall the western churches. Although it was not regarded as authentic,\nexcept by the council of Trent, it is certainly of some use, as serving\nto illustrate several passages both of the Old and New Testament.\n\nThe two principal popish editions of the Vulgate are those of pope\nSixtus V. and Clement VIII.: the former was printed in 1590, after Pope\nSixtus had collected the most ancient MSS. and best printed copies,\nsummoned the most learned men out of all the nations of the Christian\nworld, assembled a congregation of cardinals for their assistance and\ncounsel, and presided over the whole himself. This edition was declared\nto be corrected in the very best manner possible, and published with a\ntremendous excommunication against every person who should presume ever\nafterward to alter the least particle of the edition thus authentically\npromulgated by his holiness, sitting in that chair, _in qu\u00e2 Petri vivit\npotestas, et excellit auctoritas_, [in which the power of Peter lived,\nand his authority excelled.] The other edition was published in 1592, by\nPope Clement VIII.; which was so different from that of Sixtus, as to\ncontain two thousand variations, some of whole verses, and many others\nclearly and designedly contradictory in sense; and yet this edition is\nalso, _ex cathedr\u00e2_, [from the chair,] pronounced as the only authentic\none, and enforced by the same sentence of excommunication with the\nformer. Clement suppressed the edition of his predecessor; so that\ncopies of the Sixtine Vulgate are now very scarce, and have long been\nreckoned among literary rarities. Our learned countryman, Dr. James, the\ncelebrated correspondent and able coadjutor of Archbishop Usher,\nrelates, with all the ardour of a hard student, the delight which he\nexperienced on unexpectedly obtaining a Sixtine copy; and he used it to\ngood and effective purpose in his very clever book, entitled \u201c_Bellum\nPapale_,\u201d in which he has pointed out numerous additions, omissions,\ncontradictions, and glaring differences between the Sixtine and\nClementine editions. All the popish champions are exceedingly shy about\nrecognizing this irreconcilable conflict between the productions of two\nsuch infallible personages; and the boldest of them wish to represent it\nas a thing of nought. But it is no light matter thus to tamper with the\nword of God.\n\nThe Romanists generally hold the Vulgate of the New Testament preferable\nto the common Greek text; because it is this alone, and not the Greek\ntext, that the council of Trent has declared authentic: accordingly that\nchurch has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priests read no\nother at the altar, the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the\ndivines in the schools. Yet some of their best authors, F. Bouhours for\ninstance, own, that among the differences that are found between the\ncommon Greek and the Vulgate, there are some in which the Greek reading\nappears more clear and natural than that of the Latin; so that the\nsecond might be corrected from the first, if the holy see should think\nfit. But those differences, taken in general, only consist in a few\nsyllables or words; they rarely concern the sense. Beside, in some of\nthe most considerable, the Vulgate is authorized by several ancient\nmanuscripts. Bouhours spent the last years of his life in giving a\nFrench translation of the New Testament according to the Vulgate. It is\nprobable that at the time the ancient Italic or Vulgate version of the\nNew Testament was made, and at the time it was afterward compared with\nthe Greek manuscripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the times\nof the Apostles, they had more accurate Greek copies, and those better\nkept, than any of those used when printing was invented.\n\n\u201cHighly as the Latin Vulgate is extolled by the church of Rome,\u201d says\nMicha\u00eblis, \u201cit was depreciated beyond measure at the beginning of the\nsixteenth century by several learned Protestants, whose example has been\nfollowed by men of inferior abilities. At the restoration of learning,\nwhen the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the highest accomplishment\nof a scholar, the Vulgate was regarded with contempt, as not written\nwith classical purity. But after the Greek manuscripts were discovered,\ntheir readings were preferred to those of the Latin, because the New\nTestament was written in Greek, and the Latin was only a version; but it\nwas not considered that these Greek manuscripts were modern in\ncomparison of those originals from which the Latin was taken; nor was it\nknown at that time, that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and the\nother versions were, the closer was their agreement with the Vulgate.\nOur ablest writers, such as Mill and Bengel, have been induced by F.\nSimon\u2019s treatise to abandon the opinion of their predecessors, and have\nascribed to the Latin Vulgate a value perhaps greater than it deserves.\u201d\n\nVULTURE, \u05d3\u05d0\u05d4, and \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4, Lev. xi, 14; Isa. xxxiv, 15; a large bird of\nprey, somewhat resembling the eagle. There are several birds of the\nvulturine kind, which, though they differ much in respect to colour and\ndimensions, yet are all easily distinguished by their naked heads, and\nbeaks partly straight and partly crooked. They are frequent in Arabia,\nEgypt, and many parts of Africa and Asia. They have a most indelicate\nvoracity, preying more upon carrion than live animals. They were\ndeclared unclean in the Levitical constitution.\n\n\nWALDENSES, WALLENSES, or ALBIGENSES, the Vaudois, or inhabitants of the\nbeautiful valleys of the Alps, between Italy and Provence. Many have\nsupposed that they derived their name from Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a\nmerchant of Lyons, in the twelfth century, and one of their leaders and\npatrons; but their history has been traced considerably farther back,\nwhich has led others to suppose that, on the contrary, he derived his\nname from them, as Peter the Waldensian, or Peter of the Valleys. The\nlearned Dr. Allix, in his \u201cHistory of the Churches of Piedmont,\u201d gives\nthis account: For three hundred years or more, the bishop of Rome\nattempted to subjugate the church of Milan under his jurisdiction; and\nat last the interest of Rome grew too potent for the church of Milan,\nplanted by one of the disciples; insomuch that the bishop and the\npeople, rather than own their jurisdiction, retired to the valleys of\nLucerne and Angrogne, and thence were called Vallenses, Wallenses, or,\nThe People in the Valleys. From a confession of their faith, of the\nearly date, A. D. 1120, we extract the following particulars: 1. That\nthe Scriptures teach that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and\nall-good, who made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his\nown image and likeness; but that by the envy of the devil sin entered\ninto the world, and that we are sinners in and by Adam. 2. That Christ\nwas promised to our fathers, who received the law; that so knowing by\nthe law their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the\ncoming of Christ, to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the law by\nhimself. 3. That Christ was born in the time appointed by God the\nFather; that is to say, in the time when all iniquity abounded, that he\nmight show us grace and mercy, as being faithful. 4. That Christ is our\nlife, truth, peace, and righteousness; as also our pastor, advocate, and\npriest, who died for the salvation of all who believe, and is risen for\nour justification. 5. That there is no mediator and advocate with God\nthe Father, save Jesus Christ. 6. That after this life there are only\ntwo places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned. 7. That\nthe feasts, the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy, as\nalso to abstain from flesh on certain days, and the like, but especially\nthe masses, are the inventions of men, and ought to be rejected. 8. That\nthe sacraments are signs of the holy thing, visible forms of the\ninvisible grace; and that it is good for the faithful to use those signs\nor visible forms; but that they are not essential to salvation. 9. That\nthere are no other sacraments but baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper. 10.\nThat we ought to honour the secular powers by subjection, ready\nobedience, and paying of tribute. On the subject of infant baptism, they\nheld different opinions, as Christians do in the present day.\n\nFor bearing this noble testimony against the church of Rome, these pious\npeople were for many centuries the subjects of a most cruel persecution;\nand in the thirteenth century the pope instituted a crusade against\nthem, and they were pursued with a fury perfectly diabolical. Their\nprinciples, however, continued unsubdued, and at the Reformation their\ndescendants were reckoned among the Protestants, with whom they were in\ndoctrine so congenial; but in the seventeenth century the flames of\npersecution were again rekindled against them by the cruelty of Louis\nXIV. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, about fifteen thousand\nperished in the prisons of Pignerol, beside great numbers who perished\namong the mountains. They received, however, the powerful protection and\nsupport of England under William III. But still the house of Saxony\ncontinued to treat them as heretics, and they were oppressed by a\nvariety of cruel edicts.\n\nWhen Piedmont was subjected to France in 1800, the French government,\nBuonaparte being first consul, placed them on the same plan of\ntoleration with the rest of France; but on the return of the king of\nSardinia to Genoa, notwithstanding the intercession of Lord William\nBentinck, the old persecuting edicts were revived in the end of 1814;\nand though they have not been subjected to fire and faggot as aforetime,\ntheir worship has been restrained, and they were not only stripped of\nall employments, but, by a most providential circumstance only, saved\nfrom a general massacre. Since then they have been visited by some pious\nand benevolent Englishmen; and the number of Waldenses, or Vaudois, has\nbeen taken at nineteen thousand seven hundred and ten, beside about\nfifty families residing at Turin.\n\nMr. Milner very properly connects this people with the Cathari, or\nPaulicians, of the seventh century, who resided chiefly in the valleys\nof Piedmont, and who, in the twelfth century, according to this valuable\nhistorian, received a great accession of members from the learned\nlabours and godly zeal of Peter Waldo, a pious man of unusual learning\nfor a layman at that period. His thoughts being turned to divine things\nby the sudden death of a friend, he applied himself to the study of the\nScriptures, and was, according to Mr. Milner, the first who, in the west\nof Europe, translated the Bible into a modern language. Waldo was rich,\nand distributed his wealth among the poor, and with it the bread of\nlife, which endeared him to the lower classes; and it was probably the\ngreat increase of these pious people, in consequence of his exertions,\nwhich brought upon them the horrible crusade in the next century. This\nwas, however, wholly on account of their pretended heresies,--their\nbitterest enemies bearing testimony to the purity of their life and\nmanners. Thus a pontifical inquisitor, quoted by Usher, says, \u201cThese\nheretics are known by their manners and conversation; for they are\norderly and modest in their behaviour and deportment; they avoid all\nappearance of pride in their dress; they are chaste, temperate, and\nsober; they seek not to amass riches; they abstain from anger; and, even\nwhile at work, are either learning or teaching.\u201d Seysillius, another\npopish writer, says of them, \u201cTheir heresy excepted, they generally live\na purer life than other Christians.\u201d Liclenstenius, a Dominican, says,\n\u201cIn morals and life they are good; true in words; unanimous in brotherly\nlove; but their faith is incorrigible and vile, as I have shown you in\nmy treatise.\u201d But most remarkable is the testimony of Reinerus, an\ninquisitor of the thirteenth century: \u201cOf all the sects which have been,\nor now exist, none is more injurious to the church, (that is, of Rome,)\nfor three reasons: 1. Because it is more ancient. Some say it has\ncontinued from the time of Silvester; others from the time of the\nApostles. 2. Because it is more general. There is scarcely any country\ninto which this sect has not crept. 3. Because all other heretics excite\nhorror by the greatness of their blasphemies against God; but these have\na great appearance of piety, as they live justly before men, and believe\nrightly all things concerning God, and all the articles which are\ncontained in the creed.\u201d\n\nWAR, or WARFARE, the attempt to decide a contest or difference between\nprinces, states, or large bodies of people, by resorting to extensive\nacts of violence, or, as the phrase is, by an appeal to arms. The\nHebrews were formerly a very warlike nation. The books that inform us of\ntheir wars display neither ignorance nor flattery; but are writings\ninspired by the Spirit of truth and wisdom. Their warriors were none of\nthose fabulous heroes or professed conquerors, whose business it was to\nravage cities and provinces, and to reduce foreign nations under their\ndominion, merely for the sake of governing, or purchasing a name for\nthemselves. They were commonly wise and valiant generals, raised up by\nGod \u201cto fight the battles of the Lord,\u201d and to exterminate his enemies.\nSuch were Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, David, Josiah, and\nthe Maccabees, whose names alone are their own sufficient encomiums.\nTheir wars were not undertaken upon slight occasions, or performed with\na handful of people. Under Joshua the affair was of no less importance\nthan to make himself master of a vast country which God had given up to\nhim; and to root out several powerful nations that God had devoted to an\nanathema; and to vindicate an offended Deity, and human nature which had\nbeen debased by a wicked and corrupt people, who had filled up the\nmeasure of their iniquities. Under the Judges, the matter was to assert\ntheir liberty, by shaking off the yoke of powerful tyrants, who kept\nthem in subjection. Under Saul and David the same motives prevailed to\nundertake war; and to these were added a farther motive, of making a\nconquest of such provinces as God had promised to his people. Far was it\nfrom their intention merely to reduce the power of the Philistines, the\nAmmonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Arabians, the Syrians, and\nthe several princes that were in possession of those countries. In the\nlater times of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, we observe their kings\nbearing the shock of the greatest powers of Asia, of the kings of\nAssyria and Chaldea, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and\nNebuchadnezzar, who made the whole east tremble. Under the Maccabees a\nhandful of men opposed the whole power of the kings of Syria, and\nagainst them maintained the religion of their fathers, and shook off the\nyoke of their oppressors, who had a design both against their religion\nand liberty. In still later times, with what courage, intrepidity, and\nconstancy, did they sustain the war against the Romans, who were then\nmasters of the world!\n\nWe may distinguish two kinds of wars among the Hebrews: some were of\nobligation, as being expressly commanded by the Lord; but others were\nfree and voluntary. The first were such as God appointed them to\nundertake: for example, against the Amalekites and the Canaanites, which\nwere nations devoted to an anathema. The others were undertaken by the\ncaptains of the people, to revenge some injuries offered to the nation,\nto punish some insults or offences, or to defend their allies. Such was\nthat which the Hebrews made against the city of Gibeah, and against the\ntribe of Benjamin, which would support them in their fault; that which\nDavid made against the Ammonites, whose king had affronted his\nambassadors; and that of Joshua against the kings of the Canaanites, to\nprotect the Gibeonites. Whatever reasons authorize a nation or a prince\nto make war against another, obtained, likewise, among the Hebrews; for\nall the laws of Moses suppose that the Israelites might make war, and\nmight defend themselves, against their enemies. When a war was resolved\nupon, all the people that were capable of bearing arms were collected\ntogether, or only part of them, according as the exigence of the\nexisting case and the necessity and importance of the enterprise\nrequired. For it does not appear that, before the reign of King David,\nthere were any regular troops or magazines in Israel. A general\nrendezvous was appointed, a review was made of the people by tribes and\nby families, and then they marched against the enemy. When Saul, at the\nbeginning of his reign, was informed of the cruel proposal that the\nAmmonites had made to the men of the city of Jabesh-Gilead, he cut in\npieces the oxen belonging to his plough, and sent them through the\ncountry, saying, \u201cWhosoever cometh not forth after Saul and Samuel, to\nthe relief of Jabesh-Gilead, so shall it be done unto his oxen,\u201d 1 Sam.\nxi, 7. In ancient times, those that went to war generally carried their\nown provisions along with them, or they took them from the enemy. Hence\nthese wars were generally of short continuance; because it was hardly\npossible to subsist a large body of troops for a long time with such\nprovisions as every one carried along with him. When David, Jesse\u2019s\nyounger son, stayed behind to look after his father\u2019s flocks while his\nelder brothers went to the wars along with Saul, Jesse sent David to\ncarry provisions to his brothers, 1 Sam. xvii, 13. We suppose that this\nway of making war prevailed also under Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David\nat the beginning of his reign, the kings of Judah and Israel who were\nsuccessors to Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and under the Maccabees, till the\ntime of Simon Maccab\u00e6us, prince and high priest of the Jews, who had\nmercenary troops, that is, soldiers who received pay, 1 Mac. xiv, 32.\nEvery one also provided his own arms for the war. The kings of the\nHebrews went to the wars in person, and, in earlier times, fought on\nfoot, as well as the meanest of their soldiers; no horses being used in\nthe armies of Israel before David. The officers of war among the Hebrews\nwere the general of the army, and the princes of the tribes or of the\nfamilies of Israel, beside other princes or captains, some of a\nthousand, some of a hundred, some of fifty, and some of ten, men. They\nhad also their scribes, who were a kind of commissaries that kept the\nmuster roll of the troops; and these had others under them who acted by\ntheir direction.\n\nMilitary fortifications were at first nothing more than a trench or\nditch, dug round a few cottages on a hill or mountain, together with the\nmound, which was formed by the sand dug out of it; except, perhaps,\nthere might have sometimes been an elevated scaffolding for the purpose\nof throwing stones with the greater effect against the enemy. In the age\nof Moses and Joshua, the walls which surrounded cities were elevated to\nno inconsiderable height, and were furnished with towers. The art of\nfortification was encouraged and patronized by the Hebrew kings, and\nJerusalem was always well defended, especially Mount Zion. In later\ntimes the temple itself was used as a castle. The principal parts of a\nfortification were, 1. The wall, which, in some instances, was triple\nand double, 2 Chron. xxxii, 5. Walls were commonly made lofty and broad,\nso as to be neither readily passed over nor broken through, Jer. li, 58.\nThe main wall terminated at the top in a parapet for the accommodation\nof the soldiers, which opened at intervals in a sort of embrasures, so\nas to give them an opportunity of fighting with missile weapons. 2.\nTowers, which were erected at certain distances from each other on the\ntop of walls, and ascended to a great height, terminated at the top in a\nflat roof, and were surrounded with a parapet, which exhibited openings\nsimilar to those in the parapet of the walls. Towers of this kind were\nerected, likewise, over the gates of cities. In these towers guards were\nkept constantly stationed; at least, this was the case in the time of\nthe kings. It was their business to make known any thing that they\ndiscovered at a distance; and whenever they noticed an irruption from an\nenemy, they blew the trumpet, to arouse the citizens, 2 Sam. xiii, 34;\nxviii, 26, 27; 2 Kings ix, 17\u201319; Nahum ii, 1; 2 Chron. xvii, 2. Towers,\nlikewise, which were somewhat larger in size, were erected in different\nparts of the country, particularly on places which were elevated; and\nthese were guarded by a military force, Judges viii, 9,17; ix, 46, 49,\n51; Isaiah xxi, 6; Hab. ii, 1; Hosea v, 8; Jer. xxxi, 6. We find, even\nto this day, that the circular edifices of this sort, which are still\nerected in the solitudes of Arabia Felix, bear their ancient name of\ncastles or towers. 3. The walls were erected in such a way as to curve\ninward; the extremities of them, consequently, projected outward, and\nformed a kind of bastions. The object of forming the walls so as to\npresent such projections, was to enable the inhabitants of the besieged\ncity to attack the assailants in flank. We learn from the history of\nTacitus, that the walls of Jerusalem, at the time of its being attacked\nby the Romans, were built in this manner. These projections were\nintroduced by King Uzziah, B.C. 810, and are subsequently mentioned in\nZeph. i, 16. 4. The digging of a fosse put it in the power of the\ninhabitants of a city to increase the elevation of the walls, and of\nitself threw a serious difficulty in the way of an enemy\u2019s approach, 2\nSam. xx, 15; Isaiah xxvi, 1; Neh. iii, 8; Psalm xlviii, 13. The fosse,\nif the situation of the place admitted it, was filled with water. This\nwas the case at Babylon. 5. The gates were at first made of wood, and\nwere small in size. They were constructed in the manner of valve doors,\nand were secured by means of wooden bars. Subsequently, they were made\nlarger and stronger; and, in order to prevent their being burned, were\ncovered with plates of brass or iron. The bars were covered in the same\nmanner, in order to prevent their being cut asunder; but it was\nsometimes the case that they were made wholly of iron. The bars were\nsecured by a sort of lock, Psalm cvii, 16; Isaiah xlv, 2.\n\nPreviously to commencing war, the Heathen nations consulted oracles,\nsoothsayers, necromancers, and also the lot, which was ascertained by\nshooting arrows of different colours, 1 Sam. xxviii, 1\u201310; Isaiah xli,\n21\u201324; Ezek. xxv, 11. The Hebrews, to whom things of this kind were\ninterdicted, were in the habit, in the early part of their history, of\ninquiring of God by means of Urim and Thummim, Judges i, 1; xx, 27, 28;\n1 Sam. xxiii, 2; xxviii, 6; xxx, 8. After the time of David, the kings\nwho reigned in Palestine consulted, according to the different\ncharacters which they sustained, and the feelings which they exercised,\nsometimes true prophets, and sometimes false, in respect to the issue of\nwar, 1 Kings xxii, 6\u201313; 2 Kings xix, 2, &c. Sacrifices were also\noffered, in reference to which the soldiers were said to consecrate\nthemselves to the war, Isaiah xiii, 3; Jer. vi, 4; li, 27; Joel iii, 9;\nObad. 1. There are instances of formal declarations of war, and\nsometimes of previous negotiations, 2 Kings xiv, 8; 2 Chron. xxv, 27;\nJudges xi, 12\u201328; but ceremonies of this kind were not always observed,\n2 Sam. x, 1\u201312. When the enemy made a sudden incursion, or when the war\nwas unexpectedly commenced, the alarm was given to the people by\nmessengers rapidly sent forth, by the sound of warlike trumpets, by\nstandards floating on the loftiest places, by the clamour of many voices\non the mountains, that echoed from summit to summit, Judges iii, 27; vi,\n34; vii, 22; xix, 29, 30; 1 Sam. xi, 7, 8; Isaiah v, 26; xiii, 2; xviii,\n3; xxx, 17; xlix, 2; lxii, 10. Military expeditions commonly commenced\nin the spring, 2 Sam. xi, 1, and were continued in the summer, but in\nthe winter the soldiers went into quarters. The firm persuasion that God\nfights for the good against the wicked, discovers itself in the Old\nTestament, and accounts for the fact, that, not only in the Hebrew, but\nalso in the Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldaic languages, words, which\noriginally signify justice, innocence, or uprightness, signify likewise\nvictory; and that words, whose usual meaning is injustice or wickedness,\nalso mean defeat or overthrow. The same may be said in respect to words\nwhich signify help or aid, inasmuch as the nation which conquered\nreceived aid from God, and God was its helper, Psalm vii, 9; ix, 9; xx,\n6; xxvi, 1; xxxv, 24; xliii, 1; xliv, 5; lxxv, 3; lxxvi, 13; lxxviii, 9;\nlxxxii, 8; 1 Sam. xiv, 45; 2 Kings v, 1; Isa. lix, 17; Hab. iii, 8.\n\nThe attack of the orientals in battle has always been, and is to this\nday, characterized by vehemence and impetuosity. In case the enemy\nsustain an unaltered front, they retreat, but it is not long before they\nreturn again with renewed ardour. It was the practice of the Roman\narmies to stand still in the order of battle, and to receive the shock\nof their opposers. To this practice there are allusions in the following\npassages: 1 Cor. xvi, 13; Gal. v, 1; Eph. vi, 14; Phil. i, 27; 1 Thess.\niii, 8; 2 Thess. ii, 15. The Greeks, while they were yet three or four\nfurlongs distant from the enemy, commenced the song of war; something\nresembling which occurs in 2 Chron. xx, 21. They then raised a shout,\nwhich was also done among the Hebrews, 1 Sam. xvii, 52; Joshua vi, 6;\nIsa. v, 29, 30; xvii, 12; Jer. iv, 19; xxv, 30. The war shout in Judges\nvii, 20, was as follows, \u201cThe sword of the Lord and of Gideon.\u201d In some\ninstances it seems to have been a mere yell or inarticulate cry. The\nmere march of armies with their weapons, chariots, and trampling\ncoursers, occasioned a great and confused noise, which is compared by\nthe prophets to the roaring of the ocean, and the dashing of the\nmountain torrents, Isa. xvii, 12, 13; xxvii, 2. The descriptions of\nbattles in the Bible are very brief; but although there is nothing\nespecially said, in respect to the order in which the battle commenced\nand was conducted, there is hardly a doubt that the light-armed troops,\nas was the case in other nations, were the first in the engagement. The\nmain body followed them, and, with their spears extended, made a rapid\nand impetuous movement upon the enemy. Hence swiftness of foot in a\nsoldier is mentioned as a ground of great commendation, not only in\nHomer, but in the Bible, 2 Sam. ii, 19\u201324; 1 Chron. xii, 8; Psalm xviii,\n33. Those who obtained the victory were intoxicated with joy; the shout\nof triumph resounded from mountain to mountain, Isa. xlii, 11; lii, 7,\n8; Jer. 1, 2; Ezek. vii, 7; Nahum i, 15. The whole of the people, not\nexcepting the women, went out to meet the returning conquerors with\nsinging and with dancing, Judges xi, 34\u201337; 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7.\nTriumphal songs were uttered for the living, and elegies for the dead, 2\nSam. i, 17, 18; 2 Chron. xxxv, 25; Judges v, 1\u201331; Exod. xv, 1\u201321.\nMonuments in honour of the victory were erected, 2 Sam. viii, 13; Psalm\nlx, 1; and the arms of the enemy were hung up as trophies in the\ntabernacle, 1 Sam. xxxi, 10; 2 Kings xi, 10. The soldiers who conducted\nthemselves meritoriously were honoured with presents, and had the\nopportunity of entering into honourable matrimonial connections, Joshua\nxiv; 1 Sam. xvii, 25; xxviii, 17; 2 Sam. xviii, 11. See ARMIES, and\nARMS.\n\nWATER. In the sacred Scriptures, bread and water are commonly mentioned\nas the chief supports of human life; and to provide a sufficient\nquantity of water, to prepare it for use, and to deal it out to the\nthirsty, are among the principal cares of an oriental householder. The\nMoabites and Ammonites are reproached for not meeting the Israelites\nwith bread and water; that is, with proper refreshments, Deut. xxxiii,\n4. Nabal says in an insulting manner to David\u2019s messengers, \u201cShall I\nthen take my bread and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my\nshearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be?\u201d 1 Sam.\nxxv, 11. To furnish travellers with water is, even in present times,\nreckoned of so great importance, that many of the eastern\nphilanthropists have been at considerable expense to procure them that\nenjoyment. The nature of the climate, and the general aspect of the\noriental regions, require numerous fountains to excite and sustain the\nlanguid powers of vegetation; and the sun, burning with intense heat in\na cloudless sky, demands for the fainting inhabitants the verdure,\nshade, and coolness which vegetation produces. Hence fountains of living\nwater are met with in the towns and villages, in the fields and gardens,\nand by the sides of the roads and of the beaten tracks on the mountains;\nand a cup of cold water from these wells is no contemptible present.\n\u201cFatigued with heat and thirst,\u201d says Carne, \u201cwe came to a few cottages\nin a palm wood, and stopped to drink of a fountain of delicious water.\nIn this northern climate no idea can be formed of the luxury of drinking\nin Egypt: little appetite for food is felt; but when, after crossing the\nburning sands, you reach the rich line of woods on the brink of the\nNile, and pluck the fresh limes, and, mixing their juice with Egyptian\nsugar and the soft river water, drink repeated bowls of lemonade, you\nfeel that every other pleasure of the senses must yield to this. One\nthen perceives the beauty and force of those similes in Scripture, where\nthe sweetest emotions of the heart are compared to the assuaging of\nthirst in a thirsty land.\u201d In Arabia, equal attention is paid, by the\nwealthy and benevolent, to the refreshment of the traveller. On one of\nthe mountains of Arabia, Niebuhr found three little reservoirs, which\nare always kept full of fine water for the use of passengers. These\nreservoirs, which are about two feet and a half square, and from five to\nseven feet high, are round, or pointed at the top, of mason\u2019s work,\nhaving only a small opening in one of the sides, by which they pour\nwater into them. Sometimes he found, near these places of Arab\nrefreshment, a piece of a ground shell, or a little scoop of wood, for\nlifting the water. The same attention to the comfort of travellers is\nmanifested in Egypt, where public buildings are set apart in some of\ntheir cities, the business of whose inhabitants is to supply the\npassengers with water free of expense. Some of these houses make a very\nhandsome appearance; and the persons appointed to wait on the passengers\nare required to have some vessels of copper, curiously tinned and filled\nwith water, always ready on the window next the street. Some of the\nMohammedan villages in Palestine, not far from Nazareth, brought Mr.\nBuckingham and his party bread and water, while on horseback, without\neven being solicited to do so; and when they halted to accept it, both\ncompliments and blessings were mutually interchanged. \u201cHere, as in every\nother part of Nubia,\u201d says Burckhardt, \u201cthe thirsty traveller finds, at\nshort distances, water jars placed by the road side under a low roof.\nEvery village pays a small monthly stipend to some person to fill these\njars in the morning, and again toward evening. The same custom prevails\nin Upper Egypt, but on a larger scale: and there are caravanserais often\nfound near the wells which supply travellers with water.\u201d In India the\nHindoos go sometimes a great way to fetch water, and then boil it, that\nit may not be hurtful to travellers that are hot; and after this stand\nfrom morning till night in some great road, where there is neither pit\nnor rivulet, and offer it in honour of their gods, to be drunk by the\npassengers. This necessary work of charity in these hot countries seems\nto have been practised among the more pious and humane Jews; and our\nLord assures them, that if they do this in his name, they shall not lose\ntheir reward. Hence a cup of water is a present in the east of great\nvalue, though there are some other refreshments of a superior quality.\nIt is still the proper business of the females to supply the family with\nwater. From this drudgery, however, the married women are exempted,\nunless when single women are wanting. The proper time for drawing water\nin those burning climates is in the morning, or when the sun is going\ndown; then they go forth to perform that humble office adorned with\ntheir trinkets, some of which are often of great value. Agreeably to\nthis custom Rebecca went instead of her mother to fetch water from the\nwell, and the servant of Abraham expected to meet an unmarried female\nthere who might prove a suitable match for his master\u2019s son. In the East\nIndies, the women also draw water at the public wells, as Rebecca did,\non that occasion, for travellers, their servants and their cattle; and\nwomen of no mean rank literally illustrate the conduct of an unfortunate\nprincess in the Jewish history, by performing the services of a menial,\n2 Sam. xiii, 8. The young women of Guzerat daily draw water from the\nwells, and carry the jars upon the head; but those of high rank carry\nthem upon the shoulder. In the same way Rebecca carried her pitcher; and\nprobably for the same reason, because she was the daughter of an eastern\nprince, Gen. xxiv, 45.\n\nWater sometimes signifies the element of water, Gen. i, 10; and\nmetaphorically, trouble and afflictions, Psalm lxix, 1. In the language\nof the prophets, waters often denote a great multitude of people, Isa.\nviii, 7; Rev. xvii, 15. Water is put for children or posterity, Num.\nxxiv, 7; Isa. xlviii, 1; for the clouds, Psalm civ, 3. Waters sometimes\nstand for tears, Jer. ix, 1, 7; for the ordinances of the Gospel, Isa.\nxii, 3; xxxv, 6, 7; lv, 1; John vii, 37, 38. \u201cStolen waters\u201d denote\nunlawful pleasures with strange women, Prov. ix, 17. The Israelites are\nreproached with having forsaken the fountain of living water, to quench\ntheir thirst at broken cisterns, Jer. ii, 13; that is, with having\nquitted the worship of God for the worship of false and ridiculous\ndeities. Waters of Meribah, or the waters of strife, were so called\nbecause of the quarrelling or contention and murmuring of the Israelites\nagainst Moses and against God. When they came to Kadesh, and there\nhappened to be in want of water, they made a sedition against him and\nhis brother Aaron, Numbers xx, 1, &c. Upon this occasion Moses committed\nthat great sin with which God was so much displeased, that he deprived\nhim of the honour of introducing his people into the land of promise.\n\nWAX, \u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d2, Psalm xxii, 14; lxviii, 2; xcvii, 5; Micah i, 4. Thus the\nLXX. throughout, \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, and vulgate _cera_; so there is no room to doubt\nbut this is the true meaning of the word: and the idea of the root\nappears to be soft, melting, yielding, or the like, which properties are\nnot only well known to belong to wax, but are also intimated in all the\npassages of Scripture in which this word occurs.\n\nWAYFARING MEN. In the primitive ages of the world there were no public\ninns or taverns. In those days the voluntary exhibition of hospitality\nto one who stood in need of it was highly honourable. The glory of an\nopen-hearted and generous hospitality continued even after public inns\nor caravanserais were erected, and continues to this day in the east,\nJob xxii, 7; xxxi, 17; Gen. xviii, 3\u20139; xix, 2\u201310; Exodus ii, 20; Judges\nxix, 2\u201310; Acts xvi, 15; xvii, 7; xxviii, 7; Matt. xxv, 35; Mark ix, 41;\nRom. xii, 13; 1 Tim. iii, 2; v, 10; Heb. xiii, 2. Buckingham in his\n\u201cTravels among the Arab Tribes,\u201d says, \u201cA foot passenger could make his\nway at little or no expense, as travellers and wayfarers of every\ndescription halt at the sheikh\u2019s dwelling, where, whatever may be the\nrank or condition of the stranger, before any questions are asked him as\nto where he comes from, or whither he is going, coffee is served to him\nfrom a large pot always on the fire; and a meal of bread, milk, oil,\nhoney, or butter, is set before him, for which no payment is ever\ndemanded or even expected by the host, who, in this manner, feeds at\nleast twenty persons on an average every day in the year from his own\npurse; at least, I could not learn that he was remunerated in any manner\nfor this expenditure, though it is considered as a necessary consequence\nof his situation, as chief of the community, that he should maintain\nthis ancient practice of hospitality to strangers.--We had been directed\nto the house of Eesa, or Jesus. Our horses were taken into the court\nyard of the house, and unburdened of their saddles, without a single\nquestion being asked on either side; and it was not until we had seated\nourselves that our intention to remain here for the night was\ncommunicated to the master of the house: so much is it regarded a matter\nof course, that those who have a house to shelter themselves in, and\nfood to partake of, should share those comforts with wayfarers.\u201d The\npassage in Isa. xxxv, 8, \u201cThe wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err\ntherein,\u201d receives elucidation from some of the accounts of modern\ntravellers. Irwin, speaking of his passing through the deserts on the\neastern side of the Nile, in his going from Upper Egypt to Cairo, tells\nus, that, after leaving a certain valley, which he mentions, their road\nlay over level ground. \u201cAs it would be next to an impossibility to find\nthe way over these stony flats, where the heavy foot of a camel leaves\nno impression, the different bands of robbers,\u201d wild Arabs, he means,\nwho frequent that desert, \u201chave heaped up stones at unequal distances\nfor their direction through this desert. We have derived great\nassistance from the robbers in this respect, who are our guides when the\nmarks either fail, or are unintelligible to us.\u201d \u201cIt was on the 24th of\nMarch,\u201d says Hoste, \u201cthat I departed from Alexandria for Rosetta: it was\na good day\u2019s journey thither, over a level country, but a perfect\ndesert, so that the wind plays with the sand, and there is no trace of a\nroad. We travel first six leagues along the sea coast; but when we leave\nthis, it is about six leagues more to Rosetta, and from thence to the\ntown there are high stone or bark pillars, in a line, according to which\ntravellers direct their journey.\u201d\n\nWAYS, in Scripture, means conduct: for example: \u201cMake your paths\nstraight.\u201d The paths of the wicked are crooked. To forsake the ways of\nthe Lord, is to forsake his laws. Ways also signifies custom, manners,\nand way of life: \u201cAll flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth,\u201d Gen.\nvi, 12; xix, 31; Jer. xxxii, 19. The way of the Lord expresses his\nconduct to us: \u201cMy thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways\nmy ways, saith the Lord,\u201d Isa. lv, 8. We find through the whole of\nScripture this kind of expressions: The way of peace, of justice, of\niniquity, of truth, of darkness. To go the way of all the earth, Joshua\nxxiii, 14, signifies dying and the grave. A hard way represents the way\nof sinners, a way of impiety, Judges ii, 19. Jesus Christ is called the\nWay, John xiv, 6, because it is by him alone that believers obtain\neternal life, and an entrance into heaven. The psalmist says, \u201cThou wilt\nshow me the path of life,\u201d Psalm xvi, 11; that is, Thou wilt raise my\nbody from death to life, and conduct me to the place and state of\neverlasting happiness. When a great prince in the east sets out on a\njourney, it is usual to send a party of men before him, to clear the\nway. The state of those countries in every age, where roads are almost\nunknown, and, from the want of cultivation, in many parts overgrown with\nbrambles, and other thorny plants, which renders travelling, especially\nwith a large retinue, very incommodious, requires this precaution. The\nemperor of Hindostan, in his progress through his dominions, as\ndescribed in the narrative of Sir Thomas Roe\u2019s embassy to the court of\nDelhi, was preceded by a very great company, sent before him to cut up\nthe trees and bushes, to level and smooth the road, and prepare their\nplace of encampment. Balin, who swayed the imperial sceptre of India,\nhad five hundred chosen men, in rich livery, with their drawn sabres,\nwho ran before him, proclaiming his approach, and clearing the way. Nor\nwas this honour reserved exclusively for the reigning emperor; it was\noften shown to persons of royal birth. When an Indian princess made a\nvisit to her father, the roads were directed to be repaired, and made\nclear for her journey; fruit trees were planted, water vessels placed in\nthe road side, and great illuminations prepared for the occasion. Mr.\nBruce gives nearly the same account of a journey, which the king of\nAbyssinia made through a part of his dominions. The chief magistrate of\nevery district through which he had to pass was, by his office, obliged\nto have the roads cleared, levelled, and smoothed; and he mentions, that\na magistrate of one of the districts, having failed in this part of his\nduty, was, together with his son, immediately put to death on the spot,\nwhere a thorn happened to catch the garment, and interrupt for a moment\nthe progress of his majesty. This custom is easily recognized in that\nbeautiful prediction: \u201cThe voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,\nPrepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway\nfor our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill\nshall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the\nrough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all\nflesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,\u201d\nIsa. xl, 3\u20135. We shall be able, perhaps, to form a more clear and\nprecise idea, from the account which Diodorus gives of the marches of\nSemiramis, the celebrated queen of Babylon, into Media and Persia. In\nher march to Ecbatane, says the historian, she came to the Zarcean\nmountain, which, extending many furlongs, and being full of craggy\nprecipices and deep hollows, could not be passed without taking a great\ncompass. Being therefore desirous of leaving an everlasting memorial of\nherself, as well as of shortening the way, she ordered the precipices to\nbe digged down, and the hollows to be filled up; and at great expense\nshe made a shorter and more expeditious road; which to this day is\ncalled, from her, the road of Semiramis. Afterward she went into Persia,\nand all the other countries of Asia subject to her dominion; and\nwherever she went, she ordered the mountains and the precipices to be\nlevelled, and raised causeways in the plain country, and at a great\nexpense made the ways passable. Whatever may be in this story, the\nfollowing statement is entitled to the fullest credit: \u201cAll eastern\npotentates have their precursors and a number of pioneers to clear the\nroad, by removing obstacles, and filling up the ravines and the hollow\nways in their route. In the days of Mogul splendour, the emperor caused\nthe hills and mountains to be levelled, and the valleys to be filled up\nfor his convenience. This beautifully illustrates the figurative\nlanguage in the approach of the Prince of Peace, when every valley shall\nbe exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the\ncrooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.\u201d\n\nWEAVING. The combined arts of spinning and weaving are among the first\nessentials of civilized society, and we find both to be of very ancient\norigin. The fabulous story of Penelope\u2019s web, and, still more, the\nfrequent allusions to this art in the sacred writings, tend to show that\nthe fabrication of cloth from threads, hair, &c, is a very ancient\ninvention. It has, however, like other useful arts, undergone a vast\nsuccession of improvements, both as to the preparation of the materials\nof which cloth is made, and the apparatus necessary in its construction,\nas well as in the particular modes of operation by the artist. Weaving,\nwhen reduced to its original principle, is nothing more than the\ninterlacing of the weft or cross threads into the parallel threads of\nthe warp, so as to tie them together, and form a web or piece of cloth.\nThis art is doubtless more ancient than that of spinning; and the first\ncloth was what we now call matting, that is, made by weaving together\nthe shreds of the bark, or fibrous parts of plants, or the stalks, such\nas rushes and straws. This is still the substitute for cloth among most\nrude and savage nations. When they have advanced a step farther in\ncivilization than the state of hunters, the skins of animals become\nscarce, and they require some more artificial substance for clothing,\nand which they can procure in greater quantities. When it was discovered\nthat the delicate and short fibres which animals and vegetables afford\ncould be so firmly united together by twisting, as to form threads of\nany required length and strength, the weaving art was placed on a very\npermanent foundation. By the process of spinning, which was very simple\nin the origin, the weaver is furnished with threads far superior to any\nnatural vegetable fibres in lightness, strength, and flexibility; and he\nhas only to combine them together in the most advantageous manner. In\nthe beautiful description which is given, in the last chapter of\nSolomon\u2019s Proverbs, of the domestic economy of the virtuous woman, it is\nsaid, \u201cShe seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands:\nshe layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She\nmaketh herself coverings of tapestry,\u201d &c. Such is the occupation of\nfemales in the east in the present day. Not only do they employ\nthemselves in working rich embroideries, but in making carpets filled\nwith flowers and other pleasing figures. Dr. Shaw gives us an account of\nthe last: \u201cCarpets, which are much coarser than those from Turkey, are\nmade here in great numbers, and of all sizes. But the chief branch of\ntheir manufactories is the making of _hykes_, or blankets, as we should\ncall them. The women alone are employed in this work, (as Andromache and\nPenelope were of old,) who do not use the shuttle, but conduct every\nthread of the woof with their fingers.\u201d Hezekiah says, \u201cI have cut off\nlike a weaver my life,\u201d Isa. xxxviii, 12. Mr. Harmer suggests whether\nthe simile here used may not refer to the weaving of a carpet filled\nwith flowers and other ingenious devices; and that the meaning may be,\nthat, just as a weaver, after having wrought many decorations into a\npiece of carpeting, suddenly cuts it off, while the figures were rising\ninto view fresh and beautiful, and the spectator expecting he would\nproceed in his work; so, after a variety of pleasing transactions in the\ncourse of life, it suddenly and unexpectedly comes to its end.\n\nWEEKS. A period of seven days, under the usual name of a week, \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4, is\nmentioned as far back as the time of the deluge, Gen. vii, 4, 10; viii,\n10, 12; xxix, 27, 28. It must, therefore, be considered a very ancient\ndivision of time, especially as the various nations among whom it has\nbeen noticed, for instance, the Nigri in Africa, appear to have received\nit from the sons of Noah. The enumeration of the days of the week\ncommenced at Sunday. Saturday was the last or seventh, and was the\nHebrew Sabbath, or day of rest. The Egyptians gave to the days of the\nweek the same names that they assigned to the planets. From the\ncircumstance that the Sabbath was the principal day of the week, the\nwhole period of seven days was likewise called \u05e9\u05e4\u05ea, in Syriac \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0, in\nthe New Testament \u03c3\u03ac\u03d0\u03d0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c3\u03ac\u03d0\u03d0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. The Jews, accordingly, in\ndesignating the successive days of the week, were accustomed to say, the\nfirst day of the Sabbath, that is, of the week; the second day of the\nSabbath, that is, Sunday, Monday, &c, Mark xvi, 2, 9; Luke xxiv, 1; John\nxx, i, 19. In addition to the week of days, the Jews had three other\nseasons, denominated weeks, Lev. xxv, 1\u201317; Deut. xvi, 9\u201310: 1. The week\nof weeks. It was a period of seven weeks or forty-nine days, which was\nsucceeded on the fiftieth day by the feast of pentecost, \u03d6\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u1f74,\n\u201cfifty,\u201d Deut. xvi, 9, 10. 2. The week of years. This was a period of\nseven years, during the last of which the land remained untilled, and\nthe people enjoyed a Sabbath or season of rest. 3. The week of seven\nsabbatical years. It was a period of forty-nine years, and was succeeded\nby the year of jubilee, Lev. xxv, 1\u201322; xxvi, 34. See YEAR.\n\nWEIGHTS. See \u201cTable of Weights and Measures\u201d at the end of the volume.\n\nWELLS. When the pool, the fountain, and the river fail, the oriental\nshepherd is reduced to the necessity of digging wells; and, in the\npatriarchal age, the discovery of water was reckoned of sufficient\nimportance to be the subject of a formal report to the master of the\nflock, who commonly distinguished the spot by an appropriate name. A\nremarkable instance of this kind is recorded by Moses in these terms:\n\u201cAnd Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar,\nand dwelt there. And Isaac digged again the wells of water which they\nhad digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had\nstopped them after the death of Abraham; and he called their names after\nthe names by which his father had called them. And Isaac\u2019s servants\ndigged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water. And the\nherdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac\u2019s herdmen, saying, The water is\nours; and he called the name of the well Ezek, because they strove with\nhim. And they digged another well; and they strove for that also, and he\ncalled the name of it Sitnah, (opposition;) and he removed from thence\nand digged another well: and for that they strove not; and he called the\nname of it Rehoboth, (room;) and he said, For now the Lord hath made\nroom for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land,\u201d Gen. xxvi, 17, &c.\n\u201cStrife,\u201d says Dr. Richardson, \u201cbetween the different villagers and the\ndifferent herdsmen here, exists still, as it did in the days of Abraham\nand Lot: the country has often changed masters; but the habits of the\nnatives, both in this and other respects, have been nearly stationary.\u201d\nSo important was the successful operation of sinking a well in Canaan,\nthat the sacred historian remarks in another passage: \u201cAnd it came to\npass the same day, (that Isaac and Abimelech had concluded their\ntreaty,) that Isaac\u2019s servants came and told him concerning the well\nwhich they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water; and he\ncalled it Shebah, (the oath,) therefore the name of the city is\nBeershebah unto this day,\u201d Gen. xxvi, 33. To prevent the sand, which is\nraised from the parched surface of the ground by the winds, from filling\nup their wells, they were obliged to cover them with a stone. In this\nmanner the well was covered, from which the flocks of Laban were\ncommonly watered: and the shepherds, careful not to leave them open at\nany time, patiently waited till all the flocks were gathered together,\nbefore they removed the covering, and then, having drawn a sufficient\nquantity of water, they replaced the stone immediately. The extreme\nscarcity of water in these arid regions, entirely justifies such\nvigilant and parsimonious care in the management of this precious fluid;\nand accounts for the fierce contentions about the possession of a well,\nwhich so frequently happened between the shepherds of different masters.\nBut after the question of right, or of possession, was decided, it would\nseem the shepherds were often detected in fraudulently watering their\nflocks and herds from their neighbour\u2019s well. To prevent this, they\nsecured the cover with a lock, which continued in use so late as the\ndays of Chardin, who frequently saw such precautions used in different\nparts of Asia, on account of the real scarcity of water there. According\nto that intelligent traveller, when the wells and cisterns were not\nlocked up, some person was so far the proprietor that no one dared to\nopen a well or cistern but in his presence. This was probably the reason\nthat the shepherds of Padanaram declined the invitation of Jacob to\nwater the flocks, before they were all assembled; either they had not\nthe key of the lock which secured the stone, or, if they had, they durst\nnot open it but in the presence of Rachel, to whose father the well\nbelonged. It is ridiculous to suppose the stone was so heavy that the\nunited strength of several Mesopotamian shepherds could not roll it from\nthe mouth of the well, when Jacob had strength or address to remove it\nalone; or that, though a stranger, he ventured to break a standing rule\nfor watering the flocks, which the natives did not dare to do, and that\nwithout opposition. The oriental shepherds were not on other occasions\nso passive, as the violent conduct of the men of Gerar sufficiently\nproves.\n\nTwice in the day they led their flocks to the wells; at noon, and when\nthe sun was going down. To water the flocks was an operation of much\nlabour, and occupied a considerable space of time. It was, therefore, an\noffice of great kindness with which Jacob introduced himself to the\nnotice of his relations, to roll back the stone which lay upon the mouth\nof the well, and draw water for the flocks which Rachel tended. Some of\nthese wells are furnished with troughs and flights of steps down to the\nwater, and other contrivances to facilitate the labour of watering the\ncattle. It is evident the well to which Rebekah went to draw water, near\nthe city of Nahor, had some convenience of this kind; for it is written,\n\u201cRebekah hasted and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again\nunto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels,\u201d Gen. xxiv,\n20. A trough was also placed by the well, from which the daughters of\nJethro watered his flocks, Exod. ii, 16; and, if we may judge from\ncircumstances, was a usual contrivance in every part of the east. In\nmodern times, Mr. Park found a trough near the well, from which the\nMoors watered their cattle, in the sandy deserts of Sahara. Dr. Shaw,\nspeaking of the occupation of the Moorish women in Barbary, says, \u201cTo\nfinish the day, at the time of the evening, even at the time that the\nwomen go out to draw water, they are still to fit themselves with a\npitcher or goat skin, and tying their sucking children behind them,\ntrudge it in this manner two or three miles to fetch water.\u201d \u201cThe women\nin Persia,\u201d says Morier, \u201cgo in troops to draw water for the place. I\nhave seen the elder ones sitting and chatting at the well, and spinning\nthe coarse cotton of the country, while the young girls filled the skins\nwhich contain the water, and which they all carry on their backs into\nthe town.\u201d \u201cA public well,\u201d says Forbes, \u201cwithout the gate of Diamonds,\nin the city Dhuboy, was a place of great resort: there, most travellers\nhalted for shade and refreshment: the women frequented the fountains and\nreservoirs morning and evening, to draw water. Many of the Gwzerat wells\nhave steps leading down to the surface of the water; others have not,\nnor do I recollect any furnished with buckets and ropes for the\nconvenience of a stranger; most travellers are therefore provided with\nthem, and halcarras and religious pilgrims frequently carry a small\nbrass pot affixed to a long string for this purpose.\u201d\n\nWHALE, \u05ea\u05df and \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05df, Gen. i, 21; Job vii, 12; Ezek. xxxii, 2; \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\nMatt. xii, 40; the largest of all the inhabitants of the water. A late\nauthor, in a dissertation expressly for the purpose, has proved that the\ncrocodile, and not the whale, is spoken of in Gen. i, 21. The word in\nJob vii, 12, must also be taken for the crocodile. It must mean some\nterrible animal, which, but for the watchful care of Divine Providence,\nwould be very destructive. Our translators render it by _dragon_ in\nIsaiah xxvii, 1, where the prophet gives this name to the king of Egypt:\n\u201cHe shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.\u201d The sea there is the\nriver Nile, and the dragon the crocodile, Ezek. xxxii, 2. On this\npassage Bochart remarks, \u201dThe \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df is not a whale, as people imagine;\nfor a whale has neither feet nor scales, neither is it to be found in\nthe rivers of Egypt; neither does it ascend therefrom upon the land;\nneither is it taken in the meshes of a net; all of which properties are\nascribed by Ezekiel to the \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df of Egypt. Whence it is plain that it is\nnot a whale that is here spoken of, but the crocodile. Merrick supposes\nDavid, in Psalm lxxiv, 13, to speak of the _tunnie_, a kind of whale,\nwith which he was probably acquainted; and Bochart thinks it has its\nGreek name _thunnos_ from the Hebrew _thanot_. The last-mentioned fish\nis undoubtedly that spoken of in Psalm civ, 26. We are told, that, in\norder to preserve the Prophet Jonah when he was thrown overboard by the\nmariners, \u201cthe Lord prepared a great fish to swallow him up.\u201d What kind\nof fish it was, is not specified; but the Greek translators take the\nliberty to give us the word \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _whale_; and though St. Matthew, xii,\n40, makes use of the same word, we may probably conclude that he did so\nin a general sense; and that we are not to understand it as an\nappropriated term, to point out the particular species of fish. It is\nnotorious that sharks are common in the Mediterranean.\n\nWHEAT, \u05d7\u05d8\u05d4, Gen. xxx, 14; Deut. viii, 8; \u03c3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. xiii, 25; Luke\nxvi, 7; 1 Cor. xv, 37; the principal and the most valuable kind of grain\nfor the service of man. (See _Barley_, and _Fitches_.) In Lev. ii,\ndirections are given for oblations, which in our translation are called\nmeat-offerings; but as meat means flesh, and all kinds of offerings\nthere specified, were made of wheat, it had been better to render it\n\u201cwheaten offerings.\u201d Calmet has observed, that there were five kinds of\nthese, simple flour, oven cakes, cakes of the fire plate, cakes of the\nfrying pan, and green ears of corn. The word \u05d1\u05e8, translated _corn_, Gen.\nxli, 35, and _wheat_ in Jer. xxiii, 28; Joel ii, 24; Amos v, 11, &c, is\nundoubtedly the _burr_, or wild corn of the Arabs, mentioned by Forskal.\n\nWHIRLWIND, a wind which rises suddenly from almost every point, is\nexceedingly impetuous and rapid, and imparts a whirling motion to dust,\nsand, water, and occasionally to bodies of great weight and bulk,\ncarrying them either upward or downward, and scattering them about in\ndifferent directions. Whirlwinds and water spouts are supposed to\nproceed from the same cause; their only difference being, that the\nlatter pass over the water, and the former over the land. Both of them\nhave a progressive as well as a circular motion, generally rise after\ncalms and great heats, and occur most frequently in warm latitudes. The\nwind blows in every direction from a large surrounding space, both\ntoward the water spout and the whirlwind; and a water spout has been\nknown to pass, in its progressive motion, from sea to land, and, when it\nhas reached the latter, to produce all the phenomena and effects of a\nwhirlwind. There is no doubt, therefore, of their arising from a similar\ncause, as they are both explicable on the same general principles. In\nthe imagery employed by the sacred writers, these frightful hurricanes\nare introduced as the immediate instruments of the divine indignation:\n\u201cHe shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living and in his\nwrath,\u201d Psalm lviii, 9. \u201cGod shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far\noff, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind,\nand like a rolling thing before the whirlwind,\u201d Isaiah xvii, 13. \u201cThe\nLord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are\nthe dust of his feet,\u201d Nahum i, 3. All these are familiar images to the\ninhabitants of eastern countries, and receive some elucidation from the\nsubjoined descriptions of English travellers. \u201cOn the 25th,\u201d says Bruce,\n\u201cat four o\u2019clock in the afternoon, we set out from the villages of the\nNuba, intending to arrive at Basbock, where is the ferry over the Nile;\nbut we had scarcely advanced two miles into the plain, when we were\nenclosed in a violent whirlwind, or what is called at sea the water\nspout. The plain was red earth, which had been plentifully moistened by\na shower in the night time. The unfortunate camel that had been taken by\nCohala seemed to be nearly in the centre of its vortex; it was lifted\nand thrown down at a considerable distance, and several of its ribs\nbroken; although, as far as I could guess, I was not near the centre, it\nwhirled me off my feet, and threw me down upon my face, so as to make my\nnose gush out with blood: two of the servants, likewise, had the same\nfate. It plastered us all over with mud, almost as smoothly as could\nhave been done with a trowel. It took away my sense and breathing for an\ninstant; and my mouth and nose were full of mud when I recovered. I\nguess the sphere of its action to be about two hundred feet. It\ndemolished one half of a small hut, as if it had been cut through with a\nknife, and dispersed the materials all over the plain, leaving the other\nhalf standing.\u201d \u201cWhen there was a perfect calm,\u201d observes Morier,\n\u201cpartial and strong currents of air would arise, and form whirlwinds,\nwhich produced high columns of sand all over the plain. Those that we\nsaw at Shiraz were formed and dissipated in a few minutes: nor is it the\nnature of this phenomenon to travel far; it being a current of air that\ntakes its way in a capricious and sudden manner, and is dissolved by the\nvery nature of its formation. Whenever one of them took our tents, it\ngenerally disturbed them very materially, and frequently threw them\ndown. Their appearance was that of water spouts at sea, and perhaps they\nare produced in the same manner.\u201d And Burchell remarks: \u201cThe hottest\ndays are often the most calm; and at such times the stillness of the\natmosphere was sometimes suddenly disturbed in an extraordinary manner.\nWhirlwinds, raising up columns of dust to a great height in the air, and\nsweeping over the plains with momentary fury, were no unusual\noccurrence. As they were always harmless, it was an amusing sight to\nwatch these tall pillars of dust as they rapidly passed by, carrying up\nevery light substance to the height of from one to even three or four\nhundred feet. The rate at which they travelled varied from five to ten\nmiles in the hour: their form was seldom straight, nor were they quite\nperpendicular, but uncertain and changing. Whenever they happened to\npass over our fire, all the ashes were scattered in an instant, and\nnothing remained but the heavier sticks and logs. Sometimes they were\nobserved to disappear, and in a minute or two afterward to make their\nre-appearance at a distance farther on. This occurred whenever they\npassed over rocky ground, or a surface on which there was no dust, nor\nother substances sufficiently light to be carried up in the vortex.\nSometimes they changed their colour, according to that of the soil or\ndust which lay in their march; and when they crossed a tract of country\nwhere the grass had lately been burned, they assumed a corresponding\nblackness. But to-day the calm and heat of the air was only the prelude\nto a violent wind, which commenced as soon as the sun had sunk, and\ncontinued during the greater part of the night. The great heat and\nlong-protracted drought of the season had evaporated all moisture from\nthe earth, and rendered the sandy soil excessively light and dusty.\nAstonishing quantities of the finer particles of this sand were carried\nup by the wind, and filled the whole atmosphere, where, at a great\nheight, they were borne along by the tempest, and seemed to be real\nclouds, although of a reddish hue; while the heavier particles,\ndescending again, presented, at a distance, the appearance of mist or\ndriving rains.\u201d\n\nWHITE, a favourite and emblematical colour in Palestine. See HABITS.\n\nWIDOW. Among the Hebrews, even before the law, a widow who had no\nchildren by her husband was to marry the brother of her deceased spouse,\nin order to raise up children who might inherit his goods and perpetuate\nhis name and family. We find the practice of this custom before the law\nin the person of Tamar, who married successively Er and Onan, the sons\nof Judah, and who was likewise to have married Selah, the third son of\nthis patriarch, after the two former were dead without issue, Gen.\nxxxviii, 6\u201311. The law that appoints these marriages is Deut. xxv, 5,\n&c. Two motives prevailed to the enacting of this law. The first was,\nthe continuation of estates in the same family; and the other was to\nperpetuate a man\u2019s name in Israel. It was looked upon as a great\nmisfortune for a man to die without an heir, or to see his inheritance\npass into another family. This law was not confined to brothers-in-law\nonly, but was extended to more distant relations of the same kind; as we\nsee in the example of Ruth, who married Boaz after she had been refused\nby a nearer kinsman. See SANDALS.\n\nWILL. \u201cIn his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his\nCreator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness, and\npower, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to\nperform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him:\nyet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of\ndivine grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of\nand by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really\ngood; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his\nintellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ\nthrough the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand,\nesteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is\nmade a partaker of this regeneration, or renovation, since he is\ndelivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that\nwhich is good, but yet not without the continued aids of divine grace.\u201d\nSuch were the sentiments of the often misrepresented Arminius on this\nsubject; to which is only to be added, to complete the Scriptural view,\nthat a degree of grace to consider his ways, and to return to God, is\nthrough the merit of Christ vouchsafed to every man. Every one must be\nconscious that he possesses free will, and that he is a free agent; that\nis, that he is capable of considering and reflecting upon the objects\nwhich are presented to his mind, and of acting, in such cases as are\npossible, according to the determination of his will. And, indeed,\nwithout this free agency, actions cannot be morally good or bad; nor can\nthe agents be responsible for their conduct. But the corruption\nintroduced into our nature by the fall of Adam has so weakened our\nmental powers, has given such force to our passions, and such\nperverseness to our wills, that a man \u201ccannot turn and prepare himself\nby his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon\nGod.\u201d The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation\noften acknowledged the necessity of extraordinary assistance from God:\nDavid prays to God to open his eyes, to guide and direct him; to create\nin him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him, Psalm li, 10;\ncxix, 18, 33, 35. Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure\nprecepts of the Gospel, and urged by the motives which it suggests, must\nstill be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and confess, in the\nwords of the tenth article, that \u201cwe have no power to do good works\npleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God preventing us,\nthat we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good\nwill.\u201d The necessity of divine grace to strengthen and regulate our\nwills, and to co\u00f6perate with our endeavours after righteousness, is\nclearly asserted in the New Testament: \u201cThey that are in the flesh\ncannot please God,\u201d Rom. viii, 8. \u201cAbide in me,\u201d says our Saviour, \u201cand\nI in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in\nthe vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, and ye\nare the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth\nforth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing,\u201d John xv, 4, 5. \u201cNo\nman can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.\u201d\n\u201cIt is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good\npleasure,\u201d Phil. ii, 13. \u201cNot that we are sufficient of ourselves to\nthink any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God,\u201d 2 Cor.\niii, 5. \u201cWe know not what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit\nhelpeth our infirmities,\u201d Rom. viii, 26. We are said to be \u201cled by the\nSpirit,\u201d and to \u201cwalk in the Spirit,\u201d Rom. viii, 14; Gal. v, 16, 25.\nThese texts sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a\nprevenient and of a co\u00f6perating grace. This doctrine we find asserted in\nmany of the ancient fathers, and particularly in Ambrose, who, in\nspeaking of the effects of the fall, uses these words: \u201cThence was\nderived mortality, and no less a multitude of miseries than of crimes.\nFaith being lost, hope being abandoned, the understanding blinded, and\nthe will made captive, no one found in himself the means of repairing\nthese things. Without the worship of the true God, even that which seems\nto be virtue is sin; nor can any one please God without God. But whom\ndoes he please who does not please God, except himself and Satan? The\nnature therefore, which was good is made bad by habit: man would not\nreturn unless God turned him.\u201d And Cyprian says, \u201cWe pray day and night\nthat the sanctification and enlivening, which springs from the grace of\nGod, may be preserved by his protection.\u201d Dr. Nicholls, after quoting\nmany authorities to show that the doctrine of divine grace always\nprevailed in the catholic church, adds, \u201cI have spent, perhaps, more\ntime in these testimonies than was absolutely necessary; but whatever I\nhave done is to show that the doctrine of divine grace is so essential a\ndoctrine of Christianity, that not only the Holy Scriptures and the\nprimitive fathers assert it, but likewise that the Christians could not\nin any age maintain their religion without it,--it being necessary, not\nonly for the discharge of Christian duties, but for the performance of\nour ordinary devotions.\u201d And this seems to have been the opinion of the\ncompilers of our excellent liturgy, in many parts of which both a\nprevenient and a co\u00f6perating grace is unequivocally acknowledged;\nparticularly in the second collect for the evening service; in the\nfourth collect at the end of the communion service; in the collect for\nEaster day; in the collect for the fifth Sunday after Easter; in the\ncollects for the third, ninth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-fifth\nSundays after Trinity. This assistance of divine grace is not\ninconsistent with the free agency of men: it does not place them under\nan irresistible restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will.\nOur own exertions are necessary to enable us to work out our salvation;\nbut our sufficiency for that purpose is from God. It is, however,\nimpossible to ascertain the precise boundary between our natural efforts\nand the divine assistance, whether that assistance be considered as a\nco\u00f6perating or a prevenient grace. Without destroying our character as\nfree and accountable beings, God may be mercifully pleased to counteract\nthe depravity of our hearts by the suggestions of his Spirit; but still\nit remains with us to choose whether we will listen to those\nsuggestions, or obey the lusts of the flesh. We may rest assured that he\nwill, by the communication of his grace, varied often as to power and\ndistinctness, help our infirmities, invigorate our resolutions, and\nsupply our defects. The promises that if we draw nigh to God, God will\ndraw nigh to us, and pour out his Spirit upon us, James iv, 8; Acts ii,\n17, and that he will give his Holy Spirit to every one that asketh him,\nLuke xi, 13, imply that God is ever ready to work upon our hearts, and\nto aid our well-doing through the powerful, though invisible, operation\nof his Spirit: \u201cThe wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the\nsound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth;\nso is every one that is born of the Spirit,\u201d John iii, 8. The joint\nagency of God and man, in the work of human salvation, is pointed out in\nthe following passage: \u201cWork out your own salvation with fear and\ntrembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of\nhis good pleasure,\u201d Phil, ii, 12, 13; and therefore we may assure\nourselves that free will and grace are not incompatible, though the mode\nand degree of their co\u00f6peration be utterly inexplicable, and though at\ndifferent times one may appear for a season to overwhelm the other. This\ndoctrine has, however, been the subject of much dispute among\nChristians: some sects contend for the irresistible impulses of grace,\nand others reject the idea of any influence of the divine Spirit upon\nthe human mind. The former opinion seems irreconcilable with the free\nagency of man, if held as the constant unvarying mode in which he\ncarries on his work in the soul of man, and the latter contradicts the\nauthority of Scripture; \u201cand therefore,\u201d says Veneer, \u201clet us neither\nascribe nothing to free will, nor too much; let us not, with the\ndefenders of irresistible grace, deny free will, or make it of no\neffect, not only before, but even under, grace; nor let us suffer the\nefficacy of saving grace, on the other hand, to be swallowed up in the\nstrength and freedom of our wills; but, allowing the government or\nsuperiority to the grace of God, let the will of man be admitted to be\nits handmaid, but such a one as is free, and freely obeys; by which,\nwhen it is freely excited by the admonitions of prevenient grace, when\nit is prepared as to its affections, strengthened and assisted as to its\npowers and faculties, a man freely and willingly co\u00f6perates with God,\nthat the grace of God be not received in vain.\u201d \u201cAll men are also to be\nadmonished,\u201d observes Cranmer, in his \u201cNecessary Doctrine,\u201d \u201cand chiefly\npreachers, that in this high matter they, looking on both sides, so\ntemper and moderate themselves, that they neither so preach the grace of\nGod that they take away thereby free will, nor on the other side so\nextol free will, that injury be done to the grace of God.\u201d And Jortin\nremarks: \u201cThus do the doctrine of divine grace and the doctrine of free\nwill or human liberty unite and conspire, in a friendly manner, to our\neverlasting good. The first is adapted to excite in us gratitude, faith,\nand humility; the second, to awaken our caution and quicken our\ndiligence.\u201d\n\nMany, indeed, relying on mere abstract arguments, deny free will, in the\nstrict meaning of the term, altogether, and define the mental faculties\nof man according to their various fancies. But the existence and nature\nof our moral and rational powers are and ought to be, in true\nphilosophy, the subject of mental observation, not the sport of\nhypothesis. Those who love metaphysical abstractions may people the\nworlds of their imagination with beings of whatsoever character they\nprefer; but the nature and capabilities of man, as he really is, must be\ndetermined not by speculation but by experience. It is true that this\nexperience is the object of consciousness, not of the senses; and,\naccordingly, each man is, in some respect, the judge in his own case,\nand may, if he chooses, deny his own freedom and his power of self\ncontrol, or of using those means which God hath appointed to lead to\nthis result. But this is seldom done in ordinary life, except by those\nabandoned individuals who seek, in such a statement, an excuse for\ncapricious or unprincipled conduct,--an excuse which is never admitted\nby the majority of reasoning persons, much less by the truly pious. The\nlatter, indeed, will always be found attributing any thing good they\nachieve to the co\u00f6perating efficacy of superior assistance. But they\nwill, with equal sincerity, blame themselves for what they have done\namiss; or, in other words, acknowledge that they should and might have\nwilled and acted otherwise; and this is exactly the practical question,\nthe very turning point, on which the whole controversy hinges. The only\ncompetent judges in such a question, says Dr. R. H. Graves, are those\nwho have made it the subject of mental observation, exertion, and\npursuit; or, in other words, those who have sought after righteousness,\nunder whatever dispensation, Acts x, 35; Romans ii, 7, 10. And surely\nthe confessions, the prayers, the repentance, and the sacrifices, of the\nhumble and pious of all ages show that they felt, not only that they\nwere themselves to blame for their actions, and therefore that they\nmight have done otherwise, that is, they had a free will, but that, to\nmake this will operative in spiritual matters, they required an aid\nbeyond the reach of mere human attainment. Some may fancy this statement\ninconsistent in itself; and I allow that it cannot satisfy the mere\nspeculative supporters either of free will or its opponents. But to me\nit seems the testimony of conscience and experience, which, in natural\nreligion, must, as I conceive, be preferred to abstract hypothesis. The\ninquiry is not how the mind _may be_, but how it _is actually_,\nconstituted. This surely is a question of fact, not of conjecture, and\nmust therefore be decided by an appeal to common sense and experience,\nnot by random speculation. Again: even those who in theory contend for\nthe doctrine of necessity, yet in all the affairs of life where their\ninterests, comforts, or gratifications are concerned, both speak and act\nas if they disbelieved it, and as if they really imagined themselves\ncapable of such self determination and self control, as to improve their\ntalents, their opportunities, and their acquirements, and so to exercise\na material influence on their worldly fortunes. But suppose the\nassertions of individuals, as to their consciousness in this particular,\nto disagree. It is then evident, that, the question being as to the\nnature of man in general, it must be determined by the voice of\npreponderating testimony. But how, it may be asked, are the suffrages to\nbe collected? Since the judgment of each individual must in this scheme\nbe considered as a separate fact, how is a sufficiently extensive\ninduction to be made? In answer, it may be asserted, that in every\ncivilized nation the induction has been already made, the suffrages have\nbeen taken, the case has been tried, and the decision is on record. And\nthe verdict is the most impartial that can be looked for in such a case,\nbecause given without any reference to the controversy in dispute. All\nhuman laws, forbidding, condemning, and punishing vicious actions, are\ngrounded on the acknowledged supposition that man is possessed of a self\ncontrol, a self determining power, by which he could, both in will and\nin deed, have avoided the very actions for which he is condemned, and in\nthe very circumstances in which he has committed them. Nor would it be\neasy to find a case where the criminal has deceived himself, or hoped to\ndeceive his judges, by pleading that he laboured under a fatal\nnecessity, which rendered his crimes unavoidable, and therefore\nexcusable. The justice of all legislative enactments evidently and\nessentially depends on the principle, that the things prohibited can be\navoided, or, in other words, might have been done otherwise than they\nwere done; and this is the very turning point of the controversy.\nAccordingly, in whatever instances such freedom of will is not\npresupposed, (as in the cases of idiots and madmen,) the operation of\nsuch enactments is suspended. All nations, therefore, who consent to\nframe and abide by such laws, do thereby testify their deliberate and\nsolemn assent to the truth of this principle, and, consequently, to the\nexistence of free will in man; and do certify the sincerity of their\nconviction by staking upon it their properties, their liberties, and\ntheir lives. Numberless other instances might be adduced in which the\npractice of mankind implies their belief in this principle. And so\nconscious of this are the opponents of free will, that they generally\ndeprecate appeals to common sense and experience, and resort to\nmetaphysical arguments to examine what is in truth a matter of truth,\nnot of conjecture; or, in other words, to determine, not what man is,\nbut what they imagine he _must be_. In their reasonings they differ, as\nmight have been expected, as much from each other as they do from truth\nand reality. But the experience of common sense and conscience will\nalways decide, that no man can conscientiously make this excuse for his\ncrimes, that he could not have willed or acted otherwise than he did.\nThe existence of the above faculties in the human mind once acknowledged\nleads, by necessary inference, to the admission, that there exists in\nthe great First Cause a power to create them. Not, indeed, that these\nfaculties themselves exist in him in the same manner as in us, but the\npower of originating and producing them in all possible variety. We can\nindeed conclude, that having created all these in us, his nature must be\nso perfect that we cannot attribute to him any line of conduct\ninconsistent with whatever is excellent in the exercise of these\nfaculties in ourselves. And therefore we cannot ascribe to him, as his\nspecial act, any thing we should perceive to be unworthy of any just or\nmerciful, any wise or upright, being. But this furnishes no clue\nwhatever to a knowledge of the real constitution of his nature, or of\nthe manner in which his divine attributes exist together. In truth, we\nno more comprehend how he wills than how he acts, and therefore we have\nno better right to assert that he wills evil than that he does evil.\nAgain: we as little understand how he knows as how he sees, and\ntherefore might as well argue that all things exist in consequence of\nhis beholding them, as that all events arise in consequence of his\nforeknowing them. In short, all that can be inferred by reason\nconcerning the intrinsic nature of the invisible, unsearchable Deity,\nmust be admitted by the candid inquirer to be no better than conjecture.\nAnd he who should hope from such doubtful support as his fancied insight\ninto the unknown operations of the divine mind to suspend a system of\nirrespective decrees, embracing the moral government of the world, would\nbut too much resemble him who should imagine the material globe\nadequately sustained if upheld by a chain whose highest links were\nwrapped in clouds and darkness. Thus our affirmative knowledge of the\nDeity, as derived from this part of our inquiry, consists in the\ncertainty, (though his nature is unknown to us,) that he is the creative\nsource of all that is great, glorious, and good in heaven or in earth;\nwhile we may negatively conclude, that his moral government shall, on\nthe whole, be conducted in a manner not inconsistent with whatever is\nexcellent in the exercise of power and wisdom, justice and mercy,\ngoodness and truth. Nor is it a little important, as connected with the\npresent inquiry, to keep in mind this distinction between our\naffirmative and negative knowledge in this matter. For it shows us that\nas, on the one side, we cannot pretend to such an insight into the\nnature and character of the divine knowledge as to deduce therefrom a\nsystem of eternal and irrespective decrees; so neither, on the other,\ncan this system of moral government be ascribed to the Deity, because it\nwould be manifestly unworthy, not merely of him who has created all\nmoral excellence, but of any of those beings on whom he has conferred\nthe most ordinary degrees of mercy and justice. The natural benefits or\nevils arising out of moral or immoral practices are, in fact, so many\nrewards or punishments, exhibiting the Being who has so constituted our\nnature as a moral governor. This part of his government may not be so\nclearly discernible in individual instances, because much of the\nhappiness and unhappiness attending virtue and vice is mental and\ninvisible. In the case of nations, however, considered merely as bodies\npolitic, the internal sanction of an approving or reproaching\nconscience, of subdued or distracting passions, can have no existence;\nand therefore the external sanctions are more uniformly enforced. Hence,\nwhoever carefully examines the dealings of Providence with the human\nrace will admit, that national prosperity has ever kept pace with\nnational wisdom and integrity; whereas, the greatest empires, when once\ncorrupted, have soon become the prey of internal strife or foreign\ndomination. Again: man is made for society, and cannot exist without it:\nconsequently, all the regulations which are really conducive to the\nmaintenance of civil policy and social order must be regarded as evident\nconsequences of our nature, when enlightened to the rational pursuit of\nits own advantage; and therefore should be considered as intimations of\na moral government, carried on through their intervention. In addition\nto which, it ought to be observed, that these laws may be regarded in\nanother point of view,--as a most important class of moral phenomena;\ninasmuch as they virtually exhibit the most unexceptionable declarations\nof reason on this subject, because they are collected from the common\nconsent of mankind, and therefore rendered, in a great measure,\nindependent of the obliquities of individual intellect, the errors of\nprivate judgment, and the partial views of self interest, prejudice, or\npassion. But all the laws of civilized nations, both in their enactment\nand administration, not only presuppose certain notions concerning the\nfreedom and accountableness of man, the merit and demerit of human\nactions, and the inseparable connection of virtue and vice with rewards\nand punishments, but greatly contribute to fix and perpetuate these\nnotions. It is therefore evidently the intention of that part of the\nmoral government with which we are acquainted, to impress these\nprinciples deeply on the human mind, and to induce the human race to\nregulate their conduct accordingly. The laws, then, of this moral\ngovernment under which we find ourselves placed, and from which we\ncannot escape, correspond with and corroborate the conclusions deduced\nfrom the observation of mental phenomena. And from both we conclude that\nsimilar principles of government will be adopted, (so far, at least, as\nman is concerned,) in other worlds and in future ages; only more\ndeveloped, and therefore more evidently free from its present apparent\nimperfections. Upon this account we look, in another life, for some such\ngeneral disclosure and consummation of the ways and wisdom of Providence\nas shall vindicate, even in the minor details, the grand principles upon\nwhich, generally speaking, the government of God is at present obviously\nconducted. How this may be done, with many questions connected\ntherewith, reason without revelation could, as I conceive, do little\nmore than form plausible conjectures. Though now that it has pleased God\nin Christ to bring \u201clife and immortality to light through the Gospel,\u201d\nit is possible for reason to estimate the beauty and the mercy and the\nwisdom of the dispensation by which it has been effected.\n\nWIND. The Hebrews, like us, acknowledge four principal winds, Ezek.\nxiii, 16\u201318: the east wind, the north wind, the south wind, and the west\nwind, or that from the Mediterranean sea. See WHIRLWIND.\n\nWINDOWS. The method of building both in Barbary and the Levant seems to\nhave continued the same from the earliest ages. All the windows open\ninto private courts, if we except sometimes a latticed window or balcony\ntoward the street. It is only during the celebration of some _zeenah_,\nor public festival, that these houses and their latticed windows are\nleft open; for this being a time of great liberty, revelling, and\nextravagance, each family is ambitious of adorning both the inside and\noutside of their houses with the richest part of their furniture; while\ncrowds of both sexes, dressed out in their best apparel, and laying\naside all ceremony and restraint, go in and out where they please. The\naccount we have, 2 Kings ix, 30, of Jezebel\u2019s painting her face, tiring\nher head, and looking out at a window upon Jehu\u2019s public entry into\nJezreel, gives us a lively idea of an eastern lady at one of those\nsolemnities.\n\nWINE, \u05d9\u05d9\u05df, Gen. xix, 32, \u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. ix, 17, a liquor expressed from\ngrapes. The art of refining wine upon the lees was known to the Jews.\nThe particular process, as it is now practised in the island of Cyprus,\nis described in Mariti\u2019s Travels. The wine is put immediately from the\nvat into large vases of potters\u2019 ware, pointed at the bottom, till they\nare nearly full, when they are covered tight and buried. At the end of a\nyear what is designed for sale is drawn into wooden casks. The dregs in\nthe vases are put into wooden casks destined to receive wine, with as\nmuch of the liquor as is necessary to prevent them from becoming dry\nbefore use. Casks thus prepared are very valuable. When the wine a year\nold is put in, the dregs rise, and make it appear muddy, but afterward\nthey subside and carry down all the other feculences. The dregs are so\nmuch valued that they are not sold with the wine in the vase, unless\nparticularly mentioned.\n\nThe \u201cnew wine,\u201d or \u201cmust,\u201d is mentioned, Isa. xlix, 26; Joel i, 5; iii,\n18; and Amos ix, 13, under the name \u05e2\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd. The \u201cmixed wine,\u201d \u05de\u05de\u05e1\u05d3, Prov.\nxxiii, 30, and in Isaiah lxv, 11 rendered \u201cdrink-offering,\u201d may mean\nwine made stronger and more inebriating by the addition of higher and\nmore powerful ingredients, such as honey, spices, _defrutum_, or wine\ninspissated by boiling it down, myrrh, mandragora, and other strong\ndrugs. Thus the drunkard is properly described as one that seeketh\n\u201cmixed wine,\u201d Prov. xxiii, 30, and is mighty to \u201cmingle strong drink,\u201d\nIsa. v, 22; and hence the psalmist took that highly poetical and sublime\nimage of the cup of God\u2019s wrath, called by Isaiah, li, 17, \u201cthe cup of\ntrembling,\u201d containing, as St. John expresses it, Rev. xiv, 10, pure\nwine made yet stronger by a mixture of powerful ingredients: \u201cIn the\nhand of Jehovah is a cup, and the wine is turbid; it is full of a mixed\nliquor, and he poureth out of it,\u201d or rather, \u201che poureth it out of one\nvessel into another,\u201d to mix it perfectly; \u201cverily the dregs thereof,\u201d\nthe thickest sediment of the strong ingredients mingled with it, \u201call\nthe ungodly of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.\u201d \u201cSpiced\nwine,\u201d Cant. viii, 2, was wine rendered more palatable and fragrant with\naromatics. This was considered as a great delicacy. Spiced wines were\nnot peculiar to the Jews; Hafiz speaks of wines \u201crichly bitter, richly\nsweet.\u201d The Romans lined their vessels, _amphor\u00e6_, with odorous gums, to\ngive the wine a warm bitter flavour: and the orientals now use the\nadmixture of spices to give their wines a favourite relish. The \u201cwine of\nHelbon,\u201d Ezek. xxvii, 18, was an excellent kind of wine, known to the\nancients by the name of _chalibonium vinum_. It was made at Damascus;\nthe Persians had planted vineyards there on purpose, says Posidosius,\nquoted by Athen\u00e6us. This author says that the kings of Persia used no\nother wine. Hosea, xiv, 7, mentions the wine of Lebanon. The wines from\nthe vineyards on that mount are even to this day in repute; but some\nthink that this may mean a sweet-scented wine, or wine flavoured with\nfragrant gums.\n\nWINE PRESS. The vintage in Syria commences about the middle of\nSeptember, and continues till the middle of November. But grapes in\nPalestine, we are informed, were ripe sometimes even in June or July,\nwhich arose perhaps from a triple pruning, in which case there was also\na third vintage. The first vintage was in August, the second in\nSeptember, and the third in October. The grapes when not gathered were\nsometimes found on the vines until November and December. The Hebrews\nwere required to leave gleanings for the poor, Lev. xix, 10. The season\nof vintage was a most joyful one, Judges ix, 27; Isaiah xvi, 10; Jer.\nxxv, 30; xlviii, 33. With shoutings on all sides, the grapes were\nplucked off and carried to the wine press, \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, \u05e4\u05d0\u05e8\u05d4, \u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, which was\nin the vineyard, Isa. liii, 3; Zech. xiv, 10; Haggai ii, 16; Matt. xxi,\n33; Rev. xiv, 19, 20. The presses consisted of two receptacles, which\nwere either built of stones and covered with plaster, or hewn out of a\nlarge rock. The upper receptacle, called \u05e0\u05ea, as it is constructed at the\npresent time in Persia, is nearly eight feet square and four feet high.\nInto this the grapes are thrown and trodden out by five men. The juice\nflows out into the lower receptacle, through a grated aperture, which is\nmade in the side near the bottom of the upper one. The treading of the\nwine press was laborious, and not very favourable to cleanliness; the\ngarments of the persons thus employed were stained with the red juice,\nand yet the employment was a joyful one. It was performed with singing,\naccompanied with musical instruments; and the treaders, as they jumped,\nexclaimed, \u05d4\u05d9\u05d3\u05d3, Isa. xvi, 9, 10; Jer. xxv, 30; xlviii, 32, 33.\nFiguratively, vintage, gleaning, and treading the wine press, signified\nbattles and great slaughters, Isa. xvii, 6; lxiii, 1\u20133; Jer. xlix, 9;\nLam. i, 15. The must, as is customary in the east at the present day,\nwas preserved in large firkins, which were buried in the earth. The wine\ncellars were not subterranean, but built upon the earth. When deposited\nin these, the firkins, as is done at the present time in Persia, were\nsometimes buried in the ground, and sometimes left standing upon it.\nFormerly, also, new wine or must was preserved in leathern bottles; and,\nlest they should be broken by fermentation, the people were very careful\nthat the bottles should be new, Job xxxii, 19; Matt. ix, 17; Mark ii,\n22. Sometimes the must was boiled and made into syrup, which is\ncomprehended under the term \u05d3\u05d1\u05e9, although it is commonly rendered\n\u201choney,\u201d Gen. xliii, 11; 2 Chron. xxxi, 5. Sometimes the grapes were\ndried in the sun and preserved in masses, which were called \u201cbunches or\nclusters of raisins,\u201d 1 Sam. xxv, 18; 2 Sam. xvi, 1; 1 Chron. xii, 40;\nHosea iii, 1. From these dried grapes, when soaked in wine and pressed a\nsecond time, was manufactured sweet wine, which is also called new wine,\n\u03b3\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, Acts ii, 13.\n\nWISDOM is put for that prudence and discretion which enables a man to\nperceive that which is fit to be done, according to the circumstances of\ntime, place, persons, manners, and end of doing, Eccles. ii, 13, 14. It\nwas this sort of wisdom that Solomon intreated of God with so much\nearnestness, and which God granted him with such divine liberality, 1\nKings iii, 9, 12, 28. It also signifies quickness of invention, and\ndexterity in the execution of several works, which require not so much\nstrength of body, as industry, and labour of the mind. For example, God\ntold Moses, Exod. xxxi, 3, that he had filled Bezaleel and Aholiab with\nwisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, to invent and perform several\nsorts of work for completing the tabernacle. It is used for craft,\ncunning, and stratagem, and that whether good or evil. Thus it is said\nby Moses, that Pharaoh dealt wisely with the Israelites, when he opposed\nthem in Egypt, Exodus i, 10: it is observed of Jonadab, the friend of\nAmmon, and nephew of David, that he was very wise, that is, very subtle\nand crafty, 2 Sam. xiii, 3; and Job, v, 13, says, that God \u201ctaketh the\nwise in their own craftiness.\u201d Wisdom means also doctrine, learning, and\nexperience: \u201cWith the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days\nunderstanding,\u201d Job xii, 12. It is put for true piety, or the fear of\nGod, which is spiritual wisdom: \u201cSo teach us to number our days, that we\nmay apply our hearts unto wisdom,\u201d Psalm xc, 12; \u201cThe fear of the Lord\nthat is wisdom,\u201d Job xxvii, 28. Wisdom is put for the eternal Wisdom,\nthe Word of God. It was by wisdom that God established the heavens, and\nfounded the earth, Prov. iii, 19. How magnificently does Solomon\ndescribe the primeval birth of the eternal Son of God, under the\ncharacter of Wisdom personified; to which so many references and\nallusions are to be found in the Old and New Testament! \u201cThe Lord\npossessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was\nset up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When\nthere were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains\nabounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the\nhills was I brought forth,\u201d Prov. viii, 22\u201325. The apocryphal book of\nWisdom introduces, by a reference to this passage, the following\nadmirable invocation, Wisdom ix, 9, 10:--\n\n           \u201cO send forth wisdom, out of thy holy heavens,\n             Even from the throne of thy glory;\n           That being present she may labour with me,\n             That I may know what is pleasing in thy sight!\u201d\n\nAnd our Lord assumes the title of Wisdom, Luke xi, 49; Matt. xxiii, 34;\nand declares that \u201cwisdom shall be justified of all her children,\u201d Matt.\nxi, 19; Luke vii, 35.\n\nWISDOM, BOOK OF, an apocryphal book of Scripture, so called on account\nof the wise maxims contained in it. This book has been commonly ascribed\nto Solomon, either because the author imitated that king\u2019s manner of\nwriting, or because he sometimes speaks in his name. But it is certain\nSolomon was not the author of it; for it was not written in Hebrew, nor\nwas it inserted in the Jewish canon, nor is the style like that of\nSolomon; and therefore St. Jerom observes justly that it smells strong\nof the Grecian eloquence; that it is composed with art and method, after\nthe manner of the Greek philosophers, very different from that noble\nsimplicity so full of life and energy to be found in the Hebrew books.\nIt has been ascribed by many of the ancients to Philo.\n\nWOLF, \u05d6\u05d0\u05d1, in Arabic, _zeeb_, Gen. xlix, 27; Isa. xi, 6; lxv, 25; Jer.\nv, 6; Ezek. xxii, 27; Zeph. iii, 3; Hab. i, 8; \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, Matt. vii, 15; x,\n16; Luke x, 3; John x, 12; Acts xx, 29; Eccles. xiii, 17. M. Majus\nderives it from the Arabic word _zaab_ or _daaba_, \u201cto frighten;\u201d and\nhence, perhaps, the German word _dieb_, \u201ca thief.\u201d The wolf is a fierce,\nstrong, cunning, mischievous, and carnivorous quadruped; externally and\ninternally so nearly resembling the dog, that they seem modelled alike,\nyet have a perfect antipathy to each other. The Scripture observes of\nthe wolf, that it lives upon rapine; is violent, bloody, cruel,\nvoracious, and greedy; goes abroad by night to seek its prey, and is a\ngreat enemy to flocks of sheep. Indeed, this animal is fierce without\ncause, kills without remorse, and by its indiscriminate slaughter seems\nto satisfy its malignity rather than its hunger. The wolf is weaker than\nthe lion or the bear, and less courageous than the leopard; but he\nscarcely yields to them in cruelty and rapaciousness. His ravenous\ntemper prompts him to destructive and sanguinary depredations; and these\nare perpetrated principally in the night. This circumstance is expressly\nmentioned in several passages of Scripture. \u201cThe great men have\naltogether broken the yoke and burst the bonds; wherefore, a lion out of\nthe forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil\nthem,\u201d Jer. v, 6. The rapacious and cruel conduct of the princes of\nIsrael is compared by Ezekiel, xxii, 27, to the mischievous inroads of\nthe same animal: \u201cHer princes in the midst thereof are like wolves\nravening the prey, to shed blood, to destroy lives, to get dishonest\ngain;\u201d and Zephaniah, iii, 3, says, \u201cHer princes within her are roaring\nlions, her judges are evening wolves: they gnaw not the bones till the\nmorrow.\u201d Instead of protecting the innocent and restraining the evil\ndoer, or punishing him according to the demerit of his crimes, they\ndelight in violence and oppression, in blood and rapine; and so\ninsatiable is their cupidity, that, like the evening wolf, they destroy\nmore than they are able to possess. The dispositions of the wolf to\nattack the weaker animals, especially those which are under the\nprotection of man, is alluded to by our Saviour in the parable of the\nhireling shepherd: \u201cThe wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the flock,\u201d\nMatt. vii, 15. And the Apostle Paul, in his address to the elders of\nEphesus, gives the name of this insidious and cruel animal to the false\nteachers who disturbed the peace and perverted the faith of their\npeople: \u201cI know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves\nenter in among you, not sparing the flock,\u201d Acts xx, 29.\n\nWORD. Sometimes the Scripture ascribes to the word of God certain\nsupernatural effects, and often represents it as animated and active:\n\u201cHe sent his word and healed them,\u201d Psalm cvii, 20. It also signifies\nwhat is written in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, Luke\nxi, 28; James i, 22; the divine law which teaches and commands good\nthings, and forbids evil, Psalm cxix, 101; and is used to express every\npromise of God, Psalm cxix, 25, &c, and prophecy or vision, Isaiah, ii,\n1. This term is likewise consecrated and appropriated to signify the\nonly Son of the Father, the uncreated Wisdom, the second Person of the\nmost holy Trinity, equal to and consubstantial with the Father. St. John\nthe evangelist, more expressly than any other, has opened to us the\nmystery of the Word of God, when he tells us, \u201cIn the beginning was the\nWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in\nthe beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was\nnot any thing made that was made,\u201d John i, 1\u20133. The Chaldee paraphrasts,\nthe most ancient Jewish writers extant, generally make use of the word\n_memra_, which signifies \u201cthe Word,\u201d in those places where Moses puts\nthe name Jehovah. They say, for example, that it was the _Memra_, or the\nWord, which created the world, which appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai,\nwhich gave him the law, which spoke to him face to face, which brought\nIsrael out of Egypt, which marched before the people, and which wrought\nall those miracles that are recorded in Exodus. It was the same Word\nthat appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, that was seen of Jacob\nat Bethel, to whom Jacob made his vow, and acknowledged as God, saying,\n\u201cIf God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, then\nshall the Lord be my God,\u201d Gen. xxviii, 20, 21. The manner in which St.\nJohn commences his Gospel is strikingly different from the introductions\nto the histories of Christ by the other evangelists; and no less\nstriking and peculiar is the title under which he announces him--\u201cthe\nWord.\u201d It has therefore been a subject of much inquiry and discussion,\nfrom whence this evangelist drew the use of this appellation, and what\nreasons led him, as though intending to solicit particular attention, to\nplace it at the very head of his Gospel. That it was for the purpose of\nestablishing an express opinion, as to the personal character of him it\nis used to designate, is made more than probable from the predominant\ncharacter of the whole Gospel, which is more copiously doctrinal, and\ncontains a record more full of what Jesus \u201c_said_\u201d than the others. As\nto the source from which the term Logos was drawn by the Apostle, some\nhave held it to be taken from the Jewish Scriptures; others, from the\nChaldee paraphrases; others, from Philo and the Hellenizing Jews. The\nmost natural conclusion certainly appears to be, that, as St. John was a\nplain, \u201cunlearned\u201d man, chiefly conversant in the Holy Scriptures, he\nderived this term from the sacred books of his own nation, in which the\nHebrew phrase, _Dabar Jehovah_, \u201cthe Word of Jehovah,\u201d frequently occurs\nin passages which must be understood to speak of a personal Word, and\nwhich phrase is rendered \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 [the word of the Lord] by the\nSeptuagint interpreters. Certainly, there is not the least evidence in\nhis writings, or in his traditional history, that he ever acquainted\nhimself with Philo or with Plato; and none, therefore, that he borrowed\nthe term from them, or used it in any sense approaching to or suggested\nby these refinements:--in the writings of St. Paul there are allusions\nto poets and philosophers; in those of St. John, none, except to the\nrising sects afterward known under the appellation of Gnostics. The\nHebrew Scriptures contain frequent intimations of a distinction of\nPersons in the Godhead; one of these Divine Persons is called Jehovah;\nand, though manifestly represented as existing distinct from the Father,\nis yet arrayed with attributes of divinity, and was acknowledged by the\nancient Jews to be, in the highest sense, \u201ctheir God,\u201d the God with\nwhom, through all their history, they chiefly \u201chad to do.\u201d This Divine\nPerson is proved to have been spoken of by the prophets as the future\nChrist; the evangelists and Apostles represent Jesus as that Divine\nPerson of the prophets; and if, in the writings of the Old Testament, he\nis also called the Word, the application of this term to our Lord is\nnaturally accounted for. It will then appear to be a theological, not a\nphilosophic appellation, and one which, previously even to the time of\nthe Apostle, had been stamped with the authority of inspiration.\n\nCelebrated as this title of the Logos was in the Jewish theology, it is\nnot, however, the appellation by which the Spirit of inspiration has\nchosen that our Saviour should be principally designated. It occurs but\na very few times, and principally and emphatically in the introduction\nto St. John\u2019s Gospel. A cogent reason can be given why this Apostle\nadopts it; and we are not without a probable reason why, in the New\nTestament, the title \u201cSon of God\u201d should have been preferred, which is a\nfrequent title of the Logos in the writings also of Philo. Originating\nfrom the spiritual principle of connection, between the first and the\nsecond Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of\nconnection; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the\nWord is to the energetic mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual\nenergies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too\nspiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If\nwith so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a\nfiliation of the second Being to the first, we have seen the attempts of\nArian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust\nof a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had\nonly such a spiritual denomination as this for the second! This would\ncertainly have been considered by it as too unsubstantial for distinct\npersonality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity. One of the\nfirst teachers of this system was Cerinthus. We have not any particular\naccount of all the branches of his system; and it is possible that we\nmay ascribe to him some of those tenets by which later sects of Gnostics\nwere discriminated. But we have authority for saying, that the general\nprinciple of the Gnostic scheme was openly taught by Cerinthus before\nthe publication of the Gospel of St. John. The authority is that of\nIren\u00e6us, a bishop who lived in the second century, who in his youth had\nheard Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, and who retained the\ndiscourses of Polycarp in his memory till his death. There are yet\nextant of the works of Iren\u00e6us, five books which he wrote against\nheresies, one of the most authentic and valuable monuments of\ntheological erudition. In one place of that work he says, that Cerinthus\ntaught in Asia that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by a\ncertain power very separate and far removed from the Sovereign of the\nuniverse, and ignorant of his nature. In another place, he says that\nJohn the Apostle wished, by his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had\nbeen spread among men by Cerinthus; and Jerom, who lived in the fourth\ncentury, says that St. John wrote his Gospel, at the desire of the\nbishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and chiefly\nagainst the doctrines of the Ebionites, then springing up, who said that\nChrist did not exist before he was born of Mary.\n\n\u201cIt appears,\u201d says Dr. Hill, \u201cto have been the tradition of the\nChristian church, that St. John, who lived to a great age, and who\nresided at Ephesus, in Proconsular Asia, was moved by the growth of the\nGnostic heresies, and by the solicitations of the Christian teachers, to\nbear his testimony to the truth in writing, and particularly to\nrecollect those discourses and actions of our Lord, which might furnish\nthe clearest refutation of the persons who denied his pre\u00ebxistence. This\ntradition is a key to a great part of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke had given a detail of those actions of Jesus which are the\nevidences of his divine mission; of those events in his life upon earth\nwhich are most interesting to the human race; and of those moral\ndiscourses in which the wisdom, the grace, and the sanctity of the\nTeacher shine with united lustre. Their whole narration implies that\nJesus was more than man. But as it is distinguished by a beautiful\nsimplicity, which adds very much to their credit as historians, they\nhave not, with the exception of a few incidental expressions, formally\nstated the conclusion that Jesus was more than man; but have left the\nChristian world to draw it for themselves from the facts narrated, or to\nreceive it by the teaching and the writings of the Apostles. St. John,\nwho was preserved by God to see this conclusion, which had been drawn by\nthe great body of Christians, and had been established in the epistles,\ndenied by different heretics, brings forward, in the form of a history\nof Jesus, a view of his exalted character, and draws our attention\nparticularly to the truth of that which had been denied. When you come\nto analyze the Gospel of St. John, you will find that the first eighteen\nverses contain the positions laid down by the Apostle, in order to meet\nthe errors of Cerinthus; that these positions, which are merely affirmed\nin the introduction, are proved in the progress of the Gospel, by the\ntestimony of John the Baptist, and by the words and the actions of our\nLord; and that after the proof is concluded by the declaration of\nThomas, who, upon being convinced that Jesus had risen, said to him, \u2018My\nLord, and my God,\u2019 St. John sums up the amount of his Gospel in these\nfew words: \u2018These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the\nChrist, the Son of God;\u2019 that is, that Jesus and the Christ are not\ndistinct persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Apostle\ndoes not condescend to mention the name of Cerinthus, because that would\nhave preserved, as long as the world lasts, the memory of a name which\nmight otherwise be forgotten. But, although there is dignity and\npropriety in omitting the mention of his name, it was necessary, in\nlaying down the positions that were to meet his errors, to adopt some of\nhis words, because the Christians of those days would not so readily\nhave applied the doctrine of the Apostle to the refutation of those\nheresies which Cerinthus was spreading among them, if they had not found\nin the exposition of that doctrine some of the terms in which the heresy\nwas delivered; and as the chief of these terms, Logos, which Cerinthus\napplied to an inferior spirit, was equivalent to a phrase in common use\namong the Jews, \u2018the Word of Jehovah,\u2019 and was probably borrowed from\nthence, John by his use of Logos rescues it from the degraded use of\nCerinthus, and restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity of\nthe Jewish phrase.\u201d\n\nThe Logos was no fanciful term, merely invented by St. John, _pro re\nnat\u00e2_, [according to circumstances,] or even suggested by the Holy\nSpirit, as a suitable title for a prophet by whom God chose to reveal\nhimself or his Word. It was a term diversely understood in the world\nbefore St. John began his Gospel. Is it possible, therefore, that he\nshould have used the term without some express allusion to these\nprevailing opinions? Had he contradicted them all, it would, of course,\nhave been a plain proof, that they were all equally fabulous and\nfanciful; but by adopting the term, he certainly meant to show, that the\nerror did not consist in believing that there was a Logos, or Word of\nGod, but in thinking amiss of it. We might, indeed, have wondered much\nhad he decidedly adopted the Platonic or Gnostic notions, in preference\nto the Jewish; but that he should harmonize with the latter, is by no\nmeans surprising; first, because he was a Jew himself; and, secondly,\nbecause Christianity was plainly to be shown to be connected with, and,\nas it were, regularly to have sprung out of, Judaism. It is certainly,\nthen, in the highest degree consistent with all we could reasonably\nexpect, to find St. John and others of the sacred writers expressing\nthemselves in terms not only familiar to the Jews under the old\ncovenant, but, in such as might tend, by a perfect revelation of the\ntruth, to give instruction to all parties; correcting the errors of the\nPlatonic and oriental systems, and confirming, in the clearest manner,\nthe hopes and expectations of the Jews.\n\nWhile the reasons for the use of this term by St. John are obvious, the\nargument from it is irresistible; for, first, the Logos of the\nevangelist is a _person_, not an _attribute_, as many Socinians have\nsaid, who have, therefore, sometimes chosen to render it _wisdom_. For\nif it be an attribute, it were a mere truism to say, that \u201cit was in the\nbeginning with God;\u201d because God could never be without his attributes.\nThe Apostle also declares, that the Logos was the Light; but that John\nBaptist was not the light. Here is a kind of parallel supposed, and it\npresumes, also, that it was possible that the same character might be\nerroneously ascribed to both. Between person and person this may,\nundoubtedly, be the case; but what species of parallel can exist between\nman and an attribute? Nor will the difficulty be obviated by suggesting,\nthat wisdom here means not the attribute itself, but him whom that\nattribute inspired, the man Jesus Christ, because the name of our\nSaviour has not yet been mentioned; because that rule of interpretation\nmust be inadmissible, which at one time would explain the term Logos by\nan attribute, at another by a man, as best suits the convenience of\nhypothesis; and because, if it be, in this instance, conceived to\nindicate our Saviour, it must follow, that our Saviour created the\nworld, (which the Unitarians will by no means admit,) for the Logos, who\nwas that which John the Baptist was not, the true Light, is expressly\ndeclared to have made the world. Again: the Logos was made flesh, that\nis, became man; but in what possible sense could an attribute become\nman? The Logos is \u201cthe only begotten of the Father;\u201d but it would be\nuncouth to say of any attribute, that it is begotten; and, if that were\npassed over, it would follow, from this notion, either that God has only\none attribute, or that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute.\nFarther: St. John uses terms decisively personal, as that he is God, not\ndivine as an attribute, but God personally; not that he was in God,\nwhich would properly have been said of an attribute, but _with_ God,\nwhich he could only say of a person; that \u201call things were made by him;\u201d\nthat he was \u201cin the world;\u201d that \u201che came to his own;\u201d that he was \u201cin\nthe bosom of the Father;\u201d and that \u201che hath declared the Father.\u201d The\nabsurdity of representing the Logos of St. John as an attribute seems,\nat length, to have been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and their\nnew version accordingly regards it as a personal term.\n\nIf the Logos be a person, then is he Divine; for, first, eternity is\nascribed to him: \u201cIn the beginning was the Word.\u201d The Unitarian comment\nis, \u201cfrom the beginning of his ministry,\u201d or \u201cthe commencement of the\nGospel dispensation;\u201d which makes St. John use another trifling truism,\nand solemnly tell his readers, that our Saviour, when he began his\nministry, was in existence! \u201cin the beginning of his ministry the Word\n_was_!\u201d It is true, that \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74, \u201cthe beginning,\u201d is used for the\nbeginning of Christ\u2019s ministry, when he says that the Apostles had been\nwith him from the beginning; and it may be used for the beginning of any\nthing whatever. It is a term which must be determined in its meaning by\nthe context; and the question, therefore, is, how the connection here\ndetermines it. Almost immediately it is added, \u201cAll things were made by\nhim;\u201d which can only mean the creation of universal nature. He, then,\nwho made all things was prior to all created things; he _was_ when they\n_began_ to be, and before they began to be; and, if he existed before\nall created things, he was not himself created, and was, therefore,\neternal. Secondly, he is expressly called God; and, thirdly, he is as\nexplicitly said to be the Creator of all things. The two last\nparticulars have often been largely established, and nothing need be\nadded, except, as another proof that the Scriptures can only be fairly\nexplained by the doctrine of a distinction of divine Persons in the\nGodhead, the declaration of St. John may be adduced, that \u201cthe Word was\n_with_ God, and the Word was God.\u201d What hypothesis but this goes a\nsingle step to explain this wonderful language? Arianism, which allows\nthe pre\u00ebxistence of Christ _with_ God, accords with the first clause,\nbut contradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces the personal to\nan official, and therefore a temporal, distinction, accords with the\nsecond clause, but contradicts the first; for Christ, according to this\ntheory, was not with God in the beginning, that is in eternity.\nSocinianism contradicts both clauses; for on that scheme Christ was\nneither with God in the beginning, nor was he God. \u201cThe faith of God\u2019s\nelect\u201d agrees with both clauses, and by both it is established: \u201cThe\nWord was with God, and the Word was God.\u201d See UNITARIANS.\n\nWORM, the general name in Scripture for little creeping insects. Several\nkinds are spoken of: 1. Those that breed in putrefied bodies, \u05e8\u05de\u05d4, Exod.\nxvi, 20, 24; Job vii, 5; xvii, 14; xxi, 26; xxiv, 20; xxv, 6; Isa. xiv,\n11; \u03c3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b7\u03be, Ecclus. vii, 17; x, 11; 1 Mac. ii, 62; 2 Mac. ix, 9; Judith\nxvi, 17; Mark ix, 44, 46, 48; Acts xii, 23. 2. That which eats woollen\ngarments, \u05e1\u05e1, Isa. li, 8; \u03c3\u1f74\u03c2, Matt. vi, 19, 20; Luke xii, 33. 3. That\nwhich, perforating the leaves and bark of trees, causes the little\nexcrescences called _kermes_, whence is made a crimson dye, \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05e2, Deut.\nxxviii, 39; Job xxv, 6; Psalm xxii, 6; Isa. xiv, 11; xii, 14; lxvi, 24;\nExod. xvi, 20; Jonah iv, 7. 4. The worm destructive of the vines,\nreferred to in Deut. xxviii, 39; which was the _pyralis vitan\u00e6_, or\n_pyralis fasciana_, of Forskal, the vine weevil, a small insect\nextremely hurtful to the vines.\n\nWORMWOOD, \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4, Deut. xxix, 18; Prov. v, 4; Jer. ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam.\niii, 15, 19; Amos v, 7; vi, 12; \u1f04\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, Rev. viii, 11. In the\nSeptuagint the original word is variously rendered, and generally by\nterms expressive of its figurative sense, for what is offensive, odious,\nor deleterious; but in the Syriac and Arabic versions, and in the Latin\nVulgate, it is rendered \u201cwormwood;\u201d and this is adopted by Celsius, who\nnames it the _absinthium santonicum Judaicum_, [bitter wormwood of\nJudea.] From the passages of Scripture, however, where this plant is\nmentioned, something more than the bitterness of its qualities seems to\nbe intimated, and effects are attributed to it greater than can be\nproduced by the wormwood of Europe. The Chaldee paraphrase gives it even\nthe character of \u201cthe wormwood of death.\u201d It may therefore mean a plant\nallied, perhaps, to the _absinthium_ in appearance and in taste, but\npossessing more nauseous, hurtful, and formidable properties.\n\nWORSHIP. The Scriptural obligation of public worship is partly founded\nupon example, and partly upon precept; so that no person who admits that\nauthority, can question this great duty without manifest and criminal\ninconsistency. The institution of public worship under the law, and the\npractice of synagogue worship among the Jews, from at least the time of\nEzra, cannot be questioned; both of which were sanctioned by the\npractice of our Lord and his Apostles. The preceptive authority for our\nregular attendance upon public worship, is either inferential or direct.\nThe command to publish the Gospel includes the obligation of assembling\nto hear it; the name by which a Christian society is designated in\nScripture is a church; which signifies an assembly for the transaction\nof business; and, in the case of a Christian assembly, that business\nmust necessarily be spiritual, and include the sacred exercises of\nprayer, praise, and hearing the Scriptures. But we have more direct\nprecepts, although the practice was obviously continued from Judaism,\nand was therefore consuetudinary. Some of the epistles of St. Paul are\ncommanded to be read in the churches. The singing of psalms, hymns, and\nspiritual songs is enjoined as an act of solemn worship to the Lord; and\nSt. Paul cautions the Hebrews that they \u201cforsake not the assembling of\nthemselves together.\u201d The practice of the primitive age is also manifest\nfrom the epistles of St. Paul. The Lord\u2019s Supper was celebrated by the\nbody of believers collectively; and this Apostle prescribes to the\nCorinthians regulations for the exercises of prayer and prophesyings,\n\u201cwhen they came together in the church,\u201d--the assembly. The statedness\nand order of these holy offices in the primitive church, appear also\nfrom the apostolical epistle of St. Clement: \u201cWe ought also, looking\ninto the depths of the divine knowledge, to do all things in order,\nwhatsoever the Lord hath commanded to be done. We ought to make our\noblations, and perform our holy offices, at their appointed seasons; for\nthese he hath commanded to be done, not irregularly or by chance, but at\ndeterminate times and hours; as he hath likewise ordained by his supreme\nwill, where, and by what persons, they shall be performed; that so all\nthings being done according to his pleasure, may be acceptable in his\nsight.\u201d This passage is remarkable for urging a divine authority for the\npublic services of the church, by which St. Clement, no doubt, means the\nauthority of the inspired directions of the Apostles. The ends of the\ninstitution of public worship are of such obvious importance, that it\nmust ever be considered as one of the most condescending and gracious\ndispensations of God to man. By this his church confesses his name\nbefore the world; by this the public teaching of his word is associated\nwith acts calculated to affect the mind with that solemnity which is the\nbest preparation for hearing it to edification. It is thus that the\nignorant and the vicious are collected together, and instructed and\nwarned; the invitations of mercy are published to the guilty, and the\nsorrowful and afflicted are comforted. In these assemblies God, by his\nHoly Spirit, diffuses his vital and sanctifying influence, and takes the\ndevout into a fellowship with himself, from which they derive strength\nto do and to suffer his will in the various scenes of life, while he\nthere affords them a foretaste of the deep and hallowed pleasures which\nare reserved for them at his right hand for evermore. Prayers and\nintercessions are offered for national and public interests; and while\nthe benefit of these exercises descends upon a country, all are kept\nsensible of the dependence of every public and personal interest upon\nGod. Praise calls forth the grateful emotions, and gives cheerfulness to\npiety; and that instruction in righteousness which is so perpetually\nrepeated, diffuses the principles of morality and religion throughout\nsociety; enlightens and gives activity to conscience; raises the\nstandard of morals; attaches shame to vice, and praise to virtue; and\nthus exerts a powerfully purifying influence upon mankind. Laws thus\nreceive a force, which, in other circumstances, they could not acquire,\neven were they enacted in as great perfection; and the administration of\njustice is aided by the strongest possible obligation and sanction being\ngiven to legal oaths. The domestic relations are rendered more strong\nand interesting by the very habit of the attendance of families upon the\nsacred services of the sanctuary of the Lord; and the rich and the poor\nmeeting together, and standing on the same common ground as sinners\nbefore God, equally dependent upon him, and equally suing for his mercy,\nhas a powerful, though often an insensible, influence in humbling the\npride which is nourished by superior rank, and in raising the lower\nclasses above abjectness of spirit, without injuring their humility.\nPiety, benevolence, and patriotism are equally dependent for their\npurity and vigour upon the regular and devout worship of God in the\nsimplicity of the Christian dispensation.\n\nThe following is an abridgment of Dr. Neander\u2019s account of the mode of\nconducting public worship among the primitive Christians, which, though\nquestionable on some points, is upon the whole just and\ninteresting:--Since the religion of the New Testament did not admit of\nany peculiar outward priesthood, similar to that of the Old, the same\noutward kind of worship, dependent on certain places, times, and outward\nactions and demeanours, would also have no place in its composition. The\nkingdom of God, the temple of the Lord, were to be present, not in this\nor that place, but in every place where Christ himself is active in the\nSpirit, and where through him the worship of God in spirit and in truth\nis established. Every Christian in particular, and every church in\ngeneral, were to represent a spiritual temple of the Lord; the true\nworship of God was to be only in the inward heart, and the whole life\nproceeding from such inward disposition, sanctified by faith, was to be\na continued spiritual service; this is the great fundamental idea of the\nGospel, which prevails throughout the New Testament, by which the whole\noutward appearance of religion was to assume a different form, and all\nthat once was carnal was to be converted into spiritual, and ennobled.\nThis notion came forward most strongly in the original inward life of\nthe first Christians, particularly when contrasted with Judaism, and\nstill more so when contrasted with Heathenism; a contrast which taught\nthe Christians to avoid all pomp that caught the eye, and all\nmultiplication of means of devotion addressed to the senses, while it\nmade them hold fast the simple, spiritual character of the Christian\nworship of God. It was this which always struck the Heathen so much in\nthe Christian worship; namely, that nothing was found among them of the\noutward pomp of all other religions; no temples, no altars, no images.\nThis reproach was made to the Christians by Celsus, and answered thus by\nOrigen: \u201cIn the highest sense the temple and image of God are in the\nhuman nature of Christ; and hence, also, in all the faithful, who are\nanimated by the Spirit of Christ,--living images! with which no statue\nof Jove by Phidias is fit to be compared.\u201d Christianity impelled men\nfrequently to seek for the stillness of the inward sanctuary, and here\nto pour forth their heart to God, who dwells in such temples; but then\nthe flames of love were also lighted in their hearts, which sought\ncommunion in order to strengthen each other mutually, and to unite\nthemselves into one holy flame which pointed toward heaven. The\ncommunion of prayer and devotion was thought a source of sanctification,\ninasmuch as men knew that the Lord was present by his Spirit among those\nwho were gathered together in his name; but then they were far from\nascribing any peculiar sacredness and sanctity to the place of assembly.\nSuch an idea would appear to partake of Heathenism; and men were at\nfirst in less danger of being seduced into such an idea, because the\nfirst general places of assembly of the Christians were only common\nrooms in private houses, just according as it happened that any member\nof the church had sufficient accommodation for the purpose. Thus Gaius\nof Corinth, Rom. xvi, is called the host of the church, because the\nchurch was in the habit of assembling in a room of his house. Origen\nsays, \u201cThe place where believers come together to pray has something\nagreeable and useful about it;\u201d but then he only says this in respect to\nthat spiritual communion. Man, we must avow, is very easily led to fall\naway from the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and to connect the\nreligion of the Spirit with outward and earthly things; as the Apostle\nsays, \u201cHaving begun in the Spirit, to wish to end in the flesh.\u201d\nWatchfulness on this point was constantly needed, lest the Jewish or the\nHeathen notions should here intrude themselves on those of the Gospel,\nwhich was likely enough to happen as soon as the Old and the New\nTestament notions of the priesthood had been confused. Even in the time\nof Clemens of Alexandria he found himself obliged to combat the notion,\nwhich allowed the essentials of a Christian life to be of one kind in,\nand of another out of, the church. \u201cThe disciples of Christ,\u201d he says,\n\u201cmust form the whole course of their life and conduct on the model which\nthey assume in the churches, for the sake of propriety; they must be\nsuch, and not merely seem so; as mild, as pious, and as charitable. But\nnow, I know not how it is, they change their habits and their manners\nwith the change of place, as the polypus, they say, changes its colour,\nand becomes like the rock on which it hangs. They lay aside the\nspiritual habit which they had assumed in the church, as soon as they\nhave left the church, and assimilate themselves to the multitude among\nwhom they live. I should rather say, that they convict themselves of\nhypocrisy, and show what they really are in their inward nature, by\nlaying aside the mask of piety which they had assumed; and while they\nhonour the word of God, they leave it behind them in the place where\nthey heard it.\u201d\n\nThe Christian places of assembly were, at first, in the rooms of private\nhouses; it may perhaps be the case, that in large towns, where the\nnumber of Christians was soon considerable, and no member of the church\nhad any room in his house sufficient to contain all his brethren, or in\nplaces where men did not fear any prejudicial consequences from large\nassemblies, the church divided itself into different sections, according\nto the habitations of its members, of which each section held its\nassemblies in one particular chamber of the house of some wealthy member\nof the church; or, perhaps, while it was usual to unite on Sundays in\none general assembly, yet each individual part of the church met\ntogether daily in the rooms which lay the most convenient to it. Perhaps\nthe passages in St. Paul\u2019s epistles, which speak of churches in the\nhouses of particular persons, are thus to be understood. The answer of\nJustin Martyr to the question of the prefect, \u201cWhere do you assemble?\u201d\nexactly corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit on this point. This\nanswer was, \u201cWhere each one can and will. You believe, no doubt, that we\nall meet together in one place; but it is not so, for the God of the\nChristians is not shut up in a room, but, being invisible, he fills both\nheaven and earth, and is honoured every where by the faithful.\u201d Justin\nadds, that when he came to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in one\nparticular spot, and that those Christians who were instructed by him,\nand wished to hear his discourses, assembled at his house. He had not\nvisited any other congregations of the church. The arrangements which\nthe peculiarities of the Christian worship required, were gradually made\nin these places of assembly, such as an elevated seat for the purpose of\nreading the Scriptures and preaching, a table for the distribution of\nthe sacrament, to which as early as the time of Tertullian the name of\naltar, _ara_ or _altare_, was given, and perhaps not without some\nmixture of the unevangelical Old Testament notion of a sacrifice; or at\nleast this idea might easily attach itself to this name. When the\nchurches increased, and their circumstances improved, there were, during\nthe course of the third century, already separate church buildings for\nthe Christians, as the name \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03b9, [religious places,] of\nthe Christians occurs in the edict of Gallienus. In the time of the\nexternal prosperity of the church, during the reign of Diocletian, many\nhandsome churches arose in the great towns. The use of images was\noriginally quite foreign to the Christian worship and churches, and it\nremained so during this whole period. The intermixture of art and\nreligion, and the use of images for the latter, appeared to the first\nChristians a Heathenish practice. As in Heathenism the divine becomes\ndesecrated and tarnished by intermixture with the natural; and as men\nhave often paid homage to the beauties of nature, with injury to the\ncause of holiness, the first warmth of Christian zeal, which opposed the\nidolatry of nature, so common to Heathenism, and sought to maintain the\ndivine in all its purity and elevation, was inclined rather to set\nholiness in the strongest contrast with what is beautiful by nature,\nthan to endeavour to grace it by lending it a beautiful form. Men were\nmore inclined in general to carry into extremes the idea of the\nappearance of the Divinity in the form of a servant, which suited the\noppressed condition of the church in these centuries than to throw it\ninto the back ground, and overwhelm it under the predominance of their\n\u00e6sthetic dispositions, and their love of art. This is peculiarly shown\nby the general belief of the early church, that Christ had clothed his\ninward divine glory in a mean outward form, which was in direct\ncontradiction to it; a conclusion which was drawn from interpreting the\nprophecy of the Messiah in Isa. liii, 2, too literally. Thus, Clemens of\nAlexandria warns the Christians, from the example of Christ, not to\nattribute too much value to outward beauty: \u201cThe Lord himself was mean\nin outward form; and who is better than the Lord? But he revealed\nhimself not in the beauty of the body, perceptible to our senses, but in\nthe true beauty of the soul as well as of the body; the beauty of the\nsoul consisting in benevolence, and that of the body in immortality!\u201d\nFathers of entirely opposite habits of mind, the adherents of two\ndifferent systems of conceiving divine things, were nevertheless united\non this point by their common opposition to the mixture of the natural\nand the divine in Heathenism, and by the endeavour to maintain the\ndevotion to God, in spirit and in truth, pure and undefiled. Clemens of\nAlexandria is as little favourable as Tertullian to the use of images.\nHeathens, who, like Alexander Severus, saw something divine in Christ\u2019s\npersonal form, and sects which mixed Heathenism and Christianity\ntogether, were the first who made use of images of Christ; as, for\ninstance, the Gnostic sect of the followers of Carpocratian, who put his\nimage beside those of Plato and Aristotle. The use of religious images\namong the Christians did not proceed from their ecclesiastical but from\ntheir domestic life. In the intercourse of daily life, the Christians\nsaw themselves every where surrounded by objects of Heathen mythology,\nor by such as shocked their moral and Christian feelings. Similar\nobjects adorned the walls of chambers, the drinking vessels, and the\nsignet rings, (on which the Heathen had constantly idolatrous images,)\nto which, whenever they pleased, they could address their devotions; and\nthe Christians naturally felt themselves obliged to replace these\nobjects, which wounded their moral and religious feelings, with others\nmore suited to those feelings. Therefore, they gladly put the likeness\nof a shepherd carrying a lamb upon his shoulders, on their cups, as a\nsymbol of the Redeemer, who saves the sinners that return to him,\naccording to the parable in the Gospel. And Clemens of Alexandria says,\nin reference to the signet rings of the Christians, \u201cLet our signet\nrings consist of a dove,\u201d the emblem of the Holy Ghost, \u201cor a fish, or a\nship sailing toward heaven,\u201d the emblem of the Christian church, or of\nindividual Christian souls, \u201cor a lyre,\u201d the emblem of Christian joy,\n\u201cor an anchor,\u201d the emblem of Christian hope; \u201cand he who is a\nfisherman, let him remember the Apostle, and the children who were\ndragged out from the water; for those men ought not to engrave\nidolatrous forms, to whom the use of them is forbidden; those can\nengrave no sword and no bow, who seek for peace; the friends of\ntemperance cannot engrave drinking cups.\u201d And yet, perhaps, religious\nimages made their way from domestic life into the churches as early as\nthe end of the third century, and the walls of the churches were painted\nin the same way. The council of Elvira set itself against this\ninnovation as an abuse, for it made the following order: \u201cObjects of\nreverence and worship shall not be painted on the walls.\u201d It is probable\nthat the visible representation of the cross found its way very early\ninto domestic and ecclesiastical life. This token was remarkably common\namong them; it was used to consecrate their rising and their going to\nbed, their going out and their coming in, and all the actions of daily\nlife; it was the sign which Christians made involuntarily whenever any\nthing of a fearful nature surprised them. This was a mode of expressing,\nby means perceptible to the senses, the purely Christian idea, that all\nthe actions of Christians, as well as the whole course of their life,\nmust be sanctified by faith in the crucified Jesus, and by dependence\nupon him; and that this faith is the most powerful means of conquering\nall evil, and preserving oneself against it. But here also, again, men\nwere too apt to confuse the idea and the token which represented it; and\nthey attributed the effects of faith in the crucified Redeemer to the\noutward sign, to which they ascribed a supernatural, sanctifying, and\npreservative power; an error of which we find traces as early as the\nthird century.\n\nWe now pass from the consideration of the places of public worship, to\nthat of the seasons of worship, and the festivals of the early\nChristians. It is here shown again, that the Gospel, as it remodelled\nthe former conceptions of the priesthood, of worship in general, and of\nholy places, also entirely changed the then views of sacred seasons. And\nhere again, also, the character of the theocracy of the New Testament\nrevealed itself, a theocracy spiritualized, ennobled, and freed from its\noutward garb of sense, and from the limits which bounded its\ngeneralization. The Jewish laws relating to their festivals were not\nmerely abrogated by the Gospel, in such a manner as to transfer these\nfestivals to different seasons; but they were entirely abolished, as far\nas fixing religious worship to particular times is concerned. St. Paul\nexpressly declares all sanctifying of certain seasons, as far as men\ndeduced this from the divine command, to be Jewish and unevangelical,\nand to be like returning to the slavery of the law, and to captivity to\noutward precepts. Such was the opinion of the early church. At first the\nchurches assembled every day; as, for instance, the first church of\nJerusalem, which assembled daily for prayer in common, and for the\npublic consideration of the divine word, for the common celebration of\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper and the _agap\u00e6_, as well as to maintain the connection\nbetween the common head of the spiritual body of the church and\nthemselves, and between one another as members of this body. Traces of\nthis are also found in later times in the daily assembling of the\nchurches for the purpose of hearing the Scriptures read, and of\ncelebrating the communion. Although, in order to meet the wants of human\nnature generally, consisting as it does of sense as well as soul, and\nthose of a large body of Christians in particular, who were only in a\nstate of education, and were to be brought up to the ripeness of\nChristian manhood, men soon selected definite times [beside the\nauthorized Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week] for religious\nadmonitions, and to consecrate them to a fuller occupation with\nreligious things, as well as to public devotion, with the intention,\nthat the influence of these definite times should animate and sanctify\nthe rest of their lives, and that Christians who withdrew themselves\nfrom the distractions of business on these days, and collected their\nhearts before God in the stillness of solitude, as well as in public\ndevotion, might make these seasons of service to the other parts of\ntheir life; yet this was in itself, and of itself, nothing\nunevangelical. It was only a dropping down from the purely spiritual\npoint of view, on which even the Christian, as he still carries about\ntwo natures in himself, cannot always maintain himself, to the carnal; a\ndropping down which became constantly more necessary, the more the fire\nof the first animation and the warmth of the first love of the\nChristians died away. It was no more unevangelic than the gradual\nlimitation of the exercise of many rights, belonging to the common\npriesthood of all Christians, to a certain class in the church, which\ncircumstances rendered necessary. But just as the unevangelic made its\nappearance, men supposed certain days distinguished from others, and\nhallowed by divine right, when they introduced a distinction between\nholy and common days into the life of the Christian, and in this\ndistinction forgot his calling to sanctify all days alike. When the\nMontanists wished to introduce and make imperative new fasts, which were\nfixed to certain days, the Epistle to the Galatians was very properly\nbrought to oppose them; but Tertullian, who stood on the boundary\nbetween the original pure evangelic times and those when the\nintermixture of Jewish and Christian notions first took place, confuses\nhere the views of the two religions, because he makes the evangelical to\nconsist, not in a wholly different method of considering festivals\naltogether, but in the celebration of different particular festivals;\nand he makes the Judaizing, which the Apostle condemns, to consist only\nin the observation of the Jewish instead of the peculiarly Christian\nfestivals. The weekly and the yearly festivals originally arose from the\nself-same fundamental idea, which was the centre point of the whole\nChristian life; the idea of imitating Christ, the crucified and the\nrisen; to follow him in his death, by appropriating to ourselves, in\npenitence and faith, the effects of his death, by dying to ourselves and\nto the world; to follow him in his resurrection, by rising again with\nhim, by faith in him and by his power, to a new and holy life, devoted\nto God, which, beginning here below in the seed, is matured in heaven.\nHence the festival of joy was the festival of the resurrection; and the\npreparation for it, the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, with\nmortification and crucifixion of the flesh, was the day of fasting and\npenitence. Thus in the week the Sunday was the joyful festival; and the\npreparation for it was a day of penitence and prayer, consecrated to\nremembrance of the sufferings of Christ and the preparations for them,\nand this was celebrated on the Friday; and thus also the yearly\nfestivals were to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, and the\noperations of the Redeemer after he had risen again; the preparation for\nthis day was in commemoration of the sufferings and fastings of our\nSaviour. Allusion is made to Sunday under the character of a festival,\nas a symbol of a new life, consecrated to the Lord in opposition to the\nold Sabbath, in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians: \u201cIf they who\nwere brought up under the Old Testament have attained to a new hope, and\nno longer keep [Jewish] Sabbaths holy, but have consecrated their life\nto the day of the Lord, on which also our life rose up in him, how shall\nwe be able to live without him?\u201d Sunday was distinguished as a day of\njoy by the circumstances, that men did not fast upon it, and that they\nprayed standing up and not kneeling, as Christ had raised up fallen man\nto heaven again through his resurrection. And farther: two other days in\nthe week, Friday and Wednesday, particularly the former, were\nconsecrated to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, and of the\ncircumstances preparatory to them; congregations were held on them, and\na fast till three o\u2019clock in the afternoon, but nothing was positively\nappointed concerning them; in respect to joining in these solemnities\nevery one consulted his own convenience or inclination. Such fasts,\njoined with prayer, were considered as the watches of the _milites\nChristi_ [soldiers of Christ] on their post by the Christians, who\ncompared their calling to a warfare, the _militia Christi_, and they\nwere _stationes_, and the days on which they took place were called\n_dies stationum_, [day of their stations.] The churches, which were a\ngraft of a Christian on a Jewish spirit, although they received the\nSunday, retained also that of the Sabbath; and from them the custom\nspread abroad in the oriental church, of distinguishing this day, as\nwell as the Sunday, by not fasting and by praying in an erect posture;\nin the western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to\nJudaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the\ncustom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast day. This\ndifference in customs would of course be striking, where members of the\noriental church spent their Sabbath day in the western church. It was\nonly too soon that men lost sight of the principle of the apostolic\nchurch, which retained the unity of faith and spirit in the bond of\nlove, but allowed all kinds of difference in external things; and then\nthey began to require uniformity in these things. The first yearly\nfestivals of the Christians proceeded from similar views; and at first\nthe contrast which had in early times the most powerful influence on the\ndevelopement as well of the churchly life, as of the doctrines of\nChristianity, is peculiarly prominent; I mean the contrast between the\nJewish churches and those of the Gentile converts. The former retained\nall the Jewish festivals as well as the whole ceremonial law; although\nby degrees they introduced into them a Christian meaning which\nspontaneously offered itself. On the contrary, there was probably no\nyearly festival at all, from the beginning, among the Heathen converts;\nfor no trace of any thing of the sort is found in the whole of the New\nTestament. The passover of the Old Testament was easily ennobled and\nconverted to a passover which suited the New Testament, by merely\nsubstituting the idea of deliverance from spiritual bondage, that is,\nfrom the slavery of sin, for that of deliverance from earthly bondage.\nThe paschal lamb was a type of Christ, by whom that deliverance was\nwrought. These representations went on the supposition, that Christ had\npartaken his last meal with his disciples, as a proper passover, at the\nvery time that the Jews were celebrating theirs. This passover was,\ntherefore, always celebrated on the night between the fourteenth and\nfifteenth of the Jewish month Nisan, as a remembrance at the same time\nof the last supper of Christ. This was the fundamental notion of the\nwhole Jewish Christian passover, on which all the rest was built. The\nday following this passover was consecrated to the remembrance of the\nsufferings of Christ, and the third day from it to the remembrance of\nhis resurrection. On the contrary, in the greater number of Heathen\nchurches, as soon as men began to celebrate yearly festivals, (a time\nwhich cannot be determined very precisely,) they followed the method\nobserved in the weekly festivals. They appointed one Sunday in the year\nfor the festival of the resurrection, and one Friday as a day of\npenitence and fasting preparatory to this Sunday, in remembrance of the\nsufferings of Christ; and they gradually lengthened this time of\npenitence and fasting, as a preparation for that high and joyful\nfestival. In these churches they were more inclined to take up a kind of\nantithetical turn against the Jewish festivals, than to graft Christian\nones upon them. It was far from their notions to think of observing a\nyearly passover with the Jews. The following was the view which they\ntook of the matter: \u201cEvery typical feast has lost its true meaning by\nthe realization of that which is typified; in the sacrifice of Christ,\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper, as the new covenant, has taken the place of that of\nthe old covenant.\u201d This difference of outward customs between the Jewish\nChristian churches and the churches allied to them on the one hand, and\nthe Heathen Christian churches founded by St. Paul on the other, existed\nat first without its being supposed that external things of this nature\nwere of importance enough to lead to a controversy. A fast formed the\nintroduction to the passover; and this was the only fast formally\nestablished by the church. The necessity of this fast was deduced from\nMatthew ix, 15; but it was by a carnal interpretation of the passage,\nand an application of it quite contrary to its real sense. For it does\nnot relate to the time of Christ\u2019s suffering, but to the time when he\nshould be with his disciples no more. As long as they enjoyed his\nsociety they were to give themselves up to joy, and to be disturbed in\nit by no forced asceticism. But a time of sorrow was to follow this time\nof joy, although only for a season, after which a time of higher and\nimperishable joy, in invisible communion with him, was to follow, John\nxvi, 22. The duration of this fast, however, was not determined; the\nimitation of the temptation of our Lord for forty days introduced the\ncustom of fasting forty hours in some places, which afterward was\nextended to forty days; and thus the fast of forty days, the\nquadrigesimal fast, arose. The festival of pentecost, Whitsuntide, was\nclosely connected with that of the resurrection; and this was dedicated\nto commemorating the first visible effects of the operations of the\nglorified Christ upon human nature, now also ennobled by him, the lively\nproofs of his resurrection and reception into glory; and therefore\nOrigen joins the festivals of the resurrection and of pentecost together\nas one whole. The means of transition from an Old Testament festival to\none befitting the New Testament, were here near at hand. The first\nfruits of harvest in the kingdom of nature; the first fruits of harvest\nin the kingdom of grace; the law of the letter from Mount Sinai--the law\nof the Spirit from the heavenly Jerusalem. This festival originally\nembraced the whole season of fifty days from Easter, and was celebrated\nlike a Sunday, that is to say, no fasts were kept during the whole of\nit, and men prayed standing, and not kneeling; and perhaps also in some\nplaces assemblies of the church were held, and the communion was\ncelebrated every day. Afterward, two peculiar points of time, the\nascension of Christ and the effusion of the Holy Spirit, were selected\nfrom this whole interval. These were the only festivals generally\ncelebrated at that time, as the passage cited from Origen proves. The\nfundamental notion of the whole Christian life, which referred every\nthing to the suffering, the resurrection, and the glorification of\nChrist, as well as the adherence, or, on the other hand, the opposition,\nto the Jewish celebration of festivals, were the cause that these were\nthe only general festivals. The notion of a birth-day festival was far\nfrom the ideas of the Christians of this period in general; they looked\nupon the second birth as the true birth of men. The case must have been\nsomewhat different with the birth of the Redeemer; human nature was to\nbe sanctified by him from its first developement; but then this last\nnotion could not at first come so prominently forward among the early\nChristians, because so many of them were first converted to Christianity\nwhen well advanced in years, after some decisive excitement of their\nlife; but then it may have entered generally into domestic life, though\nat first gradually. Nevertheless, we find in this period apparently one\ntrace of Christmas as a festival. Its history is intimately connected\nwith the history of a kindred festival; the festival of the\nmanifestation of Jesus in his character of Messiah, his consecration to\nthe office of Messiah by the baptism of John, and the beginning of his\npublic ministry as the Messiah, which was afterward called Epiphany, the\n\u1f11\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, or \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u03bf\u1fe6, [the festival of\nEpiphany, or of the appearance of Christ.] We find in later times that\nthese festivals extended themselves in opposite directions, that of\nChristmas spreading from west to east, and the other from east to west.\nClemens of Alexandria merely relates, that the Gnostic sect of the\nBasilidians celebrated the festival of the Epiphany at Alexandria in his\ntime. We can hardly suppose that this sect invented the festival,\nalthough they may have had some dogmatical reason for celebrating it;\nfor it is highly improbable that the catholic church should have\nafterward received a festival from the Gnostics; and these Gnostics most\nprobably received it from the Jewish Christian churches in Palestine or\nSyria. For this time of our Saviour\u2019s life would appear the most\nimportant to the notions of the Jewish Christians; and the Gnostics\nwould afterward explain it according to their own ideas.\n\nThe character of a spiritual worship of God distinguished the Christian\nworship from that of other religions, which consisted in symbolical\npageantry and lifeless ceremonies. As a general elevation of spirit and\nsanctification of heart was the object of every thing in this religion,\ninstruction and edification, through a common study of the divine word,\nand through prayer in common, were the leading features in the Christian\nworship. And in this respect it might in its form adhere to the\narrangements made about the congregations in the Jewish synagogues, in\nwhich also the element of a spiritual religious worship was the\nprevailing ingredient. As the reading of portions of the Old Testament\nhad formed the ground work of religious instruction in the Jewish\nsynagogues, this custom also passed into the Christian congregations.\nFirst the Old Testament, and especially the prophetic parts of it, were\nread as things that pointed to the Messiah; then followed the Gospels,\nand after that the epistles of the Apostles. The reading of the\nScriptures was of still greater consequence then, because it was\ndesirable that every Christian should be acquainted with them; and yet,\nby reason of the rarity and dearness of manuscripts, and the poverty of\na great proportion of the Christians, or perhaps also because all were\nnot able to read, the Bible itself could not be put into the hands of\nall. Frequent hearing was therefore with many to supply the place of\ntheir own reading. The Scriptures were therefore read in the language\nwhich all could understand, and that was, in most parts of the Roman\nempire, the Greek or the Latin. In very early times different\ntranslations of the Bible into Latin were in existence; as every one who\nknew a little of Greek, found it needful to have his own Bible in his\nown mother tongue. In places where the Greek or the Latin language was\nunderstood only by a part of the church, that is to say, by the educated\nclasses, while the rest understood only their native language, as was\nthe case in many Egyptian and Syrian towns, church interpreters were\nappointed, as in the Jewish synagogues, and they immediately translated\nwhat had been read into the language of the country, so that it might be\nintelligible to all. After the reading of the Scripture there followed,\nas there had previously in the Jewish synagogues, short, and at first\nvery simple, addresses in familiar language, the momentary effusions of\nthe heart, which contained an explanation and application of what had\njust been read. Justin Martyr expresses himself thus on the subject:\n\u201cAfter the reading of the Scriptures, the president instructs the people\nin a discourse, and incites them to the imitation of these good\nexamples.\u201d Among the Greeks, where the taste was more rhetorical, the\nsermon from the very earliest times was of a more lengthened kind, and\nformed a very important part of the service. Singing also passed from\nthe Jewish service into that of the Christian church. St. Paul exhorts\nthe early churches to sing spiritual songs. What was used for this\npurpose were partly the Psalms of the Old Testament, and partly songs\ncomposed with this very object, especially songs of praise and thanks to\nGod and Christ; and these, we know, Pliny found to be customary among\nthe Christians. In the controversies with the Unitarians, about the end\nof the second century, and the beginning of the third, the hymns, in\nwhich from early times Christ had been honoured as a God, were appealed\nto. The power of church singing over the heart was soon recognized; and\nhence those who wished to propagate any peculiar opinions, like\nBardasanes, or Paul of Samosata, endeavoured to spread them by means of\nhymns. In compliance with the infirmities of human nature, composed as\nit is of sense and spirit, the divine Founder of the church, beside his\nword, ordained two outward signs, as symbols of the invisible communion\nwhich existed between him, the Head of the spiritual body, and the\nfaithful, its members; and also of the connection of these members, as\nwith him, so also with one another. These were visible means to\nrepresent the invisible, heavenly benefits to be bestowed on the members\nof this body through him; and while man received in faith the sign\npresented to his senses, the enjoyment of that heavenly communion and\nthose heavenly advantages was to gladden his inward heart. As nothing in\nall Christianity and in the whole Christian life stands isolated, but\nall forms one whole, proceeding from one centre, therefore, also, that\nwhich this outward sign represented must be something which should\ncontinue through the whole of the inward Christian life, something\nwhich, spreading itself forth from this one moment over the whole\nChristian life, should be capable of being especially excited again and\npromoted in return, by the influence of isolated moments. Thus, baptism\nwas to be the sign of a first entrance into communion with the Redeemer,\nand with the church, the first appropriation of those advantages which\nChrist has bestowed on man, namely, of the forgiveness of sins and the\ninward union of life, which proceeds from it, as well as of the\nparticipation in a sanctifying divine Spirit of life. And the Lord\u2019s\nSupper was to be the sign of a constant continuance in this communion,\nin the appropriation and enjoyment of these advantages; and thus were\nrepresented the essentials of the whole inward Christian life, in its\nearliest rise and its continued progress. The whole peculiar spirit of\nChristianity was particularly stamped in the mode in which these\nexternal things were administered; and the mode of their administration\nin return exerted a powerful influence on the whole nature of the\nChristian worship. The connection of the moments, represented by these\nsigns, with the whole Christian life, the connection of inward and\ndivine things with the outward act was present to the lively Christian\nfeelings of the first Christians.\n\nWRITING. In regard to alphabetic writing, all the ancient writers\nattribute the invention of it to some very early age, and some country\nof the east; but they do not pretend to designate precisely either the\ntime or the place. They say, farther, that Cadmus introduced letters\nfrom Phenicia into Greece, if we may credit the Parisian Chronicle, B.\nC. 1519, that is, forty-five years after the death of Moses. Anticlides\nasserts, and attempts to prove, that letters were invented in Egypt\nfifteen years before Phoroneus, the most ancient king of Greece; that\nis, four hundred and nine years after the deluge, and in the one hundred\nand seventeenth year of Abraham. On this it may be remarked that they\nmight have been introduced into Egypt at this time, but they had been\npreviously invented by the Phenicians. Epigenes, who, in the estimation\nof Pliny, is weighty authority, informs us that observations, made upon\nthe heavenly bodies for seven hundred and twenty years at Babylon, were\nwritten down upon baked tiles; but Berosus and Critodemus, also referred\nto by Pliny, make the number of years four hundred and eighty. Pliny\nfrom these statements draws the conclusion that the use of letters, as\nhe expresses it, must have been eternal, that is, beyond all records.\nSimplicius, who lived in the fifth century, states, on the authority of\nPorphyry, an acute historian, that Callisthenes, the companion of\nAlexander, found at Babylon a record of observations on the heavenly\nbodies for one thousand nine hundred and three years. Of course the\nrecord must have been begun B. C. 2234, that is, the eighty-ninth year\nof Abraham. This statement receives some confirmation from the fact that\nthe month of March is called Adar in the Chaldaic dialect; and at the\ntime mentioned, namely, the eighty-ninth year of Abraham, the sun,\nduring the whole month of March, was in the sign of the zodiac called\nAries, or the Ram. The word Adar means the same with Aries. But, as\nletters would be unquestionably first used for the purposes of general\nintercourse, they must have been known long before they were employed to\ntransmit the motions of the stars. Of this we have an evidence in the\nbill of sale, which, as we have reason to suppose from the expressions\nused in Gen. xxiii, 20, was given to Abraham by the sons of Heth. Hence\nit is not at all wonderful that books and writings are spoken of in the\ntime of Moses, as if well known, Exodus xvii, 14; xxiv, 4; xxviii, 9\u201311;\nxxxii, 32; xxxiv, 27, 28; Numbers xxxiii, 2; Deut. xxvii, 8. Nor is it a\nmatter of surprise that long before his time there had been public\nscribes, who kept written genealogies: they were called by the Hebrews\n\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, Exod. v, 14; Deut. xx, 5\u20139. Even in the time of Jacob, seals,\nupon which names are engraved in the east, were in use, Gen. xxxviii,\n18; xii, 42; which is another probable testimony to the great antiquity\nof letters.\n\nLetters, which had thus become known at the earliest period, were\ncommunicated by means of the Phenician merchants and colonies, and\nsubsequently by Egyptian emigrants, through all the east and the west. A\nstrong evidence of this is to be found in the different alphabets\nthemselves, which betray by their resemblance a common origin. That the\nposterity of the Hebrew patriarchs preserved a knowledge of alphabetical\nwriting during their abode in Egypt, where essentially the same alphabet\nwas in use, is evident from the fact, that the Hebrews while remaining\nthere always had public genealogists. The law, also, was ordered to be\ninscribed on stones; a fact which implies a knowledge of alphabetical\nwriting. The writing thus engraven upon stones is designated by its\nappropriate name, namely, \u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea, Exodus xxxii, 16, 32. Not a few of the\nHebrews might be unable to read and write, Judges viii, 14; but those\nwho were capable of writing wrote for others, when necessary. Such\npersons were commonly priests, who, as they do to this day in the east,\nbear an inkhorn in their girdle, Ezek. x, 2, 3, 11. In the inkhorn were\nthe materials for writing, and a knife for sharpening the pen, Jer.\nxxxvi, 23. The rich and noble had scribes of their own, and readers\nalso; whence there is more frequent mention made of hearing than of\nreading, 1 Kings iv, 3; 2 Kings xii, 10; Isa. xxix, 18; Jer. xxxvi, 4;\nRom. ii, 13; James v, 11; Rev. i, 3. The scribes took youth under their\ncare, who learned from them the art of writing. Some of the scribes seem\nto have held public schools for instruction; some of which, under the\ncare of Samuel and other prophets, became in time quite illustrious, and\nwere called the schools of the prophets, 1 Sam. xix, 16, &c; 2 Kings ii,\n3, 5; iv, 38; vi, 1. The disciples in these schools were not children or\nboys, but young men, who inhabited separate edifices, as is the case in\nthe Persian academies. They were taught music and singing, and without\ndoubt writing also, the Mosaic law and poetry. They were denominated, in\nreference to their instructers, the sons of the prophets; teachers and\nprophets being sometimes called fathers. After the captivity there were\nschools for instruction either near the synagogues or in them.\n\nThe materials and instruments of writing were, 1. The leaves of trees.\n2. The bark of trees, from which, in the process of time, a sort of\npaper was manufactured. 3. A table of wood, \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, \u05dc\u05d5\u05d7, Deut. ix, 9;\nEzek. xxxvii, 5; Luke i, 63. In the east, these tables were not covered\nwith wax as they were in the west; or at any rate very rarely so. 4.\nLinen was first used for the object in question at Rome. Linen books are\nmentioned by Livy. Cotton cloth also, which was used for the bandages of\nEgyptian mummies, and inscribed with hieroglyphics, was one of the\nmaterials for writing upon. 5. The paper made from the reed papyrus,\nwhich, as Pliny has shown, was used before the Trojan war. 6. The skins\nof various animals; but they were poorly prepared for the purpose, until\nsome improved methods of manufacture were invented at Pergamus, during\nthe reign of Eumenes, about B. C. 300. Hence the skins of animals,\nprepared for writing, are called in Latin _pergamena_, in English\nparchment, to this day, from the city Pergamus. They are sometimes\ndenominated in Greek, \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1, 2 Tim. iv, 13. 7. Tables of lead, \u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea,\nJob xix, 24. 8. Tables of brass, \u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76. Of all the materials,\nbrass was considered among the most durable, and was employed for those\ninscriptions which were designed to last the longest, 1 Macc. viii, 22;\nxiv, 20\u201327. 9. Stones or rocks, upon which public laws, &c, were\nwritten. Sometimes the letters engraved were filled up with lime, Exod.\nxxiv, 12; xxxi, 18; xxxii, 19; xxxiv, 1; Deut. xxvii, 1\u20139; Joshua viii,\n32; Job xix, 24. 10. Tiles. The inscriptions were made upon the tiles\nfirst, and afterward they were baked in the fire. They are yet to be\nfound in the ruins of Babylon; others of later origin are to be found in\nmany countries in the east. 11. The sand of the earth, in which the\nchildren in India to this day learn the art of writing, and in which\nArchimedes himself delineated his mathematical figures, John viii, 1\u20138.\nIf in Ezekiel iii, 1, and in Revelation x, 9, we are informed that books\nwere eaten, we must remember that the descriptions are figurative, and\nthat they were eaten in vision; and consequently we are not at liberty\nto draw the conclusion from these passages, that any substance was used\nas materials for writing upon, which was at the same time used for food.\nThe representations alluded to are symbolic, introduced to denote a\ncommunication or revelation from God.\n\nAs to the instruments used in writing, when it was necessary to write\nupon hard materials, as tables of stone and brass, the style was made of\niron, and sometimes tipped with diamond, Jer. xvii. 1. The letters were\nformed upon tablets of wood, (when they were covered with wax,) with a\nstyle sharpened at one end, broad and smooth at the other; by means of\nwhich the letters, when badly written, might be rubbed out and the wax\nsmoothed down. 2. Wax, however, was but rarely used for the purpose of\ncovering writing tables in warm regions. When this was not the case, the\nletters were painted on the wood with black tincture or ink. 3. On\nlinen, cotton cloth, paper, skins, and parchment, the letters were\npainted with a very small brush, afterward with a reed, which was split.\nThe orientals use this elegant instrument to the present day instead of\na pen. _Ink_, called \u05d3\u05d9\u05d5, is spoken of in Num. v, 23, as well known and\ncommon, Jer. xxxvi, 18, and was prepared in various ways, which are\nrelated by Pliny. The most simple, and consequently the most ancient,\nmethod of preparation was a mixture of water with coals broken to\npieces, or with soot, with an addition of gum. The ancients used other\ntinctures also; particularly, if we may credit Cicero and Persius, the\nink extracted from the cuttle fish, although their assertion is in\nopposition to Pliny. The Hebrews went so far as to write their sacred\nbooks in gold, as we may learn from Josephus compared with Pliny.\n\nHieroglyphics, that is, sacred sculptures or engravings, received that\nappellation, because it was once, and indeed till very lately, thought,\nthat they were used only to express, in a manner hidden from the vulgar,\nwhat was exclusively religious; and which it was thought proper to\nconceal from all but the learned. The fact, however, is, that the\nhieroglyphic was a kind of picture writing, which passed through various\nmodifications, and was applied alike to sacred and to civil purposes; to\nthe emblazonment of the attributes of idols, the exploits of warriors,\nand the events of illustrious history. Rudiments of the same art have\nbeen found among almost all savages. Among the semi-civilized Mexicans\nhistory was pictorial: and in Ceylon and Continental India the same\nvehicle of instruction is made use of on the walls of their temples, to\nconvey moral lessons, or to indicate the character and exploits of their\ndeities. In Egypt, however, the art was carried into a more perfect\nsystem, and was more ostensibly set before the public eye on the massive\nand almost eternal monuments which cover the country. There, too, it\nascends to ages of the world with which the Scriptures have made us\nfamiliar, and stands associated with royal dynasties, and vicissitudes\nof conquest, more intimately blended with that stream of civil history,\nalong the margin of which European education conducts us. These mystic\ncharacters have acquired an adventitious interest also, from the\ncircumstance that the key to them was for so many ages lost. This\nknowledge perished among that people themselves, the records of whose\nkings and conquests lay hid under the inexplicable symbol, or the\nfanciful representation of letters and sounds which were still familiar\nto the lips of those to whom the signs had become wholly unmeaning. Age\nafter age they were gazed at by the curious; conjectures respecting\ntheir nature and use were offered by the learned, some absurd and some\napproaching the truth, but all failing to throw light upon a mystery,\nwhich at length was surrendered, by common consent, to the receptacle of\nlost and irrecoverable knowledge. Whether the hieroglyphics were symbols\nonly, or words, or picturesque alphabetical characters, or expressed the\npopular tongue, or one known only to the priests, were questions\nanswered at random by the prompt and dogmatic; and even the more modest\nand probable solutions of the cautious had so little collateral evidence\nto support them, that they led to no result. As to their intent, one\nthought that they involved the mysteries of magic; another, that they\nwere a form of the Chinese language; a third, that they veiled the\ndoctrines of the true patriarchal religion; a fourth, that they\nenveloped the dogmatic arcana of the Egyptian priesthood. The great\npoint, however, to be determined was, whether the hieroglyphics were the\nsigns of a language; that is, of the sounds of any language; and, if so,\nwhether the language was now known, or knowable, from books still\nextant. Each of these points was of equal importance; for in vain would\nit have been ascertained that these signs represented the sounds of a\ntongue once spoken, if that tongue had perished from the earth. Clement\nof Alexandria, who lived about the end of the second century, asserted\nthat the Egyptians had three modes of writing,--the epistolographic, or\ncommon characters; the hieratic, or sacerdotal, employed chiefly by the\npriesthood in writing books; and the hieroglyphic, used on public\nmonuments. The symbolical he again distributes into imitative, which\nrepresent the plain figure of an object, as a circle to express the sun,\nand a half circle the moon; tropical,--which have recourse to analogy\nfor the representation of the object; and enigmatical,--as \u201ca serpent,\nto signify the oblique course of the stars.\u201d This writer could not so\naccurately have expressed the truth of the case, unless he had known\nmuch more than he has written; and we may presume, that if he had been\nmore liberal in his communications, the present age would not have had\nthe honour of throwing open the gate to this branch of ancient learning.\nThe notion which has generally prevailed, that by whatever rule the\nhieroglyphics were composed, they were invented by the Egyptian priests\nto conceal their wisdom from the vulgar, was combated by Bishop\nWarburton, with his usual acuteness. According to him, the first kind of\nhieroglyphics were mere pictures; because the most natural way of\ncommunicating our conceptions by marks or figures was, to trace out the\nimages of things. But the hieroglyphics invented by the Egyptians were\nan improvement on this rude and inconvenient essay toward writing; for\nthey contrived to make them both pictures and characters. He proceeds to\nother observations, which have lost their interest in consequence of the\nrecent discoveries; but he argues conclusively, that hieroglyphics could\nnot, in a vast number of cases, have been resorted to for purposes of\nsecrecy, since they were employed to record openly and plainly their\nlaws, history, and all kinds of civil matters. This, as a general view,\nhas been proved to be correct; but still no key to the reading of these\ncharacters was found. The figures of deities might, in many instances,\nbe deciphered by their attributes; other symbols were not difficult to\nexplain, as they spoke a universal language. Thus two hands, one holding\na bow, and another a shield, suggested a battle; an eye and a sceptre, a\nmonarch of intelligence and vigilance; a ship and a pilot, the governor\nof a state if associated with a man, the ruler of the universe if\nassociated with a deity. A lion was a natural emblem of strength and\ncourage; a bullock, of agriculture; a horse, of liberty; a sphynx, of\nsubtlety. But still those hieroglyphics were in the greatest number\nwhich appeared to represent letters; and many might prove, at the same\ntime, both emblematic and alphabetical. Approaches to the truth of the\ncase had been, indeed, made. Warburton, from an attentive perusal of\nwhat Clemens Alexandrinus had said on the subject, had, in fact,\nconcluded, in a way highly creditable to his acuteness, that\nhieroglyphics were a real written language, applicable to the purposes\nof history and common life, as well as to those of religion; and that,\namong the different sorts of hieroglyphics, the Egyptians possessed\nthose which were used phonetically, or alphabetically, as letters; but,\ntill recently, the means of following out this ingenious and correct\nconjecture were wanting to the learned. The first effectual step was\ntaken by M. Quattermere, who proved, in his work _Sur la Langue et\nLitt\u00e9rature de l\u2019Egypte_, [Concerning the Language and Literature of\nEgypt,] that the Coptic, a language of easy attainment, at least to a\nconsiderable extent, was the language of the ancient Egyptians. The\nsecond favouring circumstance of modern times was, the publication of\nthe researches made as to the monuments of Egypt by the literary men and\nartists who accompanied the French expedition to that country. Previous\nto this, the specimens which had been brought to Europe were few, and\nthe impressions and the fac similes of them incorrect. Some, too, were\nimitations, and others spurious. In the works published in France after\nthis expedition, the representations of Egyptian monuments were\nnumerous; and the inscriptions were given with perfect exactness and\nfidelity. Still, however, those would have remained as unintelligible as\nthe originals but for the discovery of the Rosetta stone, now among the\nEgyptian antiquities in the gallery of the British museum. This stone\nwas dug up by the French, near Rosetta, and contained an inscription in\nthree sets of characters: one in hieroglyphics; a second in a sort of\nrunning hand, called enchorial, that is, in the common characters of the\ncountry; and a third in Greek. The latter appearing, from the\ndisposition of the whole, to be a translation of the enchorial\ninscription, as that was of the hieroglyphic, the importance of this\nstone was at once seen by the French savans; but by the fortune of war,\nit was taken, with other valuables, by the British troops, and was sent\nto this country. The Antiquarian Society had it immediately engraved;\nand the fac similes, which were circulated through Europe attracted\ngreat attention. Dr. Young has, however, the honour of being the\ndiscoverer of the nature and use of the hieroglyphical inscription. M.\nde Sacy, and more especially Mr. Ackerblad, a Danish gentleman, made\nsome progress in identifying the sense of several parts of the second\ninscription, or that in demotic or enchorial characters, but made no\nprogress in the hieroglyphics; and it was left for British industry to\nconvert to permanent profit a monument which had been a useless, though\na glorious, monument of British valour. The inscription upon this\ncelebrated stone proved to be a decree of the Egyptian priests, solemnly\nassembled in the temple, to record upon a monument, as a public\nexpression of their gratitude, all the events of the reign of Ptolemy\nEpiphanes; his liberality to the temples and to the gods; his success\nagainst his rebellious subjects; his clemency toward some of the\ntraitors; his measures against the fatal consequences of excessive\ninundations of the Nile; and his munificence toward the college of the\npriests, by remitting the arrears of several years\u2019 payment of taxes. It\nwas an important circumstance, that the whole concludes by ordering that\nthis decree \u201cshall be engraved on a hard stone in sacred characters, in\ncommon characters, and in Greek.\u201d By this it was ascertained that the\nsecond and third inscriptions were translations of the first; and that\nthe second inscription was in the common character of the country. It\nwas this that led Ackerblad to the investigation of the enchorial text,\nin order to discover its alphabet; in which he partially succeeded. His\nlabours were, however, for some time unnoticed; but in 1814, Dr. Young\npublished, in the Arch\u00e6ologia, an improvement on the alphabet of\nAckerblad, and a translation of the Egyptian inscription. Difficulties\nof no ordinary kind, beside those arising from the mutilated state of\nthe stone, presented themselves to all who had applied to make out even\nthe second, or enchorial inscription.\n\n\u201cThe method,\u201d says the Marquis Spineto, \u201cpursued by our learned men in\nthis Herculean task of deciphering the Rosetta stone, deserves to be\nnoticed; it may serve to give you a proper idea of the infinite labour\nto which they have been obliged to submit; a labour which at first\nseemed calculated to deter the most indefatigable scholar. Figure to\nyourself, for a moment, the fashion introduced of writing the English\nlanguage with the omission of most of its vowels, and then suppose our\nalphabet to be entirely lost or forgotten, a new mode of writing\nintroduced, letters totally different from those we use, and then\nconceive what our labour would be, if, after the lapse of fifteen\nhundred years, when the English language, by the operation of ages, and\nthe intercourse with foreigners, was much altered from what it now is,\nwe should be required, by the help of a Greek translation, to decipher a\nbill of parliament written in this old, forgotten, and persecuted\nalphabet, in every word of which we should find, and even this not\nalways, the regular number of consonants, but most of the vowels left\nout. And yet this is precisely what our learned antiquarians have been\nobliged to do. The Egyptians, like most of the orientals, left out many\nof the vowels in writing. The enchorial, or demotic alphabet, which they\nused, has been laid aside since the second or third century of our era.\nFrom that time to this, that is, for nearly sixteen hundred years, the\nCoptic alphabet has been used; and yet in this Coptic language, and in\nthese very enchorial or demotic characters, was engraved on the Rosetta\nstone the inscription which they have deciphered.\u201d\n\nThe steps of this interesting process are given by Dr. Young, in the\nSupplement to the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica. The substance is as follows:\n\u201cAs the demotic characters showed something like the shape of letters,\nit was shrewdly suspected that they might have been used as an alphabet.\nBy comparing, therefore, its different parts with each other, and with\nthe Greek, it was observed that the two groups in the fourth and\nseventeenth lines of the Greek inscription, in which Alexander and\nAlexandria occur, corresponded with two other groups in the second and\nthe tenth line of the demotic inscription. These two groups, therefore,\nwere considered as representing these two names, and thus not less than\nseven characters, or letters, were ascertained. Again: it was observed\nthat a small group of character occurs very often in almost every line.\nAt first it was supposed that this group was either a termination, or\nsome very common particle; and after some words had been identified, it\nwas found to mean the conjunction _and_. It was then observed, that the\nnext remarkable collection of characters was repeated twenty-nine or\nthirty times in the enchorial inscription; and nothing found to occur so\noften in the Greek, except the word king, which with its compounds, is\nrepeated about thirty-seven times. A fourth assemblage of characters was\nfound fourteen times in the enchorial inscription, agreeing sufficiently\nwell in frequency with the name of Ptolemy, which occurs eleven times in\nthe Greek, and generally in passages corresponding to those of the\nenchorial text, in their relative situation; and, by a similar\ncomparison, the name of Egypt was identified. Having thus obtained a\nsufficient number of common points of subdivision, the next step was to\nwrite the Greek text over the enchorial, in such a manner that the\npassages ascertained should coincide as nearly as possible; taking,\nhowever, a proper care to observe that the lines of the demotic or\nenchorial inscription are written from right to left, while those of the\nGreek run in a contrary direction from left to right. At first sight\nthis difficulty seemed very great; but it was conquered by proper\nattention and practice; because, after some trouble, the division of the\nseveral words and phrases plainly indicated the direction in which they\nwere to be read. Thus it was obvious that the intermediate parts of each\ninscription stood then very near to the corresponding passages of the\nother.\u201d\n\nBy means of the process above mentioned, Ackerblad, De Sacy, and Dr.\nYoung, among whom a correspondence had been carried on, obtained a sort\nof alphabet from the enchorial characters, which might aid them in\nfuture researches. This result was published by Dr. Young in 1814. The\nexamination of another stone at Menoup, containing an inscription in\nenchorial and in Greek characters, enabled Dr. Young to confirm the\naccuracy of former discoveries, and to add several new characters to the\nenchorial or demotic alphabet. Dr. Young next turned his attention to\nthe hieroglyphics; and, though not with equal success, yet so as to\ndemonstrate that they were phonetic or alphabetical, and to spell\nseveral proper names. The difficulty here, indeed, was how to begin; but\nhis success opened a certain way to future progress; and it was upon Dr.\nYoung\u2019s discovery that Champollion afterward engrafted his system, and\nwas enabled to carry his researches into Egyptian antiquities and\nEgyptian hieroglyphics, to an extent which is now deeply engaging the\nattention of the literary world.\n\nTwo practical ends appear to have been answered already by the\ndeciphering of the mystic monuments of Egypt. The first is, that the\ninscriptions which have been read by Champollion, afford assistance in\nsettling some questions of ancient chronology; the other is, that\nimportant collateral proof has been afforded of the historical accuracy\nof the Old Testament, and the antiquity of its books. It is presumptive\nin favour of the genuineness and antiquity of the writings of Moses,\nthat such proper Egyptian names as are found in no other ancient\nwritings beside his own, such as On, and Rameses, and Potipherah, and\nAsenath, should now be read in hieroglyphic characters on monuments\nstill standing in the same country. But the confirmatory evidence goes\nstill farther. In one inscription the names of two of the Pharaohs,\nOsorgon and Scheschonk, are exhibited. Of the characters which compose\nthis legend some are phonetic, some figurative, and some symbolic. The\nwhole reading in Coptic, is, \u201c_Ouab an Amon-re soten annenoute Osorchon\npri_ (or _pre_) _ce_ or _ci an ouab an Amon-re Souten Scheschonk-re\nSoten Nebto_, (_Amonmai Osorchon_,)\u201d &c. The meaning of which is, \u201cThe\npure by Amon-re, king of the gods, Osorchon deceased, son of the pure,\nby Amon-re, king of the gods, Scheschonk deceased, son of king of the\nworld, (beloved by Amon-re, Osorchon,) imparting life, like the sun, for\never.\u201d This Osorchon seems to have been the Zarah, or Zarach, the king\nof Ethiopia, recorded in the Second Book of Chronicles, who, with a host\nof a thousand thousand and three hundred chariots, came to make war\nagainst Asa, the grandson of Jeroboam, and was defeated at Mareshah.\nAlthough the Greek historians have never mentioned either the name or\nexploits of Osorchon, this fact is attested by an hieroglyphical\nmanuscript, published by Denon. It is a funeral legend, loaded with\nfigures, on and round which there are several hieroglyphical\ninscriptions. With respect to the other Pharaoh, Champollion, speaking\nof the temple of Karnac, says, \u201cIn this marvellous place I saw the\nportraits of most of the ancient Pharaohs, known by their great actions.\nThey are real portraits, represented a hundred times on the\nbasso-relievos of the outer and inner walls. Each of them has his\npeculiar physiognomy, different from that of his predecessors and\nsuccessors. Thus, in colossal representations, the sculpture of which is\nlively, grand, and heroic, more perfect than can be believed in Europe,\nwe see the Pharaoh Mandouei combating the nations hostile to Egypt, and\nreturning triumphant to his country. Farther on, the campaigns of\nRhamses Sesostris; elsewhere Sesonchis, or Shishak, dragging to the feet\nof the Theban Trinity, Ammon, Mouth, and Khous, the chiefs of thirty\nconquered nations, among which is found, written in letters at full\nlength, the word _Joudahamalek_, that is, the kingdom of the Jews, or\nthe kingdom of Judah. This is a commentary on the fourteenth chapter of\nthe First Book of Kings, which relates the arrival of Shishak at\nJerusalem, and his success there. Thus the identity between the Egyptian\nSheschonk, the Sesonchis of Manetho, and the Sesac, or Schischak of the\nBible, is confirmed in the most satisfactory manner.\u201d\n\n\nYEAR. The Hebrews had always years, of twelve months each. But at the\nbeginning, and in the time of Moses, these were solar years, of twelve\nmonths; each having thirty days, except the twelfth which had\nthirty-five. We see, by the reckoning that Moses gives us of the days of\nthe deluge, Gen. vii, that the Hebrew year consisted of three hundred\nand sixty-five days. It is supposed that they had an intercalary month\nat the end of one hundred and twenty years; at which time the beginning\nof their year would be out of its place full thirty days. But it must be\nowned, that no mention is made in Scripture of the thirteenth month, or\nof any intercalation. It is not improbable that Moses retained the order\nof the Egyptian year, since he himself came out of Egypt, was born in\nthat country, had been instructed and brought up there, and since the\npeople of Israel, whose chief he was, had been for a long time\naccustomed to this kind of year. But the Egyptian year was solar, and\nconsisted of twelve months of thirty days each, and that for a very long\ntime before. After the time of Alexander the Great, and the reign of the\nGrecians in Asia, the Jews reckoned by lunar months, chiefly in what\nrelated to religion, and the order of the festivals. St. John, in his\nRevelation, xi, 2, 3; xii, 6, 14; xiii, 5, assigns but twelve hundred\nand sixty days to three years and a half, and consequently just thirty\ndays to every month, and just three hundred and sixty days to every\nyear. Maimonides tells us, that the years of the Jews were solar, and\ntheir months lunar. Since the completing of the Talmud, they have made\nuse of years that are purely lunar, having alternately a full month of\nthirty days, and then a defective month of twenty-nine days. And to\naccommodate this lunar year to the course of the sun, at the end of\nthree years they intercalate a whole month after Adar; which\nintercalated month they call Ve-adar, or the second Adar.\n\nThe beginning of the year was various among different nations: the\nancient Chaldeans, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Armenians, and Syrians,\nbegan their year about the vernal equinox; and the Chinese in the east,\nand Latins and Romans in the west, originally followed the same usage.\nThe Egyptians, and from them the Jews, began their civil year about the\nautumnal equinox. The Athenians and Greeks in general began theirs about\nthe summer solstice; and the Chinese, and the Romans after Numa\u2019s\ncorrection, about the winter solstice. At which of these the primeval\nyear, instituted at the creation, began, has been long contested among\nastronomers and chronologers. Philo, Eusebius, Cyril, Augustine,\nAbulfaragi, Kepler, Capellus, Simpson, Lange, and Jackson, contend for\nthe vernal equinox; and Josephus, Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Bedford,\nKennedy, &c, for the autumnal. The weight of ancient authorities, and\nalso of argument, seems to preponderate in favour of the former opinion.\n1. All the ancient nations, except the Egyptians, began their civil year\nabout the vernal equinox: but the deviation of the Egyptians from the\ngeneral usage may easily be accounted for, from a local circumstance\npeculiar to their country; namely, that the annual inundation of the\nNile rises to its greatest height at the autumnal equinox. 2. Josephus,\nthe only ancient authority of any weight on the other side seems to be\ninconsistent with himself, in supposing that the deluge began in the\nsecond civil month, _Dius_, or _Marheshvan_, rather than in the second\nsacred month; because Moses, throughout the Pentateuch, uniformly adopts\nthe sacred year; and fixes its first month by an indelible and\nunequivocal character, calling it _Abib_, as ushering in the season of\ngreen corn. And as Josephus calls the second month elsewhere\n_Artemisius_, or _Iar_, in conformity with Scripture, there is no reason\nwhy he should deviate from the same usage in the case of the deluge. 3.\nTo the authority of Josephus, we may oppose that of the great Jewish\nantiquary, Philo, in the generation before him; who thus accounts for\nthe institution of the sacred year by Moses:--\u201cThis month, _Abib_, being\nthe seventh in number and order according to the sun\u2019s course, or civil\nyear, reckoned from the autumnal equinox, is virtually the first, and is\ntherefore called \u2018the first month\u2019 in the sacred books. And the reason,\nI think, is this: because the vernal equinox is the image and\nrepresentative of the original epoch of the creation of the world.\nThereby God notified the spring, in which all things bloom and blossom,\nto be an annual memorial of the world\u2019s creation. Wherefore this month\nis properly called the first in the law, as being the image of the first\noriginal month, stamped upon it, as it were, by that archetypal seal.\u201d\n4. The first sacrifice on record seems to decide the question. The time\nof the sacrifice of Cain and Abel appears to have been spring; when\nCain, who was a \u201ctiller of the ground,\u201d brought the first fruits of his\ntillage, or a sheaf of new corn; and Abel, who was \u201ca feeder of sheep,\u201d\n\u201cthe firstlings of his flock,\u201d lambs: and this was done \u201cat the end of\ndays,\u201d or \u201cat the end of the year;\u201d which is the correct meaning of the\nphrase \u05de\u05e7\u05e5 \u05d9\u05de\u05dd, and not the indefinite expression, \u201cin process of time,\u201d\nGen. iv, 3. It is a remarkable proof of the accuracy of Moses, and a\nconfirmation of this expression, that he expresses the end of the civil\nyear, or \u201cingathering of the harvest,\u201d by different phrases, \u05d1\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4,\n\u201cat the going out of the year,\u201d Exod. xxiii, 16; and \u05ea\u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4, \u201cat the\nrevolution of the year,\u201d Exod. xxxiv, 22; as those phrases may more\ncritically be rendered. But, in process of time, it was found that the\nprimeval year of three hundred and sixty days was shorter than the\ntropical year; and the first discovery was, that it was deficient five\nentire days, which therefore it was necessary to intercalate, in order\nto keep up the correspondence of the civil year to the stated seasons of\nthe principal festivals. How early this discovery and intercalation was\nmade, is nowhere recorded. It might have been known and practised before\nthe deluge. The apocryphal book of Enoch, which probably was as old as\nthe Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, stated that \u201cthe archangel\nAriel, president of the stars, discovered the nature of the month and of\nthe year to Enoch, in the one hundred and sixty-fifth year of his age,\nand A. M. 1286.\u201d And it is remarkable, that Enoch\u2019s age at his\ntranslation, three hundred and sixty-five years, expressed the number of\nentire days in a tropical year. This knowledge might have been handed\ndown to Noah and his descendants; and that it was early communicated\nindeed to the primitive Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Chinese, we learn from\nancient tradition.\n\nThis article would be rendered too prolix were we to notice the various\ninventions of eminent men in different ages to rectify the calendar by\nadjusting the difference between lunar and tropical years; which at\nlength was effected by Gregory XIII. in 1583. This Gregorian, or\nreformed Julian year, was not adopted in England until A. D. 1751, when,\nthe deficiency from the time of the council of Nice then amounting to\neleven days, this number was struck out of the month of September, by\nact of parliament; and the third day was counted the fourteenth, in that\nyear of confusion. The next year, A. D. 1752, was the first of the new\nstyle. Russia is the only country in Europe which retains the old style.\n\nThe civil year of the Hebrews has always begun at autumn, at the month\nthey now call Tisri, which answers to our September, and sometimes\nenters into October, according as the lunations happen. But their sacred\nyears, by which the festivals, assemblies, and all other religious acts,\nwere regulated, begin in the spring, at the month Nisan, which answers\nto March, and sometimes takes up a part of April, according to the\ncourse of the moon. See MONTHS.\n\nNothing is more equivocal among the ancients, than the term year. It\nalways has been, and still is, a source of disputes among the learned,\nwhether on account of its duration, its beginning, or its end. Some\npeople heretofore made their year consist only of one month, others of\nfour, others of six, others of ten, and others of twelve. Some have\ndivided one of our years into two, and have made one year of winter,\nanother of summer. The beginning of the year was fixed sometimes at\nautumn, sometimes at the spring, and sometimes at midwinter. Some people\nhave used lunar months, others solar. Even the days have been\ndifferently divided: some people beginning them at evening, others at\nmorning, others at noon, and others at midnight. With some the hours\nwere equal, both in winter and summer; with others, they were unequal.\nThey counted twelve hours to the day, and as many to the night. In\nsummer the hours of the day were longer than those of the night; but, on\nthe contrary, in winter the hours of the night were longer than those of\nthe day.\n\nWhile the Jews continued in the land of Canaan, the beginnings of their\nmonths and years were not settled by any astronomical rules or\ncalculations, but by the phasis, or actual appearance of the new moon.\nWhen they saw the new moon, they began the month. Persons were therefore\nappointed to watch on the tops of the mountain for the first appearance\nof the moon after the change. As soon as they saw it, they informed the\nsanhedrim, and public notice was given by lighting beacons throughout\nthe land; though after they had been often deceived by the Samaritans,\nwho kindled false fires, they used, say the Mishnical rabbins, to\nproclaim its appearance by sending messengers. Yet as they had no months\nlonger than thirty days, if they did not see the new moon the night\nfollowing the thirtieth day, they concluded the appearance was\nobstructed by the clouds, and, without watching any longer, made the\nnext day the first of the following month. But after the Jews became\ndispersed through all nations, where they had no opportunity of being\ninformed of the first appearance of the new moon, as they formerly had,\nthey were forced to make use of astronomical calculations and cycles for\nfixing the beginning of their months and years. The first cycle they\nmade use of for this purpose was of eighty-four years. But that being\ndiscovered to be faulty, they came afterward into the use of Meto\u2019s\ncycle of nineteen years, which was established by the authority of Rabbi\nHillel Hannasi, or prince of the sanhedrim, about A. D. 360. This they\nstill use, and say it is to be observed till the coming of the Messiah.\nIn the compass of this cycle there are twelve common years, consisting\nof twelve months, and seven intercalary years, consisting of thirteen\nmonths. We find the Jews and their ancestors computing their years from\ndifferent eras, in different parts of the Old Testament; as from the\nbirth of the patriarchs, for instance, of Noah, Gen. vii, 11; viii, 13;\nafterward from their exit out of Egypt, Num. xxxiii, 38; 1 Kings vi, 1;\nthen from the building of Solomon\u2019s temple, 2 Chron. viii, 1; and from\nthe reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. In latter times the\nBabylonish captivity furnished them with a new epocha, from whence they\ncomputed their years, Ezek. xxxiii, 21; xl, 1. But since the times of\nthe Talmudical rabbins, they have constantly used the era of the\ncreation.\n\nThere is not a more prolific source of confusion and embarrassment in\nancient chronology, than the substitution of the cardinal numbers, one,\ntwo, three, for the ordinals, first, second, third, &c, which frequently\noccurs in the sacred and profane historians. Thus Noah was six hundred\nyears old when the deluge began, Gen. vii, 6; and presently after, in\nhis six hundredth year: confounding complete and current years. And the\ndispute whether A. D. 1800, or A. D. 1801, was the first of the\nnineteenth century, should be decided in favour of the latter; the\nformer being in reality the last of the eighteenth century; which is\nusually, but improperly, called the year one thousand eight hundred,\ncomplete; whereas it is really the one thousandth, eight hundredth; as\nin Latin we say, _Anno Domini millesimo octingentesimo_. There is also\nanother and a prevailing error, arising from mistranslation of the\ncurrent phrases, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, &c, usually\nrendered, \u201cafter eight days,\u201d \u201cafter three days,\u201d &c; but which ought to\nbe rendered \u201ceight days after,\u201d \u201cthree days after,\u201d as in other places,\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, which are correctly rendered\n\u201csome days after,\u201d \u201cnot many days after,\u201d in our English Bible, Acts xv,\n36; Luke xv, 13, the extreme days being included. Such phrases seem to\nbe elliptical, and the ellipsis is supplied, Luke ix, 28, speaking of\nour Lord\u2019s transfiguration, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c:\n\u201cAfter these sayings, about eight days,\u201d or rather about the eighth day,\ncounted inclusively; for in the parallel passages, Matt. xvii, 1, Mark\nix, 2, there are only \u201csix days,\u201d counted exclusively, or omitting the\nextremes. Thus, circumcision is prescribed, Gen. xvii, 11, when the\nchild is \u201ceight days old;\u201d but in Lev. xii, 3, \u201con the eighth day.\u201d And\nJesus accordingly was circumcised, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c, \u201cwhen\neight days were accomplished,\u201d Luke ii, 21; whereas John the Baptist, \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03bf\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u201con the eighth day.\u201d The last, which was the constant\nusage, explains the meaning of the former. This critically reconciles\nour Lord\u2019s resurrection, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cthree days after,\u201d\naccording to Matt. xxvii, 63; Mark viii, 31; with his resurrection, \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 h\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb3, \u201con the third day,\u201d according to Matt. xvi, 21; Luke ix,\n22; and according to fact: for our Lord was crucified on Good Friday,\nabout the third hour; and he arose before sunrise, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u0390, \u201cearly,\u201d on\nSunday; so that the interval, though extending through three calendar\ndays current, did not in reality amount to two entire days, or\nforty-eight hours. This phraseology is frequent among the most correct\nclassic writers. Some learned commentators, Beza, Grotius, Campbell,\nNewcome, render such phrases, \u201cwithin eight days,\u201d \u201cwithin three days;\u201d\nwhich certainly conveys the meaning, but not the literal translation, of\nthe preposition \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70, \u201cafter.\u201d In memory of the primeval week of\ncreation, revived among the Jews, after their departure from Egypt,\ntheir principal festivals, the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles,\nlasted a week each. They had weeks of seven years a piece, at the term\nof which was the sabbatical year; as also weeks of seven times seven\nyears, that were terminated by the year of jubilee; and finally weeks of\nseven days. And it is remarkable that, from the earliest times,\nsacrifices were offered by sevens. Thus, in the patriarch Job\u2019s days,\n\u201cseven bullocks and seven rams were offered up for a burnt offering\u201d of\natonement, by the divine command, Job xiii, 8. The Chaldean diviner,\nBalaam, built seven altars, and prepared seven bullocks and seven rams,\nNum. xxiii, 1. And the Cum\u00e6an sibyl, who came from Chaldea, or\nBabylonia, gives the same directions to \u00c6neas, that Balaam did to Balak:\n\n          _Nunc grege de intacto septem mactare juvencos\n          Pr\u00e6stiterit, totidem lectas, de more, bidentes._\n\n          \u201cSeven bullocks, yet unyoked, for Ph\u0153bus choose,\n          And for Diana seven unspotted ewes.\u201d\n                                              DRYDEN.\n\nAnd when the ark was brought home by David, the Levites offered seven\nbullocks and seven rams, 1 Chronicles xv, 26. And hence we may account\nfor the peculiar sanctity of the seventh day, among the older Heathen\nwriters, even after the institution of the Sabbath fell into disuse, and\nwas lost among them.\n\nTHE FALLOW OR SABBATIC YEAR. Agricultural labour among the Jews ceased\nevery seventh year. Nothing was sown and nothing reaped; the vines and\nthe olives were not pruned; there was no vintage and no gathering of\nfruits, even of what grew wild; but whatever spontaneous productions\nthere were, were left to the poor, the traveller, and the wild beast,\nLev. xxv, 1\u20137; Deut. xv, 1\u201310. The object of this regulation seems to\nhave been, among others, to let the ground recover its strength, and to\nteach the Hebrews to be provident of their income and to look out for\nthe future. It is true, that extraordinary fruitfulness was promised on\nthe sixth year, but in such a way as not to exclude care and foresight,\nLev. xxv, 20\u201324. We are not to suppose, however, that the Hebrews spent\nthe seventh year in absolute idleness: they could fish, hunt, take care\nof their bees and flocks, repair their buildings and furniture,\nmanufacture cloths of wool, linen, and of the hair of goats and camels,\nand carry on commerce. Finally, they were obliged to remain longer in\nthe tabernacle or temple this year, during which the whole Mosaic law\nwas read, in order to be instructed in religious and moral duties, and\nthe history of their nation, and the wonderful works and blessings of\nGod, Deut. xxxi, 10\u201313. This seventh year\u2019s rest, as Moses predicted,\nLev. xxvi, 34, 35, was for a long time neglected, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 21;\nafter the captivity it was more scrupulously observed.\n\nAs a period of seven days was every week completed by the Sabbath, so\nwas a period of seven years completed by the sabbatic year. It seems to\nhave been the design of this institution, to afford a longer opportunity\nthan would otherwise have been enjoyed for impressing on the memory the\ngreat truth, that God the Creator is alone to be worshipped. The\ncommencement of this year was on the first day of the seventh month\nTishri, or October. During the continuance of the feast of tabernacles\nthis year, the law was to be publicly read for eight days together,\neither in the tabernacle or temple, Deut. xxxi, 10\u201313. Debts, on account\nof there being no income from the soil, were not collected, Deut. xv, 1,\n2; they were not, however, cancelled, as was imagined by the Talmudists,\nfor we find in Deut. xv, 9, that the Hebrews are admonished not to deny\nmoney to the poor on account of the approach of the sabbatical year,\nduring which it could not be exacted; but nothing farther than this can\nbe educed from that passage. Nor were servants manumitted on this year,\nbut on the seventh year of their service, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 12;\nJer. xxxiv, 14.\n\nTHE YEAR OF JUBILEE followed seven sabbatic years; it was on the\nfiftieth year, Lev. xxv, 8\u201311. To this statement agree the Jews\ngenerally, their rabbins, and the Caraites; and say farther, that the\nargument of those who maintain that it was on the forty-ninth, for the\nreason that the omission to till the ground for two years in succession,\nnamely, the forty-ninth and fiftieth, would produce a famine, is not to\nbe attended to. It is not to be attended to, simply because these years\nof rest being known long beforehand, the people would of course lay up\nprovision for them. It may be remarked farther in reference to this\npoint, that certain trees produced their fruits spontaneously,\nparticularly the fig and sycamore, which yield half the year round, and\nthat those fruits could be preserved for some months; which explains at\nonce how a considerable number of the people might have obtained no\ninconsiderable portion of their support. The return of the year of\njubilee was announced on the tenth day of the seventh month, or Tishri,\nOctober, being the day of propitiation or atonement, by the sound of\ntrumpet, Lev. xxv, 8\u201313; xxvii, 24; Num. xxxvi, 4; Isa. lxi, 1, 2.\nBeside the regulations which obtained on the sabbatic year, there were\nothers which concerned the year of jubilee exclusively: 1. All the\nservants of Hebrew origin on the year of jubilee obtained their freedom,\nLev. xxv, 39\u201346; Jer. xxxiv, 7, &c. 2. All the fields throughout the\ncountry, and the houses in the cities and villages of the Levites and\npriests which had been sold on the preceding years, were returned on the\nyear of jubilee to the sellers, with the exception of those which had\nbeen consecrated to God, and had not been redeemed before the return of\nthe said year, Lev. xxv, 10, 13\u201317, 24\u201328; xxvii, 16\u201321. 3. Debtors, for\nthe most part, pledged or mortgaged their lands to the creditor, and\nleft it to his use till the time of payment, so that it was in effect\nsold to the creditor, and was, accordingly, restored to the debtor on\nthe year of jubilee. In other words, the debts for which land was\npledged were cancelled; the same as those of persons who had recovered\ntheir freedom after having been sold into slavery, on account of not\nbeing able to pay. Hence it usually happened in the later periods of\nJewish history, as we learn from Josephus, that, at the return of\njubilee, there was a general cancelling of debts.\n\n\nZABII, or ZAB\u00c6ANS, or ZABIANS, or SABIANS. The Sabians mentioned in\nScripture were evidently a nation, or perhaps a wandering horde, such as\nfell upon Job\u2019s cattle, Job i, 15; men of stature, Isa. xiv, 14; a\npeople afar off, Joel iii, 8. But we speak here of the Zabians as a\nsect, probably the first corrupters of the patriarchal religion; and so\ncalled, as is believed, from _tsabiim_, the \u201chosts,\u201d that is, of heaven;\nnamely, the sun, moon, and stars, to whom they rendered worship; first\nimmediately, and afterward through the medium of images; this\nparticularly distinguished them from the magi, whose idolatry was\nconfined to the solar orb, and its earthly representative, the fire. If\nthe above derivation be right, the Zabians were originally Chaldeans,\nthough afterward the same sect arose in Arabia. Their study of the\nheavenly bodies led them, not only to astronomy, but to astrology, its\ndegenerate daughter, which was for many ages the favourite pursuit of\nthe oriental nations.\n\nThe following account is abridged from Dr. Townley\u2019s \u201cEssays;\u201d--The\nZabii, or Zabians, were a sect of idolaters who flourished in the early\nages of the world, considerable in their numbers, and extensive in their\ninfluence. The denomination of Zabii, given to these idolaters, appears\nto have been derived from the Hebrew \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0, a _host_; with reference to\nthe \u05e6\u05db\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd or, _host of heaven_, which they worshipped; though others\nhave derived it from the Arabic _tsaba_ \u201cto apostatize,\u201d \u201cto turn from\none religion to another;\u201d or from \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, or the Arabic _Tsabin_,\n\u201cChaldeans,\u201d or \u201cinhabitants of the east.\u201d Lactantius considers Ham, the\nson of Noah, as the first seceder from the true religion after the\nflood; and supposes Egypt, which was peopled by his descendants, to have\nbeen the country in which Zabaism, or the worship of the stars, first\nprevailed. That the worship of the heavenly bodies prevailed in the east\nat a very early period, is certain from the words of Job, who thus\nexculpates himself from the charge of idolatry: \u201cIf I beheld the sun\nwhen it shined, or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath\nbeen secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were\nan iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the\nGod that is above,\u201d Job xxii, 26\u201328. It would appear that the idolatrous\nopinions of the Zabii originated with the posterity of Ham, at a very\nearly period after the flood, in Egypt or Chaldea; but spread so rapidly\nand extensively, that in a very short time nearly the whole of the\ndescendants of Noah were infected with their pestiferous sentiments and\npractices. Maimonides says, \u201cThis people,\u201d that is, the Zabii, \u201chad\nfilled the whole world.\u201d Their first and principal adoration was\ndirected to the host of heaven, or the stars. They were _ignicol\u00e6_, or\n\u201cworshippers of fire.\u201d The city of Ur, in Chaldea, seems to have had its\nname from the inhabitants being devoted to the worship of fire. They\ndedicated images to the sun and the other celestial orbs, supposing\nthat, by a formal consecration of them to those luminaries, a divine\nvirtue was infused into them, by which they acquired the faculty of\nunderstanding, and the power of conferring prophecy and other gifts upon\ntheir worshippers. These images were formed of various metals, according\nto the particular star to which any of them was dedicated. They also\nregarded certain trees as being appropriated to particular stars, and,\nwhen idolatrously dedicated, as being possessed of very singular\nvirtues. From these opinions sprang the adoption of astrology by them,\nin all its various forms. They maintained the doctrine of the eternity\nof the world. \u201cAll the Zabii,\u201d says Maimonides, \u201cbelieve in the eternity\nof the world; for, according to them, the heavens are God.\u201d Holding the\neternity of the world, they easily became Pre-Adamites, affirming that\nAdam was not the first man. They also fabled concerning him, that he was\nthe apostle of the moon, and the author of several works on husbandry.\nOf Noah, they taught, that he was a husbandman, and was imprisoned for\ndissenting from their opinions. They add, that Seth was another of those\nwho forsook the worship of the moon. They held agriculture in the\nhighest estimation, regarding it as intimately connected with the\nworship of the heavenly bodies. On this account, it was deemed criminal,\nby the major part of them, to slay or feed upon cattle. Goats were also\nreputed to be sacred animals, because the demons whom they worshipped\nwere said to appear in the woods and deserts in the forms of goats or of\nsatyrs. Of their superstitious practices, some were dangerous, as the\nsacrifices of lions, tigers, and other wild beasts. Certain of their\nrites were cruel, as the passing of their children through the fire, and\nbranding themselves also with fire. Some of their practices were\nloathsome and disgustful; such as eating blood, believing it to be the\nfood of demons, &c. Others were frivolous and tedious; as offering bats\nand mice to the sun, various and frequent ablutions, lustrations, &c.\nSome of them were obscene and beastly, as the rites practised on\nengrafting a tree, or to obtain rain. Many of the rites were magical.\nThese Maimonides divides into three kinds:--\u201cThe first is that which\nrespects plants, animals, and metals. The second consists in the\nlimitation and determination of the times in which certain works ought\nto be performed. The third consists in human gestures and actions, as\nleaping, clapping the hands, shouting, laughing, lying down, or\nstretching at full length upon the ground, burning particular things,\nraising a smoke, and, lastly, repeating certain intelligible or\nunintelligible words. Some things cannot be completed without the use of\nall these rites.\u201d It is generally acknowledged that some traces of\nZabianism are still to be found both among the Hindoos and Chinese in\nthe east, and the Mexicans and other nations in the south. The Guebres,\nor Parsees, who inhabit Persia, and are scattered through various parts\nof Hindostan, are the acknowledged worshippers of fire, or the supreme\nDeity under that symbol. \u201cThat the Persians,\u201d says Hyde, \u201cwere formerly\nSabians or Zabii, is rendered probable by Ibn Phacreddin Angjou, a\nPersian, who, in his book \u2018_Pharhangh Gjihanghiri_,\u2019 treating of the\nPersians descended from Shem, says in the preface, \u2018Their religion, at\nthat time, was Zabianism; but at length they became magi, and built fire\ntemples.\u2019 And the author of the book \u2018_Mu\u2019gjizat Pharsi_,\u2019 adopts the\nsame opinion: \u2018In ancient times, the Persians were of the Zabian\nreligion, worshipping the stars, until the time of Gushtasp, son of\nLohrasp.\u2019 For then Zoroaster reformed their religion.\u201d The modern\nSabians, who inhabit the country round about Mount Libanus, believe the\nunity of God, but pay an adoration to the stars, or the angels and\nintelligences which they suppose reside in them, and govern the world\nunder the supreme Deity. They are obliged to pray three times a day, and\nthey fast three times a year. They offer many sacrifices, but eat no\npart of them; and abstain from beans, garlic, and some other pulse and\nvegetables. They greatly respect the temple of Mecca and the pyramids of\nEgypt, fancying these last to be the sepulchres of Seth, and of Enoch\nand Sabi, his two sons, whom they look on as the first propagators of\ntheir religion. At these structures, they sacrifice a cock and a black\ncalf, and offer up incense. Their principal pilgrimage, however, is to\nHaran, the supposed birth place of Abraham. Such is the account of this\nsect given by Sale, D\u2019Herbelot, and Hyde.\n\nZACCHEUS, chief of the publicans; that is, farmer general of the\nrevenues, Luke xix, 1, &c. This is all that is known concerning this\nperson. See PUBLICANS and SYCAMORE.\n\nZADOK, son of Ahitub, high priest of the Jews, of the race of Eleazar.\nAt the death of Ahimelech, or Abiathar, he came to the pontificate, A.\nM. 2944. For some time there were two high priests in Israel, 2 Sam.\nviii, 17; xv, 24, &c; xix, 11, 12; 1 Kings i, 8, &c. After the death of\nDavid, 1 Kings ii, 35, Solomon excluded Abiathar from the high\npriesthood, because he espoused the party of Adonijah, and made Zadok\nhigh priest alone.\n\nZAMZUMMIM, or ZUZIM, a gigantic race of people, who, together with the\nRephaim and Emim, men of like stature, occupied, in the time of Abraham,\nthe country east of Jordan and the Dead Sea, where they were routed by\nChedorlaomer, and from which they were afterward expelled by the\nAmmonites, Deut. ii, 20, 21. These, together with the Anakim, another\nfamily of giants, were all evidently of a race foreign to the original\ninhabitants of the countries where they were found; they were probably\ntribes of invading Cushites. The Vulgate and the Septuagint say, they\nwere conquered with the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim. The Chaldee\ninterpreters have taken Zuzim in the sense of an appellative, for stout\nand valiant men; and the Septuagint have rendered the word Zuzim, \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\n\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70, _robust nations_. We meet with the word Zuzim only in Gen. xiv,\n5.\n\nZEAL. The original word, in its primary signification, means heat; such\nas the heat of boiling water. When it is figuratively applied to the\nmind, it means any warm emotion or affection. Sometimes it is taken for\nenvy: so we render it, Acts v, 17, where we read, \u201cThe high priest, and\nall that were with him, were filled with envy,\u201d \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b6\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5:\nalthough it might as well be rendered, \u201cwere filled with zeal.\u201d\nSometimes it is taken for anger and indignation; sometimes, for vehement\ndesire. And when any of our passions are strongly moved on a religious\naccount, whether for any thing good, or against any thing which we\nconceive to be evil, this we term religious zeal. But it is not all that\nis called religious zeal which is worthy of that name. It is not\nproperly religious or Christian zeal, if it be not joined with charity.\nA fine writer (Bishop Sprat) carries the matter farther still. \u201cIt has\nbeen affirmed,\u201d says he, \u201cno zeal is right, which is not charitable, but\nis mostly so. Charity, or love, is not only one ingredient, but the\nchief ingredient, in its composition.\u201d May we not go farther still? May\nwe not say, that true zeal is not mostly charitable, but wholly so? that\nis, if we take charity, in St. Paul\u2019s sense, for love; the love of God\nand our neighbour. For it is a certain truth, although little understood\nin the world, that Christian zeal is all love. It is nothing else. The\nlove of God and man fills up its whole nature. Yet it is not every\ndegree of that love to which this appellation is given. There may be\nsome love, a small degree of it, where there is no zeal. But it is,\nproperly, love in a higher degree. It is fervent love. True Christian\nzeal is no other than the flame of love. This is the nature, the inmost\nessence of it. Phinehas is commended for having expressed much zeal\nagainst those wicked persons that violated the law of the Lord, Num.\nxxv, 11, 13; and in Psalm lxix, 9, the psalmist says, \u201cThe zeal of thine\nhouse hath eaten me up;\u201d my earnest desire to have all things duly\nordered about thy worship, and my just displeasure and indignation at\nall abuses in it, have wasted my natural moisture and vital spirits.\n\nZEBOIM, one of the four cities of the Pentapolis, consumed by fire from\nheaven, Gen. xiv, 2; xix, 24. Eusebius and St. Jerom speak of Zeboim as\nof a city remaining in their time, upon the western shores of the Dead\nSea. Consequently, after the time of Lot this city must have been\nrebuilt near the place where it had stood before. Mention is made of the\nvalley of Zeboim, 1 Sam. xiii, 18, and of a city of the same name in the\ntribe of Benjamin, Neh. xi, 34.\n\nZEBULUN, the sixth son of Jacob and Leah, Gen. xxx, 20. He was born in\nMesopotamia, about A. M. 2256. His sons were Sered, Elon, and Jahleel,\nGen. xlvi, 14. Moses acquaints us with no particulars of his life; but\nJacob, in his last blessing, said of Zebulun, \u201cZebulun shall dwell at\nthe haven of the sea; and he shall be for a haven of ships; and his\nborder shall be unto Zidon,\u201d Gen. xlix, 13. His portion extended along\nthe coast of the Mediterranean Sea, one end of it bordering on this sea,\nand the other on the sea of Tiberias, Joshua xix, 10, &c. In the last\nwords of Moses, he joins Zebulun and Issachar together, saying, \u201cRejoice\nZebulun, in thy going out, and Issachar in thy tents. They shall call\nthe people unto the mountain, there shall they offer sacrifices of\nrighteousness. For they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of\ntreasures hid in the sand,\u201d Deut. xxxiii, 18; meaning, that these two\ntribes being at the greatest distance north, should come together to the\ntemple at Jerusalem, to the holy mountain, and should bring with them\nsuch of the other tribes as dwelt in their way; and that being situated\non the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, they should apply themselves to\ntrade and navigation, and to the melting of metals and glass, denoted by\nthose words, \u201ctreasures hid in the sand.\u201d The river Belus, whose sand\nwas very fit for making glass, was in this tribe. When the tribe of\nZebulun left Egypt, it had for its chief Eliab the son of Elon, and\ncomprehended fifty-seven thousand four hundred men able to bear arms,\nNum. i, 9\u201330. In another review thirty-nine years afterward, this tribe\namounted to sixty thousand five hundred men of age to bear arms, Num.\nxxvi, 26, 27. The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali distinguished\nthemselves in the war of Barak and Deborah against Sisera, the general\nof the armies of Jabin, Judges iv, 5, 6, 10; v, 14, 18. It is thought\nthese tribes were the first carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates\nby Pul and Tiglath Pileser, kings of Assyria, 1 Chron. v, 26. They had\nalso the advantage of hearing and seeing Jesus Christ in their country,\noftener and longer than any other of the twelve tribes, Isa. ix, 1;\nMatthew iv, 13, 15.\n\nZECHARIAH, king of Israel, 2 Kings xiv, 29. He succeeded his father\nJeroboam II. A. M. 3220. He reigned but six months, and was murdered.\n\n2. ZECHARIAH, son of Jehoiada, high priest of the Jews; probably the\nsame as Azariah, 1 Chron. vi, 10, 11. He was put to death by the order\nof Joash, A. M. 3164, 2 Chron. xxiv, 20\u201322. Some think this is the\nZacharias mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35.\n\n3. ZECHARIAH, the eleventh of the twelve lesser prophets, was the son of\nBarachiah, and the grandson of Iddo. He was born during the captivity,\nand came to Jerusalem when the Jews were permitted by Cyrus to return to\ntheir own country. He began to prophesy two months later than Haggai,\nand continued to exercise his office about two years. Like his\ncontemporary Haggai, Zechariah begins with exhorting the Jews to proceed\nin the rebuilding of the temple; he promises them the aid and protection\nof God, and assures them of the speedy increase and prosperity of\nJerusalem; he then emblematically describes the four great empires, and\nforetels the glory of the Christian church when Jews and Gentiles shall\nbe united under their great High Priest and Governor, Jesus Christ, of\nwhom Joshua the high priest, and Zerubbabel the governor, were types; he\npredicts many particulars relative to our Saviour and his kingdom, and\nto the future condition of the Jews. Many moral instructions and\nadmonitions are interspersed throughout the work. Several learned men\nhave been of opinion that the last six chapters were not written by\nZechariah; but whoever wrote them, their inspired authority is\nestablished by their being quoted in three of the Gospels, Matt. xxvi,\n31; Mark xiv, 27; John xix, 37. The style of Zechariah is so remarkably\nsimilar to that of Jeremiah, that the Jews were accustomed to observe,\nthat the spirit of Jeremiah had passed into him. By far the greater part\nof this book is prosaic; but toward the conclusion there are some\npoetical passages which are highly ornamented. The diction is in general\nperspicuous, and the transitions to the different subjects are easily\ndiscerned.\n\nZEDEKIAH, or MATTANIAH, was the last king of Judah before the captivity\nof Babylon. He was the son of Josiah, and uncle to Jehoiachin his\npredecessor, 2 Kings xxiv, 17, 19. When Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem,\nhe carried Jehoiachin to Babylon, with his wives, children, officers,\nand the best artificers in Judea, and put in his place his uncle\nMattaniah, whose name he changed into Zedekiah, and made him promise,\nwith an oath, that he would continue in fidelity to him, A. M. 3405, 2\nChron. xxxvi, 13; Ezek. xvii, 12, 14, 18. He was twenty-one years old\nwhen he began to reign at Jerusalem, and he reigned there eleven years.\nHe did evil in the sight of the Lord, committing the same crimes as\nJehoiakim, 2 Kings xxiv, 18\u201320; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 11\u201313; and regarded not\nthe menaces of the Prophet Jeremiah, from the Lord; but hardened his\nheart. The princes of the people, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,\nimitated his impiety, and abandoned themselves to all the abominations\nof the Gentiles. In the first year of his reign, Zedekiah sent to\nBabylon Elasah, the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah, the son of Hilkiah,\nprobably to carry his tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. By these messengers\nJeremiah sent a letter to the captives at Babylon, Jer. xxix, 1\u201323. Four\nyears afterward, either Zedekiah went thither himself, or at least he\nsent thither; for the Hebrew text may admit either of these\ninterpretations, Jer. li, 59; Baruch i, 1; Jer. xxxii, 12. The chief\ndesign of this deputation was to entreat Nebuchadnezzar to return the\nsacred vessels of the temple, Baruch i, 8. In the ninth year of his\nreign, he revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings xxv. It was a\nsabbatical year, in which the people should set their slaves at liberty,\naccording to the law, Exod. xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 1, 2, 12; Jer. xxxiv,\n8\u201310. Then King Nebuchadnezzar marched his army against Zedekiah, and\ntook all the fortified places of his kingdom, except Lachish, Azekah,\nand Jerusalem. He sat down before the last-mentioned city on the tenth\nday of the tenth month of the holy year, which answers to our January.\nSome time afterward, Pharaoh Hophrah, king of Egypt, marched to assist\nZedekiah, Jer. xxxvii, 3\u20135, 10. Nebuchadnezzar left Jerusalem, and went\nto meet him, defeated him, and obliged him to return into Egypt; after\nwhich he resumed the siege of Jerusalem. In the mean while, the people\nof Jerusalem, as if freed from the fear of Nebuchadnezzar, retook the\nslaves whom they had set at liberty, which drew upon them great\nreproaches and threatenings from Jeremiah, xxxiv, 11, 22. During the\nsiege Zedekiah often consulted Jeremiah, who advised him to surrender,\nand pronounced the greatest woes against him if he should persist in his\nrebellion, Jer. xxxvii, 3, 10; xxi. But this unfortunate prince had\nneither patience to hear, nor resolution to follow, good counsels. In\nthe eleventh year of Zedekiah, on the ninth day of the fourth month,\n(July,) Jerusalem was taken, 2 Kings xxv, 2\u20134; Jer. xxxix, 2, 3; lii,\n5\u20137. Zedekiah and his people endeavoured to escape by favour of the\nnight; but the Chaldean troops pursuing them, they were overtaken in the\nplains of Jericho. He was seized and carried to Nebuchadnezzar, then at\nRiblah, a city of Syria. The king of Chaldea, reproaching him with his\nperfidy, caused all his children to be slain before his face, and his\neyes to be put out; then loading him with chains of brass, he ordered\nhim to be sent to Babylon, 2 Kings xxv, 4\u20137; Jer. xxxii, 4\u20137; lii, 4\u201311.\nThus were accomplished two prophecies which seemed contradictory: one of\nJeremiah, who said that Zedekiah should see and yet not see,\nNebuchadnezzar with his eyes, Jer. xxxii, 4, 5; xxxiv, 3; and the other\nof Ezek. xii, 13, which intimated that he should not see Babylon, though\nhe should die there. The year of his death is not known. Jeremiah had\nassured him that he should die in peace; that his body should be burned,\nas those of the kings of Judah usually were; and that they should mourn\nfor him, saying, \u201cAh, lord!\u201d Jer. xxxiv, 4, 5.\n\nZEPHANIAH was the son of Cushi, and was probably of a noble family of\nthe tribe of Simeon. He prophesied in the reign of Josiah, about B. C.\n630. He denounces the judgments of God against the idolatry and sins of\nhis countrymen, and exhorts them to repentance; he predicts the\npunishment of the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Ethiopians, and\nforetels the destruction of Nineveh; he again inveighs against the\ncorruptions of Jerusalem, and with his threats mixes promises of future\nfavour and prosperity to his people; whose recall from their dispersion\nshall glorify the name of God throughout the world. The style of\nZephaniah is poetical; but it is not distinguished by any peculiar\nelegance or beauty, though generally animated and impressive.\n\nZERUBBABEL, or ZEROBABEL, was son of Salathiel, of the royal race of\nDavid. St. Matthew, i, 12, and 1 Chron. iii, 17, 19, make Jeconiah king\nof Judah to be father to Salathiel; but they do not agree as to the\nfather of Zerubbabel. The Chronicles say Pedaiah was father of\nZerubbabel; but St. Matthew, St. Luke, Ezra, and Haggai, constantly make\nSalathiel his father. We must therefore take the name of son in the\nsense of grandson, and say that Salathiel having educated Zerubbabel, he\nwas always afterward looked upon as his father. Some think that\nZerubbabel had also the name of Sheshbazzar, and that he has this name\nin Ezra i, 8. Zerubbabel returned to Jerusalem long before the reign of\nDarius, son of Hystaspes. He returned at the beginning of the reign of\nCyrus, A. M. 3468, fifteen years before Darius. Cyrus committed to his\ncare the sacred vessels of the temple with which he returned to\nJerusalem, Ezra i, 11. He is always named first, as being the chief of\nthe Jews that returned to their own country, Ezra ii, 2; iii, 8; v, 2;\nhe laid the foundations of the temple, Ezra iii, 8, 9; Zech. iv, 9, &c;\nand restored the worship of the Lord, and the usual sacrifices. When the\nSamaritans offered to assist in rebuilding the temple, Zerubbabel and\nthe principal men of Judah refused them this honour, since Cyrus had\ngranted his commission to the Jews only, Ezra iv, 2, 3.\n\nZIKLAG, a city of the Philistines, first assigned to the tribe of Judah,\nand afterward to that of Simeon, Joshua xv, 31; xix, 5; but it does not\nappear that the Philistines were ever driven out; as, when David fled\ninto their country from Saul, Achish gave the city to him, 1 Sam. xxvii,\n5, 6. It was afterward burned by the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xxx, 1. But it\nappears to have been rebuilt, as the author of the First Book of Samuel,\nwhen relating its being given to David, adds, that it pertained to the\nkings of Judah in his time.\n\nZION. See SION.\n\nZUZIM. See ZAMZUMMIM.\n\n                            AN ALPHABETICAL\n                       TABLE OF THE PROPER NAMES\n\n                                   IN\n\n                      THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS;\n\n                                  WITH\n\n                          THEIR PRONUNCIATION,\n\n                                  AND\n\n       THE CHIEF MEANING OR LEADING SIGNIFICATION OF EACH WORD IN\n                         ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.\n\n\n AARON, _Ay\u00b4-ron_, lofty, mountainous.\n ABAD\u00b4DON, the destroyer.\n ABAGTHA, _Ab-ag\u00b4-tha_, father of the wine press.\n ABANA, _Ab-ay\u00b4-nah_, stony.\n ABARIM, _Ab\u00b4-a-rim_, passages.\n AB\u00b4ARON, strength.\n AB\u00b4BA, father.\n AB\u00b4DA, a servant.\n AB\u00b4DI, my servant.\n ABDIEL, _Ab\u00b4-de-el_, a servant of God.\n AB\u00b4DON, a servant.\n ABED-NEGO, _A-bed\u00b4-ne-go_, servant of light.\n A\u00b4BEL, vanity, vapour, mourning.\n ABEL-BETH-MAACHAH, _Ay\u00b4-bel-beth-ma-ay\u00b4-kah_, mourning of the house of\n    Maachah.\n A\u00b4BEL-MA\u00b4IM, the mourning of the waters.\n ABEL-MEHOLAH, _Ay\u00b4-bel-me-ho\u00b4-lah_, mourning of weakness, of sickness.\n ABEL-MIZRAIM, _Ay\u00b4-bel-miz-ra\u00b4-im_, the mourning of the Egyptians.\n A\u00b4BEL-SHIT\u00b4TIM, mourning of the thorns.\n A\u00b4BEZ, an egg, muddy.\n ABI, _A\u00b4-be_, my father.\n ABIAH, _Ab-i\u00b4-ah_, the Lord is my father.\n ABI\u00b4AHIL, the father of light or praise.\n ABI-ALBON, _Ab-e-al\u00b4-bon_, intelligent father.\n AB\u00b4IAM, the father of the sea.\n ABI-AS\u00b4APH, a gathering or consuming father.\n ABIATHAR, _Ab-i\u00b4-a-thar_, excellent father.\n A\u00b4BIB, green fruits, ears of corn.\n ABI\u00b4DAH, father of knowledge.\n ABI\u00b4DAN, father of judgment.\n ABIEL, _Ab\u00b4-e-el_, God my father.\n ABIEZER, _Ab-e-e\u00b4-zer_, father of help.\n ABI-EZRITE, _Ab-e-ez\u00b4-rite_.\n ABIGAIL, _Ab\u00b4-e-gal_, the joy of the father.\n ABI\u00b4-GIBEON, the father of the cup, father of Gibeon.\n ABIHAIL, _Ab-e-hay\u00b4-il_, the father of strength.\n ABI\u00b4HU, he is my father, or his father.\n ABI\u00b4HUD, the father of praise or confession.\n ABIJAH, _Ab-i\u00b4-jah_, the will of the Lord.\n ABI\u00b4JAM, father of the sea.\n ABILENE, _Ab-e-le\u00b4-ne_, the father of the apartment, or of mourning.\n ABIMAEL, _Ab-be-may\u00b4-el_, a father sent from God, my father comes from\n    God.\n ABIMELECH, _Ab-im\u00b4-me-lek_, father of the king.\n ABINADAB, _Ab-in\u00b4-na-dab_, father of willingness, my father is a\n    prince.\n ABINOAM, _Ab-in\u00b4-no-am_, father of beauty or comeliness, my father is\n    beautiful.\n ABIRAM, _Ab-i\u00b4-ram_, a high father, father of\n fraud.\n ABISHAG, _Ab\u00b4-be-shag_, ignorance of the father.\n ABISHAI, _Ab-bish\u00b4-a-i_, the present of my father, the father of the\n    sacrifice.\n ABISHALOM, _Ab-bish\u00b4-a-lom_, the father of peace, the recompence of the\n    father.\n ABISHUA, _Ab-bish\u00b4-u-a_, father of salvation or of magnificence.\n ABISHUR, _Ab\u00b4-be-shur_, the father of the wall or of uprightness.\n ABITAL, _Ab\u00b4-be-tal_, the father of the dew.\n ABITUB, _Ab\u00b4-be-tub_, father of goodness.\n ABIUD, _Ab\u00b4-be-ud_, father of praise.\n AB\u00b4NER, father of light, the son of the father.\n A\u00b4BRAHAM, the father of a great multitude.\n A\u00b4BRAM, a high father, the father of elevation.\n AB\u00b4SALOM, father of peace.\n ACCAD, _Ak\u00b4-ad_, a pitcher, a sparkle.\n ACCHO, _Ak\u00b4-ko_, close, pressed together.\n ACELDAMA, _A-kel\u00b4-da-mah_, the field of blood.\n ACHAIA, _A-kay\u00b4-yah_, grief, trouble.\n ACHAICUS, _A-kay\u00b4-e-kus_, a native of Achaia.\n ACHAN, ACHAR, _A\u00b4-kan_, _A\u00b4-kar_, he that troubles and bruises.\n ACHBOR, _Ak\u00b4-bor_, a rat, bruising.\n ACHIM, _A\u00b4-kim_, preparing, confirming, revenging.\n ACHIR, _A\u00b4-ker_, the brother\u2019s light.\n ACHISH, _A\u00b4-kish_, thus it is, how is this?\n ACHMETHA, _Ak\u00b4-me-thah_.\n ACHOR, _A\u00b4-kor_, trouble.\n ACHSAH, _Ak\u00b4-sah_, adorned, bursting of the veil.\n ACHSHAPH, _Ak\u00b4-shaph_, poison, tricks, one that breaks, the brim of any\n    thing.\n ACHZIB, _Ak\u00b4-zib_, liar, one that runs.\n ADADAH, _Ad\u00b4-a-dah_, the testimony of the assembly.\n ADAH, _Ay\u00b4-dah_, an assembly.\n ADAIAH, _Ad-a\u00b4-yah_, the witness of the Lord.\n ADALIAH, _Ad-a-ly\u00b4-ah_, one that draws water, poverty, cloud, death.\n AD\u00b4AM, earthy, taken out of red earth.\n ADAMAH, _Ad\u00b4-da-mah_, red earth.\n ADAMI, _Ad\u00b4-da-my_, my man, red, earthy.\n A\u00b4DAR, high, eminent.\n ADBEEL, _Ad\u00b4-be-el_, a vapour, a cloud of God, a vexer of God.\n AD\u00b4DI, my witness, adorned, passage, prey.\n AD\u00b4DON, basis, foundation, the Lord.\n ADIEL, _Ad\u00b4-i-el_, the witness of the Lord.\n ADIN, _Ad\u00b4-din_, adorned, dainty.\n ADITHAIM, _Ad-e-thay\u00b4-im_, assemblies, testimonies.\n ADLAI, _Ad-lay\u00b4-i_, my witness, my ornament.\n AD\u00b4MAH, earthy, red earth.\n ADMATHA, _Ad\u00b4-ma-thah_, a cloud of death, a mortal vapour.\n AD\u00b4NAH, rest, testimony, eternal.\n ADONA\u00b4I, my Lord.\n ADONI-BEZEK, _Ad\u00b4-o-ne-bee\u00b4-zek_, the lightning of the Lord, the Lord\n    of Bezek.\n ADONIJAH, _Ad-o-ny\u00b4-jah_, the Lord is my master.\n ADONIKAM, _Ad-o-ny\u00b4-kam_, the Lord is raised, my Lord hath raised me.\n ADONIRAM, _Ad-o-ny\u00b4-ram_, my Lord is most high, the Lord of might and\n    elevation.\n ADONI-ZEDEK, _Ad\u00b4-o-ne-zee\u00b4-dek_, justice of the Lord.\n ADORAIM, _Ad-o-ray\u00b4-im_, strength or power of the sea.\n ADORAM, _Ad-o\u00b4-ram_, their beauty, their power, their praise.\n ADRAMMELECH, _Ad-ram\u00b4-me-lek_, the cloak or glory of the king.\n ADRAMYTTIUM, _Ad-ra-mit\u00b4-te-um_, the court of death.\n ADRIA, _Ay\u00b4-dre-ah_, the name of a city, which gives name to the\n    Adriatic Sea, now the Gulf of Venice.\n A\u00b4DRIEL, the flock of God.\n ADULLAM, _Ad-ul\u00b4-lam_, their testimony, their prey, their ornament.\n ADUM\u00b4MIM, earthly or bloody things.\n \u00c6\u00b4NEAS, praised.\n AGABUS, _Ag\u00b4-ga-bus_, a locust, the feast of the father.\n AGAG, _Ay\u00b4-gag_, roof, floor.\n A\u00b4GAGITE, of the race of Agag.\n AGA\u00b4P\u00c6, love feasts.\n AGAR, see Hagar.\n AGI\u00b4E, a valley, deepness.\n AGRIPPA, _A-grip\u00b4-pah_, one who at his birth causes great pain.\n A\u00b4GUR, a stranger, gathering.\n A\u00b4HAB, the brother of the father.\n AHA\u00b4RAH, a sweet brother, an odoriferous meadow.\n AHAR\u00b4HEL, another host, another sorrow, the sleep of the brother.\n AHASBA\u00b4I, trusting in me, brother compassing. In Syriac, a brother of\n    age.\n AHASUERUS, _A-has-u-e\u00b4-rus_, prince, chief.\n AHAVA, _A-hay\u00b4-vah_, essence, generation.\n A\u00b4HAZ, one that takes and possesses.\n AHAZIAH, _A-ha-zy\u00b4-ah_, possession, vision of the Lord.\n AHI, my brother, my brethren.\n AHIAH, _A-hy\u00b4-ah_, brother of the Lord.\n AHIAM, _A-hy\u00b4am_, brother of the mother, brother of the nation.\n AHIAN, _A-hy\u00b4-an_, brother of wine.\n AHIE\u00b4ZER, brother of assistance.\n AHI\u00b4HUD, brother of vanity, a brother of praise.\n AHIJAH, _the same_ as Ahiah.\n AHIKAM, _A-hy\u00b4-kam_, a brother that raises up.\n AHI\u00b4LUD, a brother born.\n AHIM\u00b4AAZ, brother of the council.\n AHI\u00b4MAN, a brother prepared.\n AHIMELECH, _A-him\u00b4-me-lek_, my brother is a king.\n AHIMOTH, _A\u00b4-he-moth_, brother of death.\n AHIN\u00b4ADAB, a willing brother, a brother of a vow, brother of the\n    prince.\n AHINOAM, _A-hin\u00b4-no-am_, the beauty and comeliness of the brother.\n AHI\u00b4O, his brother, his brethren.\n AHIOR. See Achior.\n AHIRA, _A-hy\u00b4-rah_, brother of iniquity or of the shepherd.\n AHIRAM, _A-hy\u00b4-ram_, brother of craft, protection.\n AHISAMACH, _A-his\u00b4-sa-mak_, brother of strength or of support.\n AHISHABAR, _A-his\u00b4-sa-bar_, brother of the morning or dew, brother of\n    blackness.\n AHI\u00b4SHAR, brother of a prince.\n AHITHOPHEL, _A-hit\u00b4-to-fel_, brother of ruin or folly.\n AHI\u00b4TUB, brother of goodness.\n AH\u00b4LAB, which is of milk, is fat.\n AH\u00b4LAI, beseeching, sorrowing, beginning, brother to me.\n AHO\u00b4AH, a thistle, a thorn, a fish hook, brotherhood.\n AHO\u00b4HI, a living brother, my thistle or thorn.\n AHO\u00b4LAH, his tabernacle, his tent.\n AHOLIAB, _A-ho\u00b4-le-ab_, the tent or tabernacle of the father.\n AHOLIBAH, _A-ho\u00b4-le-bah_, my tent and my tabernacle in her.\n AHOLIBAMAH, _A-ho\u00b4-le-bay\u00b4-mah_, my tabernacle is exalted.\n AHRAN. See Charan.\n AHU\u00b4MAR, a meadow of waters, brother of waters.\n AHU\u00b4ZAM, their taking possession, vision.\n AHUZ\u00b4ZAH, possession, apprehension, vision.\n AI, or HAI, _Ay\u00b4-i_, mass, heap.\n AI\u00b4AH, a raven, a vulture, alas, where is it?\n AI\u00b4ATH, an hour.\n AI\u00b4N, an eye, a fountain.\n AIOTH, _the same as_ Ai.\n AJALON, _Ad\u00b4-ja-lon_, a chain, strength, a stag.\n AK\u00b4KUB, the print of the foot where any creature hath gone,\n    supplantation.\n ALAMMELECH, _Al-am\u00b4-me-lek_, God is king.\n AL\u00b4CIMUS, strong, of strength.\n AL\u00b4EMETH, a hiding, youth, worlds, upon the dead.\n AL\u00b4EMIS, strength.\n ALEXAN\u00b4DER, one that assists men, one that turns away evil.\n ALEXANDRIA, _Al-ex-an\u00b4-dre-a_, the city of Alexander.\n ALLELUIA, _Al-le-lu\u00b4-yah_, praise the Lord.\n A\u00b4LIAN, high.\n AL\u00b4LON, an oak.\n ALLON-BACHUTH, _Al\u00b4-lon-bak\u00b4-kuth_, the oak of weeping.\n ALMO\u00b4DAD, measure of God.\n AL\u00b4MON, hidden.\n AL\u00b4MON-DIB\u00b4LATHAIM, a hiding, a heap of fig trees.\n ALPHA, _Al\u00b4-fah_, the first letter of the Greek alphabet, marked A.\n ALPHEUS, _Al-fe\u00b4-us_, a thousand, chief.\n A\u00b4MAD, a people of witness, people everlasting.\n AM\u00b4ALEK, a people that licks up or uses ill.\n AMAL\u00b4EKITES, people descended from Amalek.\n A\u00b4MAM, mother, fear of them, people.\n AMANA, _Am-ay\u00b4-nah_, integrity and truth.\n AMARIAH, _Am-a-ry\u00b4-ah_, the Lord says, the excellency of the Lord.\n AMASA, _Am-ay\u00b4-sah_, a forgiving people, the burden of the people.\n AMAZIAH, _Am-a-zy\u00b4-ah_, the strength of the Lord.\n A\u00b4MI. See Amam.\n AM\u00b4MAH, my people.\n AMMI, the same as Ammah.\n AMMIHUD, _Am\u00b4-me-hud_, people of praise.\n AMMINADAB, _Am-min\u00b4-na-dab_, prince of the people, a people that vows.\n AMMISHADDAI, _Am-me-shad\u00b4-day-i_, the people of the Almighty.\n AM\u00b4MON, the son of my people.\n AM\u00b4MONITES, a people descended from Benammi, son of Lot.\n AM\u00b4NON, faithful and true, foster father.\n AMON, _Ay\u00b4-mon_, faithful, true.\n AM\u00b4ORITE, bitter, a rebel, a babbler.\n AMOS, _Ay\u00b4-mos_, loading, weighty.\n AMOZ, _Ay\u00b4-moz_, strong, robust.\n AMPHIPOLIS, _Am-fip\u00b4-po-lis_, a city encompassed by the sea.\n AMPLIAS, _Am\u00b4-ple-as_, large, extensive.\n AM\u00b4RAM, an exalted people, handfuls of corn.\n AMRAPHEL, _Am\u00b4-ra-fel_, one that speaks of hidden things or of ruin.\n AM\u00b4ZI, strong, mighty.\n A\u00b4NAB, a grape, a knot.\n ANAH, _Ay\u00b4-nah_, one who answers or sings, poor, afflicted.\n ANAK, _Ay\u00b4-nak_, a collar, an ornament.\n ANAKIMS, _An\u00b4-ak-ims_. See Anak.\n ANAMMELECH, _An-am\u00b4-me-lek_, answer, song of the king.\n A\u00b4NAN, a cloud, a prophecy.\n ANANIAS, _An-a-ny\u00b4-as_, the cloud of the Lord.\n ANATHOTH, _An\u00b4-a-thoth_, answer, affliction.\n ANDREW, _An\u00b4drue_, a stout and strong man.\n ANDRONICUS, _An-dron\u00b4-ne-kus_, a man excelling others.\n ANER, _Ay\u00b4-ner_, answer, song, affliction.\n AN\u00b4NA, gracious, merciful.\n AN\u00b4NAS, one that answers, that afflicts.\n AN\u00b4TICHRIST, an adversary to Christ.\n ANTIOCH, _An\u00b4-te-ok_, instead of a chariot.\n AN\u00b4TIPAS, against all.\n ANTIPATRIS, _An-te-pay\u00b4-tris_, against his own father.\n APELLES, _A-pel\u00b4-lees_, to exclude, to separate.\n APHEK, _Ay\u00b4-fek_, a stream, vigour.\n APOLLONIA, _Ap-po-lo\u00b4-ne-ah_, perdition.\n APOL\u00b4LOS, one that destroys and lays waste.\n APOLLYON, _A-pol\u00b4-le-on_, one that exterminates or destroys.\n APPHIA, _Af\u00b4-e-ah_, that is fruitful.\n APPII-FORUM, _Ap\u00b4-pe-i-fo\u00b4-rum_, a town so called from Appius Claudius,\n    whose statue was erected there.\n AQUILA, _Ak\u00b4-we-lah_, an eagle.\n AR, awaking, uncovering.\n ARA\u00b4BIA, evening, a place wild and desert; mixtures, because this\n    country was inhabited by different kinds of people.\n ARA\u00b4BIAN, an inhabitant of Arabia.\n A\u00b4RAD, a wild ass, a dragon.\n A\u00b4RAM, magnificence, one that deceives.\n ARARAT, _Ar\u00b4-ra-rat_, the curse of trembling.\n ARAUNAH, _A-raw\u00b4-nah_, ark, song, curse.\n AR\u00b4BA, the city of the four.\n ARCHELAUS, _Ar-ke\u00b4-lay-us_, the prince of the people.\n ARCHIPPUS, _Ar-kip\u00b4-pus_, governor of horses.\n ARCTURUS, _Ark-tew\u00b4-rus_, a gathering together.\n ARD, one that commands.\n ARELI, _Ar-e\u00b4-lie_, the light or vision of God.\n AREOPAGITE, _A-re-op\u00b4-a-gyte_, belonging to the council called\n    Areopagus.\n AREOPAGUS, _A-re-op\u00b4-a-gus_, the hill of Mars; a place where the\n    magistrates of Athens held their supreme council; from \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cof\n    Mars,\u201d and \u03d6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ca hill.\u201d\n ARETAS, _A-re\u00b4-tas_, one that is agreeable or virtuous.\n AR\u00b4GOB, a turf of earth, curse of the well.\n ARIEL, _Ay\u00b4-re-el_, the altar, light, lion of God.\n ARIMATHEA, _Ar-re-ma-the\u00b4-ah_, a lion dead to the Lord. Ramath, or\n    Ramah, a city where Samuel dwelt.\n ARIOCH, _Ar\u00b4-e-ok_, long, your drunkenness, your lion.\n ARISTARCHUS, _A-ris-tar\u00b4-kus_, the best prince.\n ARISTOBULUS, _A-ris-tob\u00b4-bu-lus_, a good counsellor.\n ARMAGEDDON, _Ar-ma-ged\u00b4-don_, the mountain of Megiddo, of the gospel,\n    of fruits.\n ARMENIA, _Ar-me\u00b4-ne-ah_, a province which is supposed to take its name\n    from Aram.\n AR\u00b4NON, rejoicing, their ark.\n AR\u00b4OER, heath, tamarisk, the nakedness of the skin or of the enemy.\n AR\u00b4PAD, the light of redemption, that lies down.\n ARPHAXAD, _Ar-fak\u00b4s-ad_, one that heals or releases.\n ARTAXERXES, _Ar-taks-erk\u00b4s-es_, in Hebrew, Artachsasta, the silence of\n    light.\n ARTEMAS, _Ar\u00b4-te-mas_, whole, sound.\n ASA, _Ay\u00b4-sah_, physician, cure.\n ASAHEL, _As\u00b4-a-el_, the work or creature of God.\n ASAIAH, _As\u00b4-a-i-ah_, the Lord hath wrought.\n ASAPH, _Ay\u00b4-saf_, one that assembles together.\n ASENATH, _As\u00b4-e-nath_, peril, misfortune.\n A\u00b4SHAN, vapour, smoke.\n ASH\u00b4DOD, inclination, a wild open place.\n ASH\u00b4ER, blessedness.\n AS\u00b4HIEL, the work of God.\n ASHIMA, _Ash\u00b4-e-mah_, crime, position, fire of the sea.\n ASHKENAZ, _Ash\u00b4-ke-naz_, a fire that distils or spreads.\n ASHTAROTH, _Ash\u00b4-ta-roth_, flocks, riches.\n ASH\u00b4UR, one that is happy.\n ASH\u00b4VATH, making vestments.\n ASIA, _Ay\u00b4-she-a_, muddy, boggy.\n AS\u00b4KELON, weight, balance, fire of infamy.\n ASNAP\u00b4PER, unhappiness, fruitless.\n ASSIR, prisoner, fettered.\n AS\u00b4SOS, approaching.\n ASSYRIA, _As-sir\u00b4-re-a_.\n ASSYRIAN, _As-sir\u00b4-re-an_.\n ASYNCRITUS, _A-sin\u00b4-kre-tus_, incomparable.\n A\u00b4TAD, a thorn.\n ATA\u00b4ROTH, crowns, counsel of making full.\n ATHALIAH, _Ath-a-ly\u00b4-ah_, the time of the Lord.\n ATHENIANS, _Ath-ee\u00b4-ne-ans_, inhabitants of Athens.\n ATH\u00b4ENS, so called from Athene, Minerva.\n ATTALIA, _At-ta-ly\u00b4-ah_, that increases or sends.\n A\u00b4VEN, iniquity, force, riches.\n AUGUS\u00b4TUS, increased, majestic.\n AZARIAH, _Az-a-ry\u00b4-ah_, assistance, he that hears the Lord.\n AZEKAH, _Az-ee\u00b4-kah_, strength of walls.\n AZ\u00b4GAD, a strong army, a gang of robbers.\n AZNOTH-TABOR, _Az\u00b4-noth-tay\u00b4-bor_, the ears of Tabor, of choice,\n    purity, contrition.\n AZO\u00b4TUS, _the same as_ Ashdod.\n A\u00b4ZUR, he that assists, that is assisted.\n\n BAAL, _Bay\u00b4-al_, he that rules and subdues.\n BAALAH, _Bay\u00b4-al-ah_, her idol, a spouse; the name of a city.\n BAAL-BERITH, _Bay\u00b4-al-be\u00b4-rith_, idol of the covenant.\n BAAL-GAD, _Bay\u00b4-al-gad\u00b4_, the idol of the troop, the Lord is master of\n    the troop.\n BAAL-HAMON, _Bay\u00b4-al-hay\u00b4-mon_, one that rules a multitude, a populous\n    place.\n BAAL-HAZER, _Bay\u00b4-al-hay\u00b4-zer_, lord of court, possessor of grace.\n BA\u00b4AL-HER\u00b4MON, the possessor of destruction, of a thing devoted to God.\n BA\u00b4ALI, my idol, or master.\n BA\u00b4ALIM, idols, masters.\n BA\u00b4ALIS, a rejoicing, proud lord.\n BAAL-MEON, _Bay\u00b4-al-me\u00b4-on_, the idol, the master of the house.\n BAAL-PEOR, _Bay\u00b4-al-pe\u00b4-or_, master of the opening.\n BAAL-PERAZIM, _Bay\u00b4-al-per\u00b4-a-zim_, master, or god of divisions.\n BAAL-SHALISHA, _Bay\u00b4-al-shal\u00b4-e-shah_, the third idol, the third\n    husband.\n BAAL-TAMAR, _Bay\u00b4-al-tay\u00b4-mar_, master of the palm tree.\n BAAL-ZEBUB, _Bay\u00b4-al-ze\u00b4-bub_, the master of flies.\n BAAL-ZEPHON, _Bay\u00b4-al-ze\u00b4-fon_, the idol of the north, secret.\n BAANAH, _Bay\u00b4-a-nah_, in the answer, in affliction.\n BAA\u00b4RAH, a flame, purging.\n BAASHAH, _Ba-ay\u00b4-shah_, in the work, he that demands, who lays waste.\n BA\u00b4BEL, confusion, mixture.\n BABYLON, _Bab\u00b4-be-lon_. See Babel.\n BABYLONIANS, _Bab-be-lo\u00b4-ne-ans_.\n BABYLONISH, _Bab-be-lo\u00b4-nish_.\n BACA, _Bay\u00b4-kah_, mulberry tree.\n BAHURIM, _Ba-hew\u00b4-rim_, choice, warlike.\n BA\u00b4JITH, a house.\n BALAAM, _Bay\u00b4-lam_, the old age or ancient of the people, without the\n    people.\n BALA\u00b4DAN, one without rule or judgment, ancient in judgment.\n BA\u00b4LAK, who lays waste, who laps.\n BA\u00b4MAH, an eminence.\n BARABBAS, _Bar-ab\u00b4-bas_, son of the father or of confusion.\n BARACHEL, _Bar\u00b4-a-kel_, who blesses God.\n BARACHIAS, _Bar\u00b4-a-ky-as_, the same as Barachel.\n BA\u00b4RAK, thunder, in vain.\n BAR-JE\u00b4SUS, son of Jesus.\n BAR-JO\u00b4NA, son of Jona or of a dove.\n BAR\u00b4NABAS, the son of the prophet or of consolation.\n BAR\u00b4SABAS, son of return, of rest, of swearing.\n BARTHOL\u00b4OMEW, a son that suspends the waters.\n BARTIMEUS, _Bar-te-me\u00b4-us_, the son of Timeus or of the honourable.\n BARUCH, _Bay\u00b4-ruk_, who is blessed, who bends the knee.\n BARZILLAI, _Bar-zil\u00b4-la-i_, made of iron, son of contempt.\n BA\u00b4SHAN, in the tooth, in the change or sleep.\n BASHEMATH, _Bash\u00b4-e-math_, perfumed, in desolation.\n BATH-SHEBA, _Bath-she\u00b4-bah_ or _Bath\u00b4-she-bah_, the seventh daughter,\n    the daughter of an oath.\n BATHSHU\u00b4A, the daughter of salvation.\n BE\u00b4DAD, alone, in friendship.\n BE\u00b4DAN, only, in the judgment.\n BEEL-ZEBUB, _Be-el\u00b4-ze-bub_. See Baal-zebub.\n BEER, _Be\u00b4-er_, a well, the name of a city.\n BEER-LAHAI-ROI, _Be\u00b4-er-la-hay\u00b4-e-roy_, the well of him that liveth and\n    seeth me.\n BEER-SHEBA, _Be\u00b4-er-she\u00b4-bah_, the well of an oath, of satiety, the\n    seventh well.\n BE\u00b4KAH, half a shekel.\n BEL, ancient, nothing, subject to change.\n BELIAL, _Bee\u00b4-le-al_, wicked, the devil.\n BELSHAZ\u00b4ZAR, master of the treasure.\n BELTESHAZ\u00b4ZAR, who lays up treasures in secret, secretly endures pain\n    and pressure.\n BENAIAH, _Ben-ay\u00b4-yah_, son of the Lord, the Lord\u2019s building.\n BEN-AM\u00b4MI, the son of my people.\n BENHA\u00b4DAD, the son of Hadad, of noise.\n BEN\u00b4JAMIN, the son of the right hand.\n BEN\u00b4JAMITE, a descendant of Benjamin.\n BENONI, _Ben-o\u00b4-ny_, son of my grief.\n BE\u00b4OR, burning, mad, beast.\n BERACHAH, _Ber\u00b4-a-kah_, blessing.\n BER\u00c6A, _Be-ree\u00b4-ah_, heavy, from \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n BE\u00b4RITH, covenant.\n BERNICE, _Ber-ny\u00b4-se_, one that brings victory.\n BE\u00b4SOR, glad news, incarnation.\n BE\u00b4TAH, confidence.\n BETHABARA, _Beth-ab\u00b4-ba-rah_, the house of passage, of anger.\n BETH\u00b4ANY, the house of song, of affliction, of obedience, the grace of\n    the Lord.\n BETH-A\u00b4VEN, the house of vanity, of strength.\n BETH-BIREI, _Beth-bir\u00b4-re-i_, the house of my Creator.\n BETH\u00b4-CAR, the house of the lamb, of knowledge.\n BETH-DA\u00b4GON, the house of corn, of the fish, of the god Dagon.\n BETH-DIBLATHAIM, _Beth-dib-la-thay\u00b4-im_, the house of dry figs.\n BETH\u00b4EL, the house of God.\n BETHELITE, _Beth\u00b4-el-ite_, an inhabitant of Bethel.\n BE\u00b4THER, division, in the turtle, in the trial.\n BETHES\u00b4DA, the house of effusion, of pity.\n BETH-E\u00b4ZEL, a neighbour\u2019s house.\n BETH-GAMUL, _Beth-gay\u00b4-mul_, the house of recompense, of the weaned, of\n    the camel.\n BETH-HACCEREM, _Beth-hak\u00b4-ke-rem_, the house of the vineyard.\n BETH-HO\u00b4RON, the house of wrath, of the hole, of liberty.\n BETHJESH\u00b4IMOTH, the house of desolation.\n BETH\u00b4-LEHEM, the house of bread, of war.\n BETH-LEHEM-EPHRATAH, _Beth\u00b4-le-hem-eff-ray\u00b4-tah_ or _eff\u00b4-ra-tah_.\n BETH\u00b4-LEHEM-JU\u00b4DAH.\n BETH\u00b4-LEHEMITE, an inhabitant of Bethlehem.\n BETH-PE\u00b4OR, the house of gaping.\n BETHPHAGE, _Beth\u00b4-fa-je_, the house of the mouth, of early figs.\n BETHSAIDA, _Beth-say\u00b4-dah_, the house of fruits, of hunters.\n BETH\u00b4-SHAN, the house of the tooth, of change, of sleep.\n BETH-SHE\u00b4MESH, the house of the sun.\n BETHUEL, _Beth-ew\u00b4-el_, filiation of God.\n BEULAH, _Bew\u00b4-lah_, married.\n BEZALEEL, _Bez-a-lee\u00b4-el_, in the shadow of God.\n BE\u00b4ZEK, lightning, in chains.\n BICHRI, _Bick\u00b4-ry_, first-born, in the ram.\n BID\u00b4KAR, in compunction, in sharp pain.\n BIG\u00b4THAN, giving meat.\n BIL\u00b4DAD, old friendship.\n BIL\u00b4HAH, who is old, troubled, confused.\n BIR\u00b4SHA, in evil, son that beholds.\n BITHIAH, _Be-thy\u00b4-ah_, daughter of the Lord.\n BITH\u00b4RON, division, in his examination, daughter of the song, of anger,\n    of liberty.\n BITHYNIA, _Be-thin\u00b4-e-ah_, violent precipitation.\n BLAS\u00b4TUS, one that sprouts and brings forth.\n BOANERGES, _Bo-a-ner\u00b4-jes_, the sons of thunder; James and John, the\n    sons of Zebedee.\n BO\u00b4AZ, or BO\u00b4OZ, in strength, in the goat.\n BOCHIM, _Bo\u00b4-kim_, the place of weeping, of mulberry trees.\n BO\u00b4ZEZ, mud, in the flower.\n BOZ\u00b4RAH, in tribulation or distress.\n BUL, changeable, perishing.\n BUZ, despised, plundered.\n BUZI, _Bew\u00b4-zye_, my contempt.\n BUZITE, _Bew\u00b4-zyte_, a descendant from Buz.\n\n CABUL, _Kay\u00b4-bul_, displeasing, dirt.\n C\u00c6SAR, _See\u00b4-sar_, one cut out.\n C\u00c6SAREA, _Ses-a-ree\u00b4-a_, a bush of hair.\n CAIAPHAS, _Kay\u00b4-a-fas_, a searcher.\n CAIN, _Kay\u00b4n_, possession.\n CAINAN, _Kay\u00b4-nan_, possessor, one that laments.\n CA\u00b4LAH, good opportunity, as the verdure.\n CA\u00b4LEB, a dog, a crow, a basket.\n CALEB-EPHRATAH, _Kay\u00b4-leb-ef-ray\u00b4-tah_ or _ef\u00b4-ra-tah_, a place so\n    called by a conjunction of the names of Caleb and his wife Ephratah.\n CALNEH, _Kal\u00b4-nay_, our consummation, all we, as murmuring.\n CAL\u00b4NO, our consummation, quite himself.\n CAL\u00b4VARY, the place of a skull.\n CA\u00b4MON, his resurrection.\n CA\u00b4NA, zeal, possession, nest, cane.\n CANAAN, _Kay\u00b4-nan_, a merchant, a trader. The son of Ham, who gave name\n    to the land of Canaan.\n CANAANITE, _Kay\u00b4-nan-ite_, an inhabitant of Canaan.\n CANDACE, _Kan-day\u00b4-se_, who possesses contrition.\n CAPERNAUM, _Ka-per\u00b4-na-um_, the field of repentance, city of comfort.\n CAPHTOR, _Kaf\u00b4-tor_, a sphere, a buckle, a hand, doves, those that seek\n    and inquire.\n CAPPADOCIA, _Kap-pa-do\u00b4-she-a_, in Hebrew, Caphtor.\n CARCAS, _Kar\u00b4-kas_, the covering of a lamb.\n CARCHEMISH, _Kar\u00b4-ke-mish_, a lamb, as taken away.\n CAR\u00b4MEL, a circumcised lamb, harvest, vineyard of God.\n CARMELITE, _Kar\u00b4-me-lyte_, an inhabitant of Mount Carmel.\n CAR\u00b4MI, my vineyard, the knowledge or the lamb of the waters.\n CAR\u00b4PUS, fruit, fruitful.\n CASIPHIA, _Ka-se-fy\u00b4-a_, money, covetousness.\n CAS\u00b4TOR, a beaver.\n CEDRON, _See\u00b4-dron_ or _Kee\u00b4-dron_, black, sad.\n CENCHREA, _Senk\u00b4-re-a_, millet, small pulse.\n CEPHAS, _See\u00b4-fas_ or _Kee\u00b4-fas_, a rock or stone.\n CE\u00b4SAR. See C\u00e6sar.\n CESAREA, _Ses-a-ree\u00b4-a_. See C\u00e6sarea.\n CHALCOL, _Kal\u00b4-kol_, who nourishes, sustains the whole.\n CHALDEA, _Kal-dee\u00b4-a_, as demons, as robbers.\n CHALDEAN, _Kal-dee\u00b4-an_, an inhabitant of Chaldea.\n CHALDEES, _Kal-deez\u00b4_, the same as Chaldeans.\n CHARRAN, _Kar\u00b4-ran_, a singing, the heat of wrath.\n CHEBAR, _Ke\u00b4-bar_, strength or power.\n CHEDORLAOMER, _Ke\u00b4-dor-la-o\u00b4-mer_, as a generation of servitude.\n CHEMARIMS, _Kem\u00b4-a-rims_, the name of Baal\u2019s priests.\n CHEMOSH, _Ke\u00b4-mosh_, as handling, as taking away.\n CHENANIA, _Ke-na-ny\u00b4-ah_, preparation, rectitude of the Lord.\n CHERETHIMS, _Ker\u00b4-eth-ims_, who cuts, tears away.\n CHERETHITES, _Ker\u00b4-eth-ites_. See Cherethims.\n CHERITH, _Ke\u00b4-rith_, cutting, piercing, slaying.\n CHESED, _Ke\u00b4-sed_, as a devil, a destroyer.\n CHILEAB, _Kil\u00b4-le-ab_, totality or perfection of the father.\n CHILION, _Kil\u00b4-le-on_, finished, complete.\n CHILMAD, _Kil\u00b4-mad_, as teaching or learning.\n CHIMHAM, _Kim\u00b4-ham_, as they, like to them.\n CHIOS, _Ky\u00b4-os_, open, opening.\n CHISLEU, _Kis\u00b4-lu_, rashness, confidence.\n CHITTIM, _Chit\u00b4-tim_, those that bruise, gold, staining.\n CHIUN, _Ky\u00b4-un_, an Egyptian god, whom some think to be Saturn.\n CHLOE, _Klo\u00b4-e_, green herb.\n CHORAZIN, _Ko-ray\u00b4-zin_, the secret, here is a mystery.\n CHUSHAN-RISHATHAIM, _Kew\u00b4-shan-rish-a-thay\u00b4-im_, Ethiopian, blackness\n    of iniquities.\n CHUZA, _Kew\u00b4-zah_, the prophet, Ethiopian.\n CILICIA, _Sil-ish\u00b4-e-a_, which rolls or overturns.\n CLAUDA, _Klaw\u00b4-dah_, a broken voice, a lamentable voice.\n CLAUDIA, _Klaw\u00b4-de-ah_, lame.\n CLE\u00b4MENT, mild, good, merciful.\n CLEOPHAS, _Klee\u00b4-o-fas_, the whole glory.\n COLOSSE, _Ko-los\u00b4-see_, punishment, correction.\n CONIAH, _Ko-ny\u00b4-ah_, the strength or stability of the Lord.\n CO\u00b4RINTH, which is satisfied, beauty.\n CORIN\u00b4THIANS, inhabitants of Corinth.\n CORNE\u00b4LIUS, a horn.\n COZ\u00b4BI, a liar, as sliding away.\n CRESCENS, _Kres\u00b4-sens_, growing, increasing.\n CRETE, _Kree\u00b4t_, carnal, fleshly.\n CRETES, _Kree\u00b4ts_, inhabitants of Crete.\n CRETIANS, _Kree\u00b4-she-ans_, the same as Cretes.\n CRISPUS, _Kris\u00b4-pus_, curled.\n CUSH, Ethiopian, black.\n CUSH\u00b4AN, Ethiopia, blackness, heat.\n CUSH\u00b4I, the same as Cushan.\n CYPRUS, _Sy\u00b4-prus_, fair, fairness.\n CYRENE, _Sy-re\u00b4-ne_, a wall, coldness, meeting, a floor.\n CYRENEANS, _Sy-re\u00b4-ne-ans_, people of Cyrene.\n CYRENIUS, _Sy-re\u00b4-ne-us_, who governs.\n CYRUS, _Sy\u00b4-rus_, as miserable, as heir, the belly.\n\n DABBASHETH, _Dab\u00b4-ba-sheth_, flowing with honey, causing infamy.\n DABERATH, _Dab\u00b4-be-rath_, word, thing, bee, submissive.\n DA\u00b4GON, corn, a fish.\n DALMANUTHA, _Dal-ma-new\u00b4-thah_, a bucket, leanness, branch.\n DALMATIA, _Dal-may\u00b4-she-a_, deceitful lamps, vain brightness.\n DAMARIS, _Dam\u00b4-a-ris_, a little woman.\n DAMAS\u00b4CUS, a sack full of blood, similitude of burning.\n DAN, judgment, he that judges.\n DAN\u00b4IEL, judgment of God.\n DA\u00b4RA, generation, house of the shepherd, companion, race of\n    wickedness.\n DARIUS, _Da-ry\u00b4-us_, he that inquires and informs himself.\n DA\u00b4THAN, laws, rites.\n DA\u00b4VID, beloved, dear.\n DEB\u00b4ORAH, a word, a bee.\n DECAPOLIS, _De-kap\u00b4-po-lis_, a Greek word compounded of \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1, _ten_,\n    and \u03d6\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, a _city_, because this country contained ten cities.\n DE\u00b4DAN, their breasts, friendship, uncle.\n DEDANIM, _Ded\u00b4-an-im_, descendants of Dedan.\n DEL\u00b4ILAH, poor, head of hair, bucket.\n DE\u00b4MAS, popular.\n DEMETRIUS, _De-me\u00b4-tre-us_, belonging to Ceres, to corn.\n DER\u00b4BE, a sting.\n DEUEL, _De-ew\u00b4-el_, the knowledge of God.\n DIANA, _Dy-ay\u00b4-nah_, luminous, perfect.\n DI\u00b4BON, understanding, abundance of building.\n DI\u00b4BON-GAD, abundance of sons, happy and powerful.\n DIDYMUS, _Did\u00b4-e-mus_, a twin.\n DI\u00b4MON, where it is red.\n DI\u00b4NAH, judgment, who judges.\n DIN\u00b4HABAH, she gives judgment.\n DIONYSIUS, _Dy-o-nish\u00b4-e-us_, divinely touched; from \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, _divine_,\n    and \u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, _I move_.\n DIOTREPHES, _Di-ot\u00b4-re-feez_, nourished by Jupiter; from \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, of\n    _Jupiter_, and \u03c4\u03c1\u1f72\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, _a foster-child_.\n DO\u00b4EG, who acts with uneasiness, a fisherman.\n DOR, generation, habitation.\n DOR\u00b4CAS, the female of a roe-buck.\n DO\u00b4THAN, the law, custom.\n DRUSILLA, _Drew-sil\u00b4-lah_, watered by the dew; from \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, _the dew_.\n DUMAH, _Dew\u00b4-mah_, silence, resemblance.\n DURA, _Dew\u00b4-rah_, generation, habitation.\n\n EASTER, _Ee\u00b4s-ter_, the passover, a feast of the Jews.\n E\u00b4BAL, a heap, collection of old age.\n E\u00b4BED, a servant or labourer.\n EBED-MELECH, _Ee\u00b4-bed-me\u00b4-lek_, the king\u2019s servant.\n EBEN-EZER, _Eb-en-ee\u00b4-zer_, the stone of help.\n E\u00b4BER, one that passes, anger, wrath.\n EBIASAPH, _E-by\u00b4-a-saf_, a father that gathers together.\n ED, witness.\n E\u00b4DEN, pleasure, delight.\n E\u00b4DOM, red, earthy, red earth.\n E\u00b4DOMITE, a descendant of Esau, of Edom.\n EDREI, _Ed\u00b4-re-i_, a very great mass, cloud, death of the wicked.\n EG\u00b4LAH, heifer, chariot, round.\n EGLAIM, _Eg-lay\u00b4-im_, drops of the sea.\n EG\u00b4LON, the same as Eglah.\n E\u00b4GYPT, in Hebrew, Mizraim; that binds or straitens, that troubles or\n    oppresses.\n EGYP\u00b4TIAN, an inhabitant of Egypt.\n E\u00b4HUD, he that praises.\n EK\u00b4RON, barrenness, torn away.\n EK\u00b4RONITES, inhabitants of Ekron.\n E\u00b4LAH, an oak, oath, imprecation.\n E\u00b4LAM, a young man, a virgin, secret, an age.\n E\u00b4LAMITES, descendants of Elam.\n E\u00b4LATH, a hind, strength, an oak.\n EL-BETH\u00b4EL, the God of Bethel.\n EL\u00b4DAD, loved or favoured of God.\n ELEALEH, El-e-ay\u00b4-leh ascension or burnt-offering of God.\n ELEAZAR, _El-e-ay\u00b4-zar_, the help or court of God.\n EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL, _El-el-ho\u00b4-he-is\u00b4-ra-el_, God, the God of Israel.\n ELHA\u00b4NAN, grace, gift, or mercy of God.\n E\u00b4LI, _E\u00b4li_, my God, my God.\n E\u00b4LI, the offering or lifting up.\n ELI\u00b4AB, God my father.\n ELIADA, _E-ly\u00b4-a-da_ or _E-le-ay\u00b4-da_, the knowledge of God.\n ELIAKIM, _E-ly\u00b4-a-kim_, the resurrection of God, God the avenger.\n ELI\u00b4AM, the people of God.\n ELI\u00b4AS. See Elijah.\n ELIASHIB, _E-ly\u00b4-a-shib_, the God of conversion.\n ELIATHAH, _E-ly\u00b4-a-thah_, thou art my God, my God comes.\n ELIEZER, _E-le-ee\u00b4-zer_, help or court of my God.\n ELIHOREPH, _E-le-ho\u00b4-ref_, the God of winter, of youth.\n ELI\u00b4HU, he is my God himself.\n ELI\u00b4JAH, God the Lord, the strong Lord.\n ELI\u00b4KA, pelican of God.\n E\u00b4LIM, the rams, the strong, the stags, the valleys.\n ELIMELECH, _E-lim\u00b4-me-lek_, my God is king.\n ELIOENAI, _El-e-o\u00b4-en-a-i_, toward him are my eyes, my fountains,\n    toward him is my poverty or misery.\n ELIPHALET, _E-lif\u00b4-fa-let_, the God of deliverance.\n ELIPHAZ, _E-ly\u00b4-faz_, the endeavour of God.\n ELISABETH, _E-liz\u00b4-a-beth_, God hath sworn, the fulness of God.\n ELI\u00b4SHA, salvation of God.\n ELI\u00b4SHAH, son of Javan; it is God, God that gives help.\n ELISHAMAH, _E-lish\u00b4-a-mah_, God hearing.\n ELISHEBA, _E-lish\u00b4-e-ba_. See Elisabeth.\n ELISHUA, _El-e-shew\u00b4-ah_, God is my salvation.\n ELIUD, _E-ly\u00b4-ud_, God is my praise.\n ELI\u00b4ZUR, God is my strength, my rock.\n ELKA\u00b4NAH, God the jealous, the reed of God.\n ELMO\u00b4DAM, the God of measure, of the garment.\n ELNA\u00b4THAN, God has given.\n E\u00b4LON, oak, grove, strong.\n E\u00b4LUL, cry, outcry.\n ELUZAI, _E-lu\u00b4-za-i_, God is my strength.\n ELYMAS, _El\u00b4-e-mas_, in Arabic, a magician.\n E\u00b4MIMS, fears of terrors, people.\n EMMAUS, _Em-may\u00b4-us_ or _Em\u00b4-ma-us_, people despised.\n EM\u00b4MOR, an ass.\n E\u00b4NAM, a fountain or well, the eyes of them.\n EN\u00b4DOR, fountain or eye of generation.\n ENE\u00b4AS, laudable; from \u1f00\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9, \u201cI praise.\u201d\n EN-EGLAIM, _En-eg-lay\u00b4-im_, the eye of the calves, of the chariots, of\n    roundness.\n EN-GEDI, _En-ge\u00b4-dy_, fountain of the goat, of happiness.\n EN-MISH\u00b4PAT, fountain of judgment.\n ENOCH, _Ee\u00b4-nok_, dedicated, disciplined, well regulated.\n ENON, _Ee\u00b4-non_, cloud, his fountain.\n ENOS, _Ee\u00b4-nos_, fallen man, subject to all kind of evil.\n EX-ROGEL, _En-ro\u00b4-gel_, the fuller\u2019s fountain.\n EN-SHEMESH, _En-she\u00b4-mesh_, fountain of the sun.\n EPAPHRAS, _Ep\u00b4-pa-fras_, covered with foam.\n EPAPHRODITUS, _E-paf-ro-dy\u00b4-tus_, agreeable, handsome.\n EPENETUS, _E-pe-nee\u00b4-tus_, laudable, worthy of praise.\n EPHAH, _Ee\u00b4-fah_, weary, to fly as a bird.\n EPHES-DAMMIM, _E\u00b4-fez-dam\u00b4-mim_, the effusion or drop of blood.\n EPHESIANS, _E-fee\u00b4-se-ans_, the people of Ephesus.\n EPHESUS, _Ef\u00b4-fe-sus_, desirable; chief city of Asia Minor.\n EPHPHATHA, _Ef\u00b4-fa-tha_, be opened.\n EPHRAIM, _Ee\u00b4-fra-im_, that brings forth fruit or grows.\n E\u00b4PHRAIMITE, a descendant of Ephraim.\n EPHRATAH, _Eff-ray\u00b4-tah_, abundance, bearing fruit.\n EPHRATH, _Eff\u00b4-rath_, See Ephratah.\n EPHRATHITE, _Eff\u00b4-rath-ite_, an inhabitant of Ephratah, or a descendant\n    from Ephraim.\n EPHRON, _Ef\u00b4-ron_, dust.\n EPICUREANS, _Ep-e-kew-re\u00b4-ans_, who gives assistance; from the Greek\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u0223\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9, I help.\n ER, watch, enemy.\n ERAS\u00b4TUS, lovely, amiable.\n E\u00b4RECH, length, health.\n ESAIAS, _E-zay\u00b4-e-as_. See Isaia.\n ESAR-HADDON, _E\u00b4-sar-had-\u00b4don_, that binds, joy, or closes the point.\n E\u00b4SAU, he that does or finishes.\n E\u00b4SEK, contention.\n ESH-BA\u00b4AL, the fire of the idol.\n ESH\u00b4COL, a bunch of grapes.\n ESHTAOL, _Esh\u00b4-ta-ol_, stout, strong woman.\n ESHTEMOA, _Esh-te-mo\u00b4-a_, which is heard, the bosom of a woman.\n ES\u00b4LI, near me, he that separates.\n ES\u00b4ROM, the dart of joy, division of the song.\n ESTHER, _Ess\u00b4-ter_, secret, hidden.\n E\u00b4TAM, their bird or covering.\n E\u00b4THAM, their strength or sign.\n E\u00b4THAN, strong, the gift of the island.\n ETHANIM, _Eth\u00b4-an-im_, strong, valiant.\n ETHBAAL, _Eth-bay\u00b4-al_, toward the idol, he that rules.\n ETHIOPIA, _Ee-the-o\u00b4-pe-a_, in Hebrew, Cush, blackness; in Greek it\n    signifies heat, from \u1f04\u03b9\u03b8\u03c9, _I burn_, and \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, _face_.\n ETHIOPIANS, _Ee-the-o\u00b4-pe-ans_, Africans.\n EUBULUS, _Yew\u00b4-bu-lus_, a prudent counsellor.\n EUNICE, _Yew-ny\u00b4-se_, good victory.\n EUODIAS, _Yew-o\u00b4-de-as_, sweet scent.\n EUPHRATES, _Yew-fray\u00b4-tes_, that makes fruitful.\n EUROC\u00b4LYDON, the north-east wind.\n EUTYCHUS, _Yew\u00b4-te-kus_, happy, fortunate.\n EVE, living, enlivening.\n EVIL-MERODACH, _Ee\u00b4-vil-me-ro\u00b4-dak_, or _mer\u00b4-o-dak_, the fool of\n    Merodach, despising the bitterness of the fool.\n EZEKIEL, _E-zee\u00b4-ke-el_, the strength of God.\n E\u00b4ZEL, going abroad, distillation.\n EZION-GEBER, _E\u00b4-ze-on-ge\u00b4-ber_, the wood of the man, counsel of the\n    man, of the strong.\n EZ\u00b4RA, a helper.\n\n FE\u00b4LIX, happy, prosperous.\n FES\u00b4TUS, festival, joyful.\n FORTUNA\u00b4TUS, happy, prosperous.\n\n GAAL, _Gay\u00b4al_, contempt, abomination.\n GAASH, _Gay\u00b4-ash_, tempest, overthrow.\n GABBATHA, _Gab\u00b4-ba-tha_, high, elevated. In Greek, _lithostrotos_,\n    paved with stones.\n GA\u00b4BRIEL, God is my strength.\n GAD, a band, happy, armed and prepared.\n GADARENES, _Gad-a-ree\u00b4ns_, surrounded, walled.\n GAD\u00b4DI, my happiness, my troop, a kid.\n GADDIEL, _Gad\u00b4-de-el_, goat of God, the Lord is my army.\n GADITES, _Gad\u00b4-dites_, descendants of Gad.\n GAIUS, _Gay\u00b4-e-us_, lord, an earthly man.\n GALATIA, _Gal-ay\u00b4-she-a_, white, of the colour of milk.\n GALATIANS, _Gal-ay\u00b4-she-ans_, born in Galatia.\n GALBANUM, _Gal\u00b4-ba-num_, a gum, sweet spice.\n GALEED, _Gal\u00b4-e-ed_, the heap of witness.\n GALILEE, _Gal\u00b4-le-lee_, wheel, revolution, heap.\n GALILEANS, _Gal-le-lee\u00b4-ans_, inhabitants of Galilee.\n GAL\u00b4LIM, who heap up, cover, roll.\n GAL\u00b4LIO, he that sucks or lives upon milk.\n GAMA\u00b4LIEL, recompense, camel, weaned of God.\n GAM\u00b4MADIMS, soldiers placed in the towers of Tyrus; men who came from\n    Gammade, a town of Phenicia.\n GA\u00b4TAM, their lowing, their touch.\n GATH, a press.\n GATH-RIM\u00b4MON, the press of the granite, exalted press.\n GA\u00b4ZA, strong, a goat.\n GE\u00b4BA, a hill, a cup.\n GE\u00b4BAL, bound, limit.\n GE\u00b4BIM, grasshoppers, height.\n GEDALIAH, _Ged-a-ly\u00b4-ah_, God is my greatness, fringe of the Lord.\n GEHAZI, _Ge-hay\u00b4-zye_, valley of sight, of the breast.\n GEMARI\u00b4AH, accomplishment of the Lord.\n GENNESARET, _Gen-ness\u00b4-a-ret_, or _Jen-ness\u00b4-a-ret_, the garden or\n    protection of the prince.\n GENUBATH, _Gen\u00b4-u-bath_, theft, garden or protection of the daughter.\n GE\u00b4RA, pilgrimage, dispute.\n GE\u00b4RAH, the twentieth part of a shekel.\n GE\u00b4RAR. See Gera.\n GERGESENES, _Ger\u00b4-ge-seens_, those who come from pilgrimage or from\n    fight.\n GERIZIM, _Ger\u00b4-re-zim_, cutters.\n GER\u00b4SHOM, a stranger there, a traveller of reputation.\n GER\u00b4SHON, his banishment, the change of pilgrimage.\n GE\u00b4SHUR, the sight of the valley, the vale of the ox or the wall.\n GESHURITES, _Gesh\u00b4-u-rytes_, inhabitants of Geshur.\n GE\u00b4THER, the vale of trial, of searching, the press of inquiry.\n GETHSEMANE, _Geth-sem\u00b4-a-ne_, a very fat valley.\n GIAH, _Gy\u00b4-ah_, to guide, draw out, a sigh.\n GIBEAH, _Gib\u00b4-e-ah_, a hill.\n GIB\u00b4EON, hill, cup, that which is without.\n GIB\u00b4EONITES, people of Gibeon.\n GID\u00b4EON, he that bruises, cutting off iniquity.\n GIHON, _Gy\u00b4-hon_, valley of grace, impetuous.\n GILBOAH, _Gil\u00b4-bo-ah_, revolution of inquiry.\n GILEAD, _Gil\u00b4-le-ad_, the mass of testimony.\n GILEADITES, _Gil\u00b4-le-ad-ites_, the inhabitants of Gilead.\n GIL\u00b4GAL, wheel, revolution, heap.\n GILOH, _Gy\u00b4-loh_, he that rejoices, overturns, or discovers.\n GILONITE, _Gy\u00b4-lo-nite_.\n GIRGASHITE, _Gir\u00b4-ga-shite_, who arrives from pilgrimage.\n GITTITE, _Git\u00b4-tite_, a wine press.\n GOB, cistern, grasshopper, eminence.\n GOG, roof, covering.\n GO\u00b4LAN, passage, revolution.\n GOL\u00b4GOTHA, a heap of skulls.\n GOLI\u00b4ATH, revolution, discovery, heap.\n GO\u00b4MER, to finish, accomplish, a consumer.\n GOMOR\u00b4RAH, a rebellious people.\n GO\u00b4SHEN, approaching, drawing near.\n GO\u00b4ZAN, fleece, pasture, nourishing the body.\n GRECIA, _Gree\u00b4-she-a_, Greece, the country of the Greeks.\n GRECIANS, _Gree\u00b4-she-ans_, Greeks, the inhabitants of Greece.\n GUR, the young of a beast, dwelling, fear.\n GURBA\u00b4AL, the whelp of the governor.\n\n HABAKKUK, _Hab\u00b4-a-kuk_, he that embraces, a wrestler.\n HACHALIAH, _Hak-a-ly\u00b4-ah_, who waits for the Lord.\n HACHILAH, _Hak\u00b4-e-lah_, my trust is in her.\n HA\u00b4DAD, joy, noise.\n HADADEZER, _Hay\u00b4-dad-ee\u00b4-zer_, the beauty of assistance.\n HADAD-RIMMON, _Hay\u00b4-dad-rim\u00b4-mon_, the voice of height, the invocation\n    of Rimmon, a god of the Syrians.\n HADAS\u00b4SAH, a myrtle, joy.\n HADO\u00b4RAM, their beauty, power, praise.\n HADRACH, _Hay\u00b4-drak_, point, joy of tenderness, your chamber.\n HA\u00b4GAR, a stranger, that fears.\n HAGARENES, _Hay\u00b4-gar-eens_, of the family of Hagar.\n HAGARITES, _Hay\u00b4-gar-ites_. See Hagarenes.\n HAGGAI, _Hag\u00b4-ga-i_, feast, solemnity.\n HAG\u00b4GITH, rejoicing.\n HAK\u00b4KATAN, little.\n HALLELUIAH, _Hal-le-lu\u00b4-yah_, praise the Lord.\n HAM, hot, brown.\n HA\u00b4MAN, noise, tumult, he that prepares.\n HA\u00b4MATH, anger, heat, a wall.\n HAMMEDATHA, _Ham-med\u00b4-a-thah_, or _Ham-me-day\u00b4-thah_, he that troubles\n    the law.\n HA\u00b4MON-GOG, the multitude of Gog.\n HA\u00b4MOR, an ass, clay, wine.\n HA\u00b4MUL, godly, merciful.\n HAMU\u00b4TAL, the shadow of his heat, the heat of the dew.\n HANAMEEL, _Han-am\u00b4-e-el_, or _Han-am-ee\u00b4-el_, grace or pity from God.\n HANANEEL, _Han-an-ee\u00b4-el_, mercy of God.\n HANANI, _Han-ay\u00b4-ny_, my grace or mercy.\n HANANI\u00b4AH, grace or mercy of the Lord.\n HAN\u00b4NAH, gracious, merciful, taking rest.\n HA\u00b4NOCH, dedicated.\n HA\u00b4NUN, gracious, merciful, he that rests.\n HA\u00b4RAN, mountainous country, which is enclosed.\n HARBO\u00b4NAH, his destruction or dryness.\n HA\u00b4ROD, astonishment, fear.\n HAROSHETH, _Har-o\u00b4-sheth_, agriculture, silence, vessel of earth,\n    forest.\n HASHMO\u00b4NAH, diligence, enumeration, embassy, present.\n HA\u00b4TACH, he that strikes.\n HAVILAH, _Hav\u00b4-e-lah_, that suffers pain, brings forth, declares to\n    her.\n HAVOTH-JAIR, _Hay\u00b4-voth-jay\u00b4-ir_, villages that enlighten.\n HAZAEL, _Haz\u00b4-a-el_, that sees God.\n HAZARMAVETH, _Hay\u00b4-zar-may\u00b4-veth_, court or dwelling of death.\n HAZELELPONI, Hay\u00b4-zel-el-po\u00b4-ny, shade, sorrow of the face.\n HAZEROTH, _Haz-ee\u00b4-roth_, villages, court.\n HA\u00b4ZOR, court, hay.\n HE\u00b4BER, one that passes, anger.\n HE\u00b4BREWS, descended from Heber.\n HE\u00b4BRON, society, friendship, enchantment.\n HEGAI, or HEGE, _Heg\u00b4-a-i_, meditation, word, separation.\n HE\u00b4LAM, their army, trouble, or expectation.\n HEL\u00b4BON, milk, fatness.\n HELDAI, _Hel\u00b4-da-i_, or _Hel-day\u00b4-i_, the world.\n HE\u00b4LI, ascending, climbing up.\n HEL\u00b4KATH-HAZ\u00b4URIM, the field of strong men, of rocks.\n HE\u00b4MAN, their trouble, their tumult, much.\n HEN, grace, quiet.\n HEPHER, _Hee\u00b4-fer_, a digger or delver.\n HEPHZI-BAH, _Hef\u00b4-ze-bah_, my pleasure.\n HER\u00b4MES, _Mercury_, gain, refuge.\n HERMOGENES, _Her-moj\u00b4-e-nes_, begotten of Mercury, of lucre.\n HER\u00b4MON, anathema, destruction.\n HER\u00b4MONITES, the inhabitants of Hermon.\n HEROD, _Her\u00b4-rod_, the glory of the skin.\n HERODIANS, _He-ro\u00b4-de-ans_.\n HERO\u00b4DIAS, the wife of Herod.\n HERODION, _He-ro\u00b4-de-on_, song of Juno.\n HESH\u00b4BON, invention, industry, thought, he that hastens to understand.\n HETH, trembling, fear.\n HETH\u00b4LON, fearful dwelling, his covering.\n HEZEKI\u00b4AH, strong in the Lord.\n HEZ\u00b4RON, the dart of joy, division of the song.\n HIDDAI, _Hid\u00b4-da-i_, praise, cry.\n HIDDEKEL, _Hid\u00b4-de-kel_, a sharp voice.\n HI\u00b4EL, the life of God.\n HIERAPOLIS, _Hy-er-ap\u00b4-po-lis_, holy city.\n HIGGAION, _Hig-gay\u00b4-e-on_, meditation.\n HILKI\u00b4AH, God is my portion, the Lord\u2019s gentleness.\n HIL\u00b4LEL, praising folly, Lucifer.\n HIN\u00b4NOM, there they are, their riches.\n HI\u00b4RAM, exaltation of life, their whiteness, he that destroys.\n HIT\u00b4TITES, who are broken or fear.\n HI\u00b4VITES, wicked, bad, wickedness.\n HO\u00b4BAB, favoured and beloved.\n HO\u00b4BAH, love, friendship, secrecy.\n HOG\u00b4LAH, his festival, his dance.\n HOPHNI, _Hoff\u00b4-ni_, he that covers, my fist.\n HOR, who conceives, shows.\n HO\u00b4REB, desert, destruction, dryness.\n HOR-HAGIDGAD, _Hor-ha-gidd\u00b4-gad_, hill of felicity.\n HOR\u00b4MAH, devoted to God, destruction.\n HORONAIM, _Hor-o-nay\u00b4-im_, anger, raging.\n HORONITE, _Hor\u00b4-o-nyte_, anger, fury, liberty.\n HOSEA, and HOSHEA, _Ho-zee\u00b4-a_, and _Ho-shee\u00b4-a_, Saviour.\n HUL, infirmity, bringing forth children.\n HUL\u00b4DAH, the world, a prophetess.\n HUR, liberty, whiteness, cavern.\n HUSHAI, _Hew\u00b4-sha-i_, their haste, sensuality, or silence.\n HUZ\u00b4ZAB, molten.\n HYMENEUS, _Hy-men-ee\u00b4-us_, nuptial, marriage.\n\n IB\u00b4HAR, election, he that is chosen.\n ICHABOD, _Ik\u00b4-a-bod_, where is the glory?\n ICONIUM, _I-ko\u00b4-ne-um_, from \u1f35\u03ba\u03c9, \u201cI come.\u201d\n ID\u00b4DO, his hand, power, praise, witness.\n IDUMEA, _Id-ew-mee\u00b4-a_, red, earthy.\n IGDALI\u00b4A, the greatness of the Lord.\n I\u00b4JON, look, eye, fountain.\n ILLYRICUM, _Il-lir\u00b4-re-kum_, joy, rejoicing.\n IM\u00b4LAH, plenitude, repletion, circumcision.\n IMMAN\u00b4UEL, a name given to our Lord Jesus Christ, signifying, God with\n    us.\n IM\u00b4RAH, a rebel, changing.\n INDIA, _In\u00b4-de-a_, praise, law.\n IPHEDEIAH, _If-fe-dy\u00b4-ah_, or _If-fe-dee\u00b4-ah_, the redemption of the\n    Lord.\n I\u00b4RA, city, watch, spoil, heap of vision.\n I\u00b4RAD, wild ass, heap of descents, of empire.\n IRIJAH, _I-ry\u00b4-jah_, the fear, vision, or protection of the Lord.\n ISAAC, _I\u00b4-zak_, laughter.\n ISAIAH, _I-zay\u00b4-yah_, or _I-zay\u00b4-e-ah_, the salvation of the Lord.\n ISCAH, _Is\u00b4-kah_, he that anoints, or covers.\n ISCARIOT, _Is-kar\u00b4-re-ot_, is thought to signify a native of the town\n    of Iscarioth.\n ISH\u00b4BAK, empty, forsaken, abandoned.\n ISHBI-BENOB, _Ish\u00b4-by-bee\u00b4-nob_, he that sits in the prophecy,\n    conversion.\n ISH-BOSHETH, _Ish\u00b4-bo-sheth_, a man of shame.\n ISHMAEL, _Ish\u00b4-ma-el_, God who hears.\n ISHMAELITES, _Ish\u00b4-ma-el-ites_, the posterity of Ishmael.\n ISRAEL, _Is\u00b4-ra-el_, a prince with God, prevailing with God, that\n    wrestleth with God.\n ISRAELITES, _Is\u00b4-ra-el-ites_, the posterity of Israel, or Jacob.\n ISSACHAR, _Is\u00b4-sa-kar_, price, reward.\n ITALIAN, _I-tal\u00b4-e-an_, belonging to Italy.\n ITALY, _It\u00b4-ta-le_, a Latin word that has its original from _vitulus_,\n    or _vitula_, \u201ca calf,\u201d or from a king called _Italus_.\n ITH\u00b4AMAR, island of the palm tree, wo to the palm or change.\n ITHIEL, _Ith\u00b4-e-el_, God with me, sign.\n ITHREAM, _Ith\u00b4-re-am_, excellence of the people.\n ITUREA, _It-u-ree\u00b4-a_, which is guarded, a country of mountains.\n I\u00b4VAH, iniquity.\n\n JAALAM, _Ja-ay\u00b4-lam_, hidden, young man, kids.\n JAAZANIA, _Ja-az-a-ny\u00b4-ah_, whom the Lord will hear, the balances, the\n    arms.\n JA\u00b4BAL, which glides away, produces.\n JAB\u00b4BOK, evacuation, dissipation.\n JA\u00b4BESH, dryness, confusion, shame.\n JABESH-GILEAD, _Jay\u00b4-besh-gil\u00b4-e-ad_.\n JA\u00b4BEZ, sorrow, trouble.\n JA\u00b4BIN, he that understands, he that builds.\n JABNEEL, _Jab\u00b4-ne-el_, building, or understanding of God.\n JACHIN, _Jay\u00b4-kin_, that strengthens.\n JA\u00b4COB, he that supplants, the heel.\n JA\u00b4EL, he that ascends, a kid.\n JAH, the everlasting God.\n JA\u00b4HAZ, dispute, going out of the Lord.\n JAHAZA, _Ja-hay\u00b4-za_, the same as Jahaz.\n JAIR, _Jay\u00b4-er_, my light, who diffuses light.\n JAIRUS, _Jay\u00b4-e-rus_ or _Ja-i\u00b4-rus_, is enlightened.\n JAM\u00b4BRES, the sea with poverty.\n JAMES, _the same as_ Jacob.\n JAN\u00b4NA, who speaks, who answers, affliction.\n JANNES, _Jan\u00b4-nez_, the same as Janna.\n JAPHETH, _Jay\u00b4-feth_, persuades, handsome.\n JAPHIA, _Ja-fy\u00b4-ah_, which enlightens, groans.\n JA\u00b4REB, a revenger.\n JA\u00b4RED, he that descends or commands.\n JA\u00b4SHER, righteous.\n JA\u00b4SON, he that cures, that gives medicines.\n JA\u00b4VAN, that deceives, clay.\n JA\u00b4ZER, assistance, he that helps.\n JE\u00b4BUS, treads under foot, contemns.\n JEB\u00b4USITES, inhabitants of Jebus.\n JECONI\u00b4AH, preparation or steadfastness of the Lord.\n JEDDI\u00b4EL, the knowledge or joy of God.\n JEDIDAH, _Jed-dy\u00b4-dah_, well-beloved, amiable.\n JEDIDIAH, _Jed-e-dy\u00b4-ah_, beloved of the Lord.\n JEDUTHUN, _Jed-ew\u00b4-thun_ or _Jed\u00b4-ew-thun_, his law, who gives praise.\n JEGAR-SAHADUTHA, _Je\u00b4-gar-say-ha-dew\u00b4-tha_, the heap of witnessing.\n JEHOAHAZ, _Je-ho-ay\u00b4-haz_, the prize or possession of the Lord.\n JEHO\u00b4ASH, the fire or victim of the Lord.\n JEHOIACHIN, _Je-hoy\u00b4-a-kin_, preparation or strength of the Lord.\n JEHOIADA, _Je-hoy\u00b4-a-dah_, knowledge of the Lord.\n JEHOIAKIM, _Je-hoy\u00b4-a-kim_, the resurrection of the Lord.\n JEHON\u00b4ADAB. See Jonadab.\n JEHO\u00b4RAM, exaltation, rejected of the Lord.\n JEHOSH\u00b4APHAT, God judges.\n JEHO\u00b4VAH, the incommunicable name of God, self-existing.\n JEHOVAH-JIREH, _Je-ho\u00b4-vah-jy\u00b4-rey_, the Lord will see or provide, will\n    be manifested.\n JEHO\u00b4VAH-NIS\u00b4SI, the Lord my banner.\n JEHOVAH-SHALOM, _Je-ho\u00b4-vah-shay\u00b4-lom_ or _shal\u00b4-lom_, the Lord send\n    peace.\n JEHO\u00b4VAH-SHAM\u00b4MAH, the Lord is there.\n JEHO\u00b4VAH-TSID\u00b4KENU, the Lord our righteousness.\n JEHU, _Je\u00b4-hew_, he that is or exists.\n JEHUDIJAH, _Je-hew-di\u00b4-jah_, praise of the Lord.\n JEMI\u00b4MA, handsome as the day.\n JEPHTHAH, _Jef\u00b4-thah_, he that opens.\n JEPHUNNEH, _Je-fun\u00b4-neh_, he that beholds.\n JE\u00b4RAH, the moon, to scent or smell.\n JERAHMEEL, _Je-ram\u00b4-me-el_, mercy or love of God.\n JEREMI\u00b4AH, grandeur of the Lord.\n JERICHO, _Jer\u00b4-re-ko_, his moon, sweet smell.\n JER\u00b4IMOTH, eminences, he that fears or rejects death.\n JEROBO\u00b4AM, fighting against, increasing the people.\n JERUBBAAL, _Jer-uh-bay\u00b4-al_, he that revenges the idol, let Baal defend\n    his cause.\n JERUBBESHETH, _Je-rub\u00b4-be-sheth_, let the idol of confusion defend\n    itself.\n JERU\u00b4SALEM, the vision or possession of peace.\n JERU\u00b4SHA, he that possesses the inheritance, exiled.\n JESHIMON, _Jesh\u00b4-e-mon_, solitude, desolation.\n JESHUA, _Jesh\u00b4-u-a_, a Saviour.\n JESHURUN, _Jesh-ew\u00b4-run_, upright.\n JES\u00b4SE, to be, my present.\n JESUI, _Jes\u00b4-u-i_, who is equal, flat country.\n JESUITES, _Jes\u00b4-u-ites_, the posterity of Jesui.\n JE\u00b4SUS, the holy name Jesus, Saviour, who saveth his people from their\n    sins.\n JE\u00b4THER, he that excels, remains, searches.\n JETH\u00b4RO, his excellence or posterity.\n JE\u00b4TUR, he that keeps, succession, mountainous.\n JE\u00b4USH, devoured, gnawed by the moth.\n JEW, _Jews_, so called from Judah.\n JEW\u00b4ESS, JEW\u00b4ISH, JEW\u00b4RY.\n JEZ\u00b4EBEL, island of the habitation, wo to the habitation, isle of the\n    dunghill.\n JEZRAHIAH, _Jez-ra-hy\u00b4-ah_, the Lord is the east, the Lord arises,\n JEZREEL, _Jez\u00b4-re-el_ or _Jez-ree\u00b4-el_, seed of God, dropping of the\n    friendship of God.\n JEZREELITE, _Jez\u00b4-re-el-ite_ or _Jez-ree\u00b4-el-ite_, an inhabitant of\n    Jezreel.\n JIDLAPH, _Jid\u00b4-laf_, he that distils, hands joined.\n JO\u00b4AB, paternity, having a father, voluntary.\n JO\u00b4AH, who has a brother, brother of the Lord.\n JOAN\u00b4NA, the grace or mercy of the Lord.\n JO\u00b4ASH, who despairs, burns, is on fire.\n JOB, he that weeps, cries, or speaks out of a hollow place.\n JOCHEBED, _Jok\u00b4-ke-bed_, glorious, honourable, a person of merit, the\n    glory of the Lord.\n JO\u00b4EL, that wills, commands, or swears.\n JOEZER, _Jo-ee\u00b4-zer_, he that aids.\n JO\u00b4HA, who enlivens and gives life.\n JOHA\u00b4NAN, who is liberal and grants favour.\n JOHN, the gift or mercy of the Lord.\n JOK\u00b4SHAN, hard, difficult, scandalous.\n JOK\u00b4TAN, small, disgust, weariness, dispute.\n JON\u00b4ADAB, who acts in good earnest.\n JO\u00b4NAH, or JO\u00b4NAS, a dove, he that oppresses.\n JON\u00b4ATHAN, given of God.\n JOP\u00b4PA, beauty, comeliness.\n JO\u00b4RAM, to cast, elevated.\n JOR\u00b4DAN, the river of judgment, that rejects judgment, descent.\n JO\u00b4RIM, he that exalts the Lord.\n JO\u00b4SE, raised, who exists, or pardons, Saviour.\n JOSEPH, _Jo\u00b4-sef_, increase, addition.\n JOSES, _Jo\u00b4-sez_. See Jose.\n JOSH\u00b4UA, the Lord, the Saviour.\n JOSI\u00b4AH, the fire of the Lord.\n JO\u00b4THAM, perfection of the Lord.\n JUBAL, _Jew\u00b4-bal_, he that runs, he that produces, a trumpet.\n JUBILEE, _Jew\u00b4-be-lee_, a feast of the Jews, every fiftieth year; in\n    Hebrew, _Jobel_, a ram\u2019s horn, or a trumpet by which the jubilee\n    year was proclaimed.\n JU\u00b4DAH, the praise of the Lord.\n JU\u00b4DAS, the same as Judah.\n JUDEA, _Jew-dee\u00b4-a_, a country.\n JU\u00b4LIA, downy; from \u1f34\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cdown.\u201d\n JU\u00b4LIUS, _the same_ as Julia.\n JU\u00b4NIA, from _Juno_, or from _juventus_, youth.\n JUPITER, _Jew\u00b4-pe-ter_, as if it were _juvans pater_, the father that\n    helpeth.\n JUS\u00b4TUS, just, upright.\n\n KABZEEL, _Kab\u00b4-ze-el_, the congregation of God.\n KA\u00b4DESH, holiness.\n KADESH-BARNEA, _Kay\u00b4-desh-bar\u00b4-ne-a_ or _bar-nee\u00b4-ah_, holiness of an\n    inconstant son, of the corn, of purity.\n KAD\u00b4MIEL, God of rising.\n KE\u00b4DAR, blackness, sorrow.\n KEDEMAH, _Ked\u00b4-de-mah_, oriental.\n KEDEMOTH, _Ked\u00b4-de-moth_, old age, orientals.\n KEILAH, _Ky\u00b4-lah_, she that divides or cuts.\n KEMUEL, _Kem\u00b4-u-el_, God is risen.\n KE\u00b4NAZ, this nest, lamentation, possession.\n KE\u00b4NITES, possession, lamentation, nest.\n KEREN-HAPPUCH, _Kee\u00b4-ren-hap\u00b4-puk_, the horn or child of beauty.\n KERIOTH, _Ker\u00b4-re-oth_, the cities, the callings.\n KETURAH, _Ke-tew\u00b4-rah_, he that burns or makes the incense to fume,\n    odoriferous.\n KEZIAH, _Ke-zy\u00b4-ah_, superficies, angle, cassia.\n KE\u00b4ZIZ, end, extremity.\n KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH, _Kib\u00b4-roth-hat-tay\u00b4-a-vah_, the graves of lust.\n KID\u00b4RON, obscurity, obscure.\n KIR, a city, a wall, a meeting.\n KIR-HARASETH, _Kir-har\u00b4-ra-seth_, the city of the sun.\n KIRIATHAIM, _Kir\u00b4-e-ath-ay\u00b4-im_, the two cities, the callings.\n KIR\u00b4-JATH, city, vocation, lesson, meeting.\n KIR\u00b4-JATH-AR\u00b4BA, the city of four.\n KIR\u00b4JATH-A\u00b4RIM, city of cities, the city of those that watch.\n KIR\u00b4JATH-BA\u00b4AL, the city of Baal, of those that command, of those that\n    possess.\n KIRJATH-JEARIM, _Kir\u00b4-jath-je\u00b4-a-rim_, the city of woods.\n KIR\u00b4JATH-SAN\u00b4NAH, the city of the bush, of enmity.\n KIRJATH-SEPHER, _Kir\u00b4-jath-see\u00b4-fer_, the city of letters, of the book.\n KISH, hard, difficult, straw.\n KIS\u00b4RON, making sweet, perfuming.\n KIT\u00b4TIM, they that bruise, gold, colouring.\n KO\u00b4HATH, congregation, obedience, to make blunt.\n KOHATHITES, _Ko\u00b4-hath-ites_, the posterity of Kohath.\n KO\u00b4RAH, bald, frozen.\n\n LA\u00b4BAN, white, shining, gentle.\n LACHISH, _Lay\u00b4-kish_, she walks, who exists of himself.\n LA\u00b4EL, to God, to the Almighty.\n LAH\u00b4MI, my bread, my war.\n LA\u00b4ISH, a lion.\n LA\u00b4MECH, poor, made low, who is struck.\n LAODICEA, _Lay-o-de-see\u00b4-a_, just people.\n LAODICEANS, _Lay-o-de-see\u00b4-ans_, inhabitants of Laodicea.\n LAPEDOTH, _Lap\u00b4-pe-doth_, enlightened, lamps.\n LAZARUS, _Laz\u00b4-za-rus_, the help of God.\n LE\u00b4AH, weary, tired.\n LEB\u00b4ANON, white, incense.\n LEBBEUS, _Leb-bee\u00b4-us_, a man of heart.\n LEHABIM, _Le\u00b4-ha-bim_ or _Le-hay\u00b4-bim_, flames, the points of a sword.\n LE\u00b4HI, jaw bone.\n LEM\u00b4UEL, God with them.\n LE\u00b4VI, who is held and associated.\n LE\u00b4VITES, the posterity of Levi.\n LIB\u00b4NAH, LIB\u00b4NI, white, whiteness.\n LIBYA, _Lib\u00b4-e-a_, in Hebrew, Lubim, the heart of the sea.\n LIBYANS, _Lib\u00b4-e-ans_, the people of Libya.\n LI\u00b4NUS, nets.\n LO-AM\u00b4MI, not my people.\n LO\u00b4IS, better.\n LO-RUHAMAH, _Lo-ru-hay\u00b4-mah_, not having obtained mercy, not pitied.\n LOT, wrapt up, myrrh, rosin.\n LU\u00b4CAS, luminous.\n LU\u00b4CIFER, _Lu\u00b4-se-fer_, bringing light.\n LUCIUS, _Lu\u00b4-she-us_. See Lucas.\n LUD, maturity, generation.\n LUKE. See Lucas.\n LUZ, separation, departure.\n LYCAONIA, _Ly-ka-o\u00b4-ne-a_, she-wolf.\n LYD\u00b4DA, the name of a city.\n LYSA\u00b4NIAS, that drives away sorrow.\n LYS\u00b4TRA, that dissolves or disperses.\n\n MAACHAH, _May\u00b4-a-kah_, to squeeze.\n MAASEIAH, _Ma-a-sy\u00b4-ah_, the work of the Lord.\n MACEDONIA, _Mas-se-do\u00b4-ne-a_, adoration, prostration.\n MACHIR, _May\u00b4-kir_, he that sells or knows.\n MACHPELAH, _Mak-pee\u00b4-lah_, double.\n MAGDALA, _Mag\u00b4-da-lah_, tower, greatness.\n MAGDALENE, _Mag\u00b4-da-le\u00b4-ne_, tower, grand, elevated.\n MA\u00b4GOG, roof, that dissolves.\n MAGOR-MISSABIB, _May\u00b4-gor-mis\u00b4-sa-bib_, fear, round about.\n MAHALALEEL, _Ma-ha-la-lee\u00b4-el_, he that praises God.\n MAHALATH, _Ma-hay\u00b4-lath_, melodious song, infirmity.\n MAHANAIM, _Ma-ha-nay\u00b4-im_, the two fields or armies.\n MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ, _May\u00b4-er-shal\u00b4-al-hash\u00b4-baz_, making speed to\n    the spoil.\n MAH\u00b4LAH, _the same as_ Mahalath.\n MAH\u00b4LON, song, infirmity.\n MAKKEDAH, _Mak\u00b4-ke-dah_, adoration, prostration.\n MALCHAM, _Mal\u00b4-kam_, their king.\n MALCHI-SHUA, _Mal\u00b4-ke-shew\u00b4-ah_, my king is a saviour.\n MALCHUS, _Mal\u00b4-kus_, king or kingdom.\n MAM\u00b4MON, riches.\n MAM\u00b4RE, rebellious, bitter, that changes.\n MANAEN, _Man\u00b4-a-en_, or _Ma-nay\u00b4-en_, a comforter, he that conducts\n    them.\n MANAS\u00b4SEH, forgetfulness, he that is forgotten.\n MANEH, _May\u00b4-neh_, a species of money.\n MANOAH, _Ma-no\u00b4-ah_, rest, a present.\n MA\u00b4ON, house, crime.\n MA\u00b4RA, bitterness.\n MA\u00b4RAH, _the same as_ Mara.\n MAR\u00b4CUS, polite, shining.\n MARK, _the same as_ Marcus.\n MARS-HILL\u00b4, the place where the judges of Athens held their supreme\n    council.\n MAR\u00b4THA, who becomes bitter.\n MA\u00b4RY, exalted, bitterness of the sea, mistress of the sea.\n MASREKAH, _Mas\u00b4-re-kah_, whistling, hissing.\n MAS\u00b4SAH, temptation.\n MA\u00b4TRI, rain, prison.\n MAT\u00b4TAN, the reins, the death of them.\n MATTATHIAS, _Mat-ta-thy\u00b4-as_, the gift of the Lord.\n MAT\u00b4THAT, gift, he that gives.\n MATTH\u00b4EW, given, a reward.\n MATTHIAS, _Ma-thy\u00b4-as_. See Mattathias.\n MAZ\u00b4ZAROTH, the twelve signs.\n ME\u00b4DAD, he that measures, the water of love.\n ME\u00b4DAN, judgment, process, measure, covering.\n MEDES, _Mee\u00b4ds_, people of Media.\n MEDIA, _Mee\u00b4-de-a_, measure, covering, abundance.\n MEGIDDO, _Me-gid\u00b4-do_, that declares, his precious fruit.\n MEGIDDON, _Me-gid\u00b4-don_, the same as Megiddo.\n MEHETABEL, _Me-het\u00b4-ta-ble_, how good is God!\n MEHUJAEL, _Me-hu-jay\u00b4-el_, who proclaims God, God that blots out.\n MELCHI, _Mel\u00b4-ky_, my king, my counsel.\n MELCHIZEDEK, _Mel-kiz\u00b4-ze-dek_, king of righteousness.\n MELITA, _Me-ly\u00b4-ta_ or _Me-lee\u00b4-ta_, affording honey.\n MEMPHIS, _Mem\u00b4-fis_, by the mouth.\n MEMUCAN, _Me-mew\u00b4-kan_, impoverished, to prepare, certain, true.\n MENAHEM, _Men\u00b4-na-hem_, comforter, who conducts them.\n MENE, _Mee\u00b4ne_, who reckons, who is counted.\n MEPHIBOSHETH, _Me-fib\u00b4-bo-sheth_, out of my mouth proceeds reproach.\n ME\u00b4RAB, he that fights, he that multiplies.\n MERARI, _Me-ray\u00b4-ry_, bitter, to provoke.\n MERCU\u00b4RIUS, a false god; from the Latin word mercari, \u201cto buy or sell,\u201d\n    because he presided over merchandise; in Greek, _hermes_, \u201corator\u201d\n    or \u201cinterpreter.\u201d\n MERIB-BAAL, _Mer-ib\u00b4-ba-al_ or _Mer\u00b4-ib-bay\u00b4-al_, rebellion, he that\n    resists Baal, and strives against the idol.\n MERIBAH, _Mer\u00b4-re-bah_, dispute, quarrel.\n MERODACH, _Mer\u00b4-ro-dak_, bitter, contrition; in Syriac, the little\n    lord.\n MERODACH-BALADAN, _Mer\u00b4-ro-dak-bal\u00b4-la-dan_ or _ba-lay\u00b4-dan_, who\n    creates contrition, the son of death, of thy vapour.\n ME\u00b4ROM, eminences, elevations.\n ME\u00b4ROZ, secret, leanness.\n MESHACH, _Mee\u00b4-shak_, that draws with force, that surrounds the waters.\n MESHECH, _Mee\u00b4-shek_, who is drawn by force, shut up, surrounded.\n MESHELEMIAH, _Mesh-el-e-my\u00b4-ah_, peace, perfection, retribution of the\n    Lord.\n MESOPOTAMIA, _Mes-o-po-tay\u00b4-me-a_, in Hebrew, _Aramnaharaim_, that is,\n    \u201cSyria of the two rivers.\u201d In Greek it also signifies \u201cbetween two\n    rivers;\u201d from \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cmiddle,\u201d and \u03d6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u201criver.\u201d\n MESSIAH, _Mes-sy\u00b4-ah_, anointed.\n ME\u00b4THEG-AM\u00b4MAH, the bridle of bondage.\n METHUSAEL, _Me-thew\u00b4-sa-el_, who demands his death.\n METHUSELAH, _Me-thew\u00b4-se-lah_, he has sent his death.\n MI\u00b4CAH, poor, humble, who strikes, is there.\n MICAIAH, _My-kay\u00b4-e-ah_, who is like to God? the lowliness of God.\n MICHAIAH, _My-kay\u00b4-e-ah_, MICHAEL, _My\u00b4-ka-el_, the same as Micaiah.\n MICHAL, _My\u00b4-kal_, who is it that has all? who is perfect?\n MICHMASH, _Mik\u00b4-mash_, he that strikes, the poor taken away.\n MIDIAN, _Mid\u00b4-de-an_, judgment, measure, covering.\n MIDIANITES, _Mid\u00b4-de-an-ites_, people of Midian.\n MIG\u00b4DOL, a tower, greatness.\n MIG\u00b4RON, fear, a barn, from the throat.\n MIL\u00b4CAH, queen.\n MIL\u00b4COM, their king.\n MILETUM, _My-lee\u00b4-tum_, red, scarlet.\n MIL\u00b4LO, fulness, repletion.\n MIN\u00b4NI, disposed, reckoned.\n MIN\u00b4NITH, counted, prepared.\n MIRIAM, _Mir\u00b4-re-am_, exalted, bitterness of the sea, mistress of the\n    sea.\n MIS\u00b4GAB, the high fort or rock.\n MISHAEL, _Mish\u00b4-a-el_, asked for, lent, God takes away.\n MISREPHOTH-MAIM, _Mis\u00b4-re-foth-may\u00b4-im_, the burnings of the waters,\n    furnaces where metals are melted.\n MITYLENE, _Mit-e-lee\u00b4-ne_, purity, press.\n MI\u00b4ZAR, little.\n MIZ\u00b4PAH, a sentinel, speculation, that waits for.\n MIZ\u00b4PEH, _the same as_ Mizpah.\n MIZRAIM, _Miz-ray\u00b4-im_, tribulations, in straits.\n MNASON, _Nay\u00b4-son_, a diligent seeker, betrothing, an exhorter.\n MO\u00b4AB, of the father.\n MO\u00b4ABITES, _Mo\u00b4-ab-ites_, the descendants of Moab.\n MOLADAH, _Mol\u00b4-a-dah_, or _Mo-lay\u00b4-dah_, birth, generation.\n MOLECH, _Mo\u00b4-lek_, king.\n MOLOCH, _Mo\u00b4-lok_, the same as Molech.\n MORDECAI, _Mor\u00b4-de-kay_, contrition, bitter bruising; in Syriac, pure\n    myrrh.\n MORI\u00b4AH, bitterness or fear of the Lord.\n MOSERA, _Mo-see\u00b4-ra_, MOSEROTH, _Mo-see\u00b4-roth_, erudition, discipline,\n    bond.\n MO\u00b4SES, taken out of the water.\n MU\u00b4SHI, he that touches, withdraws himself.\n MY\u00b4RA, from \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9, _I flow_, _pour out_, _weep_.\n MYSIA, _Mish\u00b4-e-a_, criminal, abominable.\n\n NAAMAN, _Na-ay\u00b4-man_, beautiful, agreeable, that prepares himself to\n    motion.\n NAAMATHITE, _Na-ay\u00b4-ma-thite_, of Naamath.\n NAASHON, _Na-ash\u00b4-on_, that foretels, serpent.\n NA\u00b4BAL, a fool, senseless.\n NA\u00b4BOTH, words, prophecies, fruits.\n NA\u00b4DAB, free and voluntary gift, prince.\n NAGGE, _Nag\u00b4-gee_, brightness.\n NAHARAI, _Na-har\u00b4-ra-i_ or _Na-ha-ray\u00b4-i_, my nostrils, hoarse, hot.\n NAHASH, _Nay\u00b4-hash_, snake, one that foretels, brass.\n NA\u00b4HOR, hoarse, hot, angry.\n NAHSHON, _Nay\u00b4-shon_. See Naashon.\n NA\u00b4HUM, comforter, penitent, their guide.\n NA\u00b4IN, beauty, pleasantness.\n NAIOTH, _Nay\u00b4-e-oth_, beauties, habitations.\n NAOMI, _Na-o\u00b4-my_, beautiful, agreeable.\n NAPHISH, _Nay\u00b4-fish_, the soul, he that refreshes himself, that\n    respires; in Syriac, that multiplies.\n NAPHTALI, _Naf\u00b4-ta-ly_, comparison, likeness, that fights.\n NARCISSUS, _Nar-sis\u00b4-sus_, astonishment.\n NA\u00b4THAN, who gives, or is given.\n NATHANAEL, _Na-than\u00b4-yel_, the gift of God.\n NATHAN-MELECH, _Nay\u00b4-than-me\u00b4-lek_, gift of the king.\n NA\u00b4UM. See Nahum.\n NAZARENE, _Naz-a-ree\u00b4n_, kept, flower.\n NAZARETH, _Naz\u00b4-a-reth_, separated, sanctified.\n NEAPOLIS, _Ne-ap\u00b4-po-lis_, new city.\n NEBAIOTH, _Ne-bay\u00b4-yoth_, prophecies, fruits.\n NE\u00b4BAT, that beholds.\n NE\u00b4BO, that speaks, prophesies, or fructifies.\n NEBUCHADNEZZAR, _Neb-ew-kad-nez\u00b4-zar_, tears and groans of judgment.\n NEBUZAR-ADAN, _Neb-ew-zar\u00b4-ra-dan_, fruits or prophecies of judgment,\n    winnowed, spread.\n NECHO, _Nee\u00b4-ko_, lame, who was beaten.\n NEHELAMITE, _Ne-hel\u00b4-a-myte_, dreamer, vale, brook.\n NEHEMIAH, _Ne-he-my\u00b4-ah_, consolation, repentance, or rest of the Lord.\n NEHILOTH, _Ne-hee\u00b4-loth_, flute, hautboy, cornet.\n NEHUSHTA, _Ne-hush\u00b4-tah_, snake, soothsayer.\n NEHUSH\u00b4TAN, which is of brass or copper, a trifle of brass.\n NER, lamp, brightness, land new tilled.\n NEREUS, _Nee\u00b4-re-us_. See Ner.\n NERI, _Nee\u00b4-ry_, my light.\n NERI\u00b4AH, light and lamp of the Lord.\n NETHANEEL, _Ne-than\u00b4-ne-el_. See Nathanael.\n NETHANIA, _Neth-a-ny\u00b4-ah_, the gift of the Lord.\n NETHINIMS, _Neth\u00b4-e-nims_, given, offered.\n NIB\u00b4HAZ, that fructifies, to prophesy, to speak.\n NICANOR, _Ny-kay\u00b4-nor_, a conqueror, victorious.\n NICODEMUS, _Nik-o-dee\u00b4-mus_, innocent blood; in Greek, the victory of\n    the people.\n NICOLAITANS, _Nik-o-lay\u00b4-e-tanz_, the followers of Nicolas.\n NICOLAS, _Nik\u00b4-o-las_, victor of the people; from \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c9, I overcome,\n    and \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, the people.\n NICOPOLIS, _Ny-kop\u00b4-po-lis_, the city of victory.\n NIGER, _Ny\u00b4-jer_, black.\n NIM\u00b4RIM, leopard, rebellion, change.\n NIM\u00b4ROD, rebellious, sleep of descent.\n NIM\u00b4SHI, rescued from danger, that touches.\n NINEVEH, _Nin\u00b4-ne-veh_, agreeable dwelling.\n NINEVITES, _Nin\u00b4-ne-vites_, people of Nineveh.\n NI\u00b4SAN, banner; in Syriac, a miracle.\n NIS\u00b4ROCH, flight, standard, proof.\n NO, stirring up, a forbidding.\n NOADI\u00b4AH, witness of the Lord.\n NO\u00b4AH, repose, rest, consolation.\n NOB, discourse, prophecy.\n NO\u00b4BAH, that barks or yelps.\n NOD, vagabond.\n NOPH, _Noff_, honey comb, a sieve, that drops.\n NUN, son, posterity, durable.\n NYMPHAS, _Nim\u00b4-fas_, spouse, bridegroom.\n\n OBADI\u00b4AH, servant of the Lord.\n O\u00b4BAL, inconvenience of old age, of the flux.\n O\u00b4BED, a servant.\n O\u00b4BED-E\u00b4DOM, the servant of Edom, the Idumean, labourer of the man.\n O\u00b4BIL, that weeps, deserves to be bewailed, ancient.\n OC\u00b4RAN, disturber.\n O\u00b4DED, to sustain, to lift up.\n OG, a cake, bread baked in the ashes.\n O\u00b4HEL, tent, tabernacle, brightness.\n OLYMPAS, _O-lim\u00b4-pas_, heavenly.\n O\u00b4MAR, he that speaks, bitter.\n OMEGA, _O-mee\u00b4-ga_, the last letter of the Greek alphabet.\n OM\u00b4RI, a sheaf of corn, rebellion, bitter.\n ON, pain, force, iniquity.\n O\u00b4NAN, pain, strength, iniquity.\n ONESIMUS, _O-nes\u00b4-se-mus_, profitable, useful.\n ONESIPHORUS, _On-ne-sif\u00b4-fo-rus_, who brings profit.\n OPHEL, _O\u00b4-fel_, tower, obscurity.\n OPHIR, _O\u00b4-fir_, ashes.\n OPHRAH, _Off\u00b4-rah_, dust, fawn, lead.\n O\u00b4REB, a raven, caution, evening.\n ORION, _O-ry\u00b4-on_, the name of a constellation.\n OR\u00b4NAN, that rejoices, their bow or ark.\n OR\u00b4PAH, the neck, skull, nakedness of the mouth.\n OTH\u00b4NI, my time, my hour.\n OTHNIEL, _Oth\u00b4-ne-el_, the hour of God.\n O\u00b4ZEM, that fasts, their eagerness.\n OZIAS, _O-zy\u00b4-as_, strength from the Lord.\n\n PAARAI, _Pay\u00b4-a-ray_ or _Pay-a\u00b4-ry_, opening.\n PADAN-ARAM, _Pay\u00b4-dan-ay\u00b4-ram_, _Padan_ of the field, and _Aram_ Syria.\n PAGIEL, _Pay\u00b4-je-el_, prevention or prayer of God.\n PALESTINA, _Pal-es-ty\u00b4-na_, which is covered.\n PAL\u00b4TI, deliverance, flight.\n PAMPHYLIA, _Pam-fil\u00b4-le-a_, a nation made up of every tribe; from \u03d6\u1fb6\u03c2,\n    _all_, and \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, a _tribe_.\n PAPHOS, _Pay\u00b4-fos_, which boils, is very hot.\n PA\u00b4RAN, beauty, glory, ornament.\n PAR\u00b4BAR, a gate or building belonging to the temple.\n PAR\u00b4MENAS, that abides and is permanent.\n PAROSH, _Pay\u00b4-rosh_, a flea, fruit of the moth.\n PARSHANDATHA, _Par-shan\u00b4-da-tha_, revelation of corporeal impurities,\n    of his trouble.\n PARTHIANS, _Par\u00b4-the-ans_, horsemen.\n PARUAH, _Pa-rew\u00b4-ah_, flourishing, that flies away.\n PARVA\u00b4IM, supposed to be Peru or Ceylon.\n PASH\u00b4UR, that extends the hole, whiteness.\n PATARA, _Pa-tay\u00b4-rah_, which is trodden under foot; from \u03d6\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9, _I\n    tread under foot_.\n PATHROS, _Path\u00b4-ros_ or _Pay\u00b4-thros_, mouthful of dew.\n PAT\u00b4MOS, mortal.\n PATROBAS, _Pat\u00b4-ro-bas_, paternal, that pursues the steps of his\n    father.\n PAU, _Pay\u00b4-ew_, that cries aloud, appears.\n PAUL, PAUL\u00b4US, a worker. His former name was SAUL, a sepulchre, a\n    destroyer.\n PEDAHZUR, _Ped-ah\u00b4-zur_, saviour, strong and powerful, stone of\n    redemption.\n PEDAIAH, _Ped-ay\u00b4-e-ah_, redemption of the Lord.\n PE\u00b4KAH, he that opens, or is at liberty.\n PEKAHIAH, _Pek-a-hy\u00b4-ah_, it is the Lord that opens.\n PE\u00b4KOD, noble, rulers.\n PELATI\u00b4AH, let the Lord deliver.\n PE\u00b4LEG, division.\n PELETHITES, _Pel\u00b4-eth-ites_, judges, destroyers.\n PENIEL, _Pe-ny\u00b4-el_, face or vision of God.\n PENIN\u00b4NAH, precious stone, his face.\n PENU\u00b4EL. See Peniel.\n PEOR, _Pee\u00b4-or_, hold, opening.\n PER\u00b4GA, very earthy.\n PER\u00b4GAMOS, height, elevation.\n PERIZZITES, _Per\u00b4-iz-zytes_, the name of a people who dwell in\n    villages.\n PER\u00b4SIA, _Per\u00b4sis_, that cuts, nail, horseman.\n PE\u00b4TER, a rock, a stone.\n PETHU\u00b4EL, mouth or persuasion of God.\n PHALEC, _Fay\u00b4-lek_. See Peleg.\n PHALLU, _Fal\u00b4-lu_, admirable, hidden.\n PHALTI, _Fal\u00b4-ty_, deliverance, flight.\n PHANUEL, _Fa-new\u00b4-el_, face or vision of God.\n PHARAOH, _Fay\u00b4-ro_, that disperses, that discovers; according to the\n    Syriac, the revenger, the king, the crocodile.\n PHAREZ, _Fay\u00b4-rez_, division, rupture.\n PHARPAR, _Far\u00b4-par_, that produces fruits, fall of the bull.\n PHEBE, _Fee\u00b4-be_, shining, pure.\n PHENICE, _Fe-ny\u00b4-se_, red, purple.\n PHICHOL, _Fy\u00b4-kol_, the mouth of all, perfection.\n PHILADELPHIA, _Fil-a-del\u00b4-fe-a_, the love of a brother; from \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1,\n    _love_, and \u1f00\u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, a _brother_.\n PHILEMON, _Fil-ee\u00b4-mon_, or _Fy-lee\u00b4-mon_, that is affectionate.\n PHILETUS, _Fil-ee\u00b4-tus_ or _Fy-lee\u00b4-tus_, amiable, beloved.\n PHIL\u00b4IP, warlike, a lover of horses.\n PHILIPPI, _Fil-lip\u00b4-py_, the same as Philip.\n PHILISTIA, _Fil-lis\u00b4-te-a_ or _Fy-lis\u00b4-te-a_, the country of the\n    Philistines.\n PHILISTINES, _Fil-lis\u00b4-tines_ or _Fil-lis\u00b4-tins_, those that dwell in\n    villages.\n PHILOLOGUS, _Fil-lol\u00b4-lo-gus_, lover of learning.\n PHINEHAS, _Fin\u00b4-ne-has_, a bold countenance.\n PHLEGON, _Fle\u00b4-gon_, zealous, burning.\n PHRYGIA, _Frij\u00b4-e-a_, dry, barren.\n PHURAH, _Few\u00b4-rah_, that bears fruit, that grows.\n PHYGELLUS, _Fy-jel\u00b4-lus_, fugitive.\n PI-BE\u00b4SETH, the mouth of despite.\n PI-HAHIROTH, _Py-ha-hy\u00b4-roth_, the mouth, the pass of Hiroth, the\n    opening of liberty.\n PI\u00b4LATE, who is armed with a dart.\n PI\u00b4NON, gem, that beholds.\n PIRATHON, _Pir\u00b4-a-thon_, his dissipation, deprivation; in Syriac, his\n    vengeance.\n PIS\u00b4GAH, hill, eminence, fortress.\n PISIDIA, _Py-sid\u00b4-e-a_, pitch, pitchy.\n PI\u00b4SON, changing, doubling, extended.\n PI\u00b4THOM, their mouthful, bit, consummation.\n PI\u00b4THON, his mouth, his persuasion.\n POL\u00b4LUX, a boxer.\n PONTIUS, _Pon\u00b4-she-us_, marine, belonging to the sea.\n PON\u00b4TUS, the sea; from \u03d6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n PORATHA, _Por\u00b4-a-tha_, fruitful.\n PORCIUS, _Por\u00b4-she-us_.\n POTIPHAR, _Pot\u00b4-te-far_, bull of Africa, fat bull.\n POTI-PHERAH, _Pot-if\u00b4-fe-rah_ or _Pot-e-fee\u00b4-rah_, that scatters or\n    demolishes the fat.\n PRISCA, _Pris\u00b4-kah_, ancient.\n PRISCILLA, _Pris-sil\u00b4-lah_, the same as Prisca.\n PROCHORUS, _Prok\u00b4-o-rus_, he that presides over the choirs.\n PUBLIUS, _Pub\u00b4-le-us_, common.\n PUDENS, _Pew\u00b4-dens_, shamefaced.\n PUL, bean, destruction.\n PU\u00b4NON, precious stone, that beholds.\n PUR, lot.\n PUTEOLI, _Pew-tee\u00b4-o-ly_, a city in Campania.\n PUTIEL, _Pew\u00b4-te-el_, God is my fatness.\n\n QUAR\u00b4TUS, the fourth.\n\n RAAMAH, _Ray\u00b4-a-mah_ or _Ra-ay\u00b4-mah_, greatness, thunder, evil,\n    bruising.\n RAAMSES, _Ra-am\u00b4-ses_. See Rameses.\n RAB\u00b4BAH, powerful, contentious.\n RAB\u00b4-MAG, who overthrows a multitude, chief of the magicians.\n RAB\u00b4-SARIS, grand master of the eunuchs.\n RAB\u00b4-SHAKEH, cup-bearer of the prince, chamberlain.\n RACHAB, _Ray\u00b4-kab_, proud, strong, enlarged.\n RACHAL, _Ray\u00b4-kal_, injurious, perfumer.\n RACHEL, _Ray\u00b4-tshel_, a sheep.\n RAGAU, _Ray\u00b4-gaw_, a friend, a neighbour.\n RAGUEL, _Rag-ew\u00b4-el_, shepherd or friend of God.\n RA\u00b4HAB, proud, strong, quarrelsome.\n RA\u00b4HAB, large, extended, public place.\n RAK\u00b4KATH, empty, spittle.\n RAK\u00b4KON, vain, mountain of lamentations.\n RAM, elevated, who rejects.\n RAMAH, _Ray\u00b4-mah_, the same as Ram.\n RAMATH, _Ray\u00b4-math_, raised, lofty.\n RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM, _Ra-math-ay\u00b4-im-zo\u00b4-fim_, the same as Ramah.\n RA\u00b4MATH-LE\u00b4HI, elevation of the jaw bone.\n RAMESES, _Ram\u00b4-e-ses_, thunder, he that destroys evil.\n RAMIAH, _Ram-i\u00b4-ah_, exaltation of the Lord.\n RA\u00b4MOTH, high places.\n RAPHA, _Ray\u00b4-fa_, relaxation, physic.\n RAPHAEL, _Ray-fay\u00b4-el_. See Rephael.\n RAPHU, _Ray\u00b4-few_, cured, comforted.\n RE\u00b4BA, the fourth, a square, that stoops.\n REBEK\u00b4AH, fat, quarrel appeased.\n RECHAB, _Re\u00b4-kab_, square, chariot, rider.\n RECHABITES, _Re\u00b4-kab-ites_, the posterity of Rechab.\n RE\u00b4GEM, _Re\u00b4-jem_, that stones, purple.\n REGEM-MELECH, _Re-jem\u00b4-me-lek_, he that stones the king, the purple of\n    the king.\n REHABI\u00b4AH, breadth, place of the Lord.\n RE\u00b4HOB, breadth, extent.\n REHOBO\u00b4AM, who sets the people at liberty, space of the people.\n REHO\u00b4BOTH, spaces, places.\n RE\u00b4HUM, compassionate, friendly.\n RE\u00b4I, my shepherd, companion, my evil.\n REMALI\u00b4AH, the exaltation of the Lord.\n REM\u00b4MON, greatness, a pomegranate tree.\n REMPHAN, _Rem\u00b4-fan_, the name of an idol, which some think to be\n    Saturn.\n REPHAEL, _Re\u00b4-fa-el_, the medicine of God.\n REPHAIM, REPHAIMS, _Re-fay\u00b4-im_, giant, physician, relaxed.\n REPHIDIM, _Ref\u00b4-e-dim_, beds, places of rest.\n RESIN, _Ree\u00b4-sen_, a bridle or bit.\n REU, _Ree\u00b4-ew_, his friend, his shepherd.\n REUBEN, _Rew\u00b4-ben_, who sees the son, vision of the son.\n REU\u00b4BENITES, the posterity of Reuben.\n REUEL, _Re-yew\u00b4-el_, shepherd or friend of God.\n REUMAH, _Re-yew\u00b4-mah_, lofty, sublime.\n REZEPH, _Ree\u00b4-zeff_, a pavement, burning coal.\n RE\u00b4ZIN, voluntary, runner.\n RE\u00b4ZON, lean, secret, prince.\n RHEGIUM, _Ree\u00b4-je-um_, rupture, fracture.\n RHESA, _Ree\u00b4-sah_, will, course.\n RHODA, _Ro\u00b4-dah_, a rose.\n RHODES, _Ro\u00b4des_, the same as Rhoda.\n RIB\u00b4LAH, quarrel that increases or spreads.\n RIM\u00b4MON, exalted, pomegranate.\n RIPHATH, _Ry\u00b4-fath_, remedy, release.\n RIS\u00b4SAH, watering, distillation, dew.\n RIZ\u00b4PAH, bed, extension, coal.\n ROGEL, _Ro\u00b4-jel_, a foot; in Syriac, custom.\n ROMAMTI-EZER, _Ro-mam-te-ee\u00b4-zer_, exultation of help.\n RO\u00b4MAN, strong, powerful.\n ROME, strength, power; from \u1fe5\u03c9\u03bc\u1f74.\n ROSH, the head, the beginning.\n RU\u00b4FUS, red.\n RUHAMAH, _Ru-hay\u00b4-mah_, having obtained mercy.\n RU\u00b4MAH, exalted, rejected.\n RUTH, filled, satisfied.\n\n SABE\u00b4ANS, captivity, conversion, old age.\n SABTECHA, _Sab\u00b4-te-kah_, that surrounds.\n SA\u00b4DOC, just, justified.\n SA\u00b4LAH, mission, dart; according to the Syriac, that spoils.\n SALAMIS, _Sal\u00b4-la-mis_, shaken, tossed, beaten.\n SALATHIEL, _Sal-ay\u00b4-the-el_, I have asked of God.\n SA\u00b4LEM, complete, peace.\n SA\u00b4LIM. See Shalim.\n SAL\u00b4MON, peaceable, perfect, that rewards.\n SALMONE, _Sal-mo\u00b4-ne_, peaceable.\n SALOME, _Sa-lo\u00b4-me_. See Salmon.\n SAMARIA, _Sa-may\u00b4-re-a_, his guard, prison, or diamond; in Hebrew,\n    _Shomeron_.\n SAMAR\u00b4ITANS, people of Samaria.\n SAM\u00b4LAH, raiment, his left hand, his name.\n SA\u00b4MOS, full of gravel.\n SAMOTHRACIA, _Sam-o-thray\u00b4-she-a_, an island so called because it was\n    peopled by Samians and Thracians.\n SAM\u00b4SON, his sun; according to the Syriac, his service, here the second\n    time.\n SAM\u00b4UEL, heard or asked of God.\n SANBAL\u00b4LAT, bush or enemy in secret.\n SAPH, _Saff_, rushes, end, threshold.\n SAPHIR, _Saf\u00b4fir_ or _Say\u00b4-fir_, a city.\n SAPPHIRA, _Saf-fy\u00b4-rah_, that tells, that writes books.\n SA\u00b4RAH, lady, princess of the multitude.\n SARAI, _Say\u00b4-ray_, my lady, my princess.\n SAR\u00b4DIS, prince or song of joy, what remains; in Syriac, a pot or\n    kettle.\n SAREP\u00b4TA, a goldsmith\u2019s shop, where metals used to be melted and tried.\n SAR\u00b4GON, who takes away protection, who takes away the garden;\n    according to the Syriac, nets, snares.\n SA\u00b4RON. See Sharon.\n SARSECHIM, _Sar-see\u00b4-kim_, master of the wardrobe, of the perfumes.\n SARUCH, _Say\u00b4-ruk_, branch, layer, twining.\n SA\u00b4TAN, contrary, adversary, an accuser.\n SAUL, demanded, sepulchre, destroyer.\n SCEVA, _See\u00b4-vah_, disposed, prepared.\n SCYTHIAN, _Sith\u00b4-e-an_, tanner, leather-dresser.\n SE\u00b4BA, drunkard, that surrounds; according to the Syriac, old man.\n SE\u00b4BAT, twig, sceptre, tribe.\n SE\u00b4CUNDUS, the second.\n SE\u00b4GUB, fortified, raised.\n SEIR, _See\u00b4-er_, hairy, demon, tempest, barley.\n SE\u00b4LAH, a rock.\n SELEUCIA, _Se-lew\u00b4-she-a_, beaten by waves, runs as a river.\n SEMEI, _Sem\u00b4-me-i_, or _Se-mee\u00b4-i_, hearing, obeying.\n SE\u00b4NEH, bush.\n SE\u00b4NIR, a sleeping candle, a changing.\n SENNACHERIB, _Sen-nak\u00b4-ke-rib_, bush of the destruction of the sword,\n    of drought.\n SEPHAR, _See\u00b4-far_, a book, scribe; in Syriac, a haven.\n SEPHARAD, _See-fay\u00b4-rad_, a book, descending, ruling.\n SEPHARVAIM, _Sef-ar-vay\u00b4-im_, two books, two scribes.\n SE\u00b4RAH, lady of scent, song, the morning.\n SERAIAH, _Se-ra-i\u00b4-ah_ or _Se-ray\u00b4-yah_, prince of the Lord.\n SERGIUS, _Ser\u00b4-je-us_, a net.\n SE\u00b4RUG. See Saruch.\n SETH, put, who puts.\n SHAALBIM, _Shay-alb\u00b4-im_, that beholds the heart.\n SHAARAIM, _Shay-a-ray\u00b4-im_, gates, valuation, hairs, barley, tempests,\n    demons.\n SHAASHGAZ, _Shay-ash\u00b4-gaz_, he that presses the fleece.\n SHADRACH, _Shay\u00b4-drak_, tender nipple, tender field.\n SHA\u00b4LIM, fox, fist, path.\n SHALISHA, _Shal\u00b4-e-shah_, three, the third, prince.\n SHAL\u00b4LECHETH, a casting out.\n SHAL\u00b4LUM, perfect, peaceable.\n SHAL\u00b4MAN, peaceable, perfect, that rewards.\n SHALMANEZER, _Shal-ma-nee\u00b4-zer_, peace tied, perfection and\n    retribution.\n SHAM\u00b4GAR, named a stranger, he is here a stranger, surprise of the\n    stranger.\n SHAM\u00b4HUTH, desolation, astonishment.\n SHA\u00b4MIR, prison, bush, lees.\n SHAM\u00b4MAH, loss, desolation, astonishment.\n SHAMMUAH, _Sham\u00b4-mew-ah_, that is heard or obeyed.\n SHAPHAN, _Shay\u00b4-fan_, a rabbit, wild rat, their lip.\n SHAPHAT, _Shay\u00b4-fat_, a judge.\n SHARAI, _Shar\u00b4-a-i_ or _Sha-ray\u00b4-i_, my lord, my song.\n SHAREZER, _Shar-ee\u00b4-zer_, overseer of the treasury.\n SHA\u00b4RON, his plain, field, song.\n SHA\u00b4SHAK, a bag of linen, the sixth bag.\n SHA\u00b4VEH, the plain, that makes equality.\n SHEALTIEL, _She-al\u00b4-te-el_, I have asked of God.\n SHEARIAH, _She-a-ry\u00b4-ah_, gate or tempest of the Lord.\n SHE\u00b4AR-JA\u00b4SHUB, the remnant shall return.\n SHE\u00b4BA, captivity, compassing about, repose, old age.\n SHEBANIAH, _Sheb-a-ny\u00b4-ah_, the Lord that converts, that recals from\n    captivity, that understands.\n SHEB\u00b4NA, who rests himself, who is now captive.\n SHECHEM, _Shee\u00b4-kem_, portion, the back, shoulders.\n SHEDEUR, _Shee\u00b4-de-ur_ or _Shed\u00b4-e-ur_, field, destroyer of fire.\n SHE\u00b4LAH, that breaks, that undresses.\n SHELEMIAH, _Shel-le-my\u00b4-ah_, God is my perfection, my happiness.\n SHELEPH, _Shee\u00b4-lef_, who draws out.\n SHEL\u00b4OMITH, my happiness, my recompense.\n SHELUMIEL, _Shel-ew-my\u00b4-el_, happiness, retribution of God.\n SHEM, name, renown, he that places.\n SHEMAIAH, _She-ma-i\u00b4-ah_ or _Shem-ay\u00b4-yah_, that obeys the Lord.\n SHEMARIAH, _Shem-a-ry\u00b4-ah_, God is my guard, diamond.\n SHEMEBER, _Shem\u00b4-me-ber_, name of force, fame of the strong.\n SHEMER, _Shee\u00b4-mer_, guardian, thorn.\n SHEMIDA, _She-my\u00b4-dah_, name of knowledge, that puts knowledge, the\n    science of the heavens.\n SHEMINITH, _Shem\u00b4-me-nith_, the eighth.\n SHEMIRAMOTH, _She-mir\u00b4-ra-moth_, the height of the heavens, the\n    elevation of the name.\n SHEN, tooth, change, he that sleeps.\n SHENIR, _Shee\u00b4-nir_, lantern, light that sleeps, he that shows.\n SHEPHATIAH, _Shef-a-ty\u00b4-ah_, the Lord that judges.\n SHESHACH, _Shee\u00b4-shak_, bag of flax, the sixth bag.\n SHESHBAZZAR, _Shesh-baz\u00b4-zar_, joy in tribulation, or of vintage.\n SHETH. See Seth.\n SHETHER-BOZNAI, _Shee\u00b4-ther-boz\u00b4-na-i_, that makes to rot and corrupt.\n SHE\u00b4VA, vanity, elevation, fame, tumult.\n SHIBBOLETH, _Shib\u00b4-bo-leth_, burden, ear of corn.\n SHICRON, _Shy\u00b4-kron_, drunkenness, his wages.\n SHIGGAION, _Shig-gay\u00b4-yon_, a song of trouble.\n SHIGIONOTH, _Shig-gy\u00b4-on-oth_, mournful music.\n SHILOAH, _Shy-lo\u00b4-ah_. See Siloah.\n SHI\u00b4LOH, sent, the Apostle.\n SHI\u00b4LOH, peace, abundance.\n SHILONITE, _Shy\u00b4-lo-nyte_, of the city of Shiloh.\n SHIMEAH, _Shim\u00b4-me-ah_, that hears, that obeys.\n SHIMEI, _Shim\u00b4-me-i_, that hears, name of the heap, my reputation.\n SHIMSHAI, _Shim\u00b4-shay_, my sun.\n SHINAR, _Shy\u00b4-nar_, the watching of him that sleeps, change of the\n    city.\n SHIPHRAH, _Shif\u00b4-rah_, handsome, trumpet, that does good.\n SHI\u00b4SHAK, present of the bag, of the pot, of the thigh.\n SHIT\u00b4TIM, that turn away, scourges, rods.\n SHO\u00b4A, tyrants.\n SHO\u00b4BAB, returned, turned back.\n SHO\u00b4BACH, your bonds, your nets, his captivity; according to the\n    Syriac, a dove house.\n SHOCHOH, _Sho\u00b4-koh_, defence, a bough.\n SHOSHAN\u00b4NIM, lilies of the testimony.\n SHU\u00b4AH, pit, humiliation, meditation.\n SHU\u00b4AL, fox, hand, fist, traces, way.\n SHU\u00b4HITE, a descendant of Shuah.\n SHU\u00b4LAMITE, peaceable, perfect, that recompenses.\n SHU\u00b4NAMITE, a native of Shunem.\n SHU\u00b4NEM, their change, their sleep.\n SHUR, wall, ox.\n SHU\u00b4SHAN, lily, rose, joy.\n SHU\u00b4THELAH, plant, verdure, moist pot.\n SIB\u00b4MAH, conversion, captivity, old age, rest.\n SICHEM, _Sy\u00b4-kem_. See Shechem.\n SI\u00b4DON, hunting, fishing, venison.\n SIGIONOTH, _Sig-gy\u00b4-o-noth_, according to variable tunes.\n SI\u00b4HON, rooting out, conclusion.\n SI\u00b4HOR, black, trouble, early in the morn.\n SI\u00b4LAS, three, the third.\n SILOAS, _Sil\u00b4-o-as_ or _Sy-lo\u00b4-as_, SILOAM, _Sil\u00b4-o-am_ or _Sy-lo\u00b4-am_,\n    sent, dart, branch.\n SILOE, _Sil\u00b4-o-e_ or _Sy-lo\u00b4-e_, the same as Siloas.\n SILVA\u00b4NUS, one who loves the woods.\n SIM\u00b4EON, that hears or obeys.\n SI\u00b4MON, that hears or obeys.\n SIN, bush.\n SINAI, _Sy\u00b4-nay_ or _Sy\u00b4-nay-i_, bush, according to the Syriac, enmity.\n SI\u00b4NIM, the south country.\n SI\u00b4ON, noise, tumult.\n SI\u00b4RAH, turning aside, rebellion.\n SIRION, _Sir\u00b4-re-on_, a breastplate, deliverance.\n SISERA, _Sis\u00b4-se-rah_, that sees a horse or swallow.\n SI\u00b4VAN, bush, thorn.\n SMYR\u00b4NA, myrrh.\n SO, a measure for grain or dry matters.\n SO\u00b4COH, tents, tabernacles.\n SO\u00b4DI, my secret.\n SODOM, _Sod\u00b4-dom_, their secret, their lime, their cement.\n SODOMITES, _Sod\u00b4-dom-ites_, inhabitants of Sodom.\n SOL\u00b4OMON, peaceable, perfect, one who recompenses.\n SOPATER, _So-pay\u00b4-ter_, who defends or saves his father.\n SO\u00b4REK, hissing, a colour inclining to yellow.\n SOSIPATER, _So-se-pay\u00b4-ter_. See Sopater.\n SOSTHENES, _Sos\u00b4-the-nes_, a strong and powerful saviour.\n SPAIN, rare, precious.\n STACHYS, _Stay\u00b4-kis_, spike; from \u03db\u03ac\u03c7\u03c5\u03c2.\n STEPHANAS, _Stef\u00b4-fa-nas_, a crown, crowned.\n STE\u00b4PHEN, _the same as_ Stephanas.\n SUC\u00b4COTH, tents, tabernacles.\n SUC\u00b4COTH-BE\u00b4NOTH, the tabernacles of young women.\n SUK\u00b4KIIMS, covered, shadowed.\n SUR, that withdraws or departs.\n SUSAN\u00b4NA, a lily, a rose, joy.\n SUSI, _Su\u00b4-sy_, horse, swallow, moth.\n SYCHAR, _Sy\u00b4-kar_, the name of a city.\n SYENE, _Sy-ee\u00b4-ne_, bush; according to the Syriac, enmity.\n SYNTYCHE, _Sin\u00b4-te-ke_, that speaks or discourses.\n SYRACUSE, _Sir\u00b4-ra-kewse_, that draws violently.\n SYRIA, _Sir\u00b4-re-a_, in Hebrew, _Aram_, sublime, deceiving.\n SYRIAC, SYRIAN, _Sir\u00b4-re-ak_, _Sir\u00b4-re-an_, of Syria.\n SYRIANS, _Sir\u00b4-re-ans_, inhabitants of Syria.\n SYRO-PHENICIAN, _Sy\u00b4-ro-fe-nish\u00b4-e-an_, purple, drawn to; from \u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9, _I\n    draw_, and \u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, _red palm tree_.\n\n TAANACH, _Tay\u00b4-a-nak_, or _Ta-ay\u00b4-nak_, who humbles or answers thee.\n TAB\u00b4BATH, good, goodness.\n TABEAL, _Tay\u00b4-be-al_ or _Tab-ee\u00b4-al_, good God.\n TABEEL, _Tay\u00b4-be-el_ or _Tab-ee\u00b4-el_, the same as Tabeal.\n TABERAH, _Tab\u00b4-e-rah_ or _Tab-ee\u00b4-rah_, burning.\n TABITHA, _Tab\u00b4-e-tha_, in Syriac, clear sighted; she is also called\n    Dorcas, wild goat.\n TA\u00b4BOR, choice; in Syriac, contrition.\n TABRIMON, _Tab\u00b4-re-mon_, good promegranate.\n TAD\u00b4MOR, palm tree, change.\n TAHAPANES, _Ta-hap\u00b4-pa-nes_, secret temptation.\n TAHPENES, _Tah\u00b4-pe-nes_, standard, flight.\n TALITHA-CUMI, _Tal\u00b4-le-tha-kew\u00b4-my_, young woman, arise.\n TALMAI, _Tal\u00b4-may_, my furrow, heap of waters.\n TA\u00b4MAR, a palm, palm tree.\n TAM\u00b4MUZ, abstruse, concealed.\n TANHUMETH, _Tan-hew\u00b4-meth_ or _Tan\u00b4-hu-meth_, consolation, repentance.\n TAPHATH, _Tay\u00b4-fath_, little girl.\n TAR\u00b4PELITES, ravishers, wearied.\n TAR\u00b4SHISH, contemplation of the marble.\n TAR\u00b4SUS, winged, feathered.\n TAR\u00b4TAK, chained, bound, shut up.\n TAR\u00b4TAN, that searches the gift of the turtle.\n TATNAI, _Tat\u00b4-nay_, that gives.\n TE\u00b4BAH, murder, a cook.\n TE\u00b4BETH, the Babylonish name of the tenth month of the Hebrews.\n TE\u00b4KEL, weight.\n TEKOA, _Te-ko\u00b4-ah_, sound of the trumpet.\n TEL\u00b4ABID, a heap of new grain.\n TEL-HARSA, _Tel-har\u00b4-sah_, heap, suspension of the plough or of the\n    head.\n TE\u00b4LIETH, goodness.\n TEL-MELAH, _Tel\u00b4-me-lah_ or _Tel-mee\u00b4-lah_, heap of salt or of\n    mariners.\n TE\u00b4MA, admiration, perfection.\n TE\u00b4MAN, the south, Africa.\n TE\u00b4MANITE, an inhabitant of Teman.\n TE\u00b4RAH, to breathe, to scent, to blow.\n TERAPHIM, _Ter\u00b4-ra-fim_, an image, an idol.\n TERTIUS, _Ter\u00b4-she-us_, the third.\n TERTUL\u00b4LUS, a liar, an impostor.\n TETRARCH, _Tet\u00b4-rark_ or _Tee\u00b4-trarck_, governor of a fourth part of a\n    kingdom.\n THADDEUS, _Thad-dee\u00b4-us_, that praises.\n THA\u00b4HASH, that makes haste, or keeps silence.\n THA\u00b4MAH, that blots out or suppresses.\n THA\u00b4MAR. See Tamar.\n THAM\u00b4MUZ. See Tammuz.\n THE\u00b4BEZ, muddy, silk.\n THELASAR, _The-lass\u00b4-ar_, that unbinds and grants the suspension or\n    heap.\n THEOPHILUS, _The-of\u00b4-fe-las_, a friend of God.\n THESSALONICA, _Thes-sa-lo-ny\u00b4-kah_, victory against the Thessalians.\n THEUDAS, _Thew\u00b4-das_, a false teacher.\n THOMAS, _Tom\u00b4-mas_, a twin.\n THUM\u00b4MIM, truth, perfection.\n THYATIRA, _Thy-a-ty\u00b4-rah_, a sweet savour of labour or sacrifice of\n    contrition.\n TIBERIAS, _Ti-bee\u00b4-re-as_, good vision.\n TIBERIUS, _Ti-bee\u00b4-re-us_, son of Tiber.\n TIB\u00b4NI, straw, understanding.\n TI\u00b4DAL, that breaks the yoke.\n TIGLATH-PILESER, _Tig\u00b4-lath-pi-lee\u00b4-zer_, that takes away captivity,\n    miraculous.\n TIK\u00b4VAH, hope, a congregation.\n TIMEUS, _Ti-mee\u00b4-us_, in Greek, perfect, honourable; in Hebrew,\n    admirable.\n TIM\u00b4-NATH, image, enumeration.\n TIMNATH-HERES, _Tim\u00b4-nath-hee\u00b4-res_, image of the dumb.\n TI\u00b4MON, honourable.\n TIMO\u00b4THEUS, honour of God, valued of God.\n TIPHSAH, _Tif\u00b4-sah_, passage, passover.\n TIRHAKAH, _Tir-hay\u00b4-kah_ or _Tir\u00b4-ha-kah_, inquirer, law made dull.\n TIRSHATHA, _Tir-shay\u00b4-tha_, that overturns the foundation; in Syriac,\n    that beholds the time.\n TIR\u00b4ZAH, benevolent, pleasant.\n TISH\u00b4BITE, that makes captives, that dwells.\n TI\u00b4TUS, honourable; from \u03c4\u03af\u03c9, _I honour_.\n TO\u00b4AH, a weapon.\n TOB, good, goodness.\n TOB-ADONIJAH, _Tob\u00b4-ad-o-ny\u00b4-jah_, my good God.\n TOBI\u00b4AH, the Lord is good.\n TOGAR\u00b4MAH, which is all bone, strong.\n TO\u00b4HU, that lives or declares.\n TOI, _To\u00b4-i_, who wanders.\n TO\u00b4LA, worm, scarlet.\n TO\u00b4LAD, nativity.\n TOPHEL, _To\u00b4-fel_, ruin, folly, insipid.\n TOPHET, _To\u00b4-fet_, a drum, betraying.\n TRO\u00b4AS, penetrated.\n TROGYLLIUM, _Tro-jil\u00b4-le-um_, a city in the isle of Samos.\n TROPHIMUS, _Trof\u00b4-fe-mus_, well educated.\n TRYPHENA, _Try-fee\u00b4-nah_, delicate.\n TRYPHO\u00b4SA, thrice shining.\n TU\u00b4BAL, the earth, confusion.\n TU\u00b4BAL-CAI\u00b4N, worldly possession, jealous of confusion.\n TYCHICUS, _Tik\u00b4-e-kus_, casual, happening.\n TYRAN\u00b4NUS, a prince, one that reigns.\n TYRE, TY\u00b4RUS, in Hebrew, _Sor_ or _Tzur_, strength.\n\n UCAL, _Yew\u00b4-kal_, power, prevalency.\n ULAI, _Yew\u00b4-la-i_ or _Yew-lay\u00b4_, strength.\n ULAM, _Yew\u00b4-lam_, the porch, their strength.\n UL\u00b4LA, elevation, holocaust, leaf.\n UN\u00b4NI, poor, afflicted.\n UPHAZ, _Yew\u00b4-faz_, gold of Phasis or Pison.\n UR, fire, light.\n URBA\u00b4NUS, civil, courteous.\n URI, _Yew\u00b4-ry_, my light or fire.\n URIAH, URIJAH, _Yew-ry\u00b4-ah_, _Yew-ry\u00b4-jah_, the Lord is my light or\n    fire.\n URI\u00b4EL, God is my light or fire.\n URIM and THUMMIM, _Yew\u00b4-rim_ and _Thum\u00b4-mim_, lights and perfection.\n UZ, counsel; in Syriac, to fix.\n UZ\u00b4ZAH, strength, a goat.\n UZZEN-SHERAH, _Uz\u00b4-zen-shee\u00b4-rah_, ear of the flesh or of the parent.\n UZ\u00b4ZI, my strength, my kid.\n UZZI\u00b4AH, the strength of the Lord.\n UZZI\u00b4EL, the strength of God.\n UZZIELITES, _Uz-zy\u00b4-el-ites_, the posterity of Uzziel.\n\n VASH\u00b4NI, the second.\n VASH\u00b4TI, that drinks, thread.\n VOPHSI, _Vof\u00b4-sy_, fragment, diminution.\n\n ZAANA\u00b4NIM, movings.\n ZA\u00b4BAD, a dowry.\n ZAB\u00b4DI, portion, dowry.\n ZACCHEUS, _Zak-kee\u00b4-us_, pure, justified.\n ZACHARI\u00b4AH, memory of the Lord.\n ZA\u00b4DOK, just, justified.\n ZA\u00b4HAM, crime, impurity.\n ZAIR, _Zay\u00b4-ir_, little, afflicted.\n ZAL\u00b4MON, his shade, obscurity.\n ZALMO\u00b4NAH, the shade, your image.\n ZALMUN\u00b4NA, shadow, image.\n ZAMZUM\u00b4MIMS, thinking, wickedness.\n ZANO\u00b4AH, forgetfulness, this rest.\n ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH, _Zaf\u00b4-nath-pay-a-nee\u00b4-ah_, one that discovers hidden\n    things; in the Egyptian tongue, a saviour of the world.\n ZA\u00b4RAH, east, brightness.\n ZAREPHATH, _Zar\u00b4-re-fath_, ambush of the mouth.\n ZARE\u00b4TAN, tribulation, perplexity.\n ZA\u00b4ZA, belonging to all; in Syriac, going back.\n ZEBADI\u00b4AH, portion of the Lord.\n ZE\u00b4BAH, victim, immolation.\n ZEB\u00b4EDEE, abundant portion.\n ZEBO\u00b4IM, deer, goats.\n ZE\u00b4BUL, a habitation.\n ZEB\u00b4ULUN, dwelling, habitation.\n ZECHARI\u00b4AH. See Zachariah.\n ZE\u00b4DAD, his side, his hunting.\n ZEDEKI\u00b4AH, the Lord is my justice.\n ZEEB, _Zee\u00b4-eb_, wolf.\n ZE\u00b4LEK, the noise of him that licks or laps.\n ZELOPHEHAD, _Ze-lo\u00b4-fe-ad_, the shade or tingling of fear.\n ZELOTES, _Ze-lo\u00b4-tes_, jealous, full of zeal.\n ZEL\u00b4ZAH, noontide.\n ZE\u00b4NAS, living.\n ZEPHANI\u00b4AH, the Lord is my secret, the mouth of the Lord.\n ZEPHATH, _Zee\u00b4-fath_, which beholds, attends.\n ZE\u00b4PHO, that sees and observes.\n ZER, perplexity, tribulation, a rock.\n ZE\u00b4RAH. See Zarah.\n ZEREDAH, _Zer\u00b4-e-dah_ or _Ze-ree\u00b4-dah_, ambush.\n ZE\u00b4RESH, misery, stranger.\n ZE\u00b4ROR, root, that straitens, a stone.\n ZERU\u00b4AH, leprous, hornet.\n ZERUBBABEL, _Ze-rub\u00b4-ba-bel_, banished, a stranger at Babylon,\n    dispersion of confusion.\n ZERUIAH, _Zer-ew-i\u00b4-ah_, pain, tribulation.\n ZE\u00b4THAN, their olive.\n ZE\u00b4THAR, he that examines or beholds.\n ZI\u00b4BA, army, fight, strength, stag.\n ZIB\u00b4EON, iniquity that dwells, the seventh.\n ZIB\u00b4IAH, deer, goat, honourable and fine.\n ZICHRI, _Zic\u00b4-ry_, that remembers, a male.\n ZID\u00b4DIM, huntings; in Syriac, destructions.\n ZI\u00b4DON, hunting, fishing, venison.\n ZIDO\u00b4NIANS, inhabitants of Zidon.\n ZIF, this, that; according to the Syriac, brightness.\n ZIK\u00b4LAG, measure pressed down.\n ZIL\u00b4LAH, shadow, which is roasted, the tingling of the ear.\n ZIL\u00b4PAH, distillation, contempt of the mouth.\n ZIM\u00b4RAN, song, singer, vine.\n ZIM\u00b4RI, my field, my vine, my branch.\n ZIN, buckler, coldness.\n ZI\u00b4ON, a monument, sepulchre, turret.\n ZI\u00b4OR, ship of him that watches, ship of the enemy.\n ZIPH, _Ziff_, this mouth, mouthful.\n ZIP\u00b4POR, bird, crown; according to the Syriac, early in the morning,\n    goat.\n ZIP\u00b4PORAH, beauty, trumpet.\n ZITH\u00b4RI, to hide, overturned.\n ZIZ, flower, a lock of hair; according to the Syriac, wing, feather.\n ZI\u00b4ZA. See Zaza.\n ZO\u00b4AN, motion.\n ZO\u00b4AR, little, small.\n ZO\u00b4BAH, an army, a swelling.\n ZO\u00b4HAR, white, shining, dryness.\n ZOHE\u00b4LETH, that creeps or draws.\n ZOPHAR, _Zo\u00b4-far_, rising early, crown; in Syriac, sparrow, goat.\n ZO\u00b4RAH, leprosy, scab.\n ZOROBABEL, _Zo-rob\u00b4-ba-bel_. See Zerubbabel.\n ZUAR, _Zew\u00b4-ar_, small.\n ZUPH, that observes, roof.\n ZUR, stone, plan, form.\n ZURI\u00b4EL, the rock or strength of God.\n ZURISHADDAI, _Zew\u00b4-ry-shad\u00b4-da-i_, the Almighty is my rock, splendour,\n    beauty.\n ZU\u00b4ZIMS, the posts of a door, splendour; in Syriac, departing, money;\n    in Chaldee, strong.\n\n                                 TABLES\n                                   OF\n                   THE WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MONEY,\n                        MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.\n\n\n            JEWISH WEIGHTS, REDUCED TO ENGLISH TROY WEIGHT.\n\n                                                  lbs.   ozs.   pen.    gr.\n\n The Gerah, the twentieth part of a Shekel           0      0      0     12\n\n The Bekah, half a Shekel                            0      0      5      0\n\n The Shekel                                          0      0     10      0\n\n The Maneh, sixty Shekels                            2      6      0      0\n\n The Talent, fifty Maneh, or three thousand        125      0      0      0\n Shekels\n\nAccording to the bishop of Peterborough\u2019s calculations, the Gerah is\nnearly equal to 11 grains Troy; the Bekah, to about 4\u00be pennyweights; and\nthe Shekel, to about 9\u215b pennyweights.\n\n\n           TABLES OF SCRIPTURE MEASURES OF LENGTH, REDUCED TO\n                            ENGLISH MEASURE.\n\n                            SHORT MEASURES.\n\n \u2502                                                          English Inches.\n \u2502                                                           feet.\n\n \u2502Digit                                                          0  0.912\n\n \u2502    4 Palm                                                     0  3.684\n\n \u2502   12     3 Span                                               0 10.944\n\n \u2502   24     6     3 Cubit                                        1  9.888\n\n \u2502   96    24     6     2 Fathom                                 7  3.552\n\n \u2502  144    36    12     6   1.5 Ezekiel\u2019s reed                  10 11.328\n\n \u2502  192    48    16     8     2   1.3 Arabian pole              14  7.104\n\n \u2502 1920   480   160    80    20  13.3    10 Sch\u0153nus\u2019s       145  11.04\n \u2502                                          meas\u2019ng line\n\n                             LONG MEASURES.\n\n \u2502                                                  English Paces.  Feet.\n \u2502                                                  miles.\n\n \u2502Cubit                                                  0      0  1.824\n\n \u2502   400 Stadium or Furlong                              0    145    4.6\n\n \u2502  2000     5 Sabbath day\u2019s journey                     0    729    3.0\n\n \u2502  4000    10     2 Eastern mile                        1    403    1.0\n\n \u2502 12000    30     6     3 Parasang                      4    153    3.0\n\n \u2502 96000   240    48    24     8 A day\u2019s journey        33    172    4.0\n\n                      \u2042 5 Feet=1 Pace; 1056=1 mile.\n    According to the bishop of Peterborough, a Parasang is equal to 4\n                            miles, 116 paces.\n         FOR TABLES OF TIME SEE THE ARTICLES \u201cMONTHS\u201d AND \u201cDAY.\u201d\n\n\n               TABLES OF SCRIPTURE MEASURES OF CAPACITY.\n         MEASURES FOR LIQUIDS, REDUCED TO ENGLISH WINE MEASURE.\n\n   \u2502                                                    Gallons. Pints.\n\n   \u2502Caph                                                     0  0.625\n\n   \u2502  1.3 Log                                                0  0.833\n\n   \u2502  5.3     4 Cab                                          0  3.333\n\n   \u2502   16    12     3 Hin                                    1      2\n\n   \u2502   32    24     6     2 Seah                             2      4\n\n   \u2502   96    72    18     6     3 Bath or Epha               7      4\n\n   \u2502  960   720   180    60    20    10 Chomer, Homer,      75      5\n   \u2502                                    Kor, or Coros\n\nThe Omer was one-tenth of an Epha, and contained 6 pints; the Metretes\n    of Syria, translated in John ii, 6, \u201cfirkins,\u201d 7\u215b pints; and the\n    eastern Cotyla, half a pint. This Cotyla, says the bishop of\n    Peterborough, contains just 10 ounces Averdupois of rain water; the\n    Omer, 100 ounces; the Epha, 1000; and the Chomer, 10,000 ounces. So\n    by these weights all these measures of capacity may be expeditiously\n    recovered to a near exactness.\n\n       MEASURES FOR THINGS DRY, REDUCED TO ENGLISH CORN MEASURE.\n\n \u2502                                                         Pecks.  Gals. Pints.\n \u2502Gachal                                                        0      0 0.1416\n \u2502   20 Cab                                                     0      0 2.8333\n \u2502   36   1.8 Omer or Gomer                                     0      0    5.1\n \u2502  120     6   3.3 Seah                                        1      0      1\n \u2502  360    18    10     3 Epha                                  3      0      3\n \u2502 1800    90    50    15     5 Letech                         16      0      0\n \u2502 3600   180   100    30    10     2 Chomer Homer, &c.        32      0      0\n\n                            TABLES OF MONEY.\n             JEWISH MONEY, REDUCED TO THE ENGLISH STANDARD.\n\n   \u2502                                                  \u00a3.    s.    d.\n   \u2502                    Gerah                          0     0 1.3687\n   \u2502     10                 Bekah                      0     1 1.6875\n   \u2502     20     2              Shekel                  0     2 3.375\n   \u2502   1200   120    50  Maneh, or Mina Hebraica       5    14  0.75\n   \u2502 60,000  6000  3000    60        Talent          342     3     9\n\n    Solidus Aureus, or Sextula, was worth              0    12   0.5\n    Siclus Aureus, or Gold Shekel                      1    16     6\n    Talent of Gold                                  5475     0     0\n\nThe bishop of Peterborough makes the Mina Hebraica to contain 60\n    Shekels, and to weigh 27 oz. 7\u00bd dwts.; which, at 5_s._ per ounce,\n    will amount to 6_l._ 16_s._ 10\u00bd_d._; and the Talent of Silver to\n    contain 50 Min\u00e6, which, at 5_s._, will equal the amount in this\n    table, 342_l._ 3_s._ 9_d._\n\n      ROMAN MONEY, MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, REDUCED TO THE\n                           ENGLISH STANDARD.\n\n                                                    \u00a3.     s.     d.   far.\n Mite (Assarium)                                     0      0      0      \u00be\n Farthing, (Quadrans,) about                         0      0      0     1\u00bd\n Penny, or Denarius (Silver)                         0      0      7      3\n Pound, or Mina                                      3      2      6      0\n\n    According to the bishop of Peterborough, the Roman Mite is one-third\n    of our farthing; Quadrans, three-fourths of a farthing; the\n    Assarium, a farthing and a half; and the Assis three farthings.\n\n    \u2042 _In the preceding Tables, Silver is valued at 5s., and Gold at \u00a34.\n                                per ounce._\n\n\nSINCE the publication, in 1727, of Dr. Arbuthnot\u2019s \u201cTables of Ancient\n    Coins, Weights, and Measures,\u201d that celebrated work has been\n    regarded by the best divines as the general standard on these\n    difficult subjects. More recently the bishop of Peterborough has\n    rendered good service to this part of Biblical antiquity by entering\n    into several nice and extensive calculations on the weights and\n    measures mentioned in the Bible, which have, with very few\n    exceptions, confirmed the previous investigations of Dr. Arbuthnot:\n    and as the axiom, \u201cWhat is new in theology is false,\u201d holds good\n    only in regard to the _doctrines_ of Scripture, and not to its\n    _statics_ and _numismatics_, no hesitation has been felt in\n    presenting the reader, under each of the preceding Tables, with some\n    of the most important of the results which the bishop has thus\n    obtained.\n\nIn the abstruse department of mensuration of superficies, the same\n    learned prelate has also ably demonstrated, that _the altar of\n    incense_, described in Exodus xxx, 2, as consisting of a cubit in\n    length, and a cubit in breadth, and yet \u201cfour-square,\u201d contained\n    exactly one square cubit, that is, three English square feet, and\n    about forty-seven square inches;--that _the table of_ _shew bread_,\n    described in Exodus xxv, 23, as being two cubits long and one broad,\n    and rectangular, contained above six English square feet;--that _the\n    boards of the tabernacle_, described in Exodus xxvi, 16, as ten\n    cubits in length and a cubit and a half in breadth, and rectangular,\n    contained nearly fifty square feet of English measure;--that _the\n    mercy seat_, which Moses is directed to make \u201ctwo cubits and a half\n    the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof,\u201d\n    Exodus xxv, 17, contained twelve and a half square feet;--that _the\n    altar of incense_, which was directed to be \u201ca cubit the length\n    thereof and a cubit the breadth thereof, and four square,\u201d Exodus\n    xxx, 2, contained upward of three square feet;--that _the court of\n    the tabernacle_, the orders concerning which were, \u201cThe length of\n    the court shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty every\n    where,\u201d Exodus xxvii, 18, comprised upward of sixteen thousand six\n    hundred and thirty-four square feet, or in English land measure one\n    rood, twenty-one perches, and twenty-seven and a half feet;--and\n    that _the Levites\u2019 glebe_, which is thus described in Numbers xxxv,\n    3\u20135: \u201cThe cities they shall have to dwell in: and the suburbs of\n    them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all\n    their beasts. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give\n    unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward\n    a thousand cubits round about. And ye shall measure from without the\n    city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two\n    thousand cubits,\u201d &c; \u201cand the city shall be in the midst;\u201d\n    contained three hundred and five acres, two roods, and one perch,\n    which was, for each of the four sides, seventy-six acres, one rood,\n    twenty perches, and eighty square feet.\n\nRespecting the Egyptian _aroura_, which is sometimes mistranslated\n    \u201cacre,\u201d the bishop remarks, \u201cReflecting upon Moses\u2019 measure by\n    cubits, and,\u201d in the case of _the court of the tabernacle_, \u201cfinding\n    them to be precisely five thousand square cubits, I observed that\n    they were just half ten thousand, which I had observed from\n    Herodotus to be the area of the Egyptian _aroura_, by which their\n    land was as generally measured as ours is by acres and roods. I\n    called also to mind a passage in Manetho, an Egyptian priest, cited\n    by Josephus, in his first book against Apion, where he affirms, that\n    Manetho, in his history of the reign, wars, and expulsion of the\n    Pastors, (whom Africanus affirms to be Phenicians or Canaanites, and\n    Josephus vainly believed to be Jews,) wrote out of the public\n    records of Egypt, that these Pastors made at Abaris a very large and\n    strong encampment, that encompassed ten thousand _arour\u00e6_,\n    sufficient to contain two hundred and forty thousand men, and long\n    to maintain their cattle. Hence it appears, that not only the\n    Egyptians, but also the Phenicians or Canaanites, that had dwelt\n    among them, and had reigned there during the time of six kings\n    successively, used this measure of land called _aroura_. Now this\n    was long before the time of Moses; for the beginning of Amosis or\n    Tethmosis, who expelled them out of Egypt, was very near the time of\n    Abraham\u2019s death. Wherefore I believe that Moses, who was skilled in\n    all Egyptian learning, especially in surveying, did of choice make\n    _the court of the tabernacle_ to be just half an _aroura_, which was\n    a known measure to him and his people, and that divine authority\n    directed him so to do.\u201d In another part of his work he reduces the\n    Egyptian _aroura_ into English measure, and finds it to be three\n    roods, two perches, and fifty-five and a quarter square feet.\n\n                                THE END.\n\n UNDER THE ARTICLE\n APOSTLES\u2019 CREED, for Creed,         read _Confessions of Faith_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                           Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\nMinor lapses in punctuation, including missing full stops and\nend-of-line hyphens, have been corrected with no further notice. In a\nwork this large, it is inevitable that some inconsistencies in format\nwill occur, which have been set right.\n\nThere are some variants of spelling which have, in general, been\nretained, given the wide range of sources employed by the author. The\nuse of the diaeresis in words like \u2018co\u00f6perate\u2019 or \u2018re\u00ebstablishment\u2019 was\nnot followed where the prefix appeared hyphenated on a line break (e.g.\n\u2018re-establishment\u2019). These have been rendered here using the diaeresis.\n\nA passage from Chardin, cited on p. 250, has an un-opened quotation, the\nbeginning of which has been placed as noted below, based on other\ncommentaries citing Chardin on Psalms 90.4.\n\nMost internal references refer to the main topics, which are typically\nin UPPERCASE characters, but on occasion refer to subtopics in mixed\nSMALLCAP font, or, rarely, to keywords in paragraphs (e.g., allegory).\n\nThe main entry for MOAB was printed in a normal font, and so could be\neasily missed. That has been corrected here to follow the conventional\nprinting.\n\nThe Alphabetical Table of Proper Names, at the end of the text, also\ncontains a number of internal references. These refer to other entries\nin that table.\n\nIn the article for CRANE, the Hebrew \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 (marble) is given for \u2018crane\u2019,\nfrom Jer. viii, 7. The word \u05e1\u05d9\u05e1, or \u2018swift\u2019 would seem to have been\nmeant. In the alphabetical index of names, a reference to \u2018Siloah\u2019 has\nno obvious referent.\n\nThe article for REED directs the reader to an article for CANE, which is\nnot in the text.\n\nThe following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions. The\nreferences in the first column are to the page, column, and line in the\noriginal text.\n\n  7.2.39   who gave Golia[t]h\u2019s sword                     Added.\n\n  47.1.58  \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u0223 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 Replaced.\n           [\u03c4\u03bf\u0342\u03bd/\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03d6\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\n  90.2.69  has been much misrepresented[.]                Added.\n\n  93.2.29  it is necessary, in order [] to his salvation  _sic_:\n                                                          obtain?\n\n  94.2.47  as it does [ ] this day                        _sic_: to?\n\n  101.1.9  are undoub[t]edly mentioned                    Added.\n\n  111.1.52 in the habit of refer[r]ing with approbation   Added.\n\n  113.2.20 the arguments of St. A[u]gustine               Added.\n\n  116.2    observed[,] some remains of these enclosures   Removed.\n\n  137.2.60 the Prophet says[./,] \u2018Of the oaks of Bashan   Replaced.\n\n  139.1.20 [the rendering of an equivalent:][)]'>         Parenthesis\n                                                          added.\n\n  140.2.32 The following observations[./,] from           Replaced.\n\n  143.1.42 exposed in the amp[h]itheatre to fight         Added.\n\n  171.2.16 The word[,] is formed from the Gothic          Removed.\n\n  160.1.25 the truth of the princ[i]pal facts             Added.\n\n  185.1.8  \u201cthe Memphian\u201d or Egyptian [\u201c]boat is made     Removed.\n\n  188.1.37 eso[r/t]etic, or concealed doctrine            Replaced.\n\n  201.2.32 became permanently settled at the diet of      Added.\n           Au[g]sburg\n\n  202.1.48 and those who are not, accepted.[\u2019]            Probable.\n\n  207.1.59 is directed again[s]t Canaan                   Added.\n\n  207.2.9  in his de[s]cendants                           Added.\n\n  214.1.31 with hair standing [a/o]n end on it            Replaced.\n\n  217.2.23 for their perusal.[\u201d]                          Removed.\n\n  224.1.20 like that of the pine.[\u201d]                      Added.\n\n  236.1.7  who holds her balance[,/.]                     Replaced.\n\n  236.2.12 more substantial world[l]y benefits            Added.\n\n  236.2.48 Here the Christ[ai/ia]n                        Transposed.\n\n  241.2.4  which was to be pe[r]formed                    Added.\n\n  244.1.13 which have no s[pu/up]port from the magistracy Transposed.\n\n  250.1.36 that [\u201c]as the people of the east have no      Added.\n           clocks\n\n  259.2.54 as it occurs in the [T/N]ew Testament          Replaced.\n\n  268.2.9  whether they were gold or brass.[\u201d]            Added.\n\n  274.2.54 two birds are mentioned, the [\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9/\u05e1\u05d9\u05e1>]        Replaced.\n\n  278.2.38 increases the p[io/oi] of the suffering        Transposed.\n\n  285.1.19 Who call thee by thy name, am THE GOD OF       Added.\n           ISRAEL.[\u201d]>\n\n  303.2.32 \u2018all sick people,[\u2019] that were taken with      Removed.\n           divers diseases\n\n  307.2.54 which occurs under the word, [\u05e1\u05de\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea/\u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea],    \u05de\u05e1\n           Lev. xiii, 6\u20138, 29.                            transposed.\n\n  318.2.47 \u201cThe earth is the Lord\u2019s, and the fulness      Added.\n           thereof[\u201d], Psalm xxiv, 1;\n\n  325.1.20 in his \u201cInstit[ut]utes,\u201d he confirmed          Removed.\n\n  331.1.16 Volney\u2019s account is suffic[i]ently descriptive Added.\n\n  333.2.25 placed by the Egy[p]tian task-masters          Added.\n\n  336.1.24 as consisting in outward wor[l]dly             Added.\n           institutions\n\n  337.2.12 all visible ack[n]owledgment of them           Added.\n\n  343.2.31 reckon the dog a filt[h]y creature             Added.\n\n  348.2.24 I am with you alway[s]                         Added.\n\n  350.2.29 They have eleven dioces[s]es                   Removed.\n\n  352.1.58 and they were pun[n]ished for their            Removed.\n           presumption\n\n  356.2.31 answers to the artific[i]al conception         Added.\n\n  372.1.15 can consisten[t]ly refuse to admit             Added.\n\n  373.2.46 while the bride[./-]groom is with them?        Replaced.\n\n  382.2.38 If, then, such was [s/t]he superstitious       Replaced.\n           homage\n\n  382.2.45 \u201cis Arabic, and signifies _the fly_ in         Added.\n           general.[\u201d]\n\n  394.1.17 in the amp[h]itheatre at Tiberias              Added.\n\n  394.1.30 \u201cThey gave me \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 to eat[\u201d];                   Added.\n\n  415.1.50 the Egyptians, Prussians, Lithu[a]nians,       Added.\n           Samogitians, &c.\n\n  416.1.38 to kill his b[r]other Jacob                    Added.\n\n  424.2.31 not a bunch of grapes left [of/for] those who  Replaced/\n           came to glean.\n\n  438.2.31 church of the[-first / first-]born             Transposed.\n\n  438.2.55 to make a t[py/yp]ical atonement               Transposed.\n\n  442.2.23 the gifts of the Holy [C/G]host                Replaced.\n\n  445.2.1  Hebron is now called El [H/K]halil;            Replaced.\n\n  450.2.3  [\u03a3/\u1f18]\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd                Replaced.\n\n  452.2.39 the only su[r]viving male                      Added.\n\n  462.2.41 [B/b]y the \u2018testimony of the Spirit,\u2019 I mean,  Replaced.\n\n  469.2.25 A spacious bowl th[e]\u2019 admiring patriarch      Removed.\n           fills\n\n  474.1.47 \u201ccounterfeit,\u201d  signif[i]es also a profane     Added.\n           wicked man\n\n  481.1.47 according to their origin[i]al institution     Removed.\n\n  487.2.46 are built upon the foundati[a/o]n of the       Replaced.\n           Apostles\n\n  493.2.65 was buried with Abraham by his sons Esau and   Missing,\n           Jacob, Gen. xxxv,[ 29.]                        provided.\n\n  498.1.40 when [\u201c]the Edomites revolted                  Added.\n\n  501.1.56 admitted till after the fourth[,] century      Removed.\n\n  524.1.42 simply as a p[r]ediction prior to the event    Added.\n\n  531.1.19 who occasion[al]ly sent officers               Added.\n\n  538.1.35 the total absence of eve[ry/n] the slightest   Replaced.\n           allusion\n\n  539.2.33 but inferior to the second.[\u201d]                 Added.\n\n  547.1.24 to visit the tomb of Thomas-a[ /-]Becket       Replaced.\n\n  567.2.7  when the  pu[u/n]ishment of their iniquity     Inverted.\n           shall be accomplished\n\n  577.1.38 LEAD, \u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea, Exod. xv, 10;                      _sic_: \u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\n\n  584.2.61 if any animalcule of this sort were concealed  Added.\n           in their garments.[\u201d]\n\n  593.2.36 LUCIAN, a philosop[h]er and wit                Added.\n\n  594.1.65 they are [t/j]oined by Isaiah, lxvi, 19, with  Replaced.\n           Pul\n\n  691.2.15 Thus, it was infallib[l]y certain              Added.\n\n  630.1.9  the fancy far more viv[e/i]d, in the dreaming  Replaced.\n\n  637.1.13 utte[r]ly> averse to oaths                     Added.\n\n  660.2.14 [Moab/MOAB] was the son of Lot                 Replaced.\n\n  684.2.24 bore the character of remarkable simplic[i]ty  Added.\n\n  672.1.29 so that he \u201cheark[e]ned> not unto them, as the Added.\n           Lord had said,\u201d\n\n  692.1.1  they acc[c]omplished the great designs of      Removed.\n           Heaven\n\n  697.2.67 to impugn his doct[r]ine                       Added.\n\n  743.2.1  popular sect among the [Jews the/Jews. The]    Replaced.\n           time when\n\n  751.2.67 means literally [\u201c]_branches of oily_ or       Added.\n           _gummy plants_.\u201d\n\n  788.1.45 the opin[i]ons of all sober persons            Added.\n\n  789.1.30 or [\u05d2\u05db\u05e8 / \u05e0\u05db\u05e8], also denotes a stranger        Replaced.\n\n  791.1.50 differ, in this re[s]pect, from their          Added.\n           ancestors\n\n  796.2.69 and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,        Added.\n           [\u2018]The Spirit of Jehovah\n\n  827.2.61 \u201cThe orientals hold,[\u201d] says D\u2019Herbelot,       Added.\n\n  843.2.56 there should be one hundred [s/a]nd twenty     Replaced.\n           inhabitants\n\n  844.2.18 power and malice are rest[r]ained              Added.\n\n  844.2.51 that can dignif[i]y human nature               Removed.\n\n  845.1.4  and with which the ancients were               Added.\n           enraptured.[\u201d]\n\n  845.2.46 will [b/h]e offer him a scorpion?              Replaced.\n\n  858.1.13 that the s[k/h]ekel> was worth twenty gerahs   Replaced.\n\n  865.2.51 Unto him that blasphemeth again[s]t the Holy   Added.\n           Ghost\n\n  866.2.52 has three tops of a ma[r]vellous height        Added.\n\n  872.1.60 appearing to his di[s]ciples                   Added.\n\n  872.2.59 of all subsequent marty[r]s>                   Added.\n\n  882.1.21 that of Alexan[an]dria                         Removed.\n\n  905.1.27 that sacred [o/e]difice                        Replaced.\n\n  907.1.69 the _teraphim_ were hum[na/an] heads           Transposed.\n\n  925.2.39 against the doct[r]ine itself                  Added.\n\n  936.2.1  like the horn of a reem,[\u2019] Psalm xcii, 10.    Added.\n\n  945.2.58 as they were then nearer the times [e/o]f the  Replaced.\n           Apostles\n\n  946.2.36 among the Protest[t]ants                       Removed.\n\n  959.2.61 more palatable and frag[r]ant with aromatics   Added.\n\n  973.1.47 for purposes of secre[s/c]y                    Replaced.\n\n  977.2.31 [\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5/h\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5] \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c              Replaced.","title":"A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: explanatory of the history, manners, and customs of the Jews, and neighbouring nations","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":1054504}